Controversial opinions about Bond films

1108109111113114705

Comments

  • edited February 2014 Posts: 11,189
    RC7 wrote:
    FoxRox wrote:
    I thought Lazenby was the most human Bond by far. Maybe Dalton second-most, but Lazenby definitely felt the most human to me.

    Am I alone in thinking that people over think Lazenby's performance? I'm not sure he intentionally brought anything to the part other than turning up and reading his lines.

    As MJ once said, you are not alone. It's all part of what I term 'The Romanticisation of George Lazenby'. Average, at best, with zero panache.

    I think a lot of people do overthink Laz's performance BUT to, his credit, he does have a physical edge to him as well as a solid supporting cast around him. I was watching DAF the other night and, to be honest, I think I would take George's underwhelming performance in OHMSS over Connery's virtually non-existant performance in DAF. The only line of his that made me smile while I was watching it was "I'm afraid its me...sorry about that old boy".

    Wow, I'm defending Laz and bashing Connery :-S .
  • Posts: 14,892
    BAIN123 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    FoxRox wrote:
    I thought Lazenby was the most human Bond by far. Maybe Dalton second-most, but Lazenby definitely felt the most human to me.

    Am I alone in thinking that people over think Lazenby's performance? I'm not sure he intentionally brought anything to the part other than turning up and reading his lines.

    As MJ once said, you are not alone. It's all part of what I term 'The Romanticisation of George Lazenby'. Average, at best, with zero panache.

    I think a lot of people do overthink Laz's performance BUT to, his credit, he does have a physical edge to him as well as a solid supporting cast around him. I was watching DAF the other night and, to be honest, I think I would take George's underwhelming performance in OHMSS over Connery's virtually non-existant performance in DAF. The only line of his that made me smile while I was watching it was "I'm afraid its me...sorry about that old boy".

    Wow, I'm defending Laz and bashing Connery :-S .

    I think Connery does perform in DAF, in fact more so than YOLT, but he performs badly, playing a different Bond that he previously was and that Bond should have been after the events of the previous movie.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    BAIN123 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    FoxRox wrote:
    I thought Lazenby was the most human Bond by far. Maybe Dalton second-most, but Lazenby definitely felt the most human to me.

    Am I alone in thinking that people over think Lazenby's performance? I'm not sure he intentionally brought anything to the part other than turning up and reading his lines.

    As MJ once said, you are not alone. It's all part of what I term 'The Romanticisation of George Lazenby'. Average, at best, with zero panache.

    I think a lot of people do overthink Laz's performance BUT to, his credit, he does have a physical edge to him as well as a solid supporting cast around him. I was watching DAF the other night and, to be honest, I think I would take George's underwhelming performance in OHMSS over Connery's virtually non-existant performance in DAF. The only line of his that made me smile while I was watching it was "I'm afraid its me...sorry about that old boy".

    Wow, I'm defending Laz and bashing Connery :-S .

    But a 'physical edge' isn't enough to sell the character to me. DAF Connery is still enormously charismatic and he still commands any scene he's in, despite being a tad stolid. As I've said on previous occasions, I look in Lazenby's eyes and there's just nothing going on behind them.
  • Posts: 12,310
    And all this is why I find Lazenby so underrated. I don't know who you've been talking to, but I know next-to-no Lazenby supporters. I for one really enjoyed his performance, and I'm not sure how one couldn't find it unique (in a positive way) from the rest.
  • edited February 2014 Posts: 381
    RC7 wrote:
    FoxRox wrote:
    I thought Lazenby was the most human Bond by far. Maybe Dalton second-most, but Lazenby definitely felt the most human to me.

    Am I alone in thinking that people over think Lazenby's performance? I'm not sure he intentionally brought anything to the part other than turning up and reading his lines.

    As MJ once said, you are not alone. It's all part of what I term 'The Romanticisation of George Lazenby'. Average, at best, with zero panache.

    Lazenby wasn't horrible and had quite a few pluses--he looked great, was very fit, the fighting looked more real, less choreographed and Lazenby did have a certain vulnerability to him, like when he meets up with Tracy when she's ice skating and he tells her that she's in trouble. It also helped that everything else about OHMSS was great--the cast, the score, the plot, locations, etc.

