Bond films that you love, but most others dislike?

145679

Comments

  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,872
    Octopussy for me. Most people I see rank it in the bottom eight, but in my opinion, if you look past a couple of flaws (which really get overexaggerated), it's a fine and very enjoyable film.

    Nothing wrong with love of Octopussy, it's a gem of a movie, seriously underrated by many. Though those who appreciate it seem to see past the minor flaws. I don't need to defend one of the 80's best Bond films, because that would probably bore people.
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I love TLD, but I guess most don't because clearly it turns to crap in the last half.
    I love TND, but I guess most don't because clearly it turns to crap at the last half.
    I love SP, but I guess most don't because clearly it turns to crap in the last half.
    I love YOLT, but I guess most don't because clearly it turns to crap in the last half.
    etc, etc.... 8-}

    @chrisisall you are not alone in your thoughts.
    TLD is one of my favourite Bond films, stunning in nearly every aspect. Better villains and this would've been in the FRWL and OHMSS territory. Dalton makes a stunning debut.
    TND is my favourite of the Brosnan Bonds. GE is good, but too TV movie for me. Pierce is not fully comfortable in the role in GE, but with TND he's more badass, more ruthless. More comfortable. And even though it's non stop action, it works. Maybe a little less on the shoot'em up ship ending.
    SP won me over on my first viewing. Maybe it was because it was the World premiere at The Royal Albert Hall. But in truth, I really enjoy this film. It works for me. I understand it has its detractors, but as a Bond film I like it. Craig is very relaxed, and I get something of a 60's vibe from it. Certainly not as bad a film as some would have you think.
    YOLT is a film that I used to cringe at. Too OTT, but then I saw it for all its glory. Maybe it was Austin Powers that put me off, but this was the original OTT movie. The massive sets, Blofeld, the Japanese location, the sheer scale of the movie. It's beautiful to watch.
    But I'll admit all the above save YOLT struggle in the last third. But that's not enough for this Bond fan to write them off.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    the winking fish has never bothered me. I just assumed that it was on some kind of timer and that was when it was set to blink (like it would again in another sixty seconds or whatever time period elapses between).

    THANK YOU! =D>

    Isn't that obvious? Are you telling me some people think that the fish is winking in reaction to Bond and Pam getting it on? It's just a naff pool decoration isn't it?

    As for TLD lets not skirt the issue here. The Afghanistan scenes are fine. It's just the final bit with Whitaker that's crap.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    As for TLD lets not skirt the issue here. The Afghanistan scenes are fine. It's just the final bit with Whitaker that's crap.[/quote]

    I have always liked the ending. Thought it was suspensefull. Did not know why people hated it. The whole film is just great. It has no flaws. For me it is the perfect Bond film. I even think the villains are OK. A very good movie and a brilliant first Bond film for Dalton.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    But I would not count TLD as a very underrated Bond film. It is usually somewhere around the Top 10 or even much higher. Only few people really dislike the film.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I love TLD, but I guess most don't because clearly it turns to crap in the last half.
    I love TND, but I guess most don't because clearly it turns to crap at the last half.
    I love SP, but I guess most don't because clearly it turns to crap in the last half.
    I love YOLT, but I guess most don't because clearly it turns to crap in the last half.
    etc, etc.... 8-}

    Hey, I love TLD, TND and to a lesser extent, YOLT. YOLT used to be higher up my list, but has slipped down over the years.
    As for SP, that's my call to leave the thread.
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 1,497
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I hated it in 1989, aside from the Fleming scenes. For me, putting it at 12 or 14 is pretty damned good. They don't start becoming overly problematic until around the 17th slot.

    This seems like a fair ranking for LTK. This was the most recent Bond film I saw and was impressed by Robert Davi's presence in the film. Dalton also leaves such a strong impression just with his steely eyes alone, and of course the different approach the film-makers took to the story, adding in the Felix/personal vendetta angle.

    I also share the sentiment that most of the Bond films are heartily enjoyable on the whole. The 12-16th ranked Bond films (or where we start to enter the lower half) are still good Bond films in my book. 17 or so is where we start getting into AVTAK territory of featuring highly questionable film-making choices, but yet there are still some strong redeeming qualities that keep things entertaining.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    JBFan626 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I hated it in 1989, aside from the Fleming scenes. For me, putting it at 12 or 14 is pretty damned good. They don't start becoming overly problematic until around the 17th slot.

