What is one Bond film generally not well-regarded but you genuinely can't understand why?

124»

Comments

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,472
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    The Indian parte IS very silly
    peter wrote: »
    But it's not 10 seconds. We can cut a lot.

    Ok, unless you’re counting things I’m not, 🤷‍♂️. The Tarzan scream was what two seconds at the most? That’ll keep you in curry- one or two seconds? Zooming in on breasts? 1 or 2 secs? Sit! One second? Most of these gags are mixed into a larger action sequence… uhm the Bond theme being played by Vijay- 2 seconds? I’m straining here and I have at most 10 seconds of what could be seen as “silly” and I’ll-fitting jokes.

    So, there’s a two hour film that has great tension, two leads with chemistry, a nice dose of Fleming and Fleming-like Cold War espionage, an incredible third act and about ten seconds of jokes…. I’d love to hear what you think should be cut out, and why?

    Well....

    FYEO 90 minutes of spy thriller and 30 minutes of sillines

    OP 90 minutes of sillines against 30 minutes of spy thriller.

    Then you and I are watching two different films. I suppose when one is looking for something, one will usually find it, 🤷‍♂️.

    You can also look for meaning in some posts here where you will never find it.

    Never a truer word written! Agreed, 😂
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,780
    peter wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    The Indian parte IS very silly
    peter wrote: »
    But it's not 10 seconds. We can cut a lot.

    Ok, unless you’re counting things I’m not, 🤷‍♂️. The Tarzan scream was what two seconds at the most? That’ll keep you in curry- one or two seconds? Zooming in on breasts? 1 or 2 secs? Sit! One second? Most of these gags are mixed into a larger action sequence… uhm the Bond theme being played by Vijay- 2 seconds? I’m straining here and I have at most 10 seconds of what could be seen as “silly” and I’ll-fitting jokes.

    So, there’s a two hour film that has great tension, two leads with chemistry, a nice dose of Fleming and Fleming-like Cold War espionage, an incredible third act and about ten seconds of jokes…. I’d love to hear what you think should be cut out, and why?

    Well....

    FYEO 90 minutes of spy thriller and 30 minutes of sillines

    OP 90 minutes of sillines against 30 minutes of spy thriller.

    Then you and I are watching two different films. I suppose when one is looking for something, one will usually find it, 🤷‍♂️.

    You can also look for meaning in some posts here where you will never find it.

    Never a truer word written! Agreed, 😂

    Maybe that fulfils the "you genuinely can't understand why" part of the question? I'll go with that.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,472
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    The Indian parte IS very silly
    peter wrote: »
    But it's not 10 seconds. We can cut a lot.

    Ok, unless you’re counting things I’m not, 🤷‍♂️. The Tarzan scream was what two seconds at the most? That’ll keep you in curry- one or two seconds? Zooming in on breasts? 1 or 2 secs? Sit! One second? Most of these gags are mixed into a larger action sequence… uhm the Bond theme being played by Vijay- 2 seconds? I’m straining here and I have at most 10 seconds of what could be seen as “silly” and I’ll-fitting jokes.

    So, there’s a two hour film that has great tension, two leads with chemistry, a nice dose of Fleming and Fleming-like Cold War espionage, an incredible third act and about ten seconds of jokes…. I’d love to hear what you think should be cut out, and why?

    Well....

    FYEO 90 minutes of spy thriller and 30 minutes of sillines

    OP 90 minutes of sillines against 30 minutes of spy thriller.

    Then you and I are watching two different films. I suppose when one is looking for something, one will usually find it, 🤷‍♂️.

    You can also look for meaning in some posts here where you will never find it.

    Never a truer word written! Agreed, 😂

    Maybe that fulfils the "you genuinely can't understand why" part of the question? I'll go with that.

    You’re right, makes more sense. And eases the blood pressure back to baseline. I also see a few new hairs growing on my bald head.
  • Posts: 7
    The routine slagging that The Man with the Golden Gun gets has always baffled me. It definitely has its issues, but nothing that sinks it compared to its strengths. So many outstanding Bondian elements, coupled with the rather unusual plot, always make it a fun watch for me.

    I even think the much-derided title song is a blast.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,672
    peter wrote: »
    I also see a few new hairs growing on my bald head.
    You must give me the name of your dermatologist.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,472
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I also see a few new hairs growing on my bald head.
    You must give me the name of your dermatologist.

    No problem @j_w_pepper ... His name is Dragonpol. He's part actor, part killer, one hundred percent misunderstood! He can help with any problem, and if it does come to a point where you think there's no solution, don't worry, he's got a neat little cane that can erase any issues...
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited January 1 Posts: 17,780
    peter wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I also see a few new hairs growing on my bald head.
    You must give me the name of your dermatologist.