    The problem for me is that Lazenby lacks charisma and comes off as being a bit generic. Even if Dalton didn't exude charisma, he made up for it with his hard-edged take on the character. Lazenby is just sort of "blah" at times.

    Connery and Dalton had done a lot of acting before playing Bond, Moore had played Simon Temple so he could just slide right into the role, same with Brosnan as he was in Remington Steele and Craig as he played a similar type character in Layer Cake.

    What experience did George Lazenby have before playing Bond?


    As for Connery's performance in DAF--he does look a bit bored at times, as though his heart wasn't 100 percent invested, but he still gave a fairly solid performance. He was probably just really bored with the role at that point. By comparison, I felt that Moore always gave 100 percent. Even if he was too old to play Bond in AVTAK, he took it seriously and didn't just phone it in.
  • edited February 2014 Posts: 11,189
    RC7 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    FoxRox wrote:
    I thought Lazenby was the most human Bond by far. Maybe Dalton second-most, but Lazenby definitely felt the most human to me.

    Am I alone in thinking that people over think Lazenby's performance? I'm not sure he intentionally brought anything to the part other than turning up and reading his lines.

    As MJ once said, you are not alone. It's all part of what I term 'The Romanticisation of George Lazenby'. Average, at best, with zero panache.

    I think a lot of people do overthink Laz's performance BUT to, his credit, he does have a physical edge to him as well as a solid supporting cast around him. I was watching DAF the other night and, to be honest, I think I would take George's underwhelming performance in OHMSS over Connery's virtually non-existant performance in DAF. The only line of his that made me smile while I was watching it was "I'm afraid its me...sorry about that old boy".

    Wow, I'm defending Laz and bashing Connery :-S .

    But a 'physical edge' isn't enough to sell the character to me. DAF Connery is still enormously charismatic and he still commands any scene he's in, despite being a tad stolid. As I've said on previous occasions, I look in Lazenby's eyes and there's just nothing going on behind them.

    You see I'm not sure I'd call Connery "enormously charasmatic" in DAF. In his earlier films I could watch him all the time. Here Jill St. John easily upstages Connery when she's walking round in her underwear.


    I'm not saying Laz's performance is brilliant but I do at least sort of believe he's an athletic spy. The thing is in DAF I don't really believe Connery is still James Bond. He just seemed to be on autopilot almost the entire time. If he's not interested why should we the audience devote time to watching him? I say that as someone who loves him in the early films - especially GF.
  • chrisisall wrote:
    Reading-too-much-into-this ALERT

    I don't think so. Bond films, at their core, are ideologically conservative and meant to reassure a nervous public that the future is in good hands, thanks to 007.

    With the exception of QoS, which had a Leftist bent, and SF, which indeed comes over as a bit conservative, the Bond films are apolitical.

    They are not apolitical in the least. Just a handful of examples off the top of my head:

    DN- Government House in Jamaica run by subservient natives.
    GF- The opening scene in which Bond stops a South American drug lord who "finances revolutions with heroin flavored bananas." Later, Bond stops a plot by the Chinese working with Goldfinger who want to cause "economic chaos in the West" by detonating a nuclear bomb at Fort Knox.
    DAF- The diamond mine is run like a quasi-plantation, with the happy natives doing the grunt work for their benevolent British overlords.

    DN--No political message at all. It was reality.


    GF--You make the mistake, alas, all too common among Leftists, of thinking any plot device in which the villains are a protected group (usually minorities of one sort or another) represents a political attack on that group as a whole. This is not rational analysis, it is ideologically-driven paranoia.

    DAF--We hardly know enough about the diamond mine to say that it was a quasi-plantation or that the natives were "happy." And BTW, when the black diamond smuggler smiles, that is not a political statement; it is a little thing called humor, which sadly, eludes the vast majority of Leftists every time.

    You just don't want to peel the onion. If you really don't think that Bond films (or any other films) have a political message and are merely entertainment, we don't really have anything further to discuss. I would suggest the book Licence to Thrill: A Cultural History of the James Bond Films by James Chapman. He does a superb job of pointing out the political undertones of the films.

