› ›

Would you rather watch LTK (79%) OR YOLT (73%)? Rotten Tomato Ranking battles!

1…176177178179181

Comments

  • BT3366BT3366
    Posts: 1,961
    I prefer OHMSS over GE and a good many of the other films in the series. I find GE overrated for the most part for several reasons, whereas OHMSS I find still fresh and exciting each time I watch it.
  • ColonelAdamskiColonelAdamski UK
    Posts: 1,144
    OHMSS for me.

    I'm afraid I was prejudiced against Goldeneye when it came out, simply because it wasn't Tim. I felt short changed that I wasn't getting Dalton adventures, and I'm afraid that's tainted the film for me. I can see it's a top tier Bond film, but it wasn't what I wanted back then.
    I did eventually warm to the Broz Bond of course. I'm not daft. And TND is one of my favourites now.
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 2,967
    OHMSS.
    ... and by some margin too.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,243
    Both are second-tier Bond movies for me. But OHMSS is only second tier because of George, whom to accept as an intelligent secret agent I still have a hard time. Everything else important in the film is top-notch, like locations, cinematography and the Barry score. GE is also definitely top-third of the list, but there is nothing really outstanding about it. So I'll pick OHMSS, even outside the christmas season.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    edited May 18 Posts: 320
    GE has Judi Dench's greatest performance, whilst Michael Kitchen and Bond, Samantha Bond nail Tanner and Moneypenny. Robbie Coltrane and Joe Don Baker both brilliant.

    The modern Bonds owe it a massive debt of gratitude. Best of Brosnan (by some distance) and ultimately better than any Craig.

    Tier One.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited May 19 Posts: 5,237
    OHMSS has its share of flaws in my opinion despite being relatively well regarded now (and I really do love it on the whole, to the point I’d say it’s among the best Bond films). Lazenby’s performance is inconsistent at best and it even ruins what should be some interesting scenes (his ‘resignation’ being an example). I find Bond gets lost a bit as a character during the Piz Gloria scenes due to Lazenby’s inability to play that duality of Bond pretending to be Bray (as well as the weird dubbing). Bond and Tracy are shown to fall in love through a heavy handed montage which isn’t ideal.

    That’s not to say GE’s a perfect film either, even if it’s more to my preference. But I can see why OHMSS has the score it does on RT, even if it’s very good. Both are great, but I think for me it’s a case where GE gets better every viewing (I think it’s one of EON’s great achievements in modern Bond).
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 320
    007HallY wrote: »
    Bond and Tracy are shown to fall in love through a heavy handed montage which isn’t ideal.

    Their relationship blossoms throughout the film. It's even the focus of the PTS. Bond meets her da, ffs!

    I agree on Lazenby but resist the argument Connery would have made it better. Lazenby is suitably vulnerable and plays Bond as a louche playboy. Connery is a better actor, sure, and certainly a better Bond but is too hard. You couldn't imagine him falling for Tracy.

    Also agree on GE. It's got the best cast per character ratio in the series.


  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 1,968
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    Both are second-tier Bond movies for me. But OHMSS is only second tier because of George, whom to accept as an intelligent secret agent I still have a hard time. Everything else important in the film is top-notch, like locations, cinematography and the Barry score. GE is also definitely top-third of the list, but there is nothing really outstanding about it. So I'll pick OHMSS, even outside the christmas season.

    Lazenby's Bond was like a rock star. Tracy was too posh for him which is kind of weird.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 320
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    Both are second-tier Bond movies for me. But OHMSS is only second tier because of George, whom to accept as an intelligent secret agent I still have a hard time. Everything else important in the film is top-notch, like locations, cinematography and the Barry score. GE is also definitely top-third of the list, but there is nothing really outstanding about it. So I'll pick OHMSS, even outside the christmas season.

    Lazenby's Bond was like a rock star. Tracy was too posh for him which is kind of weird.

    They smoked a few spliffs and listened to Def Leppard in the hotel.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,237
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Bond and Tracy are shown to fall in love through a heavy handed montage which isn’t ideal.

    Their relationship blossoms throughout the film. It's even the focus of the PTS. Bond meets her da, ffs!

    I agree on Lazenby but resist the argument Connery would have made it better. Lazenby is suitably vulnerable and plays Bond as a louche playboy. Connery is a better actor, sure, and certainly a better Bond but is too hard. You couldn't imagine him falling for Tracy.

    Also agree on GE. It's got the best cast per character ratio in the series.


    I have no idea if Connery would have played it better. All I can go on is Lazenby’s performance in the film we have.

    For me, there is something a bit lacking until Tracy rescues Bond in Switzerland. The montage feels a bit ham fisted, but it’s ok and does the job considering she’s out of the film for a bit. Not ideal but I guess fine. To be honest rewatching CR/seeing Vesper and Bond’s relationship feels more natural in hindsight.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    edited May 19 Posts: 1,968
    A bored Connery would work great in this movie, but I think it would have needed another Tracy.

    Anyway, this is the movie we have.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,237
    In a way it's strange making it a new actor's first movie - Bond is meant to be pretty jaded in it. Surprised it was even considered as a film so early in the series as it's quite an unusual Fleming novel (and of course YOLT's title had been used with its story scooped away as it were). That said I'm very glad we had it when we did.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,810
    It is a very ambitious film as a debut. They had wanted to shoot it for 4 years before they finally got it right. In some ways the material would have worked better for someone who had played the character for a film or two. They emphasized that this was Bond with touches of DN, FRWL, TB, etc. but this only seems to remind the audience this isn't Sean.

    Okay on to our next battle. I was surprised by the RT scores of both of these films.

