278 replies to this topic

[freemo]

Most Overrated - GOLDENEYE.
Not merely the most overrated Bond film, but probably the most overrated anything, ever.

Most Underrated - TOMORROW NEVER DIES.
Mostly inoffensive, villain's plot is different, solid action sequences, and definitely one of the better paced Bond films (let's be honest, some just go on forever). Would it be remembered at all if it weren't a Bond film? Probably not, but it's not bad.

Most overrated - Casino Royale. It's a very good film (and a proper film) but one would think it had cured cancer, found Atlantis and made everyone more beautiful, paid off all our mortgages and rendered our puppies immortal.

Give it time.

[Mister E]

While I don't consider any of the films to be above "overrating", I do think that TWINE cannot possibly be underrated. My subjective opinion, of course, but there it is. I can't think of the last time I could watch it all the way through, nor can I fathom the next.

I cannot consider THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH anything other than awful.

A Bond film is never good when you make him a metrosexual.

I don't know why, but I simply cannot grasp the utter disdain - not indifference, dislike or aversion, but utter disdain - toward The World is not Enough.

I'll no doubt be told, but I honestly cannot see what lies within The World is not Enough that makes it so execrably awful as to warrant the kind of derision that it suffers here (and is it only CBn? How is The World is not Enough received elsewhere? Its reviews were mixed, but it was rarely, as far as I recall, totally panned), especially when one considers what else the Bond canon offers.

Indeed, it has some (in my extraordinarily humbled opinion) some gems to be found within. Marceau's Elektra must surely rank in the upper tier of Bond girls; the Thames boat chase is wonderfully shot and makes excellent use of London locales; the pipeline sequence (despite Richards' presence) is something new and different; the torture scene features great chemistry between Marceau and Brosnan...

Maybe, over time, it'll receive re-evaluation within the fan community, as On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and Moonraker have before it.

Let's see:

Elektra was a just a stupid silly girl who's motivations were hammered in the last part of the film.

The Thames Boat chase ranks as the most boring one in a Bond film yet, right next to the tank chase in GOLDENEYE.

Renard is a wasted character entirely that simply made the film more convoluted then it was and less of a character with any menance or presence.

Bond was a complete wimp that my Mom could beat up. I cite the examples of him touching the computer screen of Elektra and punking out when he finally confronted Ms. King when she was caught.

M was idiotic sentimental grandmother who was dumb enough to let her self become captured and actually explaining her own motivations to Bond. This moron was the head of MI6 ?

Zukovsky went from tough but amusing underworld gangster to comic relief.

I can go on but TWINE is just .

[dee-bee-five]

I don't know why, but I simply cannot grasp the utter disdain - not indifference, dislike or aversion, but utter disdain - toward The World is not Enough.

I'll no doubt be told, but I honestly cannot see what lies within The World is not Enough that makes it so execrably awful as to warrant the kind of derision that it suffers here (and is it only CBn? How is The World is not Enough received elsewhere? Its reviews were mixed, but it was rarely, as far as I recall, totally panned), especially when one considers what else the Bond canon offers.

Indeed, it has some (in my extraordinarily humbled opinion) some gems to be found within. Marceau's Elektra must surely rank in the upper tier of Bond girls; the Thames boat chase is wonderfully shot and makes excellent use of London locales; the pipeline sequence (despite Richards' presence) is something new and different; the torture scene features great chemistry between Marceau and Brosnan...

Maybe, over time, it'll receive re-evaluation within the fan community, as On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and Moonraker have before it.

I couldn't agree more. I can understand - although do not share - the dislike of Die Another Day, but find the hatred levelled at TWINE baffling. All the elements you cite make it classic Bond to me and, personally, I find Micheal Apted a bloody good director. But, like you, I predict TWINE will be reappraised by fans á la Moonraker and OHMSS.

[dee-bee-five]

Bond was a complete wimp. I cite the examples of him touching the computer screen of Elektra and punking out when he finally confronted Ms. King when she was caught.

I can't help feeling that if those scenes featured in a Craig Bond film, the majority of fans would be wetting themselves with delight and claiming it shows how brilliant Craig is. Don't get me wrong, I think Craig is terrific as Bond and a better actor than Pierce Brosnan (although PB is a far better actor than many on here will allow). But I find it amusing how we all move the goalposts between different Bond actors to bolster our arguments.

[Safari Suit]

Bond was a complete wimp. I cite the examples of him touching the computer screen of Elektra and punking out when he finally confronted Ms. King when she was caught.

