740 replies to this topic

[FLEMINGFAN]

GOLDFINGER bores me and the title-song has been played to death (but Connery does look his best in that film).

THE SPY WHO LOVED ME is over-rated and killed by a cheap-sounding score.

I am more entertained by CASINO ROYALE '67 than CASINO ROYALE '06.

GOLDENEYE is a bore and TOMORROW NEVER DIES was Brosnan's best Bond.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

GOLDENEYE is a bore and TOMORROW NEVER DIES was Brosnan's best Bond.

I agree completely. TND is the only post-"Moonraker" Bond that doesn't have a senselessly convoluted plot. It moves like lightning, has a nice satirical edge, and has some real style and wit to it (alas, only the villain gets the good lines). Too bad it falls apart at the end.

Still, easily Brosnan's best, in my opinion, and a lot more fun than either of Craig's outings.

[Double-Oh Agent]

We differ on how much respect Bond is required to show a corpse in dangerous situations. I'll venture to say that the Vijay scene is "un-Bondian" (see how flexible that term is?), as nowhere in the books would Bond ever stoop over even a friend with piteous furrowed brow and say some meaningless epitaph like "no more problems." But then, Moore always did define his own Bond; one can't accuse him of sticking to the source material all that often.

Why wouldn't Bond do that to Vijay? In Doctor No, Bond feels like he has to pay his respects to Quarrel's charred body and is only prevented in doing so because No's men fire a shot beside his foot. And in the film, he squeezes Kerim's shoulder in From Russia With Love. He leans over Paris' body in Tomorrow Never Dies. And he runs to Tilly Masterson's body in the woods in what is clearly a much more dangerous situation than what is in Quantum Of Solace.

As for the Mathis scene, Bond showed respect to his friend by staying with him till he died. He didn't need to show more respect or move the body. But he did move the body, which in itself is fine, however he then just callously drops it in the dumpster which is NOT fine or Bondian. Why would Bond waste time in a "dangerous situation" (as you call it) by moving Mathis' body when he obviously doesn't care what he does with the body or what happens to it? It doesn't make sense. Nor does it serve any purpose other than to be controversial and anger a portion of the audience. As I said earlier, it makes more sense for Bond to either leave Mathis' body where it was or just move it out of the way such as propping him up against the dumpster. As filmed, it is the most anger-inducing scene of the series.

[00Twelve]

We differ on how much respect Bond is required to show a corpse in dangerous situations. I'll venture to say that the Vijay scene is "un-Bondian" (see how flexible that term is?), as nowhere in the books would Bond ever stoop over even a friend with piteous furrowed brow and say some meaningless epitaph like "no more problems." But then, Moore always did define his own Bond; one can't accuse him of sticking to the source material all that often.

Why wouldn't Bond do that to Vijay? In Doctor No, Bond feels like he has to pay his respects to Quarrel's charred body and is only prevented in doing so because No's men fire a shot beside his foot. And in the film, he squeezes Kerim's shoulder in From Russia With Love. He leans over Paris' body in Tomorrow Never Dies. And he runs to Tilly Masterson's body in the woods in what is clearly a much more dangerous situation than what is in Quantum Of Solace.

As for the Mathis scene, Bond showed respect to his friend by staying with him till he died. He didn't need to show more respect or move the body. But he did move the body, which in itself is fine, however he then just callously drops it in the dumpster which is NOT fine or Bondian. Why would Bond waste time in a "dangerous situation" (as you call it) by moving Mathis' body when he obviously doesn't care what he does with the body or what happens to it? It doesn't make sense. Nor does it serve any purpose other than to be controversial and anger a portion of the audience. As I said earlier, it makes more sense for Bond to either leave Mathis' body where it was or just move it out of the way such as propping him up against the dumpster. As filmed, it is the most anger-inducing scene of the series.

Did Bond say a single word to Kerim's corpse? In either book or movie, no. Yeah, he lays a hand on his shoulder. Likewise, as you said, Bond cradles Mathis in his arms until he passes away.