    If one has to peel the onion to the extent that you do, the so-called "political messages" are so subtle, diffuse or even illusory that one could just as easily argue that the critic is simply projecting his own fantasies upon the artifact in question. What you are doing is more make-work for critics than it is useful analysis. But yes, many (most?) films, literature and art, particularly in the modern era, are saturated with politics, much to the discredit of their respective fields and genres. Overwhelmingly, however, the Bond films are not among them.

  • chrisisall wrote:
    Reading-too-much-into-this ALERT

    I don't think so. Bond films, at their core, are ideologically conservative and meant to reassure a nervous public that the future is in good hands, thanks to 007.

    With the exception of QoS, which had a Leftist bent, and SF, which indeed comes over as a bit conservative, the Bond films are apolitical.

    They are not apolitical in the least. Just a handful of examples off the top of my head:

    DN- Government House in Jamaica run by subservient natives.
    GF- The opening scene in which Bond stops a South American drug lord who "finances revolutions with heroin flavored bananas." Later, Bond stops a plot by the Chinese working with Goldfinger who want to cause "economic chaos in the West" by detonating a nuclear bomb at Fort Knox.
    DAF- The diamond mine is run like a quasi-plantation, with the happy natives doing the grunt work for their benevolent British overlords.

    DN--No political message at all. It was reality.


    GF--You make the mistake, alas, all too common among Leftists, of thinking any plot device in which the villains are a protected group (usually minorities of one sort or another) represents a political attack on that group as a whole. This is not rational analysis, it is ideologically-driven paranoia.

    DAF--We hardly know enough about the diamond mine to say that it was a quasi-plantation or that the natives were "happy." And BTW, when the black diamond smuggler smiles, that is not a political statement; it is a little thing called humor, which sadly, eludes the vast majority of Leftists every time.

    You just don't want to peel the onion. If you really don't think that Bond films (or any other films) have a political message and are merely entertainment, we don't really have anything further to discuss. I would suggest the book Licence to Thrill: A Cultural History of the James Bond Films by James Chapman. He does a superb job of pointing out the political undertones of the films.

    If one has to peel the onion to the extent that you do, the so-called "political messages" are so subtle, diffuse or even illusory that one could just as easily argue that the critic is simply projecting his own fantasies upon the artifact in question. What you are doing is more make-work for critics than it is useful analysis. But yes, many (most?) films, literature and art, particularly in the modern era, are saturated with politics, much to the discredit of their respective fields and genres. Overwhelmingly, however, the Bond films are not among them.

    Sometimes the political messages are subtle and sometimes they are not, but they are there. Yes, there is always a danger of reading too much into anything, but I don't feel that I have done so with the examples that I gave.

    Again, I would refer you to Chapman's book, which is excellent:
    http://www.amazon.com/Licence-Thrill-Cultural-History-Society/dp/1845115155

  • edited February 2014 Posts: 19,339
    I think Dalton's performance was more relaxed and better in LTK than TLD so if he did GE i think he might have cemented himself into the role,the parts of the script i've read appear to have made this film a more spectacular Bond film.

    It would have been nice to see Dalton do another Bond as i think it would have been his best.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,698
    But yes, many (most?) films, literature and art, particularly in the modern era, are saturated with politics, much to the discredit of their respective fields and genres. Overwhelmingly, however, the Bond films are not among them.
    What I don't get is how you label the Bond movies, politically.
    An evil corporation (SPECTRE) stealing nuclear weapons for extortion/profit is not so political, but an evil corporation (Quantum) stealing water for extortion/profit is somehow 'Leftist'? :O

    Well, in keeping with the title of this thread I guess that may be controversial... :))
  • edited February 2014 Posts: 12,837
    Not sure if this is really controversial but I don't like the Thunderball PTS at all. Connery is good in it but the fight is just stuff getting knocked over/broken. Then there's the jetpack, it's cool how they actually did this for real but it's also contrived and silly imo. Then there's the DB5 having water pistols built in, which I think is a stupid idea that seems like it's only there for the transition into the title sequence.