I can't help feeling that if those scenes featured in a Craig Bond film, the majority of fans would be wetting themselves with delight and claiming it shows how brilliant Craig is. Don't get me wrong, I think Craig is terrific as Bond and a better actor than Pierce Brosnan (although PB is a far better actor than many on here will allow). But I find it amusing how we all move the goalposts between different Bond actors to bolster our arguments.

While I am not a fan of TWINE, I can see your point. I think we could also say the same if the scenes featured Lazenby or perhaps even Moore.

[SecretAgentFan]

Bond was a complete wimp. I cite the examples of him touching the computer screen of Elektra and punking out when he finally confronted Ms. King when she was caught.

I can't help feeling that if those scenes featured in a Craig Bond film, the majority of fans would be wetting themselves with delight and claiming it shows how brilliant Craig is. Don't get me wrong, I think Craig is terrific as Bond and a better actor than Pierce Brosnan (although PB is a far better actor than many on here will allow). But I find it amusing how we all move the goalposts between different Bond actors to bolster our arguments.

Thank you. Finally someone who shares my enthusiasm for TWINE. While some aspects of the film are underdeveloped, it really is a great Bond IMO. And by the way - every film and every Bond film for that matter do have weaknesses.

All right, Renard could have been a more menacing villain. - However, Apted maybe chose to not go over the top here and make him more realistic. AND - and this plays into the argument "Bond is wimp" - IMO TWINE is the story of a love triangle: Bond - Electra - Renard. So Renard can´t be too menacing, actually, since Electra must feel compassion and love for him.

If you basically want Bond to be a misogynist, then, of course, you can´t like the Brosnan era during which women were courted as a previously missing part of the Bond audience. Brosnan actually was a big draw for women to go see a Bond movie. Therefore, he was made more sensitive.

Also, if you consider Bond being a wimp because he regrets his responsability for the death of Electra´s father and because he feels compassion for Electra´s problem, then you don´t want to have him act as a human being older than 13 years old.

And don´t forget - when push comes to shove, Bond knows exactly where his priorities are. Hence one of the greatest scenes in any Bond film ending with one of the greatest Bond lines: "I never miss".

Just for that scene and for that line, TWINE will always be one of my favorite Bond movies.

P.S. Denise Richards may get lots of hate. But she is like most former Bond girls employed as eye candy. And as such she works beautifully. And make no mistake - most of the fanboys secretly love her, and their hands know this, too.

[Publius]

I can't help feeling that if those scenes featured in a Craig Bond film, the majority of fans would be wetting themselves with delight and claiming it shows how brilliant Craig is. Don't get me wrong, I think Craig is terrific as Bond and a better actor than Pierce Brosnan (although PB is a far better actor than many on here will allow). But I find it amusing how we all move the goalposts between different Bond actors to bolster our arguments.

If Craig touched a computer screen with a girl's tear on it, I'd be giving the movie hell for that as much as I criticize TWINE for it. I don't blame Brosnan for the scene.

If Craig had a similar confrontation, I think he'd have delivered it better (look at how he called Vesper "a bloody idiot" to see how I think he'd have done it), but again, that scene in TWINE was just so poorly written that it made Brosnan look worse than he was.

There's a difference in execution between different actors and movies. Craig delivering cheesy dialogue in CR is usually tolerable, sometimes even charming, but Brosnan doing the same in DAD makes me want to vomit. Not all cheesy dialogue is created equal. Not all cheesy dialogue-deliverers are created equal.

And don´t forget - when push comes to shove, Bond knows exactly where his priorities are. Hence one of the greatest scenes in any Bond film ending with one of the greatest Bond lines: "I never miss".

Too bad that was followed by a bizarre moment where Bond leans over her dead body, despite having long since discovered how twisted she is and despite time ticking away rapidly as a nuclear submarine goes underwater and prepares to destroy Istanbul.

[Mister E]

I can't help feeling that if those scenes featured in a Craig Bond film, the majority of fans would be wetting themselves with delight and claiming it shows how brilliant Craig is. Don't get me wrong, I think Craig is terrific as Bond and a better actor than Pierce Brosnan (although PB is a far better actor than many on here will allow). But I find it amusing how we all move the goalposts between different Bond actors to bolster our arguments.

If Craig did it, he would be just as big a punk. That isn't manly emotion as Craig emitted in CR, it was CBS level soap opera acting.

