740 replies to this topic

[Guy Haines]

I'd like to offer this opinion, of a good friend of mine, which I've just added on a another thread.

 

In his view, none of the Bond films are up to scratch, and only the Bond books - and he means, I think, the Ian Fleming originals, not the continuation novels - are worth bothering with. And if the Fleming books had to be filmed, they should have been filmed in the right order, and as Fleming wrote them.

 

I should add this isn't necessarily my opinion.

 

Unorthodox enough?

[Colossus]

^I have no problem with, the post is even buied deep somewherein this topic.

 

The recent posts about SF not being good, gotta say i agree if only that it is TWINE redux with a 006 clone thrown in.
That's one mark in favor of nd a legitimate pro to the BrozEra.

[tdalton]

I'd like to offer this opinion, of a good friend of mine, which I've just added on a another thread.

 

In his view, none of the Bond films are up to scratch, and only the Bond books - and he means, I think, the Ian Fleming originals, not the continuation novels - are worth bothering with. And if the Fleming books had to be filmed, they should have been filmed in the right order, and as Fleming wrote them.

 

I should add this isn't necessarily my opinion.

 

Unorthodox enough?

 

I'd very much subscribe to the idea that it would be great if they'd film the Fleming novels in order and, mostly, as Fleming wrote them.  I think it would be absolutely necessary to go through and remove some of the content in the novels, but the stories themselves would make for a great series.  This would work best as a TV series on HBO or Showtime, with a 10-episode season or something like that, with somewhere between 2-3 novels being adapted each season. 

 

As for Skyfall being a bad film, I'd say that's pretty unorthodox, although I'd lean in a direction along those lines.  I'm not sure I'd say that Skyfall is a bad film, because I don't think that it is (there's too much good work being done behind the camera, as well as on the parts of Craig and Bardem to say that), but it's such a disappointing film that it's hard to get overly excited to watch it.  As already said, it borrows far too much from the Brosnan Era, with a healthy dose of elements from The World is Not Enough and a villain that really isn't all that different from Alec Trevelyan.  With the talent involved, it should have been more than just the mediocre film it ultimately ended up being, and that's what makes it a massive disappointment. 

[Janus Assassin]

I'd like to offer this opinion, of a good friend of mine, which I've just added on a another thread.

 

In his view, none of the Bond films are up to scratch, and only the Bond books - and he means, I think, the Ian Fleming originals, not the continuation novels - are worth bothering with. And if the Fleming books had to be filmed, they should have been filmed in the right order, and as Fleming wrote them.

 

I should add this isn't necessarily my opinion.

 

Unorthodox enough?

 

If TMWTGG was filmed, then we would have Roger come back to MI6 brainwashed, try to kill M and gets sent to Jamaica to deal with some hotel business phooey.

[Colossus]

 

I'd like to offer this opinion, of a good friend of mine, which I've just added on a another thread.

 

In his view, none of the Bond films are up to scratch, and only the Bond books - and he means, I think, the Ian Fleming originals, not the continuation novels - are worth bothering with. And if the Fleming books had to be filmed, they should have been filmed in the right order, and as Fleming wrote them.

 

I should add this isn't necessarily my opinion.

 

Unorthodox enough?

 

As for Skyfall being a bad film, I'd say that's pretty unorthodox, although I'd lean in a direction along those lines.  I'm not sure I'd say that Skyfall is a bad film, because I don't think that it is (there's too much good work being done behind the camera, as well as on the parts of Craig and Bardem to say that), but it's such a disappointing film that it's hard to get overly excited to watch it.  As already said, it borrows far too much from the Brosnan Era, with a healthy dose of elements from The World is Not Enough and a villain that really isn't all that different from Alec Trevelyan.  With the talent involved, it should have been more than just the mediocre film it ultimately ended up being, and that's what makes it a massive disappointment. 

 

Plus the 4 years added time. I did like the finale of the reverse-lair this time Bond's and they have to enter it. 

[Hansen]

 

 

As for Skyfall being a bad film, I'd say that's pretty unorthodox, although I'd lean in a direction along those lines.  I'm not sure I'd say that Skyfall is a bad film, because I don't think that it is (there's too much good work being done behind the camera, as well as on the parts of Craig and Bardem to say that), but it's such a disappointing film that it's hard to get overly excited to watch it.  As already said, it borrows far too much from the Brosnan Era, with a healthy dose of elements from The World is Not Enough and a villain that really isn't all that different from Alec Trevelyan.  With the talent involved, it should have been more than just the mediocre film it ultimately ended up being, and that's what makes it a massive disappointment. 