I sure do call it a dangerous situation, btw. Bond just killed two dirty cops that were going to frame him for Mathis' murder (and he was still framed). That means he can't afford to be caught by any other cops, so he needs to get out. Which he does. I don't see what's so offensive about the dumpster drop. Bond made it look like a shooting/robbery to buy a little time. Mathis would have understood, he says. I'm sorry it's anger-inducing for you, but I don't think it's a big deal.

Anyway, sorry for the digression.

On topic:

Bond leaning over and kissing the bodies of Paris and Elektra feels awkward in a way that his kissing Tracy and Vesper didn't. Don't know why, just does. Maybe because the relationships weren't built up nearly as well.

[darthbond]

Thunderball was a better film than Goldfinger.
Diamonds Are Forever is really underated.
TMWTGG is one of the Best of Moore's Bonds.
The Goldeneye score is really well done.
TWINE is the most Flemingish of the Newer Bonds.
QoS is the perfect sequel to CR.
Broccoil and Wilson know what they are doing.

darthbond

[tdalton]

We differ on how much respect Bond is required to show a corpse in dangerous situations. I'll venture to say that the Vijay scene is "un-Bondian" (see how flexible that term is?), as nowhere in the books would Bond ever stoop over even a friend with piteous furrowed brow and say some meaningless epitaph like "no more problems." But then, Moore always did define his own Bond; one can't accuse him of sticking to the source material all that often.

Why wouldn't Bond do that to Vijay? In Doctor No, Bond feels like he has to pay his respects to Quarrel's charred body and is only prevented in doing so because No's men fire a shot beside his foot. And in the film, he squeezes Kerim's shoulder in From Russia With Love. He leans over Paris' body in Tomorrow Never Dies. And he runs to Tilly Masterson's body in the woods in what is clearly a much more dangerous situation than what is in Quantum Of Solace.

As for the Mathis scene, Bond showed respect to his friend by staying with him till he died. He didn't need to show more respect or move the body. But he did move the body, which in itself is fine, however he then just callously drops it in the dumpster which is NOT fine or Bondian. Why would Bond waste time in a "dangerous situation" (as you call it) by moving Mathis' body when he obviously doesn't care what he does with the body or what happens to it? It doesn't make sense. Nor does it serve any purpose other than to be controversial and anger a portion of the audience. As I said earlier, it makes more sense for Bond to either leave Mathis' body where it was or just move it out of the way such as propping him up against the dumpster. As filmed, it is the most anger-inducing scene of the series.

Did Bond say a single word to Kerim's corpse? In either book or movie, no. Yeah, he lays a hand on his shoulder. Likewise, as you said, Bond cradles Mathis in his arms until he passes away.

I sure do call it a dangerous situation, btw. Bond just killed two dirty cops that were going to frame him for Mathis' murder (and he was still framed). That means he can't afford to be caught by any other cops, so he needs to get out. Which he does. I don't see what's so offensive about the dumpster drop. Bond made it look like a shooting/robbery to buy a little time. Mathis would have understood, he says. I'm sorry it's anger-inducing for you, but I don't think it's a big deal.

Anyway, sorry for the digression.

Completely agreed. Bond had already stayed with him until he passed on, which he certainly didn't need to do (and probably shouldn't have, given his situation), but instead did so out of loyalty to his friend. After that, he needed to get away, and quick, and that was his way out of the situation, in order to buy him at least a little bit more time than he would have otherwise had.

Also, it fits right into one of the themes of the movie, which is that the deceased don't particularly care what happens around them in the aftermath of their death. Bond states at some point "I don't think the dead care about vengeance", and while this isn't necessarily vengeance in this scene, it does play into a similar thematic concept.

[Double-Oh Agent]

We differ on how much respect Bond is required to show a corpse in dangerous situations. I'll venture to say that the Vijay scene is "un-Bondian" (see how flexible that term is?), as nowhere in the books would Bond ever stoop over even a friend with piteous furrowed brow and say some meaningless epitaph like "no more problems." But then, Moore always did define his own Bond; one can't accuse him of sticking to the source material all that often.

Why wouldn't Bond do that to Vijay? In Doctor No, Bond feels like he has to pay his respects to Quarrel's charred body and is only prevented in doing so because No's men fire a shot beside his foot. And in the film, he squeezes Kerim's shoulder in From Russia With Love. He leans over Paris' body in Tomorrow Never Dies. And he runs to Tilly Masterson's body in the woods in what is clearly a much more dangerous situation than what is in Quantum Of Solace.