Also, if you consider Bond being a wimp because he regrets his responsability for the death of Electra´s father and because he feels compassion for Electra´s problem, then you don´t want to have him act as a human being older than 13 years old.

That is find taking that rpeosblity but his reacted like a stupid little school boy. TWINE's so called emotion is no better then an episode of GENERAL HOPSPITAL.

I also cite the idiotic scens were Elektra was screaming and kicking like an 8 year old when she and Bond were trapped in that snow. Bond trying confort her was again more silly soap opera acting.

Also the scene in the Casino were Bond should have put his foot down and told Elektra to go home because it isn't safe. Since Bond was a punk bitch, he let him walk all over her.

Even when Bond knew without a doubt Renard was in cahoots with Elektra, she side stepped the issue by making Bond feel bad for M using her as bait earlier in the film. How stupid can you be to fall for something like that ?

Edited by Mister E, 12 August 2008 - 02:29 PM.

[Blonde Bond]

Bond was a complete wimp. I cite the examples of him touching the computer screen of Elektra and punking out when he finally confronted Ms. King when she was caught.

I can't help feeling that if those scenes featured in a Craig Bond film, the majority of fans would be wetting themselves with delight and claiming it shows how brilliant Craig is. Don't get me wrong, I think Craig is terrific as Bond and a better actor than Pierce Brosnan (although PB is a far better actor than many on here will allow). But I find it amusing how we all move the goalposts between different Bond actors to bolster our arguments.

I couldn't agree more. It seems like majority of posters here have formed and bunch of Pierce hating mobs, who think that everything Craig does turns into a pure gold, saying things like the Great Craig-era. The man has only done one film, for god's sake!

I love Dan, but I don't get how almost everyone here turns out to be a Pierce Brosnan hating snob.

In my opinion Pierce should get his own 'PierceBrosnanWasBond.com', microsite, where one could only praise Pierce. He's honestly turning out to be a man that wasn't Bond... if you allow me to be that extreme with my wording.

[Mister E]

Bond was a complete wimp. I cite the examples of him touching the computer screen of Elektra and punking out when he finally confronted Ms. King when she was caught.

I can't help feeling that if those scenes featured in a Craig Bond film, the majority of fans would be wetting themselves with delight and claiming it shows how brilliant Craig is. Don't get me wrong, I think Craig is terrific as Bond and a better actor than Pierce Brosnan (although PB is a far better actor than many on here will allow). But I find it amusing how we all move the goalposts between different Bond actors to bolster our arguments.

I couldn't agree more. It seems like majority of posters here have formed and bunch of Pierce hating mobs, who think that everything Craig does turns into a pure gold, saying things like the Great Craig-era. The man has only done one film, for god's sake!

I love Dan, but I don't get how almost everyone here turns out to be a Pierce Brosnan hating snob.

In my opinion Pierce should get his own 'PierceBrosnanWasBond.com', microsite, where one could only praise Pierce. He's honestly turning out to be a man that wasn't Bond... if you allow me to be that extreme with my wording.

Did I said "Craig would have done it better" or even mentioned Craig once ? No. I cited an example of bad acting and that was just the tip of ice berg in the heap of dog crap called TWINE.

[dodge]

most overrated bond movie is Casino Royale.
after a longer absence 4 years Bond was back with a new
actor. I am probably older than most of my 007 brothers and sisters
which may have influenced my opinion. Too much like a new spy/bourne
type movie had little 007 feel to the movie. i re-read CR before
watching the movie( first one in 25 years I did not go to the movies
to see). Daniel Craig is a very good actor but seems miscast as
Bond. even in interviews he doesn't seem to get it. he just is no
007 for me.

Moste underated would be Octopussy. great fun Moore Bond. The villian has a cool plot, great girls and Q having a blast!

What I'm most curious about is which side of the fence QoS will fall on.

[Blonde Bond]

I meant that that's seem to be a general opinion here nowadays. Craig's Golden Era ( 1 film ain't an era.) vs Brosnan's Era - The Man That Never Was Bond... *sigh*

But I see a lot of similarities between TWINE and CR and my honest thought is that, if Craig would've done TWINE everyone, like dee-bee-five said 'would be wetting themselves' over the movie.

[Mister E]

I meant that that's seem to be a general opinion here nowadays. Craig's Golden Era ( 1 film ain't an era.) vs Brosnan's Era - The Man That Never Was Bond... *sigh*

But I see a lot of similarities between TWINE and CR and my honest thought is that, if Craig would've done TWINE everyone, like dee-bee-five said 'would be wetting themselves' over the movie.

