›

Controversial opinions about Bond films

1…591592594596597…705

Comments

  • jobojobo
    edited September 2020 Posts: 7,500
    007InAction wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Best three in a rowBest three in a row

    Weakest three in a row: GE, TND, TWINE

    Best 4 in a row: DN, FRWL, GF, TB

    Weakest 4 in a row: GE, TND, TWINE, DAD

    Spot on!

    Another weak run was DAF, LALD, TMWTGG (possibly including TSWLM and MR if I am being mean...)
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 776
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Controversial opinion : QOS's sole sin is not being as good as CR. Had a movie of this quality, with all its flaws, followed any of the films from the last three decades or so, it would have been received much better.

    That’s a part of it, certainly, but that wasn’t QOS’s sole sin, as you put it. The direction and the quick-cut shakey-cam nonsense leaves scars on what is otherwise a fantastic film.

  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,831
    Thunderball wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Controversial opinion : QOS's sole sin is not being as good as CR. Had a movie of this quality, with all its flaws, followed any of the films from the last three decades or so, it would have been received much better.

    That’s a part of it, certainly, but that wasn’t QOS’s sole sin, as you put it. The direction and the quick-cut shakey-cam nonsense leaves scars on what is otherwise a fantastic film.

    Well, let's say cardinal sin. I think many of the flaws of QOS would have been overlooked had it followed another film. FYEO has many flaws that I don't mind because it's a proper spy thriller that follows a scifi extravaganza. LALD is also flawed, but after DAF it's an improvement.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 776
    Actually, I like DAF more than LALD. Only slightly. Both are (still somewhat enjoyable) letdowns from what came before.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Thunderball wrote: »
    Actually, I like DAF more than LALD. Only slightly. Both are (still somewhat enjoyable) letdowns from what came before.

    DAF way over LALD.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,979
    jobo wrote: »
    I'd say TLD and LTK were both great.

    Seconded.
  • ThighsOfXeniaThighsOfXenia
    Posts: 1,595
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    TLD certainly is. LTK was a movie I liked a lot more many years back but had been slipping in my rankings over time that it's now at the bottom lower half.

    I have the exact same opinion.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Controversial opinion : QOS's sole sin is not being as good as CR. Had a movie of this quality, with all its flaws, followed any of the films from the last three decades or so, it would have been received much better.

    No, QoS isn't as good as CR, but then CR raised the bar pretty high in terms of quality in the series. Personally i can't see any future Bond film getting close to it.

    On the subject of QoS i love its fast no nonsense visceral pace. It's a lean, mean Bond film! It's becoming one of my most watched of the series.

    And to be controversial, i like the way it's edited!

    I've never minded the editing either. Its frenetic pace was always supposed to represent the mindset of the character.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    edited September 2020 Posts: 776
    Frenetic is good. But oftentimes the cuts are so quick and the direction throws shot consistency to the wind that it is difficult to get your bearings of a fight or any other kind of action scene. About the only scene that is an exemption is the fight in the contact’s flat. Take the stairwell fight in CR as an example. No matter the pace or where it goes, you always have a sense of place, and it’s all shot in a way that makes it easy for the viewer to follow along. Contrast that with QOS. And I’m saying all this as a lover and defender of the film, but damn if it isn’t flawed to all hell.
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,500
    Thunderball wrote: »
    Frenetic is good. But oftentimes the cuts are so quick and the direction throws shot consistency to the wind that it is difficult to get your bearings of a fight or any other kind of action scene. About the only scene that is an exemption is the fight in the contact’s flat. Take the stairwell fight in CR as an example. No matter the pace or where it goes, you always have a sense of place, and it’s all shot in a way that makes it easy for the viewer to follow along. Contrast that with QOS. And I’m saying all this as a lover and defender of the film, but damn if it isn’t flawed to all hell.


    Exactly. There is frenetic editing, and then there is editing that distorts the action.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    One of my problems with QOS is that while it’s supposed to be a continuation of CR it feels way too aggressively different in style. CR had the right approach, but here comes Marc Forster wanting to do pretentious stuff like cutting back and forth between Bond chasing Mitchell and a horse race, and all done in the same style of filmmaking and editing as the Bourne films. If QOS is supposed to be a follow up it should compliment CR, not take such a drastic stylistic shift.
  • WillyGalore_ReduxWillyGalore_Redux I like my beer cold, my TV loud and my homosexuals flaaaaaaming
    Posts: 294
    DraxCucumberSandwich wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    DraxCucumberSandwich wrote: »
    I would have TSWLM and MR as two great films.

    Directly after that, FYEO and OP are both really good films, although maybe not great

    TSWLM is a great film, no question. MR, though? Its a fun watch but it's far from the upper echelons of the series..

    For me, the production values and film craft push it into those upper echelons. Amazing stunt work and set pieces; gorgeous location photography; sumptuous John Barry score; some of Ken Adam’s best work; really good special effects work.