    Also, I really like the TND PTS. It's tense, exciting, action packed and it subtly leads into the rest of the film (the encoder) while also working as a stand alone mini Bond movie (the only other film I can think of that does this is TLD, unless you count Bond going to Miami as setting up the rest of Goldfinger).
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,698
    the jetpack, it's cool how they actually did this for real but it's also contrived and silly imo.
    It was totally unnecessary, but they had access to it...
    Then there's the DB5 having water pistols built in, which I think is a stupid idea
    Quite. Where did all that water come from anyway? I didn't see any tanks on the roof...
    Also, I really like the TND PTS. It's tense, exciting, action packed and it subtly leads into the rest of the film (the encoder) while also working as a stand alone mini Bond movie
    Yes, it's great. That and TLD rock beyond all expectation IMO.
  • Posts: 12,310
    Not sure if this is really controversial but I don't like the Thunderball PTS at all. Connery is good in it but the fight is just stuff getting knocked over/broken. Then there's the jetpack, it's cool how they actually did this for real but it's also contrived and silly imo. Then there's the DB5 having water pistols built in, which I think is a stupid idea that seems like it's only there for the transition into the title sequence.

    Also, I really like the TND PTS. It's tense, exciting, action packed and it subtly leads into the rest of the film (the encoder) while also working as a stand alone mini Bond movie (the only other film I can think of that does this is TLD, unless you count Bond going to Miami as setting up the rest of Goldfinger).

    That's funny because it's my favorite part in the film XD I thought the surprise of the dude in the dress was great, and the jetpack just made me laugh happily. It was a bit stupid, but still amusing for me.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,714
    Not sure if this is really controversial but I don't like the Thunderball PTS at all. Connery is good in it but the fight is just stuff getting knocked over/broken. Then there's the jetpack, it's cool how they actually did this for real but it's also contrived and silly imo. Then there's the DB5 having water pistols built in, which I think is a stupid idea that seems like it's only there for the transition into the title sequence.

    I fully agree.

    The fight I'm somewhat okay with. I guess there's some spark in the editing and music but it's basically one man diving over another, or over a fallen clock, ... The joke with the flowers, which was later repeated with the grapes, doesn't stand as great comedy for me but I have no problems with it. My problems begin with the henchman firing a gun without seriously aiming it. It's a child's concept of a cowboy shoot-out.

    The jetpack was indeed a cool stunt, very cool in fact, but it poses so many logistical questions. Let's assume Bouvoir's car took him from the funeral at normal speed and perhaps even via a few lovely alternative routes. Then still we are to presume that Bond flashed over there in the Aston Martin, park it where everyone can see it yet get a really heavy jetpack out the trunk and drag it, without anyone noticing, all the way up to the roof of the castle and then have time left to find himself a nice chair? By the way, anyone attending a funeral naturally anticipates the necessity of a jetpack.

    The water cannons distract me quite a lot. From the looks of it, large volumes of water are hosed out. How can a sports car transport those? Or perhaps the Aston is connected to the chateau's water pipe system? That would be another technical achievement for Bond and the French lady while Bouvoir is very slowly returning home... Plus, if it's supposed to be comedic that those henchmen are faced with a wall of water, I can safely say it's not at all funny. And the transition with the opening titles is terrible. Firstly, why can't we see Bond drive off and get some kind of closure in this microstory? Secondly, how come the sound mix was done so poorly when the rest of the film does things so well?

    I love TB but to be fair, the parts I love start after the opening title sequence. The PTS feels like an afterthought, something that was devised with the purpose of giving the jetpack a chance to shine.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,698
    DarthDimi wrote:
    I love TB but to be fair, the parts I love start after the opening title sequence. The PTS feels like an afterthought, something that was devised with the purpose of giving the jetpack a chance to shine.
    Oh, no question that it was made after the film proper. This PTS was the actual beginning of the YOLT-like OTT.
  • edited February 2014 Posts: 7,653
    With DAD I was surprised how EON did pick Korea as the baddie this time, but perhaps that is a political opponent nobody likes and the missing BO from that particular area of the world is easy to miss. And in the same movie JB visits Cuba and no mention at all about that regime.

    There are often political undertones that are very carefully decided to be missed, it seems.

