295 replies to this topic

[Judo chop]

The film grew on me too--to the extent that I had to have it removed. I've been fine for three years now and plan to keep that way by avoiding the absolute nadir of Glen.

I can see where you’d get lost on your way to appreciating this particular film, dodge. It’s not really intuitive, as the former sounds like a heavenly stop for picnic and the other like a place where you’d expect to be attacked by a glowing hound, but with Octopussy, you have to keeping moving right past the ‘Glen’ and head for the ‘Moore’. There’s where you’ll find a quantum of solace.

[Royal Dalton]

Those zoom in and out shots are awful!

She had nice boobs, though.

Anyway, apart from a couple of dodgy handheld shots, Glen's direction's perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned.

[coco1997]

I liked Octopussy better now then when I first watched it. I find it to be good but flawed film and I think Roger Moore gave his best preformance as Bond.

I agree 100%. Despite his appearance, I believe the performance Moore gave as the "older" Bond (FYEO-OP-AVTAK) was what he was best at. Again, I must emphasize, despite his appearance. With the exception of "LTK," I'd say "OP" would have been the best swansong for any of the 007 actors had it been so. Roger did look terrible in "AVTAK," but I think he did his best with what he had around him. You've gotta give him credit for that.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

The film grew on me too--to the extent that I had to have it removed. I've been fine for three years now and plan to keep that way by avoiding the absolute nadir of Glen.

Just curious, dodge. When you say the nadir of Glen are you refering to just Octopussy or all 5 of his films as a nadir? For me, Octopussy comes very close to being Glen's "All Time High" (pardon the pun) if not for The Living Daylights coming along 4 years later and being even better. Still, OP's a close 2nd to TLD.A View to a Kill is Glen's true nadir IMHO.

[Judo chop]

Those zoom in and out shots are awful!

She had nice boobs, though.

Anyway, apart from a couple of dodgy handheld shots, Glen's direction's perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned.

Just curious, RD… where do you put Glen among the other Bond directors? Or among directors in general? And then… why? ie. What makes a bad director in your eyes, and how does Glen not qualify?

When it comes to the ways of film, you seem to be a fairly educated fellow, but I cannot understand how anyone could defend John Glen as a director. He seems to manage the pacing of his films well, so I gladly give him that. But the overall look of all 5 films of his catalog come off as artificial and plasticky to me. The Glen era is by far the least exotic in the series in my eyes. There is something generally cartoonish and sadly innocuous about all of his films, and that’s including LTK which I expect was intended to be the exact opposite.

I pick on Glen because I think he was an albatross on Bond. I think he was an uninspired, farm-raised director who was chosen to roll the Bond series through its doldrums. I think films like AVTAK and LTK with the same scripts with the same actors but under different direction would suddenly rank much higher on Bond fans’ lists.

But I am not a subject matter expert. Just a guy with an opinion and an open mind, and I am certainly willing to listen to arguments to the contrary. Help me understand where you’re coming from?

[dodge]

The film grew on me too--to the extent that I had to have it removed. I've been fine for three years now and plan to keep that way by avoiding the absolute nadir of Glen.

Just curious, dodge. When you say the nadir of Glen are you refering to just Octopussy or all 5 of his films as a nadir? For me, Octopussy comes very close to being Glen's "All Time High" (pardon the pun) if not for The Living Daylights coming along 4 years later and being even better. Still, OP's a close 2nd to TLD.A View to a Kill is Glen's true nadir IMHO.

You know, Princes K, I suppose the truth is that I regard Glen himself as the absolute nadir of Bond. With this particular film, maybe I can't get past my contempt for the title (Fleming's second worst, next to QoS) or the memory of Moore in that clown suit. Throw in Octo's lovely acrobats and I'm blinded by inconsolable rage.

[Turn]

Those zoom in and out shots are awful!

She had nice boobs, though.

Anyway, apart from a couple of dodgy handheld shots, Glen's direction's perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned.

Just curious, RD… where do you put Glen among the other Bond directors? Or among directors in general? And then… why? ie. What makes a bad director in your eyes, and how does Glen not qualify?