TWINE tried to be and emotionl and didn't work because it sucked. CASINO ROYALE actually had compitent story telling, acting directing, etc. I don't regard Craig as a golden era but so far, he has had the best film in nearly 40 years. When Bond's character actually meant something.

[MkB]

To get back on topic about the most overrated / underrated Bond films, I think there's a huge difference betwen the rating by Bond fans and the rating by the general audience.

Among the "non fans" people I know (who are, of course, not a valid representation of the general audience, but are my only personal take at it), none remembers there was an actor named Lazenby portraying Bond, and none has seen OHMSS (or remembers it at least), they have more or less forgotten the Dalton era, and they enjoyed the Brosnan films (but enjoyed CR more, that's something ).

I had to sign on on a fan board to learn how Brosnan's Bond seems to be widely disliked (should I say despised?)

[Judo chop]

I had to sign on on a fan board to learn how Brosnan's Bond seems to be widely disliked (should I say despised?)

That's very true, I think. Before I signed on I was an avid PB fan. Called him 'the next best thing to Connery' at one point.

(Oh, you conspiracy theory types… please do stop. Nobody is telling you that “the only reason you like Pierce Brosnan is because you’re a raving and talent-blind fanatic”, so please stop suggesting that I don’t like Pierce Brosnan because others around here, in league of some kind of an anti-Brozza club, have somehow brainwashed me into their ranks. I don’t like him because of my own reasons, which some people seem to share, thank you very much.)

So that difference would make at least a little sense to me. A Bond fan (one who owns all the films, watches and re-watches them, and discusses them at great length and in great detail) is bound to experience shifts in taste and preference over time. The general public is formed of people whose expectations are different, who may have no interest in Fleming, or perhaps may have even no knowledge of any Bond film made prior to their 14th birthday and who probably only get one viewing of the film.

The former is a completely different group and has, if I can be blunt, more experience. It would be shocking to find that Bond fans on a whole DO share the same Bond values as the general public.

[Harmsway]

And don´t forget - when push comes to shove, Bond knows exactly where his priorities are. Hence one of the greatest scenes in any Bond film ending with one of the greatest Bond lines: "I never miss".

Too bad that was followed by a bizarre moment where Bond leans over her dead body, despite having long since discovered how twisted she is and despite time ticking away rapidly as a nuclear submarine goes underwater and prepares to destroy Istanbul.

Indeed. It's a terrible moment that undermines Bond entirely. Why should he mourn Elektra? She tortured him a minute ago! Where's the steely Bond resolve? The coldheartedness? Ugh. It's not a good moment by any stretch.

[dee-bee-five]

Did I said "Craig would have done it better" or even mentioned Craig once ? No. I cited an example of bad acting and that was just the tip of ice berg in the heap of dog crap called TWINE.

In your opinion, to which you are entitled. But I don't share it. Please respect my right - and that of others - to disagree with you without resorting to subjective nonsense like "a heap of dog crap". And when did "soap opera" acting become a dirty term? I can't speak for the US, but in Britain one can see a far higher standard of acting 5 times a week in even a routine episode of EastEnders or Coronation Street than one will spending the best part of £100 for a seat in the West End.

I meant that that's seem to be a general opinion here nowadays. Craig's Golden Era ( 1 film ain't an era.) vs Brosnan's Era - The Man That Never Was Bond... *sigh*

But I see a lot of similarities between TWINE and CR and my honest thought is that, if Craig would've done TWINE everyone, like dee-bee-five said 'would be wetting themselves' over the movie.

Absolutely. Sadly, it's become fashionable on here to dump on Pierce Brosnan and his whole era; the prevailing "logic" seems to be that one can't like Pierce and Daniel, even though liking Sean and Roger is deemed okay. I must admit, I don't understand it but suspect that, like all fads and fashions, people will eventually tire of it and it will pass.

I had to sign on on a fan board to learn how Brosnan's Bond seems to be widely disliked (should I say despised?)

That's very true, I think. Before I signed on I was an avid PB fan. Called him 'the next best thing to Connery' at one point.

(Oh, you conspiracy theory types… please do stop. Nobody is telling you that “the only reason you like Pierce Brosnan is because you’re a raving and talent-blind fanatic”, so please stop suggesting that I don’t like Pierce Brosnan because others around here, in league of some kind of an anti-Brozza club, have somehow brainwashed me into their ranks. I don’t like him because of my own reasons, which some people seem to share, thank you very much.)