    PK does refer QoB lefist agenda, as I understood him, because of the role the US plays in the movie, as an active partner of the baddies out of self interest. Read Solo and you'll find a similar attitude only this time aimed at the British empire.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Also, I really like the TND PTS. It's tense, exciting, action packed and it subtly leads into the rest of the film (the encoder) while also working as a stand alone mini Bond movie (the only other film I can think of that does this is TLD, unless you count Bond going to Miami as setting up the rest of Goldfinger).

    It's tremendous. It's well scripted, acted, shot and edited. Complimented by a great bit of Arnold score. While I think the SF PTS is decent, TND shows how to pull off a cross-cutting sequence to maximum effect. I think it's genuinely superior. It helps that Brosnan, Dench, Salmon and Palmer are all damn near perfect.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,698
    SaintMark wrote:
    PK does refer QoB lefist agenda, as I understood him, because of the role the US plays in the movie, as an active partner of the baddies out of self interest.
    Okay I'm still missing something. Almost every government does stuff like that all the time. How is it 'Leftist' to use that in a story? Would it be 'Rightist" to never include stuff like that in fiction?
    I have a 'realism' agenda. That means, if it's real you can use it. I have no use for the polar spins of the left or the right.
    I prefer the concepts of conservative & liberal myself.
    Bond is a conservatively leaning liberal working for a liberally leaning conservative establishment. :))
  • Posts: 7,653
    chrisisall wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    PK does refer QoB lefist agenda, as I understood him, because of the role the US plays in the movie, as an active partner of the baddies out of self interest.
    Okay I'm still missing something. Almost every government does stuff like that all the time. How is it 'Leftist' to use that in a story? Would it be 'Rightist" to never include stuff like that in fiction?
    I have a 'realism' agenda. That means, if it's real you can use it. I have no use for the polar spins of the left or the right.
    I prefer the concepts of conservative & liberal myself.
    Bond is a conservatively leaning liberal working for a liberally leaning conservative establishment. :))

    As I understand him making US a baddie in itself is something lefties do. But I could be wrong in understanding him at an earlier time when he was involved in a discussion of this movie.

  • edited February 2014 Posts: 381
    chrisisall wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    PK does refer QoB lefist agenda, as I understood him, because of the role the US plays in the movie, as an active partner of the baddies out of self interest.
    Okay I'm still missing something. Almost every government does stuff like that all the time. How is it 'Leftist' to use that in a story? Would it be 'Rightist" to never include stuff like that in fiction?
    I have a 'realism' agenda. That means, if it's real you can use it. I have no use for the polar spins of the left or the right.
    I prefer the concepts of conservative & liberal myself.
    Bond is a conservatively leaning liberal working for a liberally leaning conservative establishment. :))

    QOS is unique because it portrays the West in a negative light, as they are shown willing to overlook the Bolivian coup, thinking that it will be in their economic best interests. However, because they are duped by Quantum (led to believe there that there was oil) and because Beam (a corrupt CIA agent) is fired and replaced, in the end the US and UK are let off the hook.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited February 2014 Posts: 17,698
    SaintMark wrote:
    As I understand him making US a baddie in itself is something lefties do.
    It does sometimes seem that the Left has US wearing the black hat whilst the Right sees US only in white...
    and again, the truth is a little greyer than that IMO. And one would think that reading Fleming would make those grey areas at least a little clearer to see...
    :-??
  • Political debate notwithstanding, my own controversial opinion for today is that Claudine Auger's Domino Derval is a top-3 Bond girl.
    -as Largo's mistress and the sister of the murdered pilot, she's intimately relevant to the plot
    -her character has some depth but they don't try to give her a dubious arc like many modern Bond girls
    -she's the nicest Bond girl IMO
    -she's the second most beautiful Bond girl (behind Solitaire, of course) though I feel the way she looks in the movie doesn't do her justice
    I think she's often overshadowed by Volpe.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,698
    my own controversial opinion for today is that Claudine Auger's Domino Derval is a top-3 Bond girl.
    No controversial to ME! I agree 100%. She's my favourite just behind Wai Lin & Solitaire.
  • Posts: 12,310
    Political debate notwithstanding, my own controversial opinion for today is that Claudine Auger's Domino Derval is a top-3 Bond girl.
    -as Largo's mistress and the sister of the murdered pilot, she's intimately relevant to the plot
    -her character has some depth but they don't try to give her a dubious arc like many modern Bond girls
    -she's the nicest Bond girl IMO
    -she's the second most beautiful Bond girl (behind Solitaire, of course) though I feel the way she looks in the movie doesn't do her justice
    I think she's often overshadowed by Volpe.

