110 replies to this topic

[plankattack]

Sean Connery's pasted-on hairpiece, noticeable flab, and fake tan didn't help things, either...

You mean, you weren't convinced he was a Japanese fisherman.....?

Edited by plankattack, 18 December 2008 - 08:38 PM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Sean Connery's pasted-on hairpiece, noticeable flab, and fake tan didn't help things, either...

You mean, you weren't convinced he was a Japanese fisherman.....?

No, I was convinced he didn't give a damn anymore!

[HH007]

1) FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE
2) QUANTUM OF SOLACE
3) LICENSE TO KILL

[HildebrandRarity]

Well, you can see why Daniel Craig is the only Bond for younger audiences.

"Sean Who?" is the comment given sub-par acting in DN, lipstick/eyeliner galore in FRWL, and fat tubby lard in YOLT and DAF where there's even grey hair.

[BlackFire]

I think it's Quantum of Solace, Tomorrow Never Dies, Licence to Kill, From Russia With Love and The Man with the Golden Gun.

Edited by BlackFire, 18 December 2008 - 09:37 PM.

[john.steed]

Second Bonds generally have produced some of my least favorite Bonds, with the exception of From Russia with Love, which is a classic: My rankings are as follows:

1. From Russia with Love
2. Man with the Golden Gun (though it is second, it is one of my leasr favorite Moore films.)
3 & 4. Tomorrow Never Dies & Licence to Kill (pretty much a tie, each are my least favorite of there respective Bonds.)
5. Quantum of Solace (My least favorite Bond.

I should point out that while I generally have not been a big fan of "second Bond films", the third films, Goldfinger, The Spy who Loved Me, and The World is Not Enough, are my favorite films for Connery, Moore, and Brosnan respectively with GF and TSWLM my two favorite films of the series. Hence, while I am not a big Craig fan, I am guardedly optomistic about his third film.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I can't believe FRWL is ahead of Q0S in this poll. I showed it to my 13 year old [who was raised on Thunderball (pirate, sharks), Moonraker (space shuttles) and Octopussy (jungle chase) since the age of three...and who has seen TWINE, DAD, CR and Q0S with me at the theatre] and we had to turn it off after an hour.

"Boooorrrringgg" was the response. Kids! What can you say?

Anyway, I grew up LOVING From Russia With Love when it was on TV back in the later 1970s.

Now, I find Connery's lipstick and mascarra and ever-changing toupe' a real distraction because nothing exciting happens until the gypsy camp at the 45 minute mark.

I'm having a tough time getting over Connery's girly makeup and the lack of any good action until Grant kills Bond's would-be killer at the camp.

Anyone else feeling the same way?

Hildebrand, do you like any Bond film that doesn't star Daniel Craig?

You've put down the Brosnan Bonds, the Lazenby Bond, and now you're on to the Connery Bonds. It seems like you're putting down every Bond and every film and panning From Russia With Love because of lipstick and mascara is simply ridiculous. Had someone said a similar thing about Craig in QOS, you would be all over them like a shark on chum saying how they didn't "get it" and expounding on the brilliant stylistic choice of the filmmakers.

From Russia With Love may not feature its star until the 18th minute, and it may not have loads of action, but it has a great story and great suspense, and I'll take it any day of the week over Quantum Of Solace.

[Loomis]

Well, you can see why Daniel Craig is the only Bond for younger audiences.

"Sean Who?" is the comment given sub-par acting in DN, lipstick/eyeliner galore in FRWL, and fat tubby lard in YOLT and DAF where there's even grey hair.

I'll give you "lipstick/eyeliner galore in FRWL, and fat tubby lard in YOLT and DAF where there's even grey hair".

But there's no sub-par acting from Connery in DN. On the contrary, it's one of the very best Bond performances by anyone ever (for me, Connery in DN is rivalled only by Craig in CR).

Plus it was a performance that laid down the law and made all the rules (which can't exactly be said for Craig, with the best will in the world). First time out, Connery nailed it and revolutionised cinema in the process.

I challenge anyone to watch DN and not find that Connery is A. absolute dynamite in the lead, and B. just about as close as anyone's ever gotten to Fleming's Bond.

Hilly, you gotta give him DN, at least.

[plankattack]

CR and Q0S is making the older Bonds look inferior, even 'childish'...especially after Mike Meyers ripped the guts out of Blofeld.

While I do disagree with Hildebrand on FRWL (I find that SC's wig do not become apparent to me until TB) there is something to be said that the reboot has had a negative effect on how I perceive some of the older films in the series. I find DAD, and knowing that it's film #20, right before CR, almost unwatchable (and unless the roof is leaking or something, I will sit through them when they're on). AVTAK is another and DAF, well it is saved by it's almost "camp" curioso presence and one or two lines of great dialogue. Plus I'm so distracted by SC's pink kipper tie that I can't turn away.....But Sir Rog's Bonds almost get a pass because they're older, but the last few before this most recent re-boot (even TWINE, I'll admit) are not aging well at all in the short term. I know why some else (maybe Gravity Silhouette?)on a LTK thread, said that that film looked disturbingly cheap.