As for the Mathis scene, Bond showed respect to his friend by staying with him till he died. He didn't need to show more respect or move the body. But he did move the body, which in itself is fine, however he then just callously drops it in the dumpster which is NOT fine or Bondian. Why would Bond waste time in a "dangerous situation" (as you call it) by moving Mathis' body when he obviously doesn't care what he does with the body or what happens to it? It doesn't make sense. Nor does it serve any purpose other than to be controversial and anger a portion of the audience. As I said earlier, it makes more sense for Bond to either leave Mathis' body where it was or just move it out of the way such as propping him up against the dumpster. As filmed, it is the most anger-inducing scene of the series.

Did Bond say a single word to Kerim's corpse? In either book or movie, no. Yeah, he lays a hand on his shoulder. Likewise, as you said, Bond cradles Mathis in his arms until he passes away.

I sure do call it a dangerous situation, btw. Bond just killed two dirty cops that were going to frame him for Mathis' murder (and he was still framed). That means he can't afford to be caught by any other cops, so he needs to get out. Which he does. I don't see what's so offensive about the dumpster drop. Bond made it look like a shooting/robbery to buy a little time. Mathis would have understood, he says. I'm sorry it's anger-inducing for you, but I don't think it's a big deal.

How does Bond make it look like a shooting/robbery? What robber(s) is going to take the time to pick up a body he has just shot and carry him several feet over to a dumpster and then drop him in WHILE STILL LEAVING THE BODY VISIBLE to anyone in the area? The answer is no one. By the time he did all that, he could have been two blocks away. Robbers in such situations just shoot their victim, rob him, and run away.

And just for the record, I don't mind Bond taking Mathis' money. That made sense. He needed it and Mathis obviously didn't--and wouldn't care. But dumping Mathis in the garbage just wasted time that you yourself admit Bond didn't have and just antagonizes a significant portion of the audience that know that it is out of Bond's character to do something like that to a friend.

Did Bond say a single word to Kerim's corpse? In either book or movie, no. Yeah, he lays a hand on his shoulder. Likewise, as you said, Bond cradles Mathis in his arms until he passes away.

I sure do call it a dangerous situation, btw. Bond just killed two dirty cops that were going to frame him for Mathis' murder (and he was still framed). That means he can't afford to be caught by any other cops, so he needs to get out. Which he does. I don't see what's so offensive about the dumpster drop. Bond made it look like a shooting/robbery to buy a little time. Mathis would have understood, he says. I'm sorry it's anger-inducing for you, but I don't think it's a big deal.

Anyway, sorry for the digression.

Completely agreed. Bond had already stayed with him until he passed on, which he certainly didn't need to do (and probably shouldn't have, given his situation), but instead did so out of loyalty to his friend. After that, he needed to get away, and quick, and that was his way out of the situation, in order to buy him at least a little bit more time than he would have otherwise had.

Also, it fits right into one of the themes of the movie, which is that the deceased don't particularly care what happens around them in the aftermath of their death. Bond states at some point "I don't think the dead care about vengeance", and while this isn't necessarily vengeance in this scene, it does play into a similar thematic concept.

Then Bond could have just left Mathis in the street. That shows just as well--better even--that the dead don't care what happens to them. The way the scene was filmed, the audience is force-fed an additional emotional response by Bond dumping Mathis in the garbage beyond Mathis' just happened death. The scene is like a slap in the face and is only done to be controversial.

As for the dumping of Mathis buying Bond more time, again I say it doesn't. Mathis' body is PLAINLY VISIBLE partially hanging out of the dumpster. Bond's not fooling anyone. The cops don't have to search for Mathis. All they have to do is gaze in that direction and they can see him.

Besides, Colonel Carlos and his crooked cops already know Bond was going to be stopped by the dead motorcycle cops. When the crooked first responders arrive on the scene, they will spot Mathis' body hanging out of the dumpster right away and see that Bond and his vehicle are missing. They will then immediately put two and two together and put out an APB on Bond, so no time has been saved by him dumping Mathis in the garbage bin.