So that difference would make at least a little sense to me. A Bond fan (one who owns all the films, watches and re-watches them, and discusses them at great length and in great detail) is bound to experience shifts in taste and preference over time. The general public is formed of people whose expectations are different, who may have no interest in Fleming, or perhaps may have even no knowledge of any Bond film made prior to their 14th birthday and who probably only get one viewing of the film.

The former is a completely different group and has, if I can be blunt, more experience. It would be shocking to find that Bond fans on a whole DO share the same Bond values as the general public.

I think you've just summed up perfectly why the producers should - and do - ignore the fans' wishes when developing every new film.

[MarkA]

I really find this rabid hatred of Brosnan quite distasteful on this site and it seems to be like an infection. As a Bond fan since the 60's when the films really were the greatest action films around bar none. Bond led, all the others followed. Then by the 80's they were tired worn out. With a Bond that was far too old to play the part. Plus Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Die Hard etc were topping anything the Bonds could do. Even the change to Timothy Dalton couldn't stop the rot. Despite a commendable effort, he didn't seem to have that star power to change things. Now today after Casino Royale, Bond seems fresh rejuvenated, relevant again. Indiana Jones, seems old and worn out. But the point where it changed was with Goldeneye and Brosnan. Now it isn't my favourite Bond film and he is not my favourite Bond but I can remember seeing that film for the first time and thinking Bond films finally seemed modern and they finally again had a leading man with star power. Please give the man credit. Craig has built upon the success that Brosnan started.

[dee-bee-five]

I really find this rabid hatred of Brosnan quite distasteful on this site and it seems to be like an infection. As a Bond fan since the 60's when the films really were the greatest action films around bar none. Bond led, all the others followed. Then by the 80's they were tired worn out. With a Bond that was far too old to play the part. Plus Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Die Hard etc were topping anything the Bonds could do. Even the change to Timothy Dalton couldn't stop the rot. Despite a commendable effort, he didn't seem to have that star power to change things. Now today after Casino Royale, Bond seems fresh rejuvenated, relevant again. Indiana Jones, seems old and worn out. But the point where it changed was with Goldeneye and Brosnan. Now it isn't my favourite Bond film and he is not my favourite Bond but I can remember seeing that film for the first time and thinking Bond films finally seemed modern and they finally again had a leading man with star power. Please give the man credit. Craig has built upon the success that Brosnan started.

Although I disagree with you generally about Roger Moore, without whom I firmly believe there wouldn't have been a franchise come 1980, I absolutely agree with your assessment. The Brosnan era re-esblished the franchise to something approaching its 1960s zenith and yet some fans seem almost to resent Brosnan for that. But without Pierce Brosnan we probably wouldn't now have Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace.

[Turn]

Please give the man credit. Craig has built upon the success that Brosnan started.

Sure he deserves credit, but let's not overcredit him either. In my view Brosnan was just building upon the success of his predecessors. Brosnan himself often credited Connery as being his Bond role model.

The Brosnan era re-esblished the franchise to something approaching its 1960s zenith and yet some fans seem almost to resent Brosnan for that. But without Pierce Brosnan we probably wouldn't now have Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace.

In what ways did the Brosnan era do this? Certainly not creatively. Not in his approach to the role, which was a hybrid. The films made money, but in comparison to the Connery or Moore era when you figure in inflation, the cost of tickets, multiplexes, etc. they don't even come close. They filled a demand for Bond films and people enjoyed them.

Saying there would be no other films in the series now without Brosnan without having known what a Mel Gibson or someone else who was touted at the time for the role would have done in the role is going a bit far.

[dee-bee-five]

Please give the man credit. Craig has built upon the success that Brosnan started.

Sure he deserves credit, but let's not overcredit him either. In my view Brosnan was just building upon the success of his predecessors.

I would submit he did rather more than that. As the new public face of Bond, he was charged with the responsibility of blowing life into the dying embers of the franchise. Bond had been moribund for 6 years, the Brosnan era revived it and whatever one thinks of the man himself - and I rate him as an actor and as a Bond - he should be given the credit he deserves.

Please give the man credit. Craig has built upon the success that Brosnan started.

Sure he deserves credit, but let's not overcredit him either. In my view Brosnan was just building upon the success of his predecessors. Brosnan himself often credited Connery as being his Bond role model.

The Brosnan era re-esblished the franchise to something approaching its 1960s zenith and yet some fans seem almost to resent Brosnan for that. But without Pierce Brosnan we probably wouldn't now have Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace.