When it comes to the ways of film, you seem to be a fairly educated fellow, but I cannot understand how anyone could defend John Glen as a director. He seems to manage the pacing of his films well, so I gladly give him that. But the overall look of all 5 films of his catalog come off as artificial and plasticky to me. The Glen era is by far the least exotic in the series in my eyes. There is something generally cartoonish and sadly innocuous about all of his films, and that’s including LTK which I expect was intended to be the exact opposite.

I pick on Glen because I think he was an albatross on Bond. I think he was an uninspired, farm-raised director who was chosen to roll the Bond series through its doldrums. I think films like AVTAK and LTK with the same scripts with the same actors but under different direction would suddenly rank much higher on Bond fans’ lists.

But I am not a subject matter expert. Just a guy with an opinion and an open mind, and I am certainly willing to listen to arguments to the contrary. Help me understand where you’re coming from?

Sounds like a fascinating new thread waiting to happen. I am gathering my thoughts now.

[Mister E]

Those zoom in and out shots are awful!

She had nice boobs, though.

Anyway, apart from a couple of dodgy handheld shots, Glen's direction's perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned.

Just curious, RD… where do you put Glen among the other Bond directors? Or among directors in general? And then… why? ie. What makes a bad director in your eyes, and how does Glen not qualify?

When it comes to the ways of film, you seem to be a fairly educated fellow, but I cannot understand how anyone could defend John Glen as a director. He seems to manage the pacing of his films well, so I gladly give him that. But the overall look of all 5 films of his catalog come off as artificial and plasticky to me. The Glen era is by far the least exotic in the series in my eyes. There is something generally cartoonish and sadly innocuous about all of his films, and that’s including LTK which I expect was intended to be the exact opposite.

I pick on Glen because I think he was an albatross on Bond. I think he was an uninspired, farm-raised director who was chosen to roll the Bond series through its doldrums. I think films like AVTAK and LTK with the same scripts with the same actors but under different direction would suddenly rank much higher on Bond fans’ lists.

But I am not a subject matter expert. Just a guy with an opinion and an open mind, and I am certainly willing to listen to arguments to the contrary. Help me understand where you’re coming from?

I think that's good summary of Glen really. His five really sunk the Bond films into a really dull direction that I think never escaped until CASINO ROYALE.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

The film grew on me too--to the extent that I had to have it removed. I've been fine for three years now and plan to keep that way by avoiding the absolute nadir of Glen.

Just curious, dodge. When you say the nadir of Glen are you refering to just Octopussy or all 5 of his films as a nadir? For me, Octopussy comes very close to being Glen's "All Time High" (pardon the pun) if not for The Living Daylights coming along 4 years later and being even better. Still, OP's a close 2nd to TLD.A View to a Kill is Glen's true nadir IMHO.

You know, Princes K, I suppose the truth is that I regard Glen himself as the absolute nadir of Bond. With this particular film, maybe I can't get past my contempt for the title (Fleming's second worst, next to QoS) or the memory of Moore in that clown suit. Throw in Octo's lovely acrobats and I'm blinded by inconsolable rage.

Those zoom in and out shots are awful!

She had nice boobs, though.

Anyway, apart from a couple of dodgy handheld shots, Glen's direction's perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned.

Just curious, RD… where do you put Glen among the other Bond directors? Or among directors in general? And then… why? ie. What makes a bad director in your eyes, and how does Glen not qualify?

When it comes to the ways of film, you seem to be a fairly educated fellow, but I cannot understand how anyone could defend John Glen as a director. He seems to manage the pacing of his films well, so I gladly give him that. But the overall look of all 5 films of his catalog come off as artificial and plasticky to me. The Glen era is by far the least exotic in the series in my eyes. There is something generally cartoonish and sadly innocuous about all of his films, and that’s including LTK which I expect was intended to be the exact opposite.

I pick on Glen because I think he was an albatross on Bond. I think he was an uninspired, farm-raised director who was chosen to roll the Bond series through its doldrums. I think films like AVTAK and LTK with the same scripts with the same actors but under different direction would suddenly rank much higher on Bond fans’ lists.

But I am not a subject matter expert. Just a guy with an opinion and an open mind, and I am certainly willing to listen to arguments to the contrary. Help me understand where you’re coming from?