[BoogieBond]

Dr. No is the weakest entry in Connery's first 4 films despite the iconic moments.
LTK also, while I feel is decent, but not the best of Bonds, too grim and violent and at odds with itself.
Moonraker is superb, one of the best Bonds.
TWINE is pretty good and better to me than DAD and TND combined.

[00Twelve]

How does Bond make it look like a shooting/robbery? What robber(s) is going to take the time to pick up a body he has just shot and carry him several feet over to a dumpster and then drop him in WHILE STILL LEAVING THE BODY VISIBLE to anyone in the area? The answer is no one. By the time he did all that, he could have been two blocks away. Robbers in such situations just shoot their victim, rob him, and run away.

And just for the record, I don't mind Bond taking Mathis' money. That made sense. He needed it and Mathis obviously didn't--and wouldn't care. But dumping Mathis in the garbage just wasted time that you yourself admit Bond didn't have and just antagonizes a significant portion of the audience that know that it is out of Bond's character to do something like that to a friend.

How do you know so well what robbers do after murdering people on the street? I suppose I'm naive for thinking that it looks like a robbery with a corpse in a dumpster with a wallet on top[?]. Whatever. Anyway, your portion of said audience opine that it's out of Bond's character. Another equally significant portion disagree completely. Bond's a wide church that way. There was obviously a deliberate reason for the scene proceeding as it did, and it's not just for the sake of "edge". They're a little more grown up than that, I should think.

Did Bond say a single word to Kerim's corpse? In either book or movie, no. Yeah, he lays a hand on his shoulder. Likewise, as you said, Bond cradles Mathis in his arms until he passes away.

I sure do call it a dangerous situation, btw. Bond just killed two dirty cops that were going to frame him for Mathis' murder (and he was still framed). That means he can't afford to be caught by any other cops, so he needs to get out. Which he does. I don't see what's so offensive about the dumpster drop. Bond made it look like a shooting/robbery to buy a little time. Mathis would have understood, he says. I'm sorry it's anger-inducing for you, but I don't think it's a big deal.

Anyway, sorry for the digression.

Completely agreed. Bond had already stayed with him until he passed on, which he certainly didn't need to do (and probably shouldn't have, given his situation), but instead did so out of loyalty to his friend. After that, he needed to get away, and quick, and that was his way out of the situation, in order to buy him at least a little bit more time than he would have otherwise had.

Also, it fits right into one of the themes of the movie, which is that the deceased don't particularly care what happens around them in the aftermath of their death. Bond states at some point "I don't think the dead care about vengeance", and while this isn't necessarily vengeance in this scene, it does play into a similar thematic concept.

Then Bond could have just left Mathis in the street. That shows just as well--better even--that the dead don't care what happens to them. The way the scene was filmed, the audience is force-fed an additional emotional response by Bond dumping Mathis in the garbage beyond Mathis' just happened death. The scene is like a slap in the face and is only done to be controversial.

As for the dumping of Mathis buying Bond more time, again I say it doesn't. Mathis' body is PLAINLY VISIBLE partially hanging out of the dumpster. Bond's not fooling anyone. The cops don't have to search for Mathis. All they have to do is gaze in that direction and they can see him.

Besides, Colonel Carlos and his crooked cops already know Bond was going to be stopped by the dead motorcycle cops. When the crooked first responders arrive on the scene, they will spot Mathis' body hanging out of the dumpster right away and see that Bond and his vehicle are missing. They will then immediately put two and two together and put out an APB on Bond, so no time has been saved by him dumping Mathis in the garbage bin.

Will they? Do you know for certain that the whole force knew who Mathis and Bond were? Two more beat cops show up (not having known where Bond had been pulled over because the cops never radioed for help) and see a white guy in a suit in a dumpster and two dead cops, I'm sure they said, "Wha...that's RENE MATHIS!!" C'mon.

Bond left in his car, leaving two cops, their cycles, and another guy (to most of the force but Carlos) in a dumpster with his wallet out. How in the world does the whole force know who Mathis is and that Bond was supposed to have murdered him?? It had been a whole 15 minutes, tops, since Mathis was even abducted. Just doesn't make sense that anyone but Carlos would have shown up and known who the guy in the dumpster was.

