Controversial opinions about Bond films

1426427429431432701

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    l would also add to this: a French Bond girl (movie related) who is in the story for family reasons. And a PTS about the death of a SPECTRE agent. But it's the general feel which somehow reminds me of TB.
    Yes, those are interesting similarities, not to mention the funeral sequence (albeit slightly different).
  • Posts: 13,868
    Forgot that one. I wonder if that was intentional.

    Not sure if it's controversial but I used to like TWINE a lot until Michael Apted made me dislike by some comments that I found rather arrogant. I've been finding flaws on the movie since then. Before I knew there were some but overall I thought it was a solid entry. Other truly controversial opinion: its overlong PTS is maybe the weakest of the series.
  • Posts: 16,308
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Forgot that one. I wonder if that was intentional.

    Not sure if it's controversial but I used to like TWINE a lot until Michael Apted made me dislike by some comments that I found rather arrogant. I've been finding flaws on the movie since then. Before I knew there were some but overall I thought it was a solid entry. Other truly controversial opinion: its overlong PTS is maybe the weakest of the series.

    Actually like the PTS very much; maybe more than the rest of the film!
    What comments did Apted make?
  • Posts: 13,868
    He said something like he was the FIRST to have made a female main villain in a Bond movie. Which is utterly false.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    edited February 2018 Posts: 3,204
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Not that controversial, but TB is the only truly good fourth film for any Bond. Something about that number became cursed; the other 3 actors’ fourth movies are all in my bottom five (SP, MR, and DAD).

    When it comes to a controversial opinion concerning each actor's 4th Bond film this is mine: in each case where a Bond actor has made a 4th Bond film, I actually preferred his 4th to his 3rd.

    TB>GF

    MR>TSWLM

    DAD>TWINE

    SP>SF

    MR and TB are among my favorites since MR was the first one I saw in the cinema while TB was the first Connery Bond film I saw after seeing MR the first time. For me, TB is Connery's MR and while MR is Moore's TB and I mean that as a compliment in both cases. TB was also the first Ian Fleming novel I read not long after seeing TB for the first time so that probably adds to my affection for it.
  • I love the PTS. The bankers office is probably Brosnan's best scene as Bond, the way he goes from suave and cracking out the terrible puns to ruthless killer in an instant sums his Bond up perfectly for me. The escape is cool and inventive and a nice showcase of him using his wits, and a great use of the Bond theme (remember that? When it used to exist outside of the credits and wasn't always the CR arrangement?). Then he gets back to MI6 and straight away you know something is off, because no titles. There's an uneasiness about it that builds up to when it all kicks off, and MI6 blows up before they did that idea to death, Bond being attacked on home turf was unheard of back then. I think the boat chase is great and that corkscrew stunt is really underrated, then the balloon bit is very well done, we see Bond actually scared for his life and Cigar girl blowing herself up instantly sells Renard as a threat (and makes the twist more impactful by doing that). By the time an exhausted Bond clings onto the Dome at the last second and finally catches his breath (I really like the theme song and the titles too) I already knew I was going to like it better than TND. I love that film and the PTS is one of my favourites.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He said something like he was the FIRST to have made a female main villain in a Bond movie. Which is utterly false.

    I think it's up for debate to be fair, since it's difficult to point out a clear main villain in FRWL. The threat there is more SPECTRE as an organisation.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He said something like he was the FIRST to have made a female main villain in a Bond movie. Which is utterly false.


    Utterly false? I wou say arguably false myself.

    I agree with @thelivingroyale - the only real contender is Rosa Klebb and as she has Blofeld ordering her about is she actually the main villain?

