Controversial opinions about Bond films

1198199201203204705

Comments

  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited October 2016 Posts: 7,314
    Well, different strokes and all that. Beyond his appearance, I think Connery fits just fine in DAF. Of course, I do prefer his earlier performances when he still cared and had stronger material to work with. However, I think he brought a harder edge to Diamonds that Moore couldn't have provided, and the film works all the better for it.

    I guess you can't take Moore seriously at all, which is a shame, because I do feel like he delivered in a big way in FYEO's dramatic moments. Dalton is a good actor, and I'm sure he could have gotten the job done, but I much prefer the film the way it is. To me, it seems more jarring having the most vengeful Bond (Dalton) trying to stop Melina's revenge operation.
  • edited October 2016 Posts: 15,785
    pachazo wrote: »
    Well, different strokes and all that. Beyond his appearance, I think Connery fits just fine in DAF. Of course, I do prefer his earlier performances when he still cared and had stronger material to work with. However, I think he brought a harder edge to Diamonds that Moore couldn't have provided, and the film works all the better for it.

    I guess you can't take Moore seriously at all, which is a shame, because I do feel like he delivered in a big way in FYEO's dramatic moments. Dalton is a good actor, and I'm sure he could have gotten the job done, but I much prefer the film the way it is. To me, it seems more jarring having the most vengeful Bond (Dalton) trying to stop Melina's revenge operation.

    Couldn't agree more. I think Sean is great in DIAMONDS. Bad-ass yet he has a dry wit and sharp humor. He seems re-energized since YOLT and clearly had a better time on this film.
    As for his appearance, it actually never has bothered me like it does many. I'll admit he does kind of look like someone's dad or a high school gym coach here, but he had just finished The Anderson Tapes, and didn't have time to get back into Bondian shape prior to production. I cut him some slack on that. Interesting how the poster art gives him an almost Steve McQueen hairstyle.
    As for Rog in FYEO, I think it's one of his best performances hands down. He has some wonderful straight dialogue sequences and is genuinely concerned when trapped on top of the ski jump. He also looks tougher and his age works for him rather than against him. I really don't understand many fans obsession with having Tim in this one (or AVTAK). As much as I love The Daltonator, I couldn't dream of replacing Sir Roger in FYEO. In fact I love all three of Roger's 80's Bonds. He had really grown into the part, and is especially bad ass in Eyes Only and Octopussy.
  • Posts: 154
    pachazo wrote: »
    Well, different strokes and all that. Beyond his appearance, I think Connery fits just fine in DAF. Of course, I do prefer his earlier performances when he still cared and had stronger material to work with. However, I think he brought a harder edge to Diamonds that Moore couldn't have provided, and the film works all the better for it.

    I guess you can't take Moore seriously at all, which is a shame, because I do feel like he delivered in a big way in FYEO's dramatic moments. Dalton is a good actor, and I'm sure he could have gotten the job done, but I much prefer the film the way it is. To me, it seems more jarring having the most vengeful Bond (Dalton) trying to stop Melina's revenge operation.

    It's not that I can't take Moore seriously at all, it's just that I can't take him as a serious Bond after the camp Bond he had portrayed in the previous four films. If you're gonna change the nature of the character (which I'm fine with doing every decade or so), you need a new actor.

    You prefer the harder Connery in the comedic DAF because he brought a harder edge to that silly movie than Moore would have delivered (I think Moore would have been better in DAF), but you prefer the comedic Moore in the "serious" FYEO because Dalton would have been too hard/intense. Hmm.

    It seems you simply believe that everything is perfect the way it is, no matter how it is, and there's a lot to be said for that philosophy. I don't say that you're wrong. As you said, different strokes. :-)

  • edited October 2016 Posts: 154
    ToTheRight wrote: »

    Couldn't agree more. I think Sean is great in DIAMONDS. Bad-ass yet he has a dry wit and sharp humor. He seems re-energized since YOLT and clearly had a better time on this film.
    As for his appearance, it actually never has bothered me like it does many. I'll admit he does kind of look like someone's dad or a high school gym coach here, but he had just finished The Anderson Tapes, and didn't have time to get back into Bondian shape prior to production. I cut him some slack on that. Interesting how the poster art gives him an almost Steve McQueen hairstyle.
    As for Rog in FYEO, I think it's one of his best performances hands down. He has some wonderful straight dialogue sequences and is genuinely concerned when trapped on top of the ski jump. He also looks tougher and his age works for him rather than against him. I really don't understand many fans obsession with having Tim in this one (or AVTAK). As much as I love The Daltonator, I couldn't dream of replacing Sir Roger in FYEO. In fact I love all three of Roger's 80's Bonds. He had really grown into the part, and is especially bad ass in Eyes Only and Octopussy.