Unorthodox opinion:

Leiter wasn't weak in TLD because of Terry. He was written weakly from the get-go.

[BrozFan]

- Eric Serra's score for Goldeneye is really quite good

- The relationship between Bond and Vesper in Casino Royale was underdeveloped and as such was not as convincing as it should have been

- The 'writing' for Casino Royale is overrated

- The Montenegro train scene in Casino Royale, is stagey, over-written, prententious, smug and ebarrassing all at the same time

- The editing in Quantum of Solace is not intrusive and enhances the action

- Pierce Brosnan is a better Bond than Daniel Craig

[PrinceKamalKhan]

- The Montenegro train scene in Casino Royale, is stagey, over-written, prententious, smug and ebarrassing all at the same time

As much as I love Casino Royale, I tend to agree with the first 4 adjectives in your description of the scene. It's like they were trying to do something like the Cary Grant/Eva Marie Saint train dining car scene from Hitchcock's North by Northwest but trying a little too hard. Just compare to the Bond meets Kara at her apartment scene in The Living Daylights. The 1987 Bond film had a much more natural and believable "Bond meets Bond girl" scene as did Bond and Tracy's first conversation in the hotel dining room scene in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Maybe clever dialogue was easier to write in the pre-internet/MTV/cell phone era of filmmaking.

[Cruiserweight]

I think All Time High is a great song. It just had the bad luck of being stuck in between two of the most famous Bond songs & that's why it's often overlooked.

The Palace Fight & Ice Chase are the two best non main theme/vocal Bond tracks.

[daltonnery]

-Timothy Dalton could have successfully played Bond in OHMSS, GoldenEye, and the all the Bond films in between (if he wanted to).

-Die Another Day is a more enjoyable film than The World is Not Enough.

-Roger Moore was the worst James Bond.

-From Russia with Love is boring.

-James Cameron should have directed GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies since he had directed True Lies shortly prior to GoldenEye.

Edited by daltonnery, 31 July 2009 - 07:38 AM.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Did Bond say a single word to Kerim's corpse? In either book or movie, no. Yeah, he lays a hand on his shoulder. Likewise, as you said, Bond cradles Mathis in his arms until he passes away.

I sure do call it a dangerous situation, btw. Bond just killed two dirty cops that were going to frame him for Mathis' murder (and he was still framed). That means he can't afford to be caught by any other cops, so he needs to get out. Which he does. I don't see what's so offensive about the dumpster drop. Bond made it look like a shooting/robbery to buy a little time. Mathis would have understood, he says. I'm sorry it's anger-inducing for you, but I don't think it's a big deal.

Anyway, sorry for the digression.

Completely agreed. Bond had already stayed with him until he passed on, which he certainly didn't need to do (and probably shouldn't have, given his situation), but instead did so out of loyalty to his friend. After that, he needed to get away, and quick, and that was his way out of the situation, in order to buy him at least a little bit more time than he would have otherwise had.

Also, it fits right into one of the themes of the movie, which is that the deceased don't particularly care what happens around them in the aftermath of their death. Bond states at some point "I don't think the dead care about vengeance", and while this isn't necessarily vengeance in this scene, it does play into a similar thematic concept.

Then Bond could have just left Mathis in the street. That shows just as well--better even--that the dead don't care what happens to them. The way the scene was filmed, the audience is force-fed an additional emotional response by Bond dumping Mathis in the garbage beyond Mathis' just happened death. The scene is like a slap in the face and is only done to be controversial.

As for the dumping of Mathis buying Bond more time, again I say it doesn't. Mathis' body is PLAINLY VISIBLE partially hanging out of the dumpster. Bond's not fooling anyone. The cops don't have to search for Mathis. All they have to do is gaze in that direction and they can see him.

Besides, Colonel Carlos and his crooked cops already know Bond was going to be stopped by the dead motorcycle cops. When the crooked first responders arrive on the scene, they will spot Mathis' body hanging out of the dumpster right away and see that Bond and his vehicle are missing. They will then immediately put two and two together and put out an APB on Bond, so no time has been saved by him dumping Mathis in the garbage bin.