I think that's good summary of Glen really. His five really sunk the Bond films into a really dull direction that I think never escaped until CASINO ROYALE.

Question for both pf you, dodge and Mister E: would you both count For Your Eyes Only as one of the weakest films in the series also? The reason I ask is FYEO tends to be kind of the "sacred cow" among Glen's films. (Not for me. I consider it OK but vastly overrated myself.)

[Mister E]

Question for both pf you, dodge and Mister E: would you both count For Your Eyes Only as one of the weakest films in the series also? The reason I ask is FYEO tends to be kind of the "sacred cow" among Glen's films. (Not for me. I consider it OK but vastly overrated myself.)

I find FOR YOUR EYES ONLY to be extremely boring. I don't know why so many love it here. Aboslutely NOTHING interesting happens in that film. Nothing about it is serious or gritty really, they just removed the camp from Moore's earlier films and gave us nothing in return. The only one who keeps me awake in the film is Topol as Columbo and he got far too little screen time.

Edited by Mister E, 27 August 2008 - 03:01 AM.

[double o ego]

I watched OP last night and despite owning the movie for a number of years now, I actually loved it and would probably rank it as Moore's best Bond film and perhaps one of the best bond movies in general. The Tarzan yell is still stupid though. But overall, it's a very fun and exciting movie. I might watch it again tonight.

[DaveBond21]

Seems that John Glen's movies are now getting a real bashing.

It might be hard for some to believe, but they were hugely popular at the time (LTK less so). I remember well the buzz around the openings of Octopussy, AVTAK and TLD in particular and everyone at school was talking about them.

I'd love to have a little database of posters on here, and the movies they said they hate. You'd find that the really miserable ones like Casino Royale and maybe OHMSS, And yet still for some reason come to a website that collectively enjoys all 21.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

Question for both pf you, dodge and Mister E: would you both count For Your Eyes Only as one of the weakest films in the series also? The reason I ask is FYEO tends to be kind of the "sacred cow" among Glen's films. (Not for me. I consider it OK but vastly overrated myself.)

I find FOR YOUR EYES ONLY to be extremely boring. I don't know why so many love it here. Aboslutely NOTHING interesting happens in that film. Nothing about it is serious or gritty really, they just removed the camp from Moore's earlier films and gave us nothing in return. The only one who keeps me awake in the film is Topol as Columbo and he got far too little screen time.

I tend to think the great love for FYEO comes from the return to Fleming literary source material after the decade of the 1970s ignored it for the most part. I have a feeling if the 1970s Bond films had been more faithful to their source novels, FYEO would probably not be as highly regarded as it is. Also, there's a lot of anti-MR sentiment that tends to fuel a lot of pro-FYEO sentiment. FYEO just made another "top 10 Bond film" list as discussed in this thread-

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=48835

Again, it references MR in its praise for FYEO. I find it interesting that the critic doesn't refer to the immediate preceding film of any of the other films in his list. While I adore a lot of the faithful to Fleming serious Bonds like FRWL, OHMSS, TLD and CR, I've always loved MR and consider it 1970s comedy-style Bond at its best so that probably one reason I never fell in love with FYEO.

[dodge]

The film grew on me too--to the extent that I had to have it removed. I've been fine for three years now and plan to keep that way by avoiding the absolute nadir of Glen.

Just curious, dodge. When you say the nadir of Glen are you refering to just Octopussy or all 5 of his films as a nadir? For me, Octopussy comes very close to being Glen's "All Time High" (pardon the pun) if not for The Living Daylights coming along 4 years later and being even better. Still, OP's a close 2nd to TLD.A View to a Kill is Glen's true nadir IMHO.

You know, Princes K, I suppose the truth is that I regard Glen himself as the absolute nadir of Bond. With this particular film, maybe I can't get past my contempt for the title (Fleming's second worst, next to QoS) or the memory of Moore in that clown suit. Throw in Octo's lovely acrobats and I'm blinded by inconsolable rage.

Those zoom in and out shots are awful!

She had nice boobs, though.

Anyway, apart from a couple of dodgy handheld shots, Glen's direction's perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned.