    I think folks are missing my point.

    I'm not saying that either Connery or Moore delivered bad performances in DAF or FYEO (though in Connery's case, that's debatable), only that those two movies, to me, were both reboots. DAF rebooted Bond into the camp silly era for which Roger was perfect. FYEO rebooted Bond into a more serious era for which Dalton was perfect. Again, I simply believe that if you reboot the character, you should change the actor.

    Out of curiosity, how would you all feel about Brosnan in CR (with everything else about the movie being exactly the same)?

    For me, it's jarring to see the same actor that had portrayed Bond one way, to suddenly see him playing an essentially different character in a movie with a completely different tone. It destroys the continuity.

    I don't pretend the 70s Bond is the exact same character as the 60s Bond, any more than I pretend that the Craig Bond is the same character as the Brosnan Bond. Each time the series is rebooted, I settle in to enjoy a new version of the Bond series as though it was starting fresh for a new audience.

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    THIS is the masterpiece of David Arnold, and I think he has done many for Bond.
    Can't get over the sheer awesomeness of this track!!

    <iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V6TrEULmKvU"; frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,586
    The man had some incredible tunes. I've complimented him on his music on several occasions.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,586
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I admit to taking him for granted for many years. He's no John Barry, nor should he be, but now that he's been absent two films I realize how great a positive impact he had on the franchise. I can't say that I am a fan of every track that Arnold penned, but Newman is weak, repetitive and piss poor in comparison. Get Arnold back!
    Agreed on all counts. However, I think Newman managed to bring some lush romantic queues to the table, but suffered when it came to scoring the action (a lot of which was better in his first effort compared to his second). Arnold excelled in both areas, IMO.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,328
    I give Newman a lot of crap around here but after watching Skyfall, his score for that movie was decent and fit the visuals well. It also had the luxury of being original. The said cannot be said about his work on SP. Aside from 3 select tracks from that score, it's easily the worst. Makes me long for a new Arnold score or someone who is happy to use established Bond themes.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited November 2016 Posts: 7,314
    gklein wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    Well, different strokes and all that. Beyond his appearance, I think Connery fits just fine in DAF. Of course, I do prefer his earlier performances when he still cared and had stronger material to work with. However, I think he brought a harder edge to Diamonds that Moore couldn't have provided, and the film works all the better for it.

    I guess you can't take Moore seriously at all, which is a shame, because I do feel like he delivered in a big way in FYEO's dramatic moments. Dalton is a good actor, and I'm sure he could have gotten the job done, but I much prefer the film the way it is. To me, it seems more jarring having the most vengeful Bond (Dalton) trying to stop Melina's revenge operation.

    It's not that I can't take Moore seriously at all, it's just that I can't take him as a serious Bond after the camp Bond he had portrayed in the previous four films. If you're gonna change the nature of the character (which I'm fine with doing every decade or so), you need a new actor.

    You prefer the harder Connery in the comedic DAF because he brought a harder edge to that silly movie than Moore would have delivered (I think Moore would have been better in DAF), but you prefer the comedic Moore in the "serious" FYEO because Dalton would have been too hard/intense. Hmm.

    It seems you simply believe that everything is perfect the way it is, no matter how it is, and there's a lot to be said for that philosophy. I don't say that you're wrong. As you said, different strokes. :-)
    That's certainly not true for the whole series, just the examples that you listed. For instance, most recently I was extremely disappointed by SP. However, I guess I do consider myself lucky that I enjoy the majority of what we've been given, as some fans seem to think that only a handful of the films are any good. I'm not saying that you feel that way, nor was I trying to criticize anyone in particular. Just an observation.

    And look, of course I understand your point of being thrown off by the change in tone. There are many people who feel that way about SP, as it reminded them of a Brosnan film in many ways, and they didn't like Craig's lighter take on the character. Personally, that aspect didn't bother me much (for the most part). It was mainly the story that I didn't like.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    edited November 2016 Posts: 2,252
    THIS is the masterpiece of David Arnold, and I think he has done many for Bond.
    Can't get over the sheer awesomeness of this track!!

    <iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V6TrEULmKvU"; frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    I prefer this one. Lots of Bond theme motifs


  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,586
    I recognize Quantum as Arnold's best score, quality-wise. But Die Another Day is my personal favorite of his. He was also a master at injecting some of the locales into his music.



  • Posts: 154
    pachazo wrote: »

    And look, of course I understand your point of being thrown off by the change in tone. There are many people who feel that way about SP, as it reminded them of a Brosnan film in many ways, and they didn't like Craig's lighter take on the character. Personally, that aspect didn't bother me much (for the most part). It was mainly the story that I didn't like.

    no worries... :-)

    regarding sp though, i see that as a natural evolution toward more campiness & ott that every rebooted era experiences, rather than a drastic change in tone. sp, to me, was only a little more campy than sf, which was more campy than quantum.