    I can’t deny that it is one of the sillier Bond movies. DAD is often compared to it. The difference for me is that MR fully commits to the type of movie it wants to be right from the start (Jaws landing in a circus tent). DAD starts of as one type of movie but then takes a spectacular turn halfway through, and the tonal dissonance destroys the film as a whole. MR takes you on a ride from beginning to end, and the material is perfect for Roger Moore.
    I’d also add that of the three Lewis Gilbert ‘epic’ Bond movies, MR is the best paced. The only negative I’d have against TSWLM is that it could have had a tighter final act. In comparison, MR gets through it’s finale in a more pleasingly brisk fashion.

    I couldn't have put it any better myself. The difference between MR and DAD is quite simply that one has been made by a team (Gilbert, Barry, Adam, Meddings, Richardson) at the very top of their game and the other most certainly has not.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,113
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    One of my problems with QOS is that while it’s supposed to be a continuation of CR it feels way too aggressively different in style. CR had the right approach, but here comes Marc Forster wanting to do pretentious stuff like cutting back and forth between Bond chasing Mitchell and a horse race, and all done in the same style of filmmaking and editing as the Bourne films. If QOS is supposed to be a follow up it should compliment CR, not take such a drastic stylistic shift.

    I agree, a lot of it falls on Marc Forster not being a Bond fan (aside from CR), writers strike, being a extremely art house director, always making depressing movies and for being difficult to work with. What was Daniel Craig thinking when he recommended him?!
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited September 2020 Posts: 6,788
    -
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited September 2020 Posts: 5,979
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    One of my problems with QOS is that while it’s supposed to be a continuation of CR it feels way too aggressively different in style. CR had the right approach, but here comes Marc Forster wanting to do pretentious stuff like cutting back and forth between Bond chasing Mitchell and a horse race, and all done in the same style of filmmaking and editing as the Bourne films. If QOS is supposed to be a follow up it should compliment CR, not take such a drastic stylistic shift.

    Was QoS, as it is, even necessary? Bond's arc was completed in CR. QoS should have been a standalone adventure--maybe with a hint or two toward Quantum, like FRWL to DN.

    I love Vesper Lynd, and Eva Green even more, but why she needed to be featured in QoS and again in SP is beyond my understanding.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    echo wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    One of my problems with QOS is that while it’s supposed to be a continuation of CR it feels way too aggressively different in style. CR had the right approach, but here comes Marc Forster wanting to do pretentious stuff like cutting back and forth between Bond chasing Mitchell and a horse race, and all done in the same style of filmmaking and editing as the Bourne films. If QOS is supposed to be a follow up it should compliment CR, not take such a drastic stylistic shift.

    Was QoS, as it is, even necessary? Bond's arc was completed in CR. QoS should have been a standalone adventure--maybe with a hint or two toward Quantum, like FRWL to DN.

    I love Vesper Lynd, and Eva Green even more, but why she needed to be featured in QoS and again in SP is beyond my understanding.

    I totally agree about QOS should have been a stand-alone. I’m just saying that because the conceit is that it is a follow up to CR makes me wish it did a better job at it.

    I don’t mind the brief mention of Vesper in SP. Besides, she was brought up in later Fleming novels, showing that she did have a big impact on Bond.
  • 007InAction007InAction Australia
    Posts: 2,354
    1983 was the most controversial year for bond films with these 2 being released at the same time.
    EhWHVmfXsAAdEVE?format=jpg&name=large
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    I would be interested to know the ratio of bond fans that think Never say never again is "okay or great" as compared to bond fans who think it's garbage. Objectively of course, not just out of hatred for old Kevin.

    I for one, hate it and it would easily be in last place if it was EON.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    NSNA isn t great, but it s a top 20 Bond film. Which means ok.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,269
    It’s meh for me. Has its moments but I’m never really in the mood to watch it over any of the EON ones.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    If NSNA ceased to exist, I don’t think I’d miss it.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    I would be interested to know the ratio of bond fans that think Never say never again is "okay or great" as compared to bond fans who think it's garbage. Objectively of course, not just out of hatred for old Kevin.

    I for one, hate it and it would easily be in last place if it was EON.

    It's certainly better than some of the EON films. I'm not sure why anyone could hate it. It's a decent and enjoyable film in its own right, regardless of being a Bond film.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,788
    007InAction wrote: »
    1983 was the most controversial year for bond films with these 2 being released at the same time.
    EhWHVmfXsAAdEVE?format=jpg&name=large

    Both are among my favourites, making 1983 a magical Bond year for me.
  • Herr_StockmannHerr_Stockmann
    Posts: 893
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    I would be interested to know the ratio of bond fans that think Never say never again is "okay or great" as compared to bond fans who think it's garbage. Objectively of course, not just out of hatred for old Kevin.

    I for one, hate it and it would easily be in last place if it was EON.