In what ways did the Brosnan era do this? Certainly not creatively. Not in his approach to the role, which was a hybrid. The films made money, but in comparison to the Connery or Moore era when you figure in inflation, the cost of tickets, multiplexes, etc. they don't even come close.

And in comparison with the Dalton era, which is far more relevant? But comparisons are invidious anyway; one simply cannot compare the Connery and Brosnan eras box-office-wise. The whole nature of the industry had changed in the intervening years too much.

[MarkA]

The films made money, but in comparison to the Connery or Moore era when you figure in inflation, the cost of tickets, multiplexes, etc. they don't even come close.

I am afraid you need to check your facts. Connery's films especially THUNDERBALL and GOLDFINGER inflation adjusted will always remain top. Moore's 70's films especially LALD, TSWLM and MOONRAKER, did well but not mid 60's business. But by the 80's Moores films were really dying at the box office and Dalton continued the trend. It was only with the arrival of Brosnan that this trend reversed in a quite spectacular fashion. Going up with every new film. Surpassing most if not all of Moore's 80's effort. Craig has only built on this trend. But in many other ways GOLDENEYE seemed like a proper film again and could hold it's own and compete against proper films. And I think Brosnan was one of the Key factors. It seems only amongst the Bond fan fraternity that this man is really hated. I find it incredible, a little unfair and unwarranted. And as I said he is not my favourite Bond, but I appreciate and am thankful for what he did.

[Turn]

The films made money, but in comparison to the Connery or Moore era when you figure in inflation, the cost of tickets, multiplexes, etc. they don't even come close.

I am afraid you need to check your facts. Connery's films especially THUNDERBALL and GOLDFINGER inflation adjusted will always remain top. Moore's 70's films especially LALD, TSWLM and MOONRAKER, did well but not mid 60's business. But by the 80's Moores films were really dying at the box office and Dalton continued the trend. It was only with the arrival of Brosnan that this trend reversed in a quite spectacular fashion. Going up with every new film. Surpassing most if not all of Moore's 80's effort. Craig has only built on this trend. But in many other ways GOLDENEYE seemed like a proper film again and could hold it's own and compete against proper films. And I think Brosnan was one of the Key factors. It seems only amongst the Bond fan fraternity that this man is really hated. I find it incredible, a little unfair and unwarranted. And as I said he is not my favourite Bond, but I appreciate and am thankful for what he did.

I don't have the facts in front of me, but there have been threads here linked to box office ranking sites that show the profitability of films as opposed to just what makes what amount of money. And when seen in that light, the Brosnans are not as profitable as one would think when you count in modern marketing, budgets, etc. And though they weren't as huge as the '60s films, the '80s Bonds still did good business.

Goldeneye was a proper film against what competition? It should be taken into account the Brosnan series had the advantage of being released in the late fall when there are fewer action/adventure films as competition. What was it against in 1995 that would have given it trouble at the box office? Toy Story was the big thing and then not a lot. Compare that to LTK taking on Batman, Indiana Jones, Lethal Weapon, etc.

I don't hate Brosnan, never have. He was the right Bond for the right time and he does deserve credit. It just seems there are people who want to give him more credit when I think it was a number of factors for the success including people who discovered it through the video games and those who go to Bond films regarless of who plays the character.

Besides that, Brosnan was already practically anointed Bond from the first series of Remington Steele. When he was removed at the last minute and replaced with Dalton I found it a refreshing choice whereas I figured I knew what we'd get with Brosnan. Brosnan became Bond eventually and brought pretty much what I'd expected and maybe less.

Craig comes into the picture and is put through how many gauntlets and surprises everybody. Again, it's refreshing because it wasn't what I was expecting. Dalton and Brosnan played against expectations for me while Brosnan played to it. That's not hate, just preference.

[Eddie Burns]

Also the scene in the Casino were Bond should have put his foot down and told Elektra to go home because it isn't safe. Since Bond was a punk bitch, he let him walk all over her.

I knew there was something that bothered me about that scene.

I love Pierce but his movies are overrated...all of them unfortunately. All this credit, that he resurrected the character, is just not right. GE was my first cinematic Bond experience and I felt underwhelmed. Its a good movie with a certain charm to it, but largely I felt underwhelmed. And it didn't get better after that. TWINE, despite being an average Bond adventure, was the last straw.