Will they? Do you know for certain that the whole force knew who Mathis and Bond were? Two more beat cops show up (not having known where Bond had been pulled over because the cops never radioed for help) and see a white guy in a suit in a dumpster and two dead cops, I'm sure they said, "Wha...that's RENE MATHIS!!" C'mon.

Bond left in his car, leaving two cops, their cycles, and another guy (to most of the force but Carlos) in a dumpster with his wallet out. How in the world does the whole force know who Mathis is and that Bond was supposed to have murdered him?? It had been a whole 15 minutes, tops, since Mathis was even abducted. Just doesn't make sense that anyone but Carlos would have shown up and known who the guy in the dumpster was.

Unorthodox opinion:

Leiter wasn't weak in TLD because of Terry. He was written weakly from the get-go.

Well I should imagine that word of an officer-involved shooting would naturally reach the colonel of police really fast as it happens here. And since Carlos undoubtedly sent the two motorcycle cops after Bond, he would know that Bond was involved and would immediately put out an APB. To cover his knowledge of the situation for any honest cops on the case all he would have to say was that he had Bond under surveillance by the motorcycle cops before they (and Mathis) were undoubtedly killed by Bond.

By the way, I agree with your unorthodox opinion of John Terry's Felix Leiter in The Living Daylights.

My unorthodox opinion:

My favorite Jane Moneypenny is Samantha Bond.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

-Timothy Dalton could have successfully played Bond in OHMSS, GoldenEye, and the all the Bond films in between (if he wanted to).

-Die Another Day is a more enjoyable film than The World is Not Enough.

-Roger Moore was the worst James Bond.

-From Russia with Love is boring.

-James Cameron should have directed GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies since he had directed True Lies shortly prior to GoldenEye.

[Publius]

- The relationship between Bond and Vesper in Casino Royale was underdeveloped and as such was not as convincing as it should have been

- The Montenegro train scene in Casino Royale, is stagey, over-written, prententious, smug and ebarrassing all at the same time

I thought the only significant problem with both is that they wrote Vesper to be too loudly hostile to Bond, as opposed to... assertively indifferent. In other words, it came across too forced, as if it was something from the "girl power" movement of the 90s that all too often permeated Brosnan's movies.

Despite those issues early on, I think Eva Green nailed it when Vesper started warming to Bond, and Craig was spot on throughout.

Anyway, my unorthodox Bond opinion of the moment is probably that Quantum of Solace is not only the most thrilling and visually stunning Bond movie, but possibly the deepest of them all. Definitely a heck of a lot more complex than most people give it credit for.

[tdalton]

- Eric Serra's score for Goldeneye is really quite good

- The Montenegro train scene in Casino Royale, is stagey, over-written, prententious, smug and ebarrassing all at the same time

I agree completely with both of these sentiments.

- The relationship between Bond and Vesper in Casino Royale was underdeveloped and as such was not as convincing as it should have been

- The Montenegro train scene in Casino Royale, is stagey, over-written, prententious, smug and ebarrassing all at the same time

I thought the only significant problem with both is that they wrote Vesper to be too loudly hostile to Bond, as opposed to... assertively indifferent. In other words, it came across too forced, as if it was something from the "girl power" movement of the 90s that all too often permeated Brosnan's movies.

Despite those issues early on, I think Eva Green nailed it when Vesper started warming to Bond, and Craig was spot on throughout.

Anyway, my unorthodox Bond opinion of the moment is probably that Quantum of Solace is not only the most thrilling and visually stunning Bond movie, but possibly the deepest of them all. Definitely a heck of a lot more complex than most people give it credit for.

I do agree to an extent about how Vesper was written in CASINO ROYALE, but I thought that both actors really pulled it off in a way that wasn't as bad as it could have been in the hands of lesser actors.

I also definitely agree with you on Eva Green, although I'd say that she nailed the character completely, from her very first moment on screen (even though the train scene is, in and of itself, not that great) all the way up until the end. I've said it many times, and I'll say it as long as I'm a fan of movies, that both Eva Green and Daniel Craig should have been nominated for Oscars for their turns in CASINO ROYALE. Both of them were nothing short of brilliant.