Just curious, RD… where do you put Glen among the other Bond directors? Or among directors in general? And then… why? ie. What makes a bad director in your eyes, and how does Glen not qualify?

When it comes to the ways of film, you seem to be a fairly educated fellow, but I cannot understand how anyone could defend John Glen as a director. He seems to manage the pacing of his films well, so I gladly give him that. But the overall look of all 5 films of his catalog come off as artificial and plasticky to me. The Glen era is by far the least exotic in the series in my eyes. There is something generally cartoonish and sadly innocuous about all of his films, and that’s including LTK which I expect was intended to be the exact opposite.

I pick on Glen because I think he was an albatross on Bond. I think he was an uninspired, farm-raised director who was chosen to roll the Bond series through its doldrums. I think films like AVTAK and LTK with the same scripts with the same actors but under different direction would suddenly rank much higher on Bond fans’ lists.

But I am not a subject matter expert. Just a guy with an opinion and an open mind, and I am certainly willing to listen to arguments to the contrary. Help me understand where you’re coming from?

I think that's good summary of Glen really. His five really sunk the Bond films into a really dull direction that I think never escaped until CASINO ROYALE.

Question for both pf you, dodge and Mister E: would you both count For Your Eyes Only as one of the weakest films in the series also? The reason I ask is FYEO tends to be kind of the "sacred cow" among Glen's films. (Not for me. I consider it OK but vastly overrated myself.)

No--and let me check my face to make sure it's smirk-free--I regard FYEO as one of Moore's stronger outings...despite the deadly hand of Glen. Likewise, I admire LTK, wishing only that Dalton had had a decent director. I agree with you that FYEO is somewhat overrated, but I respect the somber intentions and the effort that was made. I'm still thrilled by the opening, with the Greek tragic music and the fire in Melina's eyes.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

No--and let me check my face to make sure it's smirk-free--I regard FYEO as one of Moore's stronger outings...despite the deadly hand of Glen. Likewise, I admire LTK, wishing only that Dalton had had a decent director. I agree with you that FYEO is somewhat overrated, but I respect the somber intentions and the effort that was made. I'm still thrilled by the opening, with the Greek tragic music and the fire in Melina's eyes.

Oh, I think FYEO definitely has good intentions. That scene with Melina's parents being murdered and the close up on the tear stained eyes of Melina is very good. I think I just get tired of reading all the reviews that state "FYEO is great because it's not MR!" when MR's always been a strong sentimental favorite of mine. I find TLD a more effective "back to serious Fleming" film because it features an actor better suited to a "seriously written" Bond, John Barry music, more chemistry between Bond and the leading lady and a more exciting finale than FYEO.

How do you think FYEO would've worked if Lewis Gilbert had directed it instead?

[Mr. Blofeld]

No--and let me check my face to make sure it's smirk-free--I regard FYEO as one of Moore's stronger outings...despite the deadly hand of Glen. Likewise, I admire LTK, wishing only that Dalton had had a decent director. I agree with you that FYEO is somewhat overrated, but I respect the somber intentions and the effort that was made. I'm still thrilled by the opening, with the Greek tragic music and the fire in Melina's eyes.

Oh, I think FYEO definitely has good intentions. That scene with Melina's parents being murdered and the close up on the tear stained eyes of Melina is very good. I think I just get tired of reading all the reviews that state "FYEO is great because it's not MR!" when MR's always been a strong sentimental favorite of mine. I find TLD a more effective "back to serious Fleming" film because it features an actor better suited to a "seriously written" Bond, John Barry music, more chemistry between Bond and the leading lady and a more exciting finale than FYEO.

How do you think FYEO would've worked if Lewis Gilbert had directed it instead?

It would have been campy and big, just like the previous two...

[Safari Suit]

I think it would have certainly been bigger in scope than Glen's film, but I don't know if it would neccessarily be any campier than the film we ended up with. He's directed a number of straight, fairly low key dramas.

[Turn]

No--and let me check my face to make sure it's smirk-free--I regard FYEO as one of Moore's stronger outings...despite the deadly hand of Glen. Likewise, I admire LTK, wishing only that Dalton had had a decent director. I agree with you that FYEO is somewhat overrated, but I respect the somber intentions and the effort that was made. I'm still thrilled by the opening, with the Greek tragic music and the fire in Melina's eyes.