 

I guess it is considered as bad because expectations were too high in regards of talents involved

[Iceskater101]

-Goldfinger is one of the worst Bond movies

-Moonraker is extremely exciting

-Barry's music sometimes is sometimes boring

- I hate Brosnan's voice

-I hate Craig's haircut in Skyfall

-They should keep the gunbarrel at the end

-QoS titles are awesome

-Desmond Llewelyn wasn't a good choice for playing Q

-John Glen is a very good director

-Skyfall has too many defaults to be a very good Bond movie

-Sophie Marceau was bad in TWINE

 

Okay I also hate Craig's haircut in Skyfall.. it's very short. Though the rest I am not sure I can agree with but to each their own.

[freemo]

There's something very establishment, very reverential figure, very "national treasure / institution", very time-honoured tradition about SKYFALL, which is partly why I don't like it so much and perhaps why many do. It's all a little cosy, a little insular, a little self-reflective (why are James Bond films now always about the James Bond series?) for mine. I like my James Bond controversial, teetering on the edge of being unacceptable. If a James Bond adventure is released and nobody is outraged, you're not doing it right.  But this is the James Bond series arriving at Buckingham Palace to get its knighthood. I know that it's a bit to ask for a series at 50 years of age to still rock and roll all night and party ev-er-y day, but SKYFALL stays in at home and sits in front of the electric heater and makes itself a cup of tea and watches Midsomer Murders on the tele. Is SKYFALL James Bond matures or James Bond gets old? As always, the next film (which, if present trends continue, will see Bond, M, Q and Moneypenny sitting around knitting a quilt) will tell.

 

But if LICENCE TO KILL had been the last James Bond film, as it at one point looked like it might, that would have been the equivalent of series dying of a drug overdose at age 27, crashing onto its trashed hotel room floor choking on its own vomit while trying to squeeze into its old leather trousers "under mysterious circumstances", hardcore to the very last. I sometimes (Not always. Not even often. But occasionally) can't help but wonder if that would have been the way to go. Is it better to burn out than to fade away?

 

Beatles or Stones? Pfft. I always prefered The Doors. How's that for unorthodox.

[Colossus]

That was a very tale-like post wow freemo. I gotta agree with you on the whole "we need to live up to the 50th ann." thing it was ill fated from the get-go to bow before the whole series and stuff. 

The Skyfall phenomenon is the most fascinating thing witnessed bar-none, first touted, now poo'd. Hilarious utterly hilarious. As for LTK being the finale… well i would have liked that, unfortunately GE was just much too good. Ofcourse after that i'd agree to let the series fade in the stretch...

[Turn]

Great post, Freemo. Should be a thread all its own. Interesting how Skyfall went from being put on a pedestal to 1.5 years later earning first place in a most overrated film of all time article, not to mention polarizing the fan community.

 

What does it say for me for me as I dig the Beatles, Stones and Doors equally?

[plankattack]

There's something very establishment, very reverential figure, very "national treasure", very time-honoured tradition about SKYFALL, which is partly why I don't like it so much and perhaps why many do. It's all a little cosy, a little insular, a little self-reflective (why are James Bond films now always about the James Bond series?) for mine. I like my James Bond controversial, teetering on the edge of being unacceptable. If a James Bond adventure is released and nobody is outraged, you're not doing it right.  But this is the James Bond series arriving at Buckingham Palace to get its knighthood. I know that it's a bit to ask for a series at 50 years of age to still rock and roll all night and party ev-er-yday, but SKYFALL stays in at home and sits in front of the electric heater and makes itself a cup of tea and watches Midsomer Murders on the tele. Is SKYFALL James Bond matures or James Bond gets old? As always, the next film (which, if present trends continue, will see Bond, M, Q and Moneypenny sitting around knitting a quilt) will tell.
 
But if LICENCE TO KILL had been the last James Bond film, as it at one point looked like it might, that would have been the equivalent of series dying of a drug overdose at age 27, crashing onto its hotel room floor choking on its own vomit while trying to squeeze into its old leather trousers "under mysterious circumstances", hardcore to the very last. I sometimes (Not always. Not even often. But occasionally) can't help but wonder if that would have been the way to go. Is it better to burn out than to fade away?
 
Beatles or Stones? Pfft. I always prefered The Doors. How's that for unorthodox.

Great post Freemo. Unfortunately when Bond films step outside the apparently established comfort zone (LTK - which I love, QoS - which I love), toys go out of the pram and much gnashing of teeth is heard. After QoS, SF was only ever going to be a self-aware jam session in the garage known as Pinewood (alright, enough with the music metaphor).