    This seems like a fair ranking for LTK. This was the most recent Bond film I saw and was impressed by Robert Davi's presence in the film. Dalton also leaves such a strong impression just with his steely eyes alone, and of course the different approach the film-makers took to the story, adding in the Felix/personal vendetta angle.

    I also share the sentiment that most of the Bond films are heartily enjoyable on the whole. The 12-16th ranked Bond films (or where we start to enter the lower half) are still good Bond films in my book. 17 or so is where we start getting into AVTAK territory of featuring highly questionable film-making choices, but yet there are still some strong redeeming qualities that keep things entertaining.

    When you talk of 'film-making choices', I think the hit rate on the whole substantially falls between solid and exceptional. I don't see too many 'highly' questionable decisions. AVTAK is guilty of a couple of gaffes, but largely I find it to be pretty damn good.

    Rog is clearly the sticking point for a lot of people, but that aside I think it has a decent premise, some highly original and brilliant location work, a wonderful score and two of the iconic villains. The California Girls moment and some questionable use of obvious doubles aren't exactly top drawer, but on the whole I think it's pretty great. It's combination of locations is superb.

    Which reminds me, is there a thread on most appealing Bond films based on location? I think it's a real skill perfecting the blend of locales and a fascinating one to observe. AVTAK would be right up there for me.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'll have to watch this one again to see what everyone's on about re: locations. Outside of Paris, I didn't think it used the locations all that well. There was something decidedly unglamorous about it to me (although I realize it's difficult to make a mine glamorous).

    I have to see it again. Perhaps it was the clothing which is dated. Something just gave off a tv vibe.
  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2016 Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'll have to watch this one again to see what everyone's on about re: locations. Outside of Paris, I didn't think it used the locations all that well. There was something decidedly unglamorous about it to me (although I realize it's difficult to make a mine glamorous).

    I have to see it again. Perhaps it was the clothing which is dated. Something just gave off a tv vibe.

    Possibly, it boils down to taste most definitely. I don't think it's glamourous, just unique. I like Bonds that have a unique identity and I feel like AVTAK really delivers that.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'll have to watch this one again to see what everyone's on about re: locations. Outside of Paris, I didn't think it used the locations all that well. There was something decidedly unglamorous about it to me (although I realize it's difficult to make a mine glamorous).

    I have to see it again. Perhaps it was the clothing which is dated. Something just gave off a tv vibe.

    Possibly, it boils down to taste most definitely. I don't think it's glamourous, just unique. I like Bonds that have a unique identity and I feel like AVTAK really delivers that.
    I remember the stables looking very impressive as well. I think San Fran was a missed opportunity personally - compared to films like Bullitt, the Rock and the like. I don't think they made the most of that great locale. Plus, I remember not liking Rog's leather jacket. Like I said, I'll definitely watch it again soon.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    San Francisco is my favourite city in the world, so I have a soft spot for AVTAK's use of locations (even if the geography doesn't always add up).
  • Posts: 1,497
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'll have to watch this one again to see what everyone's on about re: locations. Outside of Paris, I didn't think it used the locations all that well. There was something decidedly unglamorous about it to me (although I realize it's difficult to make a mine glamorous).

    I have to see it again. Perhaps it was the clothing which is dated. Something just gave off a tv vibe.

    Possibly, it boils down to taste most definitely. I don't think it's glamourous, just unique. I like Bonds that have a unique identity and I feel like AVTAK really delivers that.
    I remember the stables looking very impressive as well. I think San Fran was a missed opportunity personally - compared to films like Bullitt, the Rock and the like. I don't think they made the most of that great locale. Plus, I remember not liking Rog's leather jacket. Like I said, I'll definitely watch it again soon.