And yes, Austin Powers did a lot of damage to the series and what it could do in the future - any megalomaniac plot in the next ten years is going to get laughed out of the cinema. If Brozza's tongue-in-cheek offer to Myers back in 2001 "that I'll appear in his and maybe he can appear in mine" had ever come to fruition, it would have damaged the franchise far more than that bloody invisible car! (if someone gave me an invisible Aston Martin - yes, I would give it back! What's the point of having a supercar that you can't see! Q, what were you thinking?)

Edited by plankattack, 19 December 2008 - 12:56 PM.

[tristanjblythe]

1) FRWL
2) QOS/LTK
3) TMWGG
4) TND

And for those of us who haven't seen Lazenby in Return of the Man from UNCLE here's a clip I've just found:

http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=XLwdkdEzcOo

How did they get away with that?!?!?

[BoogieBond]

Best 2nd is From Russia with Love for me, by a mile. Its classic Bond and a great film, yes, Connery has a bit of makeup on, but its not too noticeable for me(on close ups his eyebrows are plucked and shaped and his eyelashes look pretty long, but thats 1963 for you ), and doesn't detract from his top notch performance - Classic Bond as his best(A little above DN for me, as its a little less uneven and Raw in DN, the performance is more refined in FRWL, but DN was the first, and Sean had massive potential in that film and some great moments, that established and defined the Movie James Bond character more deeply than any other Bond film)
QOS would come in 2nd, its watch-able and fast, and a pretty good Bond film to boot. Its not among my favourites (as FRWL is) but its about middle pack.
The others are among my least favourites, but I would have to put LTK third, with TMWGG 4th and TND bringing up the rear.

Edited by BoogieBond, 19 December 2008 - 07:33 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

I can't believe FRWL is ahead of Q0S in this poll. I showed it to my 13 year old [who was raised on Thunderball (pirate, sharks), Moonraker (space shuttles) and Octopussy (jungle chase) since the age of three...and who has seen TWINE, DAD, CR and Q0S with me at the theatre] and we had to turn it off after an hour.

"Boooorrrringgg" was the response. Kids! What can you say?

Anyway, I grew up LOVING From Russia With Love when it was on TV back in the later 1970s.

Now, I find Connery's lipstick and mascarra and ever-changing toupe' a real distraction because nothing exciting happens until the gypsy camp at the 45 minute mark.

I'm having a tough time getting over Connery's girly makeup and the lack of any good action until Grant kills Bond's would-be killer at the camp.

Anyone else feeling the same way?

Hildebrand, do you like any Bond film that doesn't star Daniel Craig?

You've put down the Brosnan Bonds, the Lazenby Bond, and now you're on to the Connery Bonds.

Well, I haven't put down the Brosnan Bonds. Other's are doing it. I enjoyed them at the cinema, as I did ALL Bonds save FYEO at the theatre.

I love Thunderball. It's up there amongst the Craigs. Goldfinger is very good too. Same with 'Spy and Moonraker.

It's not that I don't like FRWL, I just think it's no longer perfect. Why?

1. This is a James Bond movie but he doesn't appear until 18 minutes. That's a sin to me.

2. The UE Edition brings out his make-up too much. He looks like what i'd imagine an openly Gay man to be like in the early 60s.

3. Number 2 becomes a glaring issue because there is no "action" until 45 mins (which means the pacing is off...the action is "back-loaded".)

4. Blofeld stroking his cat and talking all menacing is, NOW, in a post-Mike Meyers world, just laugable.

5. The SPECTRE gunmen blow big holes into the oil drums on Bond's get-away boat but appearently they are not big enough holes to ignite the gasoline.

Look, you can 'love' FRWL all you want but just because it was 'hailed' back then means nothing to me. I'm not one to keep something elevated after i've noted problems and neither do I have a problem placing newer films ahead of older films if I think that's where the ranking is.

Please remember, I grew up on Connery, so I get no joy in watching FRWL fall in the rankings.

[HildebrandRarity]

Well, you can see why Daniel Craig is the only Bond for younger audiences.

"Sean Who?" is the comment given sub-par acting in DN, lipstick/eyeliner galore in FRWL, and fat tubby lard in YOLT and DAF where there's even grey hair.

I'll give you "lipstick/eyeliner galore in FRWL, and fat tubby lard in YOLT and DAF where there's even grey hair".

But there's no sub-par acting from Connery in DN.

Hilly, you gotta give him DN, at least