To sort of circle back on topic, is it unorthodox to say that for the series to be 50 years old, and arguably last another 50, those films that take a stab at controversy, standing on the edge etc etc, are as important to the series longevity as the slippers in front of a warm fire that is SF?

Was always a Ray Davies and The Kinks type of bloke myself......

[Hansen]

When you have done such a good job for 50 years, you should not be afraid to take some risk. That is my main blame on the Franchise lately. Since LTK, Bond has become extremely conventionnal and unsprising (CR and QoS hinted something different but it never materialized).

I know it is a business made for money, but unlike other franchise / studio product, Bond can take chances  and even afford to lose once as we will always expect the next one.

 

Dire Straits for me

[Guy Haines]

I'm at a bit of a loss as to why SF is a "comfort zone" Bond film. Apart from the title song - which I grant you I liked because it harked back to the classic Bond themes - I can't quite see it.

 

It takes in elements from the previous Bond films, to be sure, especially the more recent ones. But does a comfort zone Bond film feature Bond as a barely functioning alcoholic? A man almost unable to shoot straight?

 

Does a comfort zone film feature a clearly bi-sexual villain? Or a villain with, to put it bluntly, a "mother/son" complex? Silva is a complicated, seriously disturbed character, imho, not  Alec Trevelyan revisited.

 

SF inverts a number of items which we expect. Q is now a youthful IT whiz. Moneypenny a former field agent. The new M an ex-SAS man, however much he denied it. The villains attacked Bond's "HQ" - Skyfall - rather than the other way around.

 

If SF really was a return to the comfort zone I know some of us would like it would have featured one liners and visual gags every few minutes, and a "happy ending" in which Bond gets the girl whilst headquarters is trying to contact him. None of this happened. The nearest we get to a real "Bond girl", as several film critics pointed out, is the former M herself. Again, Bond spending more time with the boss than with the ladies is not your typical film.

 

I think to call SF a comfort zone film is to focus on the almost inevitable back references to the Bond of the past in a 50th anniversary film - as with DAD, they were always going to happen - rather than consider what makes SF different.

[tdalton]

When you have done such a good job for 50 years, you should not be afraid to take some risk. That is my main blame on the Franchise lately. Since LTK, Bond has become extremely conventionnal and unsprising (CR and QoS hinted something different but it never materialized).

I know it is a business made for money, but unlike other franchise / studio product, Bond can take chances  and even afford to lose once as we will always expect the next one.

 

Dire Straits for me

 

Agreed.  I'd probably exclude Quantum of Solace from that, though, as I think that Forster was probably able to exert enough of his influence on the production to shake things up from what they had been previously.  Aside from that film, though, it's been pretty much business as usual from GoldenEye on. 

 

Casino Royale afforded the studio a chance to really shake things up and do something completely new with the Bond films, but all they really did was make a better version of what they were doing during the Brosnan Era.  I used to loathe the idea of a Tarantino Bond film, and I still think he'd do a poor job with it, but I almost welcome it at this point just because he would probably shake things up, and if it were a financial success, EON would probably be willing to take more risks somewhere down the road.  Sadly, now that the general public has rubber stamped Skyfall as the greatest Bond film since Goldfinger, we're most likely stuck with films that will look to xerox what they did with Skyfall.

[Hansen]

I'm at a bit of a loss as to why SF is a "comfort zone" Bond film. Apart from the title song - which I grant you I liked because it harked back to the classic Bond themes - I can't quite see it.

 

It takes in elements from the previous Bond films, to be sure, especially the more recent ones. But does a comfort zone Bond film feature Bond as a barely functioning alcoholic? A man almost unable to shoot straight?

 

Does a comfort zone film feature a clearly bi-sexual villain? Or a villain with, to put it bluntly, a "mother/son" complex? Silva is a complicated, seriously disturbed character, imho, not  Alec Trevelyan revisited.

 

SF inverts a number of items which we expect. Q is now a youthful IT whiz. Moneypenny a former field agent. The new M an ex-SAS man, however much he denied it. The villains attacked Bond's "HQ" - Skyfall - rather than the other way around.

 

If SF really was a return to the comfort zone I know some of us would like it would have featured one liners and visual gags every few minutes, and a "happy ending" in which Bond gets the girl whilst headquarters is trying to contact him. None of this happened. The nearest we get to a real "Bond girl", as several film critics pointed out, is the former M herself. Again, Bond spending more time with the boss than with the ladies is not your typical film.