    Personally I've always had the impression that Apted never really had it on his radar to make a big blockbuster and was rather surprised to be asked. But then he perhaps thought he would regret it if he turned down such a national institution.
  • I think FRWL doesn't really have a main villain. It really is just SPECTRE as a whole. Not that that's a bad thing, I like it, it makes it feel like the odds are really stacked against Bond because it feels like he's actually up against a whole evil organisation instead of just one villain backed by more powerful villains. But I do think it makes what Apted said understandable because Elektra was the clear and cut main villain of TWINE. The film builds up Renard as the threat but he turns out to be a pawn. It's her scheme, she's pulling the strings and she answers to nobody.

    I've always really liked TWINE and I think Apted did a good job. I even like the action, which not a lot of people seem to. I think there are a lot of inventive concepts in the action scenes. Like the caviar factory bit, even ignoring the buzzsaw helicopters he spices up a simple shootout by making it take place on different levels, there's that great bit where Bond pops up through the floor. I think it's a real shame he didn't do DAD personally.
  • Posts: 13,868
    @TheWizardOfIce @thelivingroyale It's not quite true and definitely arguable. Rosa Klebb shares the title with Grant but she definitely deserves it. I'd also say Renard is a main villain as much as Elektra. In any case Apted showed some ignorance there.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger we are in this together
    Posts: 44,848
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Not that controversial, but TB is the only truly good fourth film for any Bond. Something about that number became cursed; the other 3 actors’ fourth movies are all in my bottom five (SP, MR, and DAD).

    When it comes to a controversial opinion concerning each actor's 4th Bond film this is mine: in each case where a Bond actor has made a 4th Bond film, I actually preferred his 4th to his 3rd.

    TB>GF

    MR>TSWLM

    DAD>TWINE

    SP>SF

    Completely opposite for me.
  • edited February 2018 Posts: 16,308
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He said something like he was the FIRST to have made a female main villain in a Bond movie. Which is utterly false.

    Agree with the others that this is probably up for discussion. What he didn't do first, was having a female villain so central to the plot, in that Rosa Klebb is after Bond from start to finish in FRWL.
    I love the PTS. The bankers office is probably Brosnan's best scene as Bond, the way he goes from suave and cracking out the terrible puns to ruthless killer in an instant sums his Bond up perfectly for me. The escape is cool and inventive and a nice showcase of him using his wits, and a great use of the Bond theme (remember that? When it used to exist outside of the credits and wasn't always the CR arrangement?). Then he gets back to MI6 and straight away you know something is off, because no titles. There's an uneasiness about it that builds up to when it all kicks off, and MI6 blows up before they did that idea to death, Bond being attacked on home turf was unheard of back then. I think the boat chase is great and that corkscrew stunt is really underrated, then the balloon bit is very well done, we see Bond actually scared for his life and Cigar girl blowing herself up instantly sells Renard as a threat (and makes the twist more impactful by doing that). By the time an exhausted Bond clings onto the Dome at the last second and finally catches his breath (I really like the theme song and the titles too) I already knew I was going to like it better than TND. I love that film and the PTS is one of my favourites.

    This is Brosnan at peak Bond for me. From all the faults you could find in his last two films, his performances were at his best in TWINE and DAD. Would had loved seeing him doing another one before CR, as I think he could have delivered an even greater performance.
    I've always really liked TWINE and I think Apted did a good job. I even like the action, which not a lot of people seem to. I think there are a lot of inventive concepts in the action scenes. Like the caviar factory bit, even ignoring the buzzsaw helicopters he spices up a simple shootout by making it take place on different levels, there's that great bit where Bond pops up through the floor. I think it's a real shame he didn't do DAD personally.

    Love the action in TWINE. It's the action that makes up for the weaker parts of the film. If there's a scene you don't like, there's always a great action scene just around the corner, making TWINE an entertaining Bond film. Easily better than the action scenes in SP if you ask me.
  • Posts: 13,868
    For the record I love the bank scene. The PTS should have ended there. It was nice, sober efficient. But no Apted wanted to add the boat Chase to it.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,329
    You guys are forgetting Fiona Volpe who manages to boss Largo around when it comes to killing Bond. Allthough Largo is the one executing the plan, it's Fiona who keeps him on track. And way before Elektra she sleeps with Bond without turning 'to the side of right and virtue'.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e il momento che verrà
    Posts: 5,977
    Even so Fiona works for Blofeld in the end.

