›

Controversial opinions about Bond films

1…272273275277278…705

Comments

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited March 2017 Posts: 5,131
    BMW_with_missiles wrote: »
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    Brosnans the coolest bond by far

    Agreed!

    Brosnan is the least coolest Bond. The only thing he is better for is that he is maybe the best looking and has the best hair. Coolest.....no chance.

    Even in GoldenEye, generally considered to be the best of Brosnan's films, his 007 is smug and smarmy in a way Connery and Roger Moore never were. Not cool.

    The movie is only saved by a decent storyline, strong direction from Martin Campbell (later to take the reins for Casino Royale) and a decent villain in Sean Bean's multi-layered Alec Trevelyan.

    Worse still, in an era where adult themes had re-permeated mainstream Hollywood to the greatest extent since the 1970s, the Brosnan Bond carries little or no physical threat. Even early Roger Moore was steely and cold-blooded enough to threaten Gloria Hendry's double-crossing Rosie Carver with her life in the underrated Live and Let Die. Brosnan 007 is a purring pussycat by comparison. Not cool.

    By the time 2002's Die Another Day had rolled around, with its ridiculous invisible car, video-game style special effects and terrible Madonna cameo, Bond had lost all credibility. Not cool.

    Other crimes of the Brosnan era include The World Is Not Enough's Christmas Jones, Denise Richards' crop-topped nuclear physicist, or the not-so terrifying threat in 1997's Tomorrow Never Dies: a media baron (played by Jonathan Pryce) who mounts a cunning scheme to provoke world war three using the power of newspapers and GPS. Even Donald Pleasance in You Only Live Twice had a better plan than that. Not cool.

    Rewatching the films, even Brosnan fans must surely accept that he was never the new Connery, but rather a sort-of strangely flat Roger Moore – without even the charm, screen presence and natural gift for comedy that old raised eyebrow delivered in spades. Not cool.

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/apr/14/pierce-brosnan-james-bond-never-good-enough.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I think you give both Brosnan and GE too much credit here.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    I think you give both Brosnan and GE too much credit here.

    Ha ha ha. He has the best hair at least.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    At least it is his own.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    True @Thunderfinger. Very True.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I find it amusing that most of the time someone jumps to Brosnan's defense it's to comment on him looking good. He did look good always and he delivered half decent box office, especially compared to his immediate predecessor who was a let down in this respect. Pierce had better hair than Tim also. That was never the problem.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I honestly don t find him good looking, either.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    It's the only category he can win compared to the other actors. GE lacks the Fleming spirit of Timothy Dalton's two cracking adventures, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL. This film, alone, earned twice as much as those two and in a way it's sad because it shows that people are coming to watch Bond films that now concentrate on action, modern technology etc, rather than the classic Fleming elements of the early Connery era.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    Ok so what are your hair rankings?

    I would say:

    1. Brosnan
    2. Moore
    3. Lazenby
    4. Dalton
    5. Craig
    6. Connery
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    GBF wrote: »
    Ok so what are your hair rankings?

    I would say:

    1. Brosnan
    2. Moore
    3. Lazenby
    4. Dalton
    5. Craig
    6. Connery
    I think that's about right. Dalton had quite a bit of hair in TLD but by LTK there were evident issues.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Rewatching the films, even Brosnan fans must surely accept that he was never the new Connery, but rather a sort-of strangely flat Roger Moore – without even the charm, screen presence and natural gift for comedy that old raised eyebrow delivered in spades. Not cool.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    GBF wrote: »
    Ok so what are your hair rankings?

    I would say:

    1. Brosnan
    2. Moore
    3. Lazenby
    4. Dalton
    5. Craig
    6. Connery

    I would say:

    1. Brosnan
    2. Lazenby
    3. Moore
    4. Craig
    5. Dalton
    6. Connery
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Rewatching the films, even Brosnan fans must surely accept that he was never the new Connery, but rather a sort-of strangely flat Roger Moore – without even the charm, screen presence and natural gift for comedy that old raised eyebrow delivered in spades. Not cool.
    This has been my view for some time. There was promise in GE, but it dissipated over the next films, with a small respite in certain scenes in DAD.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Agreed.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I've never understood the claim that Brozza lacks a screen presence. Yes he seems lightweight physically sometimes but his striking good looks make him stand out on screen.
  • MilovyMilovy
    Posts: 676
    GBF wrote: »
    Ok so what are your hair rankings?