Bond was just not Bond anymore, he was Pierce Brosnan playing Bond. Bond wasn't dangerous anymore or never looked as if he was in any danger. The villains were a joke. Replace Carlyle with someone a little taller and tougher looking, with a little charisma then the movie automatically improves. Instead of that bore of an action sequence that was the ski chase, have them checking out a remote pipeline going through a forest or something and then have them ambushed and have Bond use his raw survival instincts to save the day. Just these minor tweaks could have improved the movie ten-fold!

My problem with TWINE, and i'm sure many people feel the same way, is that I lost respect for Bond in that movie. He just wasn't the character I fell in love with. Coupled with some terrible casting decisions and poor direction, it really does surprise me that I consider it overrated.

As for underrated - TLD
- What Bond should have been like throughout the eighties. Great action, great music, great Bond, A GREAT HENCHMAN (*ahem* Herr Stamper) and a story with a heart. The villains were weak, but it wasn't really about the villains. If they continued in this vain, we would have had a great era with Dalton. Shame they had to go mess things up with LTK

[Publius]

Although I disagree with you generally about Roger Moore, without whom I firmly believe there wouldn't have been a franchise come 1980, I absolutely agree with your assessment. The Brosnan era re-esblished the franchise to something approaching its 1960s zenith and yet some fans seem almost to resent Brosnan for that. But without Pierce Brosnan we probably wouldn't now have Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace.

How is it people can say this with a straight face about Moore, Brosnan, or any other actor? Whether you like them or not, there's no way of knowing how successful another actor would have been in the role instead.

And in comparison with the Dalton era, which is far more relevant? But comparisons are invidious anyway; one simply cannot compare the Connery and Brosnan eras box-office-wise. The whole nature of the industry had changed in the intervening years too much.

Every Bond film (NSNA included) starting with FYEO did worse than its predecessor, with the exception of TLD. When a Moore Bond film (AVTAK) tanks almost as bad as LTK eventually did, and a Connery Bond film is the fourth worst-selling in series history, you know you have bigger problems (or assets) than any one actor. Hell, 6 of the 8 worst-selling Bond films of all time were released in the 80s. Could Brosnan have made a difference? I highly doubt it.

On the other hand, the Brosnan Bonds were relatively stable at the box office, a trend which carried over to CR. I'm sure the 6.5 year hiatus before Goldeneye and the move away from summer releases helped tremendously. Having respectable budgets and marketing campaigns didn't hurt either.

Goldeneye was a proper film against what competition? It should be taken into account the Brosnan series had the advantage of being released in the late fall when there are fewer action/adventure films as competition. What was it against in 1995 that would have given it trouble at the box office? Toy Story was the big thing and then not a lot. Compare that to LTK taking on Batman, Indiana Jones, Lethal Weapon, etc.

1995 was actually one of the weakest box office years in recent memory. And I agree about the shift back to fall releases. It was only recently that TDK passed Batman '89 in terms of ticket sales, which should give you an idea of what LTK was up against when it came out only three weeks later.

Besides that, Brosnan was already practically anointed Bond from the first series of Remington Steele. When he was removed at the last minute and replaced with Dalton I found it a refreshing choice whereas I figured I knew what we'd get with Brosnan. Brosnan became Bond eventually and brought pretty much what I'd expected and maybe less.

When you really think about it, Brosnan's shadow was over the series for a whopping 20 years. He was first signed in '86, lost it to widespread disappointment, was apparently the Bond everyone had been waiting for in '95, and even in '06 (four years after his swan song) he was the gold standard the new guy was being compared to and many people were still furious about his losing the role. I liked him as Bond and all... but having too strong an association with any particular actor is unhealthy for the franchise.

[saint007]

I have to agree THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is underated. Dalton was great
in his first outing. i rember being impressed by his intesity and
his chemistry with Kara. great 25th anniversary film!

[SecretAgentFan]

I can't help feeling that if those scenes featured in a Craig Bond film, the majority of fans would be wetting themselves with delight and claiming it shows how brilliant Craig is. Don't get me wrong, I think Craig is terrific as Bond and a better actor than Pierce Brosnan (although PB is a far better actor than many on here will allow). But I find it amusing how we all move the goalposts between different Bond actors to bolster our arguments.

If Craig did it, he would be just as big a punk. That isn't manly emotion as Craig emitted in CR, it was CBS level soap opera acting.

Also, if you consider Bond being a wimp because he regrets his responsability for the death of Electra´s father and because he feels compassion for Electra´s problem, then you don´t want to have him act as a human being older than 13 years old.