    I’d say Apted is quite right that Elektra was the very first female Bond main villain. The first female baddie who has to account to no one except herself.

    Also, I’m pretty sure he knew she wouldn’t be the first female who worked for the wrong side as we had Xenia only four years earlier.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 10,632
    Apted isn't wrong. He can support what he said.
  • GamesBond007GamesBond007 Golden Grotto
    Posts: 66
    I would have to side with Apted on this one. I've said it before on these forums but Klebb was a glorified recruiter and nothing more. She basically interviewed two people. It was Kronsteen's plan, Blofeld's organization and Grant as well as Tatiana doing the heavy lifting.

    @thelivingroyale Nice to see some love for TWINE; It being my favourite entry and all. The plot is complex and the characters more nuanced with actual history and relationships that help push the plot yet manages to perfectly balance the more indulgent aspects of the series. I feel that Apted really allowed that film to balance out nicely without ever betraying its soul focus.

    Also +1 for the action sequences. The skiing setpiece, the bankers office, boat chase and helicopter attack are all grade A for me.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger we are in this together
    Posts: 44,848
    The main villain isn t always the same as the top villain.
  • Posts: 1,812
    In my mind, Renard is the main villain. It's his influence that turns Elektra to begin with and it's him and Bond to the end. She may have the means to set everything up, but it's him doing all the heavy lifting. If anything they are co-main villains.
  • Posts: 13,868
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Even so Fiona works for Blofeld in the end.

    I’d say Apted is quite right that Elektra was the very first female Bond main villain. The first female baddie who has to account to no one except herself.

    Also, I’m pretty sure he knew she wouldn’t be the first female who worked for the wrong side as we had Xenia only four years earlier.

    He is wrong as Rosa Klebb was the main antagonist in FRWL at least in equal part with Grant. Now for TWINE Elektra shares her function with Renard. Whatever Apted said about him being a henchman.
  • GamesBond007GamesBond007 Golden Grotto
    Posts: 66
    BT3366 wrote: »
    In my mind, Renard is the main villain. It's his influence that turns Elektra to begin with and it's him and Bond to the end. She may have the means to set everything up, but it's him doing all the heavy lifting. If anything they are co-main villains.

    It's not Renard who influences her decision. She is left at his mercy because M advises her father not to pay the ransom. She then forms an alliance (using him) to take control of the company, kills her father and uses Bond to get herself closer to M. She aligns herself with Renard because they have similar goals. She doesn't care about Renard, he is merely a tool to exact her revenge.

    You may need to watch the film again and pay closer attention. Especially to the torture sequence where all is revealed.

    Renard is by all intents and purposes... the henchman; One of the best I might add.

    I'd also like to point out that she is the one who switches the lapel pin, kidnaps M, uses and tortures Bond, pays off Zukovsky and supplies most of the equipment and the necessary cover to accomplish their goals.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    BT3366 wrote: »
    In my mind, Renard is the main villain. It's his influence that turns Elektra to begin with and it's him and Bond to the end. She may have the means to set everything up, but it's him doing all the heavy lifting. If anything they are co-main villains.

    It's not Renard who influences her decision. She is left at his mercy because M advises her father not to pay the ransom. She then forms an alliance (using him) to take control of the company, kills her father and uses Bond to get herself closer to M. She aligns herself with Renard because they have similar goals. She doesn't care about Renard, he is merely a tool to exact her revenge.

    You may need to watch the film again and pay closer attention. Especially to the torture sequence where all is revealed.

    Renard is by all intents and purposes... the henchman; One of the best I might add.