    I would say:

    1. Brosnan
    2. Moore
    3. Lazenby
    4. Dalton
    5. Craig
    6. Connery
    Is this best hair, or most hair? Cause Brosnan wins most hair in GE for sure. ;)
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I've never understood the claim that Brozza lacks a screen presence. Yes he seems lightweight physically sometimes but his striking good looks make him stand out on screen.
    Lightweight vocally, too.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Milovy wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I've never understood the claim that Brozza lacks a screen presence. Yes he seems lightweight physically sometimes but his striking good looks make him stand out on screen.
    Lightweight vocally, too.
    That's for sure. He is the one who made me realize how important it is for a Bond actor to have an assertive, strong voice.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Yes his voice is questionable sometimes I'll admit that.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    bondjames wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Rewatching the films, even Brosnan fans must surely accept that he was never the new Connery, but rather a sort-of strangely flat Roger Moore – without even the charm, screen presence and natural gift for comedy that old raised eyebrow delivered in spades. Not cool.
    This has been my view for some time. There was promise in GE, but it dissipated over the next films, with a small respite in certain scenes in DAD.

    There was promise of full degeneration, and they delivered.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Agreed..he hasn't the strongest of voices,quite high.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    You don't have a career like Brosnan's without screen presence. He's got it.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    Milovy wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    Ok so what are your hair rankings?

    I would say:

    1. Brosnan
    2. Moore
    3. Lazenby
    4. Dalton
    5. Craig
    6. Connery
    Is this best hair, or most hair? Cause Brosnan wins most hair in GE for sure. ;)
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I've never understood the claim that Brozza lacks a screen presence. Yes he seems lightweight physically sometimes but his striking good looks make him stand out on screen.
    Lightweight vocally, too.

    Or DAD :-) if you think of a particular scene :-)
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I think Roger has the most notorious hair in his later films. It's like his hair piece was later borrowed by Donald Trump.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I think Roger has the most notorious hair in his later films. It's like his hair piece was later borrowed by Donald Trump.
    I think he definitely used the most hair spray. The mop was permanently affixed in the same place and almost never moved towards the end.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,791
    RC7 wrote: »
    MrKissKissBangBang wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    This will be very controversial, but after watching Casino Royale yesterday I must say that

    I don't like the parkour chase so very much anymore.

    I remember that I quite enjoyed it the first time I saw it but meanwhile I find it a bit too excessive as if it was a relict of the Brosnan era. There is amazing stunt work and great cinematography but I find it goes too far into superhero territory... I mean no real man, even the very best spy would risk his life in such a way, as well as the life of the person he actually wants to interrogate and the life of all the many people working on this construction site. I mean a professional killer would simply not do that. He would not cause any attention. And actually Bond was just lucky not to be shot by Molaka.

    Of course chases like this have happened before in the franchise but then it was usually not taken so very seriously and the scenes were rather lighthearted. Here, however, the tone is really serious and the scenes are brutal and Bond feels more like Rambo or the Terminator.

    I further think that the chase sequence is a big missed opportunity. One could have used it to introduce us to Molaka, as a great main henchman. There has never been such a fast runner in the Bond franchise. Why not let Molaka escape and give him another scene (eg. at Miami airport). Unfortunately, we get so many minor villains in CR who are only there for one scene and are always killed by Bond. It would have also been nice to show that Bond is not always successfull. This makes the action much less predictable.

    Another issue I have is that Bond is simply crossing a line by storming an embassy. I mean seriously? Can anyone imagine to what a diplomatic crisis this would have led? Even though Bond is not experienced and has just earned the 00 status, this can hardly be justified by anything.

    Finally I find that the parkour chase and the embassy scene are not motivated very well. I mean OK, unfortunately Molaka suddenly knows that he is observed and runs away. So what? Try to follow him and if this is not possible let him escape and get him the next time. He is on an island and it won't be so easy for him escape from there.

    I know it is very controversial but it is my honest opinion :-)

    Exactly right! If the film is inviting us to take it seriously, it needs the substance to back it up. It's a contrived sequence.

    It's not a controversial opinion in my view. Just a well informed one. :)

    Contrarian bollocks.

    It's not bollocks because you disagree with it, after all this is a controversial opinion thread.

    People should learn to live with the fact that opinions can differ.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    MrKissKissBangBang wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    This will be very controversial, but after watching Casino Royale yesterday I must say that

    I don't like the parkour chase so very much anymore.

    I remember that I quite enjoyed it the first time I saw it but meanwhile I find it a bit too excessive as if it was a relict of the Brosnan era. There is amazing stunt work and great cinematography but I find it goes too far into superhero territory... I mean no real man, even the very best spy would risk his life in such a way, as well as the life of the person he actually wants to interrogate and the life of all the many people working on this construction site. I mean a professional killer would simply not do that. He would not cause any attention. And actually Bond was just lucky not to be shot by Molaka.