  • @w2bond, I agree, I think Time To Get Out is a perfect opener, and possibly the best track on the soundtrack. However, there's a lot of quality to enjoy - Pursuit at Port au Prince, Camille's Story, Inside Man, Bolivian Taxi Ride, No Interest in Dominic Greene, Night at the Opera, the list goes on. The music and the cinematography is first class in QOS for mine.
  • Well... I think SP's score had a few good moments...
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    I think that Connery in DAF and Moore in FYEO are just perfect. They also help bringing Bond into a new era without giving up everything. So the transition from the campy 70s Bond to a more serious and hard edged 80s Bond film is much smoother.

    In CR it was like a cold withdrawal from the more campy Brosnan era which also worked but also disturbed some more traditional Bond fans.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    GBF wrote: »
    I think that Connery in DAF and Moore in FYEO are just perfect. They also help bringing Bond into a new era without giving up everything. So the transition from the campy 70s Bond to a more serious and hard edged 80s Bond film is much smoother.

    DAF didn't require much acting and it's enjoyable if you accept it for what it is, rather than comparing to DN or FRWL

  • LordBrettSinclairLordBrettSinclair Greensleeves
    Posts: 167
    I think this is controversial.

    I find Roger Moore to be the best James Bond. He invented the character a new after Sean Conney was the original James Bond and very iconic.
    Mr Moore was a new unique version of Bond. A much needed new vision of cinema Bond for 1970's and early 1980's.
    Only his age prevented him from doing more movies.

    His performances are great and he adapted very well to the different kind of films he got. Even when (too) old, he still dominated the screen. Something I don't find true for Mr Brosnan or Mr Craig. Except maybe Goldeneye and Spectre.
    To be fair maybe Mr Craig got too good an ensemble cast in his films, so he could not stick out.

    Don't mean disrespect, but this is a place for controversy.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2016 Posts: 23,883
    @LordBrettSinclair, you won't find me arguing with you on that opinion. Roger Moore was an outstanding James Bond, who did indeed redefine the role. His unique interpretation is iconic to many viewers even today, and I find many of his successors have fallen flat particularly when they try to emulate what Moore did so effortlessly and so well in the humour dept. He is only my #2 Bond because Sean Connery got there first and when he was younger, and therefore his portrayal will always be more definitive. I enjoy both of their films equally and they are both legends imho.
  • Posts: 15,785
    I think this is controversial.

    I find Roger Moore to be the best James Bond. He invented the character a new after Sean Conney was the original James Bond and very iconic.
    Mr Moore was a new unique version of Bond. A much needed new vision of cinema Bond for 1970's and early 1980's.
    Only his age prevented him from doing more movies.

    His performances are great and he adapted very well to the different kind of films he got. Even when (too) old, he still dominated the screen. Something I don't find true for Mr Brosnan or Mr Craig. Except maybe Goldeneye and Spectre.
    To be fair maybe Mr Craig got too good an ensemble cast in his films, so he could not stick out.

    Don't mean disrespect, but this is a place for controversy.

    I love it!!!!!!!!!!! Yes!!!! I always welcome that kind of love for Sir Roger. I'll even go one controversial opinion further and say I believe he was good for at least one Bond after AVTAK. Being as lean as he was in VIEW just added to the age, whereas by 1987 (in Happy Anniversary 007) he looked far better, more like he did in Octopussy.
    Another point I'd make is that in each Bond he did he gave his 110%. There is no film of his in which he looks too bored, or as if he's just coasting along. He was fully engaged in the part. I tie him with Sean as my favorite Bond actually.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Another point I'd make is that in each Bond he did he gave his 110%.

    So it was too much?
  • Posts: 15,785
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Another point I'd make is that in each Bond he did he gave his 110%.

    So it was too much?
    It was more.........much more........Roger Moore!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    That's very true. Roger never did anything half cocked. He was always fully loaded and ready to...to...I don't know, this gun metaphor is going south.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Thinking of it, Moore is the only actor besides Lazenby and Dalton, that I never get tired of, he alone is reason enough to watch any of his movies.
    I can't say this even of Connery, I wouldn't watch YOLT for him, but for the end sequence.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @BondJasonBond006, what, you don't like a Scots-Japanese man? Racist!
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    @BondJasonBond006, what, you don't like a Scots-Japanese man? Racist!

    It's his oil rig. I can't deal with it. It haunts me during the night.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @BondJasonBond006, what, you don't like a Scots-Japanese man? Racist!

    It's his oil rig. I can't deal with it. It haunts me during the night.