    I'd also like to point out that she is the one who switches the lapel pin, kidnaps M, uses and tortures Bond, pays off Zukovsky and supplies most of the equipment and the necessary cover to accomplish their goals.

    Agree with all your points except in bold. He's rubbish.
  • What I like about the Renard and Elektra relationship is that even if the twist of her being bad is pretty obvious, they still manage to play with expectations because you're left thinking stockholm syndrome. But instead the brutal terrorist who can't feel pain turns out to be the manipulated one and weirdly sympathetic, while Elektra is the cold mastermind behind everything. I think they're two of the best villains and the relationship between them is one of the best things about TWINE. The scene where she's teasing him in bed is so cruel.

    This might be controversial: in a lot of ways I think TWINE proves wrong a lot of the common criticisms of the Brosnan era. Too formula driven? Christmas feels shoehorned in but apart from that it's full of original ideas and shakes things up in a lot of ways. Too reliant on gadgets? There are gadgets in the film but Bond also uses his wits and feels like a real detective. Too generic and not in the spirit of the original books? I can't be bothered to type it all out again but I made a pretty long post about how it feels very Fleming here

    https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/1678/the-world-is-not-enough-appreciation-thread/p7
  • Posts: 1,812
    BT3366 wrote: »
    In my mind, Renard is the main villain. It's his influence that turns Elektra to begin with and it's him and Bond to the end. She may have the means to set everything up, but it's him doing all the heavy lifting. If anything they are co-main villains.

    It's not Renard who influences her decision. She is left at his mercy because M advises her father not to pay the ransom. She then forms an alliance (using him) to take control of the company, kills her father and uses Bond to get herself closer to M. She aligns herself with Renard because they have similar goals. She doesn't care about Renard, he is merely a tool to exact her revenge.

    You may need to watch the film again and pay closer attention. Especially to the torture sequence where all is revealed.

    Renard is by all intents and purposes... the henchman; One of the best I might add.

    I'd also like to point out that she is the one who switches the lapel pin, kidnaps M, uses and tortures Bond, pays off Zukovsky and supplies most of the equipment and the necessary cover to accomplish their goals.
    All good points, but they still seem like a tandem. I stick to my suggestion that if he hadn't kidnapped her to begin with and influenced her Stockholm Syndrome she wouldn't have turned villain. Sure she does all that you say, but who would suspect her? Renard couldn't have done that by himself.

    I'd rather not rewatch TWINE as it sits at the bottom of my rankings. Although it could be interesting to revisit it to see if I have any change of mind. It feels very by-the-numbers in terms of the tropes and action and the other ideas seem like a dry run for what would be better honed during the Craig era.
  • GoldenGun wrote: »
    Even so Fiona works for Blofeld in the end.

    I’d say Apted is quite right that Elektra was the very first female Bond main villain. The first female baddie who has to account to no one except herself.

    Also, I’m pretty sure he knew she wouldn’t be the first female who worked for the wrong side as we had Xenia only four years earlier.

    Yes. That's how I see it as well. Actually, it's not entirely clear to me how one can see it any different.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e il momento che verrà
    edited February 2018 Posts: 5,977
    This might be controversial, though some might agree as well:

    Even though films like CR and SF offer lots of quality stuff, and are objectively speaking better than the likes of DAF or MR, they just don’t feel like James Bond to me. This is by no means meant as an insult towards the recent films, because they have some fine moments too.

    To me they just feel too different and despite their advantages they don’t have that special place in my heart that other, sometimes more flawed, Bond films have.

    It could be down to me being overly melancholic as the films between 1962 and 1999 turned me into a film fan in general.

    Maybe I’d even go as far as considering AUF, Nightfire and the FRWL game being my favourite Bond items released since 2000.
  • Posts: 19,339
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    This might be controversial, though some might agree as well:

    Even though films like CR and SF offer lots of quality stuff, and are objectively speaking better than the likes of DAF or MR, they just don’t feel like James Bond to me. This is by no means meant as an insult towards the recent films, because they have some fine moments too.