Also agreed on your assessment of QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

[Cruiserweight]

AVTAK is a great film!(It's actually the film that made me a hardcore bond fan)

[Grievous Angel Draven]

AVTAK is a great film!

Here here!

[Matt_13]

Quantum of Solace is a good movie.

[Jose]

Is it wrong that I say Pierce Brosnan doesn't count every time I talk to my friends (or non Bond fans) about Bond?

[dee-bee-five]

I think Pierce Brosnan is great as Bond (something which seems to put me at odds with most CBn-ers.)

I like TWINE enormously. I think it's Brosnan's best. I think he's great in it. I think it's well-written and well directed.

I find Thunderball dreary and think it's by far the least of the Eon Bonds.

I think QoS is the best Bond film of the series.

Whilst not my favourite Bond, I think Diamonds Are Forever is an underrated gem and MUCH more subversive than people will allow.

Even though I'm old enough to have seen the later Connery Bonds (YOLT onwards) in cinemas, I don't think he's the best Bond. I actually think Moore is at least as good as Connery, but Craig eclipses them all.

I think Moonraker is fabulous (although it took me years to appreciate it).

I think DAD is much better than most fans will allow.

I like Madonna's Die Another Day. I also think her cameo in the film is funny.

I like Halle Berry.

I like YOLT better than FRWL.

I think the pre-credits sequence in TND is the best in the series.

I believe George Martin's score for LALD is better than some of John Barry's scores.

I think, ultimately, the Bond films are for fun and that we as fans, myself included, take them far too seriously at times...

[Eric Stromberg]

Opinion: Most of the Bond movies are really crap and many viewers/fans resist admitting it.

Could be my age but after watching Bond films for about 35 years, I've gone through various ages and phases and am a little more discerning at this point.

I can appreciate a little something in each chapter but only about 5 of the movies really hold up to any reasonable creative scrutiny (this includes CR and QoS). They just haven't aged well in most cases. It took a swift kick in the from Jason Bourne to bring our JB into the new millennium.

Good news is we are on track for some excellent stories in the future and have an outstanding actor in the role. Bond's handlers are taking a lot of chances with the formula these days and I for one am glad, even if on occasion an idea falls flat!

Edited by Eric Stromberg, 04 August 2009 - 05:58 PM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I can appreciate a little something in each chapter but only about 5 of the movies really hold up to any reasonable creative scrutiny (this includes CR and QoS).

Really? What were the other three?

Is it wrong that I say Pierce Brosnan doesn't count every time I talk to my friends (or non Bond fans) about Bond?

No, it isn't; he doesn't count.

[Jeao007]

There are plenty of things I would like to say, but I'm only going to mention a few

The score for Goldeneye is actually quite good.

The gunbarrel scene at the end of QOS is terrible, Craig walks like a chimp.

QOS really didn't have any Bond-ish qualities to it, seemed just to be an action movie to me.

TLD is one of the best Bond Films.

Edited by JEAO007, 04 August 2009 - 12:23 AM.

[JimmyBond]

The gunbarrel scene at the end of QOS is terrible, Craig walks like a chimp.

QOS really didn't have any Bond-ish qualities to it, seemed just to be an action movie to me.

This thread is for unorthodox Bond opinions. Not opinions that half the board share

[Safari Suit]

Is it wrong that I say Pierce Brosnan doesn't count every time I talk to my friends (or non Bond fans) about Bond?

No, it isn't; he doesn't count.

OK, I'll bite; how so?

[Mr. Blofeld]

Is it wrong that I say Pierce Brosnan doesn't count every time I talk to my friends (or non Bond fans) about Bond?

No, it isn't; he doesn't count.

OK, I'll bite; how so?

In the same way of all those Bonds in the 1967 Casino Royale; he just can't be taken seriously.

[Safari Suit]

Come on you've got to do better than that! Or at least tell me which ones do (one does?) count.

[JimmyBond]

Come on you've got to do better than that! Or at least tell me which ones do (one does?) count.

Agree with you there. Brosnan's stock as of late seems to be dropping among certain Bond fans, but that doesnt make his work any less valid.