    Would you rather watch LTK (79%) OR YOLT (73%)

    Dalton's last film bucks the tropes of the series and does something bold and brash. Cold blooded and not played for laughs this films has gotten better with age. At the time it was perhaps a step too far for some to appreciate and enjoy.

    Rotten Tomatoes says License to Kill is darker than many of the other Bond entries, with Timothy Dalton playing the character with intensity, but it still has some solid chases and fight scenes.

    OR

    Connery's second (or is it third) last time playing Bond. We have incredible sets, notably the volcano lair. A wonderful John Barry score adds to the feel of the film. A strong cast and the first appearance, no longer in the shadows, of Blofeld. Connery doesn't look engaged, but is that what the script calls for or the direction he was getting from Gilbert?

    Rotten Tomatoes states With exotic locales, impressive special effects, and a worthy central villain, You Only Live Twice overcomes a messy and implausible story to deliver another memorable early Bond flick.

    Which one would you rather watch?

    As an FYI, the certified fresh entries of the series are as follows GF, FRWL, GF, CR, DN, SF, TB, NTTD, TSWLM, OHMSS, GE, LTK, YOLT, and TLD. Our next battle will be a Certified Fresh film against a Fresh film.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,237
    LTK for me, hands down.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,531
    007HallY wrote: »
    LTK for me, hands down.

    Ditto! Just had a great rewatch which resulted in the film jumping up a few spots in my rankings!
  • ColonelAdamskiColonelAdamski UK
    Posts: 1,144
    DELLLAA!
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,676
    LTK
  • R1s1ngs0nR1s1ngs0n France
    Posts: 2,232
    YOLT
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 2,967
    YOLT (The only - to date - intersection of Bond and Godzilla!) =D>
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    edited 2:58am Posts: 16,498
    LTK easily.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited 4:06am Posts: 14,415
    Dwayne wrote: »
    YOLT (The only - to date - intersection of Bond and Godzilla!) =D>
    Honorable mention.

    Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019):- Charles Dance as Alan Jonah

    long-live-king.png
    tumblr_px09frGjQZ1s2jfn0o1_500.gif
    b198abe0-3cb1-4841-a25c-436e8e10008c_text.gif
    211606.gif
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 526
    I like them both alot, although both have their faults

    IMDb has YOLT at 6.8 and LTK at 6.7

    I'll give the edge to YOLT for having the unbeatable Volcano Lair
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 15,069
    thedove wrote: »
    Would you rather watch LTK (79%) OR YOLT (73%)
    Watch the birdie, you bastard!
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,497
    LTK without any doubt. Well-paced, good plot, fantastic action and in general just full of energy.

    Yes, YOLT has superior sets and all that, but it's the AVTAK of Connery. Lethargic, and there's no May Day.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 1,968
    YOLT is Connery's weakest movie, but it's still quite watchable. It needed a rewrite.

    LTK is better although a little dry.

    My choice is LTK.
  • ColonelAdamskiColonelAdamski UK
    Posts: 1,144
    It's a tough choice because YOLT has that mazing soundtrack, and so many iconic scenes. LTK doesn't have anything like the fight at Kobe Dock scene, for instance. And the volcano base, wow.
    But Tim's Bond versus Sanchez, you just can't refuse it. Sanchez is one of THE best villains in the series, and Bond 'undercover' infiltrating Sanchez's organisation is edge of your seat stuff.
    YOLT ticks more Bond boxes, but LTK is a better ride.

    I just wish they'd have had Sanchez's reaction to the Felix lighter. He's up in flames before he realises that Bond was avenging Della's death and Felix's mauling.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 8,169
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    LTK without any doubt. Well-paced, good plot, fantastic action and in general just full of energy.

    Yes, YOLT has superior sets and all that, but it's the AVTAK of Connery. Lethargic, and there's no May Day.

    Ditto! LTK is pretty much my favourite now!
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 320
    LTK
    It's Bond at its finest.
    Tier One.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    edited 10:38am Posts: 320
    thedove wrote: »
    It is a very ambitious film as a debut. They had wanted to shoot it for 4 years before they finally got it right. In some ways the material would have worked better for someone who had played the character for a film or two. They emphasized that this was Bond with touches of DN, FRWL, TB, etc. but this only seems to remind the audience this isn't Sean.

    Okay on to our next battle. I was surprised by the RT scores of both of these films.

    Would you rather watch LTK (79%) OR YOLT (73%)

    Dalton's last film bucks the tropes of the series and does something bold and brash. Cold blooded and not played for laughs this films has gotten better with age. At the time it was perhaps a step too far for some to appreciate and enjoy.

    Rotten Tomatoes says License to Kill is darker than many of the other Bond entries, with Timothy Dalton playing the character with intensity, but it still has some solid chases and fight scenes.

    OR

    Connery's second (or is it third) last time playing Bond. We have incredible sets, notably the volcano lair. A wonderful John Barry score adds to the feel of the film. A strong cast and the first appearance, no longer in the shadows, of Blofeld. Connery doesn't look engaged, but is that what the script calls for or the direction he was getting from Gilbert?

    Rotten Tomatoes states With exotic locales, impressive special effects, and a worthy central villain, You Only Live Twice overcomes a messy and implausible story to deliver another memorable early Bond flick.

    Which one would you rather watch?

    As an FYI, the certified fresh entries of the series are as follows GF, FRWL, GF, CR, DN, SF, TB, NTTD, TSWLM, OHMSS, GE, LTK, YOLT, and TLD. Our next battle will be a Certified Fresh film against a Fresh film.

    Can we just have the Bond-offs without invoking rotten tomatoes?

    It's shit.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,497
    Just wondering what 'certified fresh' stands for? Because LALD, FYEO and NSNA are all considered fresh but not 'certified', where lies the difference then?
Sign In or Register to comment.