That is find taking that rpeosblity but his reacted like a stupid little school boy. TWINE's so called emotion is no better then an episode of GENERAL HOPSPITAL.

I also cite the idiotic scens were Elektra was screaming and kicking like an 8 year old when she and Bond were trapped in that snow. Bond trying confort her was again more silly soap opera acting.

Also the scene in the Casino were Bond should have put his foot down and told Elektra to go home because it isn't safe. Since Bond was a punk bitch, he let him walk all over her.

Even when Bond knew without a doubt Renard was in cahoots with Elektra, she side stepped the issue by making Bond feel bad for M using her as bait earlier in the film. How stupid can you be to fall for something like that ?

Dearest Mister E, I suspect a stupid little school boy would indeed behave differently. And the scene with Electra screaming and kicking like a child were due to her claustrophobia, experienced during her kidnapping and reliving it here again. It is perfectly fine if your opinion of Brosnan´s acting is "silly soap opera acting". But I respectfully disagree.

I do find it hard to unterstand you complete and even edited post, however, so let´s just leave it at "let´s agree to disagree" here. But personal preferences are no objective quality statement. I understand if people don´t like TWINE and respect that. But that does not mean that TWINE objectively is a bad film. It tried to make Bond more sensitive than in most other Bond films. So it very much departed from Fleming´s creation. I, actually, do appreciate EON taking risks with the character and trying to bring out different facettes. Sometimes they work for more people, sometimes they don´t. Right now, the Craig-Bond is more hard-edged and brutal. And this is en vogue now. I´m very curious to see how he will develop in "QOS".

[dee-bee-five]

I don't have the facts in front of me, but there have been threads here linked to box office ranking sites that show the profitability of films as opposed to just what makes what amount of money. And when seen in that light, the Brosnans are not as profitable as one would think when you count in modern marketing, budgets, etc.

But, as they say, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. The money men can make the figures say anything they want to fit their prevailing argument. Hell, they can even twist the figures to make it look like The Full Monty didn't make a bean.

[BoogieBond]

1995 was actually one of the weakest box office years in recent memory. And I agree about the shift back to fall releases. It was only recently that TDK passed Batman '89 in terms of ticket sales, which should give you an idea of what LTK was up against when it came out only three weeks later.

Thanks for that Box office years list Publius, nice to see the Mighty Moonraker the No 1 grossing Movie of 1979

In all I agree, it about expectations, during the Connery Phenomenon producers etc.. would have expected the Bond films to finish in the top 3 for the year. After the Moore years I am sure sights were slightly lowered and they would be happy with top 5 for the year.

The 80s were a sliding scale of interest(It shows best on that bar chart for Admissions that K1Bond007 had somewhere) Until Goldeneye, which put the Bond films back in the top 5. Credit to Brozza for his part in that.

About the Brosnan films in quality, I really like Goldeneye. TWINE is middling, I liked it that they tried to get away from the generic action of TND. IMO they failed, but it still rises about some of the others for the objective of putting a bit more character and edge to Bond. That and a great PTS and a fairly entertaining first 45 mins for me. And I always liked Brosnan as Bond, even if I didn't always like the films.

I don't think any of the Brozzas were overrated or underrated, but its all down to personal taste.
My 2 overrated would be Goldfinger(Still great and in my top 10) and (shock/horror ) Dr. No
My 2 Underrated would be Live and Let Die and OHMSS.

Edited by BoogieBond, 13 August 2008 - 10:32 AM.

[0047]

Overrated:

TOMORROW NEVER DIES - it's a bit weak really, isn't it? Quite bland. Jonathan Pryce has to be one of the weakest villains ever (Q could beat him up!), it's criminal for killing off Carver BEFORE henchman Stamper, Teri Hatcher is hot but a big yawn as Paris (nor do you really feel Bond's loss there - compare with Vesper in CR... see?). It's got three great things: Judi Dench vs Geoffrey Palmer; Vincent Schiavelli; the action set-piece in the Hamburg car park. Beyond that, average at best.

Underrated:

OCTOPUSSY - okay, a few things out the way. Yes: the plot makes very little sense. Yes: Steven Berkoff should have been dubbed he's THAT bad. Yes: it's ludicrous Moore at it's comedic height. But: Louis Jourdan, arguably one of the smoothest villains in Bond history with some great lines (see my signature), a fun opening sequence, great train fight between Bond & Gobinda, quite a tent climax in the circus. And even Q gets laid... what's NOT to love, eh?