    Agreed there. Also Paris could have been better use to capture the romance and charm of the city. The plot also feels a bit recycled from GF. The casting for Stacy I found a bit questionable, though the actual character is ok with her backstory. The fire engine chase scene is a bit dull. The love scene with Bond and May Day feels awkward and unsexy. And while I'm happy to see Rog have one more go round, it does make the production feel a bit tired. I do like the horse race sequences, Bond using his wits to stay alive underwater, and the finale is pretty exciting. Again, all IMO. So on the whole not bad, it's just the issues for me start to creep up, and I can't put the film in the same league as say TSWLM, TB or FRWL. That was my original point, the majority of Bond films are still on the whole enjoyable.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,690
    It's just the final bit with Whitaker that's crap.
    I love the the way that dumass bought it. Smooshed on his stupid game table. How fitting.
    =D>
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    JBFan626 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'll have to watch this one again to see what everyone's on about re: locations. Outside of Paris, I didn't think it used the locations all that well. There was something decidedly unglamorous about it to me (although I realize it's difficult to make a mine glamorous).

    I have to see it again. Perhaps it was the clothing which is dated. Something just gave off a tv vibe.

    Possibly, it boils down to taste most definitely. I don't think it's glamourous, just unique. I like Bonds that have a unique identity and I feel like AVTAK really delivers that.
    I remember the stables looking very impressive as well. I think San Fran was a missed opportunity personally - compared to films like Bullitt, the Rock and the like. I don't think they made the most of that great locale. Plus, I remember not liking Rog's leather jacket. Like I said, I'll definitely watch it again soon.

    Agreed there. Also Paris could have been better use to capture the romance and charm of the city. The plot also feels a bit recycled from GF. The casting for Stacy I found a bit questionable, though the actual character is ok with her backstory. The fire engine chase scene is a bit dull. The love scene with Bond and May Day feels awkward and unsexy. And while I'm happy to see Rog have one more go round, it does make the production feel a bit tired. I do like the horse race sequences, Bond using his wits to stay alive underwater, and the finale is pretty exciting. Again, all IMO. So on the whole not bad, it's just the issues for me start to creep up, and I can't put the film in the same league as say TSWLM, TB or FRWL. That was my original point, the majority of Bond films are still on the whole enjoyable.

    I don't agree on that. Ok, actually any location could have been used better, however, I think they made a very good job in AVTAK, especially in San Francico. Just think of all the great locations they used in that film. The Eiffel Tower, Ascott Race Track, the Chateau with the stables, the City Hall (again very beautifull), Stacey's house, Mines (very cool) and finally the GG Bridge. I am sorry but I don't know any Bond flm with more beautifull and memorable locations. I also like that they stay in SF quiet a long time. It is not rushed. Bond meets Chuck Lee at the Docks and he talks to the fishermen and afterwards with Howe in the City Hall. I really like it to be made this way. In many other bond fims there are simply too many locations and you don't really care for any of these. Like in Spectre Bond just rushs from one place to the other. He never talks to any locals. You also don't really see how he moves from one place to the other, except for the train scene.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,690
    GBF wrote: »
    I also like that they stay in SF quiet a long time. It is not rushed. Bond meets Chuck Lee at the Docks and he talks to the fishermen and afterwards with Howe in the City Hall. I really like it to be made this way. In many other bond fims there are simply too many locations and you don't really care for any of these. Like in Spectre Bond just rushs from one place to the other. He never talks to any locals. You also don't really see how he moves from one place to the other, except for the train scene.
    Full on agreement here. The ADD style of film-making needs to be given a rest every once in a while.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    Tomorrow never Dies
    The World is not enough
    Die another Day
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 1,595
    RC7 wrote: »
    Possibly, it boils down to taste most definitely. I don't think it's glamourous, just unique. I like Bonds that have a unique identity and I feel like AVTAK really delivers that.

    Yeah absolutely. I like the uniqueness. It's a very, very weird movie (some intentional ways, some not haha). Love it. So, my list of Bond films I love that most dislike -

    Diamonds are Forever
    Moonraker
    A View to a Kill
    Die Another Day - First hour and change

    Throw in TND, but I don't LOVE that movie, I just have more fun with it and rate it a bit higher than many (mid teens like 15-18).
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Birdleson wrote: »
    DRush76 wrote: »
    "QUANTUM OF SOLACE". Not many people liked this movie. But it's 11th ranked with me, as far as Bond movies are concerned.

    It's actually got a sizable fan base on here (me included). Being near or on quite a few Top Ten lists.