    You and your excuses...
  • edited November 2016 Posts: 11,189
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I think this is controversial.

    I find Roger Moore to be the best James Bond. He invented the character a new after Sean Conney was the original James Bond and very iconic.
    Mr Moore was a new unique version of Bond. A much needed new vision of cinema Bond for 1970's and early 1980's.
    Only his age prevented him from doing more movies.

    His performances are great and he adapted very well to the different kind of films he got. Even when (too) old, he still dominated the screen. Something I don't find true for Mr Brosnan or Mr Craig. Except maybe Goldeneye and Spectre.
    To be fair maybe Mr Craig got too good an ensemble cast in his films, so he could not stick out.

    Don't mean disrespect, but this is a place for controversy.

    I love it!!!!!!!!!!! Yes!!!! I always welcome that kind of love for Sir Roger. I'll even go one controversial opinion further and say I believe he was good for at least one Bond after AVTAK. Being as lean as he was in VIEW just added to the age, whereas by 1987 (in Happy Anniversary 007) he looked far better, more like he did in Octopussy.
    Another point I'd make is that in each Bond he did he gave his 110%. There is no film of his in which he looks too bored, or as if he's just coasting along. He was fully engaged in the part. I tie him with Sean as my favorite Bond actually.

    I'd say in AVTAK he coasts through it for the most part. His suave act feels like just that - an act. Moore doing his usual schtick.

    Watching that early scene in the sub iceberg shortly after finishing OP something felt a bit off with Moore in the latter.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I think this is controversial.

    I find Roger Moore to be the best James Bond. He invented the character a new after Sean Conney was the original James Bond and very iconic.
    Mr Moore was a new unique version of Bond. A much needed new vision of cinema Bond for 1970's and early 1980's.
    Only his age prevented him from doing more movies.

    His performances are great and he adapted very well to the different kind of films he got. Even when (too) old, he still dominated the screen. Something I don't find true for Mr Brosnan or Mr Craig. Except maybe Goldeneye and Spectre.
    To be fair maybe Mr Craig got too good an ensemble cast in his films, so he could not stick out.

    Don't mean disrespect, but this is a place for controversy.

    I love it!!!!!!!!!!! Yes!!!! I always welcome that kind of love for Sir Roger. I'll even go one controversial opinion further and say I believe he was good for at least one Bond after AVTAK. Being as lean as he was in VIEW just added to the age, whereas by 1987 (in Happy Anniversary 007) he looked far better, more like he did in Octopussy.
    Another point I'd make is that in each Bond he did he gave his 110%. There is no film of his in which he looks too bored, or as if he's just coasting along. He was fully engaged in the part. I tie him with Sean as my favorite Bond actually.

    I'd say in AVTAK he coasts through it for the most part. His suave act feels like just that - an act. Moore doing his usual schtick.

    Are you saying that Roger dropped the soap in AVTAK before he actually dropped the soap?
  • Posts: 11,189
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I think this is controversial.

    I find Roger Moore to be the best James Bond. He invented the character a new after Sean Conney was the original James Bond and very iconic.
    Mr Moore was a new unique version of Bond. A much needed new vision of cinema Bond for 1970's and early 1980's.
    Only his age prevented him from doing more movies.

    His performances are great and he adapted very well to the different kind of films he got. Even when (too) old, he still dominated the screen. Something I don't find true for Mr Brosnan or Mr Craig. Except maybe Goldeneye and Spectre.
    To be fair maybe Mr Craig got too good an ensemble cast in his films, so he could not stick out.

    Don't mean disrespect, but this is a place for controversy.

    I love it!!!!!!!!!!! Yes!!!! I always welcome that kind of love for Sir Roger. I'll even go one controversial opinion further and say I believe he was good for at least one Bond after AVTAK. Being as lean as he was in VIEW just added to the age, whereas by 1987 (in Happy Anniversary 007) he looked far better, more like he did in Octopussy.
    Another point I'd make is that in each Bond he did he gave his 110%. There is no film of his in which he looks too bored, or as if he's just coasting along. He was fully engaged in the part. I tie him with Sean as my favorite Bond actually.

    I'd say in AVTAK he coasts through it for the most part. His suave act feels like just that - an act. Moore doing his usual schtick.

    Are you saying that Roger dropped the soap in AVTAK before he actually dropped the soap?

    yes...yes I am :p
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    oh you people...I hope Lord Brett Sinclair (love that username) will whip your asses soon for your impertinence.

    Personally Moore is the only thing saving AVTAK from being the worst Bond film by far.

    It may have the best ever Bond theme, one of the best scores and a brilliant gun-barrel and title sequence.
    It may have a great end-game in the mines and on the bridge.

    But the rest is meh...to a point where it all is parody.
Sign In or Register to comment.