    Domino is a superb Bond girl; for me easily one of the best parts of Thunderball. TB in generally had some of the most attractive ladies IMO. Some of my other favorite Bond girls include Vesper, Tracy, Solitaire, and Honey.

  • Here are my controversial opinions:

    1- Sean Connery, while very good for 4 outings out of 6, is overrated as James Bond.
    2- While I appreciate Diana Rigg play of Tracy, they could have pick a prettier woman to play the part.
    3-While we're on the subject of prettier woman, Jenny "The Irish Girl" Hanley from OHMSS should have landed a bigger role, maybe that of Angela Scoular.
    4-I find Dr No as slow-pace as TMWTGG
    5-Please don't ever use underwater scenes in a Bond movie again, the're very dull.
    6-You only live twice is the Bond movie who aged the worst.
    7-DAF makes me laugh, it's the most humour-filled Bond movie.
    8-They could have dumped Herve Villechaize, he's annoying.
    9-Barbara Back isn't sexy. She looks rather plain to me.
    10-Timothy Dalton is the best that ever was.
    11-I wish Pierce Brosnan only did one Bond, the first he ever played in.
    12-Marc Forster should be handed a life sentence for his horrible work on QOS.

    Ok, you can pick me apart now.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,698
    Ok, you can pick me apart now.
    Here goes:
    1- Sean Connery, while very good for 4 outings out of 6, is overrated as James Bond.
    Well, no serious disagreement here.
    2- While I appreciate Diana Rigg play of Tracy, they could have pick a prettier woman to play the part.
    She was gorgeous, you cad!
    3-While we're on the subject of prettier woman, Jenny "The Irish Girl" Hanley from OHMSS should have landed a bigger role, maybe that of Angela Scoular.
    Okay.
    4-I find Dr No as slow-pace as TMWTGG
    You say that like it's a BAD thing...
    5-Please don't ever use underwater scenes in a Bond movie again, the're very dull.
    You've never dived, clearly.
    6-You only live twice is the Bond movie who aged the worst.
    Have you SEEN Moonraker????
    7-DAF makes me laugh, it's the most humour-filled Bond movie.
    Agreed!
    8-They could have dumped Herve Villechaize, he's annoying.
    He was integral to the benign bizarre IMO.
    9-Barbara Back isn't sexy. She looks rather plain to me.
    Again, agreed fully.
    10-Timothy Dalton is the best that ever was.
    Are you ME????
    11-I wish Pierce Brosnan only did one Bond, the first he ever played in.
    Oh, no. You aren't me. I love the Broz.
    12-Marc Forster should be handed a life sentence for his horrible work on QOS.
    Wanna fight?
    :))
  • Posts: 12,310
    Here are my controversial opinions:

    1- Sean Connery, while very good for 4 outings out of 6, is overrated as James Bond.
    2- While I appreciate Diana Rigg play of Tracy, they could have pick a prettier woman to play the part.
    3-While we're on the subject of prettier woman, Jenny "The Irish Girl" Hanley from OHMSS should have landed a bigger role, maybe that of Angela Scoular.
    4-I find Dr No as slow-pace as TMWTGG
    5-Please don't ever use underwater scenes in a Bond movie again, the're very dull.
    6-You only live twice is the Bond movie who aged the worst.
    7-DAF makes me laugh, it's the most humour-filled Bond movie.
    8-They could have dumped Herve Villechaize, he's annoying.
    9-Barbara Back isn't sexy. She looks rather plain to me.
    10-Timothy Dalton is the best that ever was.
    11-I wish Pierce Brosnan only did one Bond, the first he ever played in.
    12-Marc Forster should be handed a life sentence for his horrible work on QOS.

    Ok, you can pick me apart now.