    Yea I don't remember where I placed QoS but it deserves way more credit than it gets. Maybe not compared to CR ..as we did then but compared to SP it's a freaking masterpiece.
  • Posts: 14,816
    I'd say QOS, but I'm not so sure anymore that it is generally hated.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    Not sure if I've posted here before, but the biggest one that comes to mind is Octopussy, just because I still haven't seen a proper reason for hating it and putting in the worst tier of Bonds (along with AVTAK and DAD).

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    DRush76 wrote: »
    "QUANTUM OF SOLACE". Not many people liked this movie. But it's 11th ranked with me, as far as Bond movies are concerned.

    It's actually got a sizable fan base on here (me included). Being near or on quite a few Top Ten lists.

    Yea I don't remember where I placed QoS but it deserves way more credit than it gets. Maybe not compared to CR ..as we did then but compared to SP it's a freaking masterpiece.

    Hyperbole Boy wants his pants back.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I have to agree with him. Watching them back to back, QOS shines in comparison.

    To call QoS a masterpiece, in any context, is hyperbole.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited February 2016 Posts: 1,984
    I have to disagree. Waltz may not be the best villain, but he outclasses Amalric. Swann is also better than any Bond girl from QoS (Strawberry Fields, especially). QoS has a better score and Craig's performance might be better, but the action in SP is cut better, the theme song/gunbarrel are leagues ahead, and there's not as much senseless action - there's actually time to breathe and catch up with the film.

    They're both wrought with horrendous references to previous Bond films, though, and both have stupid plots. QoS is definitely more in tune with CR, while SP works against Craig's previous Bonds. That being said, SP's also far more appealing aesthetically and the humour's certainly improved.

    With regards to "good scenes', SP probably has more. The SPECTRE meeting is just as good as the opera scene in QoS, and QoS doesn't really have a lot of other good scenes, maybe the final scene with M and the scene with Mr White. SP still has the funeral scene and the scene where Bond goes to Lucia Sciarra's house, plus it's own scene with Mr White.

    I know people are entitled to their own opinions, but I'm not seeing where QoS is so dramatically superior to SP. In fact, I find SP superior by a slight margin, mostly because the cast is better and it's just more entertaining to watch. The action scenes aren't phenomenal, but at least they aren't horrendously edited.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Well said, FYEO.
  • @ForYourEyesOnly
    I agree with pretty much everything you say, and agree with your conclusion - QOS is not dramatically superior at all to SP, SP is definitely better.

    Although I would say that some of the 'good scenes' in SP are not really good scenes... The Spectre meeting I know is a throwback to TB, but god in this day and age it seems like a kid wrote that scene, it seems so childish... Cliche to say the least. Introducing a villain by having them in the shadows? Really? And I'm not entirely sure how and why people are praising the funeral scene as one of the best scenes of SP, I don't see it at all. Tosca scene really is much better than either.

    The Mr. White scene and the execution of Lucia Sciarra were both very good scenes though. And also people seem to forget that very amusing scene right after Madeleine says "so what do we do now".
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    And also people seem to forget that very amusing scene right after Madeleine says "so what do we do now".

    Originally the punchline was for Bond to say in that scene (from the leaked scripts), where he'd say "I thought he'd never shut up." which was a reference to Hinx's nonspeaking attitude. :))

    I would've loved that.
  • That would've been good to! But the scene works as it is.
    Though you are right, Bond could have benefited from more killer one-liners! Only one I can remember right now is 'Bottoms up' and it wasn't even that good.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    That would've been good to! But the scene works as it is.
    Though you are right, Bond could have benefited from more killer one-liners! Only one I can remember right now is 'Bottoms up' and it wasn't even that good.
    Yes, it would've been very good to use the "Bottoms Up" line more dramatically and arrogantly, but it was uttered too fast it didn't mean much to the viewer. At least to me. And I, for one, when I was actually aware of the scene beforehand, loved the line. It was wasted. But ah well...
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    I don't even remember that line..
  • @mcdonbb
    It's in the PTS, after Bond eavesdrops on Sciarra's conversation and just before he shoots and kills the men inside as they are drinking.
Sign In or Register to comment.