    No problem @j_w_pepper ... His name is Dragonpol. He's part actor, part killer, one hundred percent misunderstood! He can help with any problem, and if it does come to a point where you think there's no solution, don't worry, he's got a neat little cane that can erase any issues...

    Yes, I wear many different hats thought most of them are black. I'm also happy to see that someone here has read the book I'm in too! :)
  • Jwview008Jwview008 Ohio
    Posts: 11
    Thunderball. Connery is at his peak cool. The three women are hot as hell. It’s in the Bahamas. Widescreen directed by the best bond director. I wish the stealing of the bombs was quicker but no film is perfect. Oh and gorgeous score
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    For me it is AVTAK. I can see its flaws but this film also has a lot of good elememts and overall lots of suspense.

    Many people seem to criticise tfhe film because of Tanja Robert's limited acting skills and Moore's age. For me this does not matter so very much. Stacy Sutton, even though badly acted, at least has some relevance to the plot and an ordinary back story. And, Moore has never been credible in the action scenes in all his films. Actually no Bond film has ever been called realisitic.
  • Posts: 31
    Golden Gun for me. The biggest charge leveled against it is Britt Eklands acting skills on top of the terrible character written for her and the jarring tonal changes we get with the slide whistle and JB Pepper.

    For me, Eklands obvious annoyance of Sir Roger merely adds further surrealism to the most surreal Bond of them all. And the short bursts of silliness are so short they're easily overlooked. This Bond never fails to entertain me and it's in my top ten. Great title tune and score too.
  • Posts: 3,166
    MR.
    Even Bassey hated her song and the audience hated that Bond went into space.

    For me this is peak Bond. The score by Barry, the sets by Adam, the villain's dialogue, the setpieces and locations, Moore at the pinnacle of his career.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,672
    Zekidk wrote: »
    MR.
    Even Bassey hated her song and the audience hated that Bond went into space.

    For me this is peak Bond. The score by Barry, the sets by Adam, the villain's dialogue, the setpieces and locations, Moore at the pinnacle of his career.

    :)>- :)>- :)>-
    (Twenty years ago I would not have expected to ever agree this much.)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Golden Gun for me. The biggest charge leveled against it is Britt Eklands acting skills on top of the terrible character written for her and the jarring tonal changes we get with the slide whistle and JB Pepper.

    For me, Eklands obvious annoyance of Sir Roger merely adds further surrealism to the most surreal Bond of them all. And the short bursts of silliness are so short they're easily overlooked. This Bond never fails to entertain me and it's in my top ten. Great title tune and score too.

    I concur!
  • Loved Moonraker to pieces in 1979 and I've never doubted that love since!
  • Posts: 9,767
    Quantum of Solace
  • Spectre.
  • edited January 30 Posts: 6,798
    Quantum of Solace for me too!
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Quantum of Solace for me too!

    Me three. It's just so lean & mean.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,777
    Back when I became a Bond fan in the late 90's-early 2000's, I just could not get my head around the general dislike of many reviewers towards OHMSS or the Dalton films.

    These days they tend to fare a lot better, which is a good thing.

    Now I have a few soft spots for some of the lesser-liked films of the series, such as TMWTGG or AVTAK, though I do get why they wouldn't appeal to someone.

    I'd say at the moment it's either QOS or SP, especially compared to SF and NTTD. While I tend to prefer QOS or SP, most people prefer SF or NTTD.
  • Posts: 6,798
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Back when I became a Bond fan in the late 90's-early 2000's, I just could not get my head around the general dislike of many reviewers towards OHMSS or the Dalton films.

    These days they tend to fare a lot better, which is a good thing.

    Now I have a few soft spots for some of the lesser-liked films of the series, such as TMWTGG or AVTAK, though I do get why they wouldn't appeal to someone.

    I'd say at the moment it's either QOS or SP, especially compared to SF and NTTD. While I tend to prefer QOS or SP, most people prefer SF or NTTD.

    I'm with you there, much prefer QOS and SP to SF and NTTD!
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,862
    OP and TB