    I'll take a stab since you asked me:
    1- I assume you mean he wasn't as good in YOLT and DAF; that is agreed on, but I don't agree there's any way to overrate Connery as Bond.
    2- Hmmm... I kind of get what you're saying. I loved Rigg's portrayal of Tracy, but I also don't think Mrs. Bond needs to be ultra-pretty per se.
    3- Agreed; she was better in every way over Scoular IMO.
    4- Given they're both fairly slow-paced, but DN works much better still; it can afford to be slow-paced and still be a good film. TMWTGG was ok, but definitely dragged sometimes.
    5- Mostly agree, at least TB-wise. However I thought TSWLM had a great underwater scene with the underwater car.
    6- Disagree; MR like the person above said.
    7- DAF is the second-most humor-filled Bond film to me; LALD wins out there.
    8- I agree he's annoying, but still entertaining to me.
    9- Agreed.
    10- Timothy Dalton was my least favorite Bond, so completely disagreed.
    11- Brosnan wasn't the problem, it was the movies themselves. But I could still kinda see where you're coming from.
    12- I find QoS to be one of the most underrated Bond films so nope.

    Some agreements, some disagreements there.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Here are my controversial opinions:

    1- Sean Connery, while very good for 4 outings out of 6, is overrated as James Bond.
    2- While I appreciate Diana Rigg play of Tracy, they could have pick a prettier woman to play the part.
    3-While we're on the subject of prettier woman, Jenny "The Irish Girl" Hanley from OHMSS should have landed a bigger role, maybe that of Angela Scoular.
    4-I find Dr No as slow-pace as TMWTGG
    5-Please don't ever use underwater scenes in a Bond movie again, the're very dull.
    6-You only live twice is the Bond movie who aged the worst.
    7-DAF makes me laugh, it's the most humour-filled Bond movie.
    8-They could have dumped Herve Villechaize, he's annoying.
    9-Barbara Back isn't sexy. She looks rather plain to me.
    10-Timothy Dalton is the best that ever was.
    11-I wish Pierce Brosnan only did one Bond, the first he ever played in.
    12-Marc Forster should be handed a life sentence for his horrible work on QOS.

    Ok, you can pick me apart now.

    1- SC is brilliant even if DAF & YOLT were lesser entries
    2- Dianna Rigg was a brilliant choice as Tracy, she was the dreamgirl in those days by playing Emma Peel in the Avengers. SHe has easily more sexapeal than any orther woman in OHMSS.
    3- a matter of taste and actiong skills perhaps.
    4- Doctor No is a great installment
    5- Underwaterscens dull? Go and dive yourself, they were by the way cutting edge when TB was released. Nobody had done something so spectaculair untill then.
    6- All Bondmovies are a product of their time, as are the actors in them. And as for the pointing fingers to MR, its special effects are easily better than anything in the recent Bonds as well. The minature work is still brilliant and stands up. There is nothing dated about MR except the taste of a few critics.
    7- DAF has its funny moments
    8- Villechaize plays his part good as he comes across being annoying, the contra part of Scaramanga who is just a 00 without a license.
    9- BB is slavic looking which is kind of the point when playing Russian. But you seem to be hung up about your own taste in women instead of enjoying teh variety offered in the 007 franchise.
    10- TD is an acquired taste, but in my humble opinion a let down after the brilliant Roger Moore.
    11- PB should have had one more movie after DAD, his very own FYEO as he had done the franchise a great service.
    12- agreed.


  • Posts: 6,396
    SaintMark wrote:
    6- All Bondmovies are a product of their time, as are the actors in them. And as for the pointing fingers to MR, its special effects are easily better than anything in the recent Bonds as well. The minature work is still brilliant and stands up. There is nothing dated about MR except the taste of a few critics.

    Agreed on this. Whatever people's misgivings are regarding MR (and I'm not going to argue with people who dislike it) it has in no way aged worse than other films (DAF, LALD and TMWTGG would be obvious examples).

    Not only do the special effects and miniatures still look great today, but the cinematography is absolutely sumptuous.
  • Posts: 19,339
    MR is not one of my favourites by any means but the John Barry score throughout also gives it an epic,big time,Christmas day big film,feel.

    It's an absolutely brilliant score and used very very well.
Sign In or Register to comment.