Oh, I think FYEO definitely has good intentions. That scene with Melina's parents being murdered and the close up on the tear stained eyes of Melina is very good. I think I just get tired of reading all the reviews that state "FYEO is great because it's not MR!" when MR's always been a strong sentimental favorite of mine. I find TLD a more effective "back to serious Fleming" film because it features an actor better suited to a "seriously written" Bond, John Barry music, more chemistry between Bond and the leading lady and a more exciting finale than FYEO.

How do you think FYEO would've worked if Lewis Gilbert had directed it instead?

It would have been campy and big, just like the previous two...

And probably a lot more fun.

People can tout the return to Fleming and all that, but what FYEO really is is moving away from gadgets and goofieness into showcasing nothing but stunts.

FYEO has its merits, but compared to something like Casino Royale, where there is considerably less action and stuntwork and a much better story, it doesn't come close despite it's tagline "No One Comes Close to 007."

[baerrtt]

My one main problem with all the 80s entries of Bond is that they feel like bigger budgeted episodes of an action tv series (the kind ITV were cranking out) rather than a MOVIE franchise and despite Glen's capabilities at pacing it personally doesn't surprise me that the films started to lose audiences gradually with each entry.

OP stands out slightly because it's lapses into OTT-ness, if nothing else, gives it a life that was severely lacking in the other 80s Bonds.

[Mister E]

No--and let me check my face to make sure it's smirk-free--I regard FYEO as one of Moore's stronger outings...despite the deadly hand of Glen. Likewise, I admire LTK, wishing only that Dalton had had a decent director. I agree with you that FYEO is somewhat overrated, but I respect the somber intentions and the effort that was made. I'm still thrilled by the opening, with the Greek tragic music and the fire in Melina's eyes.

Oh, I think FYEO definitely has good intentions. That scene with Melina's parents being murdered and the close up on the tear stained eyes of Melina is very good. I think I just get tired of reading all the reviews that state "FYEO is great because it's not MR!" when MR's always been a strong sentimental favorite of mine. I find TLD a more effective "back to serious Fleming" film because it features an actor better suited to a "seriously written" Bond, John Barry music, more chemistry between Bond and the leading lady and a more exciting finale than FYEO.

How do you think FYEO would've worked if Lewis Gilbert had directed it instead?

It would have been campy and big, just like the previous two...

And probably a lot more fun.

People can tout the return to Fleming and all that, but what FYEO really is is moving away from gadgets and goofieness into showcasing nothing but stunts.

FYEO has its merits, but compared to something like Casino Royale, where there is considerably less action and stuntwork and a much better story, it doesn't come close despite it's tagline "No One Comes Close to 007."

Excatly. There too many stunts and little character development. I didn't find the stunts that good really and when they weren't any, it's extremely boring. Outside of Topol, no other major character had any presence. Hell, I would have wanted Gilbert to direct, at least he wouldn't put me to sleep. Also, I think could handle a Bond film that is fun yet not overly campy.

Edited by Mister E, 31 August 2008 - 02:17 AM.

[Mister E]

Seems that John Glen's movies are now getting a real bashing.

It might be hard for some to believe, but they were hugely popular at the time (LTK less so). I remember well the buzz around the openings of Octopussy, AVTAK and TLD in particular and everyone at school was talking about them.

I'd love to have a little database of posters on here, and the movies they said they hate. You'd find that the really miserable ones like Casino Royale and maybe OHMSS, And yet still for some reason come to a website that collectively enjoys all 21.

No offense but your old school isn't exactly a good POV to judge the popularity factor, the numbers and attendence records say different. Audiences found Bond tired in the 80's and it wasn't until GOLDENEYE that people actually cared about 007 again.

Edited by Mister E, 31 August 2008 - 02:25 AM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Seems that John Glen's movies are now getting a real bashing.

It might be hard for some to believe, but they were hugely popular at the time (LTK less so). I remember well the buzz around the openings of Octopussy, AVTAK and TLD in particular and everyone at school was talking about them.

