29 replies to this topic

[Colossus]

The Video and DVD Movie Guide has been said the best all-around and most authorative movie guide ever. I bought the recent 2006 volume and here are all the star rankings out of 5 for each Bond movie. Instead of just listing all the movies chronologically i'll put it ratings wise with the highest rated top and so forth. Do you agree with these or not?

I can type out the summary written for each one just tell me which ones.

[Qwerty]

Movie-wise... no (for some of them).

Once again Moonraker is at the bottom of the pile when it should be much, much higher. I'm a little surprised films like Thunderball and The Living Daylights aren't higher and that Never Say Never Again is as high as it is.

[Kronsteen]

Never Say Never Again at the top, with 4

[Skudor]

What strange ratings.... FRWL, makes sense. NSNA - you what?

I guess it's an interesting perspective from a non-Bond-fanatic source.

And Moonraker deserves a much higher spot. At least they got OHMSS pretty much right.

[Johnboy007]

Never Say Never Again one of the top two Bond movies?

Yeah, right.

[Colossus]

Here's the summary for NSNA
"Sean Connery returns to the role of James Bond in this high-style, tongue-in-cheek remake of Thunderball. Once again, agent 007 goes up against the evil Largo, the sexy and deadly Fatima, and the ever-present head of SPECTRE, Blofeld. Action-packed and peppered with laughs."

Did anyone expect Irvin Kershner to suddenly lose his talent after Empire Strikes Back? This guy was teaching young filmmakers in college like Lucas... been directing character-driven films since the 60s

[dinovelvet]

[quote name='Colossus' date='17 January 2006 - 03:08']

[Quartermaster007]

Die Another Day, Four stars?

[triviachamp]

[quote name='Colossus' date='17 January 2006 - 03:08']

[Spurrier]

Those ratings must have been determined on April 1.

[Turn]

We had a similar thread about movie guides a while back. A lot of these are written by freelancers, not necessarily by serious film critics or anything, so it's all subjective.

My big shock is how Casino Royale '54 could rate four stars.

[Scottlee]

I've sat and read previous versions of that film guide book for hours on end, but I'll never agree with its view of the Bond world if NSNA is apparantly the second best of the series.

I do remember one funny thing that stuck with me from the text though (probably from the 2001 edition), which was when Roger Moore was criticized for "turning Bond into nothing more than a smirking dinner jacket".

[Colossus]

Well i think they rate it on how well the film is constructed, if it sets out what it intends to do, and a moving probable plot. I have to add that the summaries for movies as low as *** are positive. On the whole the Bond series has been pretty good, again it's not Shakespeare these films and the stories were thought up already ingeniously by Fleming. =)

[Double-Oh Agent]

Never Say Never Again tied for the top spot of the Bond series? Did DLibrasnow do these reviews?

[Blofeld's Cat]

Must be referring to Blofelds Cat's Eonized version.

[Qwerty]

Wonder what sort of rating Casino Royale(1967) would get.

[triviachamp]

Wonder what sort of rating Casino Royale(1967) would get.

It has two I believe. Anyway I find it hard to trust them after Moulin Rouge jumped from two to four and a half between editions.

[Major Bloodnok]

I'd put Moonraker low, but not as low as AVTAK or TMWTGG. NSNA tying with FRWL is almost blasphemy. Sure, Kersh is a good director with character driving skills... The script was written by Lorenzo Semple Jr, who despite his great script for 3 Days of the Condor, is no Richard Maibaum.

Thunderball- 3 stars? That proves this whole thing is balled up.

[Mister Asterix]

Thunderball even with A View To A Kill. Hard to take that serious.

[MarcAngeDraco]

Well, there are so many things there that I don't agree with...

NSNA on top, Thunderball almost at the bottom...

I won't even bother going any further...

[Qwerty]

Wonder what sort of rating Casino Royale(1967) would get.

Anyway I find it hard to trust them

Pretty much.

[RJJB]

I've sat and read previous versions of that film guide book for hours on end, but I'll never agree with its view of the Bond world if NSNA is apparantly the second best of the series.

I do remember one funny thing that stuck with me from the text though (probably from the 2001 edition), which was when Roger Moore was criticized for "turning Bond into nothing more than a smirking dinner jacket".

That's was a terrible thing to link an innocent dinner jacket to the likes of Roger Moore.

[Publius]

NSNA is horribly overrated there, as is DAD. DAF is fairly overrated as well. Thunderball is horribly underrated, as are the Daltons, FYEO, OP, LALD, and even Moonraker to some extent. Other than that, just fine.

[BlackFelix]

I really enjoyed NSNA! I think it's a great Bond film with all the elements that make Bond what it is. Though I personally wouldn't rank it over say Goldfinger or OHMSS, One must remember we are die-hard fanboys (or girls) and these tv-guide type reviews are for the casual Bond fan. Those people don't even know Never Say Never Again is a remake, or made by Warner Bros. The whole franchised is basically reviewed on the "action movie" grading system, which is basically a curve. Through this grading system it's possible NSNA could rank that high.

Edited by BlackFelix, 19 January 2006 - 06:09 AM.

[Colossus]

NSNA is horribly overrated there, as is DAD. DAF is fairly overrated as well. Thunderball is horribly underrated, as are the Daltons, FYEO, OP, LALD, and even Moonraker to some extent. Other than that, just fine.

Wow i disagree, if anything NSNA is underrated here, and Thunderball overrated. I agree on DAF, it's fine if you're into hokeyness, but as a Bond flick?

[SecretAgentFan]

NSNA and the "Casino Royal"-spoof-chaos shouldn

[BlackFelix]

ok, not to stir the pot here, but is the only reason why people don't include NSNA is because of the lack of gun-barrel and music? It's a good flick, and it's Connery as Bond...What more do you really need? John Barry's music would have helped alot but TSWLM or FYEO don't have the most "Bond-ish" scores either. It can't be because of Connery's age because he's younger than Moore, or because its a remake because AVTAK is also a re-hash...so what is it?

[tdalton]

Those ratings must have been determined on April 1.

I think that's when they were determined as well. Die Another Day and Tomorrow Never Dies with four stars?

[Publius]

NSNA is horribly overrated there, as is DAD. DAF is fairly overrated as well. Thunderball is horribly underrated, as are the Daltons, FYEO, OP, LALD, and even Moonraker to some extent. Other than that, just fine.

Wow i disagree, if anything NSNA is underrated here, and Thunderball overrated. I agree on DAF, it's fine if you're into hokeyness, but as a Bond flick?

Underrated at four and a half stars? I don't know about that.

Since BlackFelix asked, my simple answer to why I think TB is great and NSNA not so (although not bad either) is that NSNA was little more than a remake, with nothing good to add (begging the question, why, McClory, why?) to the world or character of 007, and minus some of the traditional positives. A net loss from TB, if you will. A gunbarrel, James Bond theme, and bearable title song wouldn't have been enough to make the rest of the movie anything more than just okay on the whole. I'd say for NSNA, 3 out of 5 stars would have an adequate and appropriate rating for this so-so film.

[Scottlee]

Why isn't NSNA very good?

- Main villain badly cast
- Main Bond girl badly cast
- No traditionl titles/music + various other elements. It does make a difference.
- That ridiculous horse-jump deserves a bullet point all of its own
- The ending is cheap and tackily thrown together.

There are one or two good one-liners, and the Shrublands sequence contains a good fight not seen in Thunderball. But apart from that's a weak film compared to Eon Bonds.