    Of course chases like this have happened before in the franchise but then it was usually not taken so very seriously and the scenes were rather lighthearted. Here, however, the tone is really serious and the scenes are brutal and Bond feels more like Rambo or the Terminator.

    I further think that the chase sequence is a big missed opportunity. One could have used it to introduce us to Molaka, as a great main henchman. There has never been such a fast runner in the Bond franchise. Why not let Molaka escape and give him another scene (eg. at Miami airport). Unfortunately, we get so many minor villains in CR who are only there for one scene and are always killed by Bond. It would have also been nice to show that Bond is not always successfull. This makes the action much less predictable.

    Another issue I have is that Bond is simply crossing a line by storming an embassy. I mean seriously? Can anyone imagine to what a diplomatic crisis this would have led? Even though Bond is not experienced and has just earned the 00 status, this can hardly be justified by anything.

    Finally I find that the parkour chase and the embassy scene are not motivated very well. I mean OK, unfortunately Molaka suddenly knows that he is observed and runs away. So what? Try to follow him and if this is not possible let him escape and get him the next time. He is on an island and it won't be so easy for him escape from there.

    I know it is very controversial but it is my honest opinion :-)

    Exactly right! If the film is inviting us to take it seriously, it needs the substance to back it up. It's a contrived sequence.

    It's not a controversial opinion in my view. Just a well informed one. :)

    Contrarian bollocks.

    It's not bollocks because you disagree with it, after all this is a controversial opinion thread.

    People should learn to live with the fact that opinions can differ.

    Yeah, and it's my opinion that it's contrarian bollocks.
  • GamesBond007GamesBond007 Golden Grotto
    Posts: 66
    @bondjames I am pretty sure Roger was wearing a helmet by the time AVTAK was made.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    It sure seemed that way @GamesBond007. I've never seen hair stay so perfectly in place during action scenes.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,548
    That's because, @bondjames, Sir Rog wasn't IN any of the action scenes.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    RC7 wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    MrKissKissBangBang wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    This will be very controversial, but after watching Casino Royale yesterday I must say that

    I don't like the parkour chase so very much anymore.

    I remember that I quite enjoyed it the first time I saw it but meanwhile I find it a bit too excessive as if it was a relict of the Brosnan era. There is amazing stunt work and great cinematography but I find it goes too far into superhero territory... I mean no real man, even the very best spy would risk his life in such a way, as well as the life of the person he actually wants to interrogate and the life of all the many people working on this construction site. I mean a professional killer would simply not do that. He would not cause any attention. And actually Bond was just lucky not to be shot by Molaka.

    Of course chases like this have happened before in the franchise but then it was usually not taken so very seriously and the scenes were rather lighthearted. Here, however, the tone is really serious and the scenes are brutal and Bond feels more like Rambo or the Terminator.

    I further think that the chase sequence is a big missed opportunity. One could have used it to introduce us to Molaka, as a great main henchman. There has never been such a fast runner in the Bond franchise. Why not let Molaka escape and give him another scene (eg. at Miami airport). Unfortunately, we get so many minor villains in CR who are only there for one scene and are always killed by Bond. It would have also been nice to show that Bond is not always successfull. This makes the action much less predictable.

    Another issue I have is that Bond is simply crossing a line by storming an embassy. I mean seriously? Can anyone imagine to what a diplomatic crisis this would have led? Even though Bond is not experienced and has just earned the 00 status, this can hardly be justified by anything.

    Finally I find that the parkour chase and the embassy scene are not motivated very well. I mean OK, unfortunately Molaka suddenly knows that he is observed and runs away. So what? Try to follow him and if this is not possible let him escape and get him the next time. He is on an island and it won't be so easy for him escape from there.

    I know it is very controversial but it is my honest opinion :-)

    Exactly right! If the film is inviting us to take it seriously, it needs the substance to back it up. It's a contrived sequence.

    It's not a controversial opinion in my view. Just a well informed one. :)

    Contrarian bollocks.

    It's not bollocks because you disagree with it, after all this is a controversial opinion thread.

    People should learn to live with the fact that opinions can differ.

    Yeah, and it's my opinion that it's contrarian bollocks.

    But your opinion is nor controversial and this is the controversial thread :-)

    I also wish that people here would debate more by reading and discussing the arguments of other members before criticizing their controversial opinions. I disagree quite often with other controversial views but can mostly understand them if they are well explained.
Sign In or Register to comment.