I'd love to have a little database of posters on here, and the movies they said they hate. You'd find that the really miserable ones like Casino Royale and maybe OHMSS, And yet still for some reason come to a website that collectively enjoys all 21.

No offense but your old school isn't exactly a good POV to judge the popularity factor, the numbers and attendence records say different. Audiences found Bond tired in the 80's and it wasn't until GOLDENEYE that people actually cared about 007 again.

You think if there'd been a three-year-delay after Octopussy, more people would've cared about the next film?

[Mister E]

Seems that John Glen's movies are now getting a real bashing.

It might be hard for some to believe, but they were hugely popular at the time (LTK less so). I remember well the buzz around the openings of Octopussy, AVTAK and TLD in particular and everyone at school was talking about them.

I'd love to have a little database of posters on here, and the movies they said they hate. You'd find that the really miserable ones like Casino Royale and maybe OHMSS, And yet still for some reason come to a website that collectively enjoys all 21.

No offense but your old school isn't exactly a good POV to judge the popularity factor, the numbers and attendence records say different. Audiences found Bond tired in the 80's and it wasn't until GOLDENEYE that people actually cared about 007 again.

You think if there'd been a three-year-delay after Octopussy, more people would've cared about the next film?

There was six year delay between LTK and GE. I don't know what is but people just got tired of Bond in the 80's and the series became popular again in the 90's. I'm going by the numbers here. There was a decline from '81 till '85 then a small boost with Dalton in '87 and then a big drop in '89. GOLDENEYE came out and '95 and became the highest grosser since MOONRAKER.

Edited by Mister E, 31 August 2008 - 03:07 AM.

[dodge]

No--and let me check my face to make sure it's smirk-free--I regard FYEO as one of Moore's stronger outings...despite the deadly hand of Glen. Likewise, I admire LTK, wishing only that Dalton had had a decent director. I agree with you that FYEO is somewhat overrated, but I respect the somber intentions and the effort that was made. I'm still thrilled by the opening, with the Greek tragic music and the fire in Melina's eyes.

Oh, I think FYEO definitely has good intentions. That scene with Melina's parents being murdered and the close up on the tear stained eyes of Melina is very good. I think I just get tired of reading all the reviews that state "FYEO is great because it's not MR!" when MR's always been a strong sentimental favorite of mine. I find TLD a more effective "back to serious Fleming" film because it features an actor better suited to a "seriously written" Bond, John Barry music, more chemistry between Bond and the leading lady and a more exciting finale than FYEO.

How do you think FYEO would've worked if Lewis Gilbert had directed it instead?

Hard to say. I loved TSWLM but don't much care for MR. Even so, the first part of MR, imo, is splendid, so maybe the flaws were built into the script. So...yeah, I might have liked FYEO better if it had been Gilberted. And for sure if it had been Campbelled.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

My one main problem with all the 80s entries of Bond is that they feel like bigger budgeted episodes of an action tv series (the kind ITV were cranking out) rather than a MOVIE franchise and despite Glen's capabilities at pacing it personally doesn't surprise me that the films started to lose audiences gradually with each entry.

I find merit to what you write. I've often said For Your Eyes Only seems like the best episode of The Saint ever filmed while Licence to Kill seems like the best episode of Miami Vice ever filmed.

OP stands out slightly because it's lapses into OTT-ness, if nothing else, gives it a life that was severely lacking in the other 80s Bonds.

It's true that despite it's containing some bits of the Octopussy and The Property of a Lady short stories, Octopussy comes the closest to "larger-than-life movie Bond"(as opposed) to "serious Fleming Bond" of all the 1980s Bond films. A View to a Kill tried to be "larger-than-life movie Bond" but with much less inspired results.

Seems that John Glen's movies are now getting a real bashing.

It might be hard for some to believe, but they were hugely popular at the time (LTK less so). I remember well the buzz around the openings of Octopussy, AVTAK and TLD in particular and everyone at school was talking about them.

I'd love to have a little database of posters on here, and the movies they said they hate. You'd find that the really miserable ones like Casino Royale and maybe OHMSS, And yet still for some reason come to a website that collectively enjoys all 21.

No offense but your old school isn't exactly a good POV to judge the popularity factor, the numbers and attendence records say different. Audiences found Bond tired in the 80's and it wasn't until GOLDENEYE that people actually cared about 007 again.

