›

BOND POLLS 2016: The Top 10 JAMES BOND-007 Film Ranking Contest (Results: winner!, on page 60)

1…2223252728…59

Comments

  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Exactly ;-). It'll be an exciting and tense reveal ;-).
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    uLPrAdx.jpg
  • Crazysoul95Crazysoul95
    Posts: 3,336
    No shock there, that movie is absolutely horrible. Didn't get trough it the first two times i tried.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    YAY!!

    CASINO ROYALE 67 has won the poll!!!

    WOW GREAT!!

    ...wait...

    ...ahem...

    ...oh...

    damn!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Casino '67 is the biggest loser! Yay! That counts for something, right?
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    No real surprise there. Including unoffical Bonds, then it saves QOS from the bottom. My prediction for the #1 spot, FRWL. My heart says TLD, but my mind says FRWL (or possibly OHMSS).
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,882
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I enjoy it quite a bit.

    You and me both. I have something of a soft spot for it. Total nonsense, but fun in a 60's movie.
    Add David Niven, Peter Sellers and Woody Allen all on fine form.
    Plus Ursula Andress and Barbara Bouchet. Ding dong.
    It's fun, in a quirky way.


  • MrcogginsMrcoggins Following in the footsteps of Quentin Quigley.
    edited October 2016 Posts: 3,144
    Benny wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I enjoy it quite a bit.

    You and me both. I have something of a soft spot for it. Total nonsense, but fun in a 60's movie.
    Add David Niven, Peter Sellers and Woody Allen all on fine form.
    Plus Ursula Andress and Barbara Bouchet. Ding dong.
    It's fun, in a quirky way.

    One of my guilty pleasures also .

    Also as Her Ladyship reminds me it's her favourite Bond Film due to the fact that David Niven has the lead role if nothing else she has good taste in leading men !...
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Benny wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I enjoy it quite a bit.

    You and me both. I have something of a soft spot for it. Total nonsense, but fun in a 60's movie.
    Add David Niven, Peter Sellers and Woody Allen all on fine form.
    Plus Ursula Andress and Barbara Bouchet. Ding dong.
    It's fun, in a quirky way.


    The funny thing is, the basic, bare plot is still very much adapted from Ian Fleming's novel:

    --> Vesper being kidnapped once she leaves the Casino Royale (present in both the 1967 and 2006 film)
    --> A torture sequence (including carpet-beater/rope) (present in both the 1967 and 2006 film)
    --> Vesper Lynd betraying James Bond (present in both the 1967 and 2006 film)
    --> Le Chiffre is being shot right between his eyes (present in both the 1967 and 2006 film)
    --> James Bond (Tremble) is being drugged/poisoned by something in his drink (present in both the 1967 and 2006 film)
    --> There's a high-stakes casino game (present in both the 1967 and 2006 film)

    OKAY, it's quite a shameless comparison, because I'm only talking about the bare bones of the plot :-P. But they are there. So, in cinematical terms, the official 2006 film is in fact a remake of the unofficial 1967 film :-P.

    Besides that, it's a lovely curiosity within the Bond franchise. If one saw 'The Making Of' of the 1967 film, one starts gasping for air :-P. Apart from being a 'failure', financially it was far from a failure back in 1967. The lavish production design is stunning. And the costumes are amazing (credits to Julie Harris). Ursula Andress as Vesper Lynd really could have been something. Her 'Fiona Volpe' looks were breathtaking:

    c0d6f70452ebffdc757d28c9e076a0b6.jpg
    latest?cb=20151127210430
    from-left-to-right-actresses-julie-christie-ursula-andress-and-a-picture-id2665803
    Ursula-Andress-Casino-Royale-1967.JPG
    ursula_andress_casino_royale_with_peter_sellers_FEVIvos.sized.jpg
    Julie%2BHarris%2Band%2BUrsula%2BAndress.jpg
    TMM03CONTACT1_a_270329c.jpg
    ursula-andress-casino-royal.jpg
  • JohnHammond73JohnHammond73 Lancashire, UK
    Posts: 4,151
    Looking forward to the results. Don't want to speculate too much but I have no doubt a few surprises will be seen.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Shark_0f_Largo wrote: »
    Looking forward to the results. Don't want to speculate too much but I have no doubt a few surprises will be seen.

    The first results are on page 26 hehehe.

  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 6,820
    I like it for David Niven too! A real gent, he has the same likability as an actor that Roger has! I also like it for Richard Williams titles! A great animator! And the music helps too!
    But it is an unholy mess! A case of too many chefs? what with all the Directors that were involved! Great photos of Ursula!
  • JohnHammond73JohnHammond73 Lancashire, UK
    Posts: 4,151
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    Shark_0f_Largo wrote: »
    Looking forward to the results. Don't want to speculate too much but I have no doubt a few surprises will be seen.

    The first results are on page 26 hehehe.

    D'oh!! Must remember to always look back, haha ....


    Anyway, no surprises with CR '67.