 

I think to call SF a comfort zone film is to focus on the almost inevitable back references to the Bond of the past in a 50th anniversary film - as with DAD, they were always going to happen - rather than consider what makes SF different.

Instead of conventional, I should say mainstream. And that is why it is a comfort zone.

We had this conversation somewhere else but there was a time when Bond was a trendsetter and a shocker. SF is a copy & paste of Nolan's work because TDK was great but what works for Batman does not automatically for Bond.

EON takes successful recipes and apply them to Bond. I would love them to use Bond to offer new recipes instead (especially those with gratuitous sex and violence

[Guy Haines]

Regarding "comfort zone" versus "shockers", I'm not bothered about Bond against other series such as Batman. I'm mostly looking at the Bond series. I'd say the following qualify as shockers.

 

Doctor No - up until this we Brits didn't do films in which the "hero" killed a villain (Dent) and then unloaded a few more bullets into the corpse. Just not British, don't you know.

 

From Russia With Love - more of the same. Bond slaps Tania about and brutally kills Grant - and the moment when "Nash" is revealed as Grant is a real moment of danger for Bond.

 

OHMSS - no more Connery. A shock in itself.

 

The Living Daylights - in spite of the script, an actor playing James Bond as Ian Fleming's James Bond.

 

Licence To Kill - a shocker, but would have been even better with a different team working with Dalton. As it is, the old team working overtime to prove they could do "tough and brutal".

 

Casino Royale (2006) - I don't agree that it was a missed opportunity. The parkour chase and the mayhem at Miami airport were nods towards the expected, but the rest mostly confounded audience expectations, and it worked brilliantly. Be honest - your typical audience wouldn't have expected a scene in which a naked Bond has his prized possessions knocked about (Frankly I was shocked the scene was filmed at all.)

 

Quantum of Solace - A shocker because of the direction style, although if there's an argument that Skyfall borrowed from a certain director's way then surely it also applies here, given the number of films involving "shaky-cam". I was knocked back a bit by QoS, but it gets better and better every time I watch.

 

Skyfall - for the reasons I mentioned in a previous post. I could have added "M is killed off", which is a shocker, I suppose. One of my relations reckoned it was a "great film but not a great Bond film". I think it's both. But surely it's a shock when "great film" and "Bond film" are used in the same sentence. We've all been used to Bond films as being box office gold but apparently not worthy of critical acclaim. This film - and CR 2006 - managed both.

 

The rest - from GF to YOLT, from DAF to AVTAK, from GE to DAD? Comfort zone. Goldfinger set a great precedent. Two films followed it. Diamonds Are Forever set a different one - more camp, more humourous. Two more films followed that. One could argue that the Roger Moore era was one big comfort zone - two films following the lead of DAF, then five more suited to his Bond. The Brosnan era was, I thought, not a bad attempt to bring the 60s Bond into the 90s - but not ground-breaking.

[glidrose]

But if LICENCE TO KILL had been the last James Bond film, as it at one point looked like it might, that would have been the equivalent of series dying of a drug overdose at age 27, crashing onto its trashed hotel room floor choking on its own vomit while trying to squeeze into its old leather trousers "under mysterious circumstances", hardcore to the very last. I sometimes (Not always. Not even often. But occasionally) can't help but wonder if that would have been the way to go. Is it better to burn out than to fade away?

You write: "trying to squeeze into its old leather trousers "under mysterious circumstances", hardcore to the very last."

Why is it trying to squeeze into its old leather trousers under mysterious circumstances?

Hardcore to the very last? Er, um, you mean he died with a stiffy?

[Rufus Ffolkes]

Here's an unorthodox opinion - I think Moore could have been very good in OHMSS. With the same script and direction, we might have seen a more vulnerable, more human take on the character than the comic superhero version of Bond he went on to play. He was around forty then, which was an appropriate age for the character as presented in the story - a man who's reevaluating his life. And of course, he would have been far better than Lazenby in the Hilary Bray scenes, without the need for a voice double.

[Tiin007]

Here's an unorthodox opinion - I think Moore could have been very good in OHMSS. With the same script and direction, we might have seen a more vulnerable, more human take on the character than the comic superhero version of Bond he went on to play. He was around forty then, which was an appropriate age for the character as presented in the story - a man who's reevaluating his life. And of course, he would have been far better than Lazenby in the Hilary Bray scenes, without the need for a voice double.