You think if there'd been a three-year-delay after Octopussy, more people would've cared about the next film?

There was six year delay between LTK and GE. I don't know what is but people just got tired of Bond in the 80's and the series became popular again in the 90's. I'm going by the numbers here. There was a decline from '81 till '85 then a small boost with Dalton in '87 and then a big drop in '89. GOLDENEYE came out and '95 and became the highest grosser since MOONRAKER.

Adjusting the box results for inflation, even GoldenEye and its successors haven't been as successful as Bond was in not only the 1960s but the 1970s(the so called "worst" decade of Bond) also.

Check out Kimberly Last's box office list.

http://www.klast.net/bond/boxoff.html

No--and let me check my face to make sure it's smirk-free--I regard FYEO as one of Moore's stronger outings...despite the deadly hand of Glen. Likewise, I admire LTK, wishing only that Dalton had had a decent director. I agree with you that FYEO is somewhat overrated, but I respect the somber intentions and the effort that was made. I'm still thrilled by the opening, with the Greek tragic music and the fire in Melina's eyes.

Oh, I think FYEO definitely has good intentions. That scene with Melina's parents being murdered and the close up on the tear stained eyes of Melina is very good. I think I just get tired of reading all the reviews that state "FYEO is great because it's not MR!" when MR's always been a strong sentimental favorite of mine. I find TLD a more effective "back to serious Fleming" film because it features an actor better suited to a "seriously written" Bond, John Barry music, more chemistry between Bond and the leading lady and a more exciting finale than FYEO.

How do you think FYEO would've worked if Lewis Gilbert had directed it instead?

Hard to say. I loved TSWLM but don't much care for MR. Even so, the first part of MR, imo, is splendid, so maybe the flaws were built into the script. So...yeah, I might have liked FYEO better if it had been Gilberted. And for sure if it had been Campbelled.

It's funny. I've never really found Campbell to be "all that" when it comes to Bond directors. I think he did great on Casino Royale and the first Zorro film but GE and No Escape I never found as great as a lot of other viewers did. I think with Campbell, it may depend on the material he's given.

[Mister E]

It's funny. I've never really found Campbell to be "all that" when it comes to Bond directors. I think he did great on Casino Royale and the first Zorro film but GE and No Escape I never found as great as a lot of other viewers did. I think with Campbell, it may depend on the material he's given.

Campbell really has had alot more failures then sucesses. I agree with your choices Khan. I loved CR and The Mask of Zorro but GE, meh.

[BoogieBond]

I watched OP last night and despite owning the movie for a number of years now, I actually loved it and would probably rank it as Moore's best Bond film and perhaps one of the best bond movies in general. The Tarzan yell is still stupid though. But overall, it's a very fun and exciting movie. I might watch it again tonight.

Couldn't have put it better myself.
I saw this on TV the other day, and found it immensely enjoyable, and fun. Sure, Roger is too old(I do prefer 4 of Rogers other Bonds over this), it is OTT(The Tarzan yelp really grates for me). But it really entertained. I am particularly partial to the microlight aircraft PTS and Bond landing in the gas station at the end of this.
Now, in terms of ranking it is mid-pack for me, could I watch it as regularly as other Bond entries like CR, SWLM, TB, FRWL and OHMSS, definitely not, but once in a while, this is a good entertaining watch.

Edited by BoogieBond, 14 September 2008 - 11:51 PM.

[Shot Your Bolt]

I saw OP yesterday. Its behind TSWLM and FYEO, but I rate those VERY highly. I loved OP, its just w hole lot of fun.

[Turn]

I also just watched it the last couple of days. It hasn't lost any of its appeal for me, containing one of the best balances of action, suspense, humor and gadgetry. If they could have just restrained a few of the jokey parts a bit more it would rank even higher.

[DaveBond21]

I also just watched it the last couple of days. It hasn't lost any of its appeal for me, containing one of the best balances of action, suspense, humor and gadgetry. If they could have just restrained a few of the jokey parts a bit more it would rank even higher.

As Leonard Maltin says in his review, it throws in everything for the sake of a good show.