    Personally, this movie was my first exposure to Bond. I guess subconsciously that must have played into my appreciation of the series, but, honestly, trying to judge it objectively, I'm having a hard time understanding its bad reputation. The film is definitely not in my top 10, and I prefer Thunderball to it, but it has qualities: its pacing, its treatment of Domino's brother, both better in my opinion that in TB, its cast.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    echo wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    One of my problems with QOS is that while it’s supposed to be a continuation of CR it feels way too aggressively different in style. CR had the right approach, but here comes Marc Forster wanting to do pretentious stuff like cutting back and forth between Bond chasing Mitchell and a horse race, and all done in the same style of filmmaking and editing as the Bourne films. If QOS is supposed to be a follow up it should compliment CR, not take such a drastic stylistic shift.

    Was QoS, as it is, even necessary? Bond's arc was completed in CR. QoS should have been a standalone adventure--maybe with a hint or two toward Quantum, like FRWL to DN.

    I love Vesper Lynd, and Eva Green even more, but why she needed to be featured in QoS and again in SP is beyond my understanding.

    Agreed. QOS, is for me, a bottom dweller in the series.

    Its had to follow a classic, having no proper script due to the strike, over stylised action. Lukewarm rehashes of better scenes (grabbing the tie on a ledge, falling out of a plane without a parachute, girl being covered in viscous liquid). A villain that barely has any screen time. A severely undercooked attempt at a Spectre like organisation. And a unnecessary downbeat ending that rehashes what we already knew from CR.

    Its a perfect storm of mediocrity.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,788
    Herr_Stockmann wrote: »
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    I would be interested to know the ratio of bond fans that think Never say never again is "okay or great" as compared to bond fans who think it's garbage. Objectively of course, not just out of hatred for old Kevin.

    I for one, hate it and it would easily be in last place if it was EON.

    Personally, this movie was my first exposure to Bond. I guess subconsciously that must have played into my appreciation of the series, but, honestly, trying to judge it objectively, I'm having a hard time understanding its bad reputation. The film is definitely not in my top 10, and I prefer Thunderball to it, but it has qualities: its pacing, its treatment of Domino's brother, both better in my opinion that in TB, its cast.

    I agree. I still prefer TB and OP, the two films it's usually compared with. But that being said, after my most recent viewing, I think it would crack the upper half of my Bond film ranking.
  • Herr_StockmannHerr_Stockmann
    edited September 2020 Posts: 893
    I also prefer OP, especially for its cinematography which is NSNA principal downside, in my opinion. While Irvin Kershner is a better director than Glen, and Douglas Slocombe a great cinematographer, their work is far from being as magnificent as others of their films. By opposition with the glamorous and elegant atmosphere that emerges for example from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, shot by Slocombe one year after NSNA, his cinematography on the latter is much more televisual, nay cheaper.

    I have other problems with NSNA, but this one is clearly what makes OP superior in my opinion.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited September 2020 Posts: 7,314
    Roadphill wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    One of my problems with QOS is that while it’s supposed to be a continuation of CR it feels way too aggressively different in style. CR had the right approach, but here comes Marc Forster wanting to do pretentious stuff like cutting back and forth between Bond chasing Mitchell and a horse race, and all done in the same style of filmmaking and editing as the Bourne films. If QOS is supposed to be a follow up it should compliment CR, not take such a drastic stylistic shift.

    Was QoS, as it is, even necessary? Bond's arc was completed in CR. QoS should have been a standalone adventure--maybe with a hint or two toward Quantum, like FRWL to DN.

    I love Vesper Lynd, and Eva Green even more, but why she needed to be featured in QoS and again in SP is beyond my understanding.

    Agreed. QOS, is for me, a bottom dweller in the series.

    Its had to follow a classic, having no proper script due to the strike, over stylised action. Lukewarm rehashes of better scenes (grabbing the tie on a ledge, falling out of a plane without a parachute, girl being covered in viscous liquid). A villain that barely has any screen time. A severely undercooked attempt at a Spectre like organisation. And a unnecessary downbeat ending that rehashes what we already knew from CR.

    Its a perfect storm of mediocrity.
    To be fair though, Quantum was set up to be explored further in the next installments, but SF completely ignored this and then SP retconned the whole thing altogether. Had they done things differently and not gone down the Austin Powers route of Bond meeting his brother, it could've turned out much better.

    I realize that I'm in the minority of actually having liked the Quantum organization, but I think it would've been much more interesting to see a new head villain than to lazily rehash Blofeld and SPECTRE.
  • Herr_StockmannHerr_Stockmann
    Posts: 893
    pachazo wrote: »
    I think it would've been much more interesting to see a new head villain than to lazily rehash Blofeld and SPECTRE.
    I quite agree with you on this point. While I don't really like QoS, the germs left for Quantum was, at this time, a prospect far more interesting than the return of Blofeld. I'm not necessarily against the idea of bringing back SPECTRE, but, when Quantum was already established, there was no need to do so.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 15,818
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    007InAction wrote: »
    1983 was the most controversial year for bond films with these 2 being released at the same time.
    EhWHVmfXsAAdEVE?format=jpg&name=large

    Both are among my favourites, making 1983 a magical Bond year for me.

    Me as well. I love both films and place them side by side in my top 10.
Sign In or Register to comment.