    Both have many fans, but both seem to languish around the middle to bottom areas of many fans lists.
    OP suffers from a few misplaced 'gags' that whilst today's audiences find issue, 80's audiences were far more carefree and easygoing of such things.
    Take away a line or two or a sight gag and OP is a very good spy thriller. But I've probably said that before. ;)
    TB seems to be seen as an overly long and boring film based on it's many underwater scenes. I find it a fine pace, with stunning colour and cinematography.
    It's one of those films I enjoy a little more each time I watch it.
    As a fan, I find I gravitate more towards the films of the 60's and now the 70's.
    Of course, there are most of the 80's films I also love, but the early films are where I find Bond the most interesting and exciting. DN and FRWL especially.
  • JonasTJonasT Washington
    edited March 26 Posts: 8
    Generally speaking, outside of Bond fandom, I think Octopussy gets thought of as 'the one with the (misinterpreted) clown/bomb scene' but glad to see lots of us like it.
    Even on the inside some don't rate Dalton's films but plenty do and I really like View but get the criticism, it irritates me itself for having so much good but not quite right.
    So I'd say Golden Gun.
    Its "not bad, not bad at all" and "does for me very nicely".
    One for the unpopular opinions thread perhaps - but Moore slapping Maud doesn't feel off at all to me, its in keeping with "and I'll kill you if you don't" from LALD and I do like a serious moment amidst the brevity ('made your point') as it lifts both to a higher level.
    Its fun but not fun for funs sake like Diamond's or Moonraker felt and there's plenty of seriousness in to counter that.
  • JonasTJonasT Washington
    Posts: 8
    And the precedent for the Tarzan yell was set in TMWTGG with the slide whistle, which was also a mistake.

    I always took the Tarzan yell to be Bond making the sound. Are you saying you think of it as a sound effect (like the slide whistle), rather than Bond actually mimicking the Tarzan yell?

    In FYEO there's a car horn sound when Bond sees the Citroen. To me, that's allowed, because it's part of the soundtrack that matches the visuals. I never thought the car was actually making that sound. This is why the slide-whistle never seems as bad as the Tarzan yell. It's part of the music soundtrack in a way, (and yes, it's still rubbish).
    But I always took the Tarzan yell to be part of the movie, the same way the 007 theme played on the snake-charmer's flute is.

    That's interesting. The scene is in slow-motion and unabashedly studio edited and not live and were all able to easily phase that out but not the whistle.
  • Posts: 9,767
    Half of my top movies could be in here

    For your eyes only: Moore at his most flemingesque a strong movie

    Both of the dalton films
    The world is not enough (also both games are better then goldeneye)

    And of course Quantum of solace (which almost could be Craig’s best film)

    I almost wish they never did get the rights to Spectre just so i could see what Quantums higher ups looked like
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,780
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Half of my top movies could be in here

    For your eyes only: Moore at his most flemingesque a strong movie

    Both of the dalton films
    The world is not enough (also both games are better then goldeneye)

    And of course Quantum of solace (which almost could be Craig’s best film)

    I almost wish they never did get the rights to Spectre just so i could see what Quantums higher ups looked like

    Those are all solid choices there, @Risico007. You have good taste in Bond films. :)
  • Posts: 9,767
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Half of my top movies could be in here

    For your eyes only: Moore at his most flemingesque a strong movie

    Both of the dalton films
    The world is not enough (also both games are better then goldeneye)

    And of course Quantum of solace (which almost could be Craig’s best film)

    I almost wish they never did get the rights to Spectre just so i could see what Quantums higher ups looked like

    Those are all solid choices there, @Risico007. You have good taste in Bond films. :)

    You are just saying that as Never send flowers is my favorite gardener novel
  • Risico007 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Half of my top movies could be in here

    For your eyes only: Moore at his most flemingesque a strong movie

    Both of the dalton films
    The world is not enough (also both games are better then goldeneye)

    And of course Quantum of solace (which almost could be Craig’s best film)

    I almost wish they never did get the rights to Spectre just so i could see what Quantums higher ups looked like

    Those are all solid choices there, @Risico007. You have good taste in Bond films. :)

    You are just saying that as Never send flowers is my favorite gardener novel

    It's spreading!
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited March 29 Posts: 17,780
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Half of my top movies could be in here

    For your eyes only: Moore at his most flemingesque a strong movie

    Both of the dalton films
    The world is not enough (also both games are better then goldeneye)

    And of course Quantum of solace (which almost could be Craig’s best film)

    I almost wish they never did get the rights to Spectre just so i could see what Quantums higher ups looked like

    Those are all solid choices there, @Risico007. You have good taste in Bond films. :)

    You are just saying that as Never send flowers is my favorite gardener novel

    Is it really? Hopefully I converted you. Welcome to the (sadly quite small) club!
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Half of my top movies could be in here

    For your eyes only: Moore at his most flemingesque a strong movie

    Both of the dalton films
    The world is not enough (also both games are better then goldeneye)

    And of course Quantum of solace (which almost could be Craig’s best film)

    I almost wish they never did get the rights to Spectre just so i could see what Quantums higher ups looked like

    Those are all solid choices there, @Risico007. You have good taste in Bond films. :)

    You are just saying that as Never send flowers is my favorite gardener novel

    It's spreading!

    The eerie gaze of Dragonpol cannot be resisted. Very soon you will all love Never Send Flowers. >:)
Sign In or Register to comment.