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited October 2016 Posts: 13,894
    Birdleson wrote: »
    MajorDSmythe wrote: »
    No real surprise there. Including unoffical Bonds, then it saves QOS from the bottom. My prediction for the #1 spot, FRWL. My heart says TLD, but my mind says FRWL (or possibly OHMSS).

    QOS doesn't end up at, or even very near, the bottom in most of our polls.

    I could have included 'imo' but I didn't think that was used anymore.

    I wasn't aware that there was much appreciation for it, and that it is mostly considered the ugly duckling of the Craig era.
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,539
    Benny wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I enjoy it quite a bit.

    You and me both. I have something of a soft spot for it. Total nonsense, but fun in a 60's movie.
    Add David Niven, Peter Sellers and Woody Allen all on fine form.
    Plus Ursula Andress and Barbara Bouchet. Ding dong.
    It's fun, in a quirky way.
    Make that three of us!

    Great photos, @Gustav_Graves! (By the way, there's also a car chase in both CR ;))

  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    NmhHDjm.jpg
  • vzokvzok
    Posts: 4,025
    I thought NSNA might pick up a few more points than that.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    vzok wrote: »
    I thought NSNA might pick up a few more points than that.

    NSNA is generally hated here :-P. I have always been quite surprised that Bond fans can't enjoy it like a general 'cinematic incarnation' of Fleming's character. The film is only judged as being 'unofficial', and therefore it's 'crap'. I find that slightly...cheap. Purely as a film it's entirely satisfying. And IMO it's better than 2 or 3 official Bond films. Some critics agree with that:

    D1fgQDZ.jpg
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I think people discount it because it's not an EON film. And then there's McClory to consider, as well, and the classlessness he stands for.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,293
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    I think people discount it because it's not an EON film. And then there's McClory to consider, as well, and the classlessness he stands for.

    Yep. Must admit that these things make it more difficult to like NSNA as much as one could do. Still entertaining, though.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    I love both NSNA and CR67, something must be wrong with me... ;)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    I think people discount it because it's not an EON film. And then there's McClory to consider, as well, and the classlessness he stands for.

    Yep. Must admit that these things make it more difficult to like NSNA as much as one could do. Still entertaining, though.

    For many, like me, I don't even think it's that. I know some that can enjoy it, as I can very well, it's just that in this discussion of official Bond films, it doesn't fit the bill, as it's an outside of EON product. I don't think that's a cheap judgement to make, just an honest one.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 754
    CR67 has a great soundtrack
    NSNA deserves more respect, it's Connery
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,788
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    I love both NSNA and CR67, something must be wrong with me... ;)

    I agree, I can enjoy both of them.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    DAD beats NSNA. A scandal.
  • vzokvzok
    Posts: 4,025
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    I think people discount it because it's not an EON film. And then there's McClory to consider, as well, and the classlessness he stands for.

    Yep. Must admit that these things make it more difficult to like NSNA as much as one could do. Still entertaining, though.

    For many, like me, I don't even think it's that. I know some that can enjoy it, as I can very well, it's just that in this discussion of official Bond films, it doesn't fit the bill, as it's an outside of EON product. I don't think that's a cheap judgement to make, just an honest one.

    But it was included in this vote, so this wasn't a vote on just official Bond films. I guess people don't like it that much.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    vzok wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    I think people discount it because it's not an EON film. And then there's McClory to consider, as well, and the classlessness he stands for.

    Yep. Must admit that these things make it more difficult to like NSNA as much as one could do. Still entertaining, though.

    For many, like me, I don't even think it's that. I know some that can enjoy it, as I can very well, it's just that in this discussion of official Bond films, it doesn't fit the bill, as it's an outside of EON product. I don't think that's a cheap judgement to make, just an honest one.

    But it was included in this vote, so this wasn't a vote on just official Bond films. I guess people don't like it that much.

    @Gustav_Graves presented an option to vote for it, yes (along with CR 67 and 54), but us, the voters, didn't see any of them as being worthy to be in a Top 10, and even more didn't feel it was a true Bond film in the first place.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited October 2016 Posts: 40,474
    Besides, just because something places outside of my Top 10 doesn't mean I don't it, whether it's an EON Bond film or not. AVTAK ranks fairly low for me, but I love the hell out of that movie and enjoy it every single time I watch it.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Posts: 4,444
    I collect the VHS, DVD and Soundtrack. When i see footage of movie on tv i sometimes hang around for couple minutes and longer then DAD. I think two movies i have seen moost les from first 20. Daniel Craig era is to fresh and DAD i have seen 5-6 times.

    If Brosnan get change to make another Bond movie with his actors i wil go twice to movie. Even with return of Jinx and Falco as villian.


  • MooseWithFleasMooseWithFleas Philadelphia
    Posts: 3,347
    Aw, 0 points for CR67. I thought every film would at least get a vote. Nice to see NSNA get a couple points. It's in my 25 spot, but still has redeeming qualities.

    My top 5 prediction:

    5.) DN
    4.) GF
    3.) FRWL
    2.) OHMSS
    1.) CR
Sign In or Register to comment.