 

I love this idea. And I'd like to add (not sure if this is unorthodox, but it is in the same vein as your idea)  that overall I prefer Moore over Lazenby as Bond. I think Moore nailed the serious scenes as Bond, and was arguably the best Bond solely because of his versatility in the role. It's a shame that he is too often viewed as merely the "campy Bond."

 

Not sure who my favorite Bond is, but Moore is certainly high on my list.

[Guy Haines]

Moore in OHMSS is an idea one or two on Cbn, myself included, thought could have worked. It would have stretched him dramatically. The obvious dubbing used for the "Sir Hilary Bray" could have been avoided, as pointed out above. And the humour would have suited Moore - particularly in the scenes when "Sir Hilary" is flirting with Blofeld's patients.

 

OHMSS has a reputation as a downbeat Bond film, but apart from the ending, it isn't - it's "classic Bond" with a twist - our hero falls in love.

 

Had Roger Moore appeared in OHMSS it might have had an effect on the whole direction of the Bond series from then, and on his interpretation of the role. Had he been successful the idea of recalling Sean Connery might have been unnecessary, although he might have returned in a rival production at some point.

 

One of the great "what ifs"?

[freemo]

I think Mary Goodnight is actually one of the more interesting Bond girls of the films. Seems to have a bit of an insecurity about her (look at the way she kind of awkwardly tip toes into his bedroom), and seems to want badly to be a Bond girl, while Bond has a contempt for her that stems from the fact that he knows he can have her any time he wants (a weakness or insecurity to pounce on is one thing, but the predator needs for it to be at least some sort of challenge), hence he can shove her into a closet, and sort of "put her on ice" for later, when something better comes along.

 

LIVE AND LET DIE and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN make an amirable and capable (if slightly crude and a touch hateful) attempt at darker, harsher Moore Bond, particulay with his actions towards women (Holding Rosie at gun point, duping Solitaire, describing Solitaire as a "valuable piece of merchendise", slapping Andrea Anders around then using her, etc). Fond as I am of THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and MOONRAKER, and of Moore, who is disarming and magnetic and wonderful always, when they changed Bond from a predator to merely a pest, that's when the character rather stopped being interesting.

[Guy Haines]

I've revised my opinions about LALD and TMWTGG as I've got older. Particularly the former. At the time of release I was pleased that Roger Moore was Bond but thought the storylines were a bit "ho hum". Drug dealing and a man wanting to duel with Bond. I guess I missed Blofeld and SPECTRE.

 

I see now that they show Moore's Bond as darker than his later performances, and I sometimes wonder what his Bond might have developed into if the film makers had allowed him to (or made him?) play against his natural light comic talents rather than indulged them.

[Iceskater101]

I think Mary Goodnight is actually one of the more interesting Bond girls of the films. Seems to have a bit of an insecurity about her (look at the way she kind of awkwardly tip toes into his bedroom), and seems to want badly to be a Bond girl, while Bond has a contempt for her that stems from the fact that he knows he can have her any time he wants (a weakness or insecurity to pounce on is one thing, but the predator needs for it to be at least some sort of challenge), hence he can shove her into a closet, and sort of "put her on ice" for later, when something better comes along.

 

 

I think Goodnight is an interesting Bond girl. I actually liked her more as I read the book and then watched the movie again.

[Colossus]

If they continued

 

I think Mary Goodnight is actually one of the more interesting Bond girls of the films. Seems to have a bit of an insecurity about her (look at the way she kind of awkwardly tip toes into his bedroom), and seems to want badly to be a Bond girl, while Bond has a contempt for her that stems from the fact that he knows he can have her any time he wants (a weakness or insecurity to pounce on is one thing, but the predator needs for it to be at least some sort of challenge), hence he can shove her into a closet, and sort of "put her on ice" for later, when something better comes along.

 

 

Huh leave it to a movie to actually make sense of how things are truly in real life.

[Lukas]

The World Is Not Enough is the worst Bond film, not Die Another Day, Moonraker, or Diamonds Are Forever.

 

That's gotta' be unpopular.

[Call Billy Bob]

In my ranking of favorite Bond villains, I have General Orlov placed higher than both Red Grant and Rosa Klebb...

[Turn]

Lukas, your opinion isn't unpopular with me as I also rank The World Is Not Enough as worst Bond film.

[Iceskater101]

Lukas, your opinion isn't unpopular with me as I also rank The World Is Not Enough as worst Bond film.

 

Noooooooooooooooooooo :'(

[Call Billy Bob]

Another one for me: I prefer Lazenby over Brosnan.

[Major Tallon]

Me too.