    To me they just feel too different and despite their advantages they don’t have that special place in my heart that other, sometimes more flawed, Bond films have.

    It could be down to me being overly melancholic as the films between 1962 and 1999 turned me into a film fan in general.

    Maybe I’d even go as far as considering AUF, Nightfire and the FRWL game being my favourite Bond items released since 2000.

    I think it is the lack of the gunbarrel and Bond music etc that doesnt help things.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    This might be controversial, though some might agree as well:

    Even though films like CR and SF offer lots of quality stuff, and are objectively speaking better than the likes of DAF or MR, they just don’t feel like James Bond to me. This is by no means meant as an insult towards the recent films, because they have some fine moments too.

    To me they just feel too different and despite their advantages they don’t have that special place in my heart that other, sometimes more flawed, Bond films have.
    I can appreciate where you're coming from. I find the older films a bit more timeless (paradoxically despite their dated elements) and far more rewatchable. I'm not exactly sure why that is, but think it may have something to do with the tone. I tend to prefer films with a lighter tone (angst and drama aren't generally my cup of tea unless it's done very well). Having said that, I really enjoy SF, despite it having a higher share of drama - it's actually the most rewatchable of the Craig films for me. Go figure.
  • Posts: 14,263
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    This might be controversial, though some might agree as well:

    Even though films like CR and SF offer lots of quality stuff, and are objectively speaking better than the likes of DAF or MR, they just don’t feel like James Bond to me. This is by no means meant as an insult towards the recent films, because they have some fine moments too.

    To me they just feel too different and despite their advantages they don’t have that special place in my heart that other, sometimes more flawed, Bond films have.

    It could be down to me being overly melancholic as the films between 1962 and 1999 turned me into a film fan in general.

    Maybe I’d even go as far as considering AUF, Nightfire and the FRWL game being my favourite Bond items released since 2000.

    I tend to watch the Cubby era films far more often than CR or SF. However, when in the mood for it, I enjoy the Craig films quite a bit. Therein lies the problem: I don't have to be in the mood for Roger to enjoy any of his films, I can pop in OP any time and get the same excitement I got in the cinemas in '83. Same with the Connery films.
    The newer films seem almost too prestigious for me.
    barryt007 wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    This might be controversial, though some might agree as well:

    Even though films like CR and SF offer lots of quality stuff, and are objectively speaking better than the likes of DAF or MR, they just don’t feel like James Bond to me. This is by no means meant as an insult towards the recent films, because they have some fine moments too.

    To me they just feel too different and despite their advantages they don’t have that special place in my heart that other, sometimes more flawed, Bond films have.

    It could be down to me being overly melancholic as the films between 1962 and 1999 turned me into a film fan in general.

    Maybe I’d even go as far as considering AUF, Nightfire and the FRWL game being my favourite Bond items released since 2000.

    I think it is the lack of the gunbarrel and Bond music etc that doesnt help things.

    Indeed. That's the one element of the Craig films that angers me to no end. I'm still pi$$ed about QOS's gun barrel and especially SF!!! If I were Bruce Banner I'd be hulking out at this very moment just thinking of the gunbarrel as well as the Bond Theme music.
    Unforgivable dis-respect to the great Maurice Binder, John Barry and Monty Norman for disregarding these elements in the Craig Bonds.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,166
    It might also have to do with how much you can identify yourself with a certain actor. If you watch a film just once or twice that won't matter much. But for being in the mood to watch a film regularly you need to have a certain relation to the actor who personifies Bond. I also find Craig's Bond less likeable than the other Bond incarnations. Maybe that is why I prefer watching the older Bond films.
  • KaijuDirectorOO7KaijuDirectorOO7 Once Upon a Time Somewhere...
    edited February 2018 Posts: 189
    I have a friend who hates Vesper as a character. Even If we've basically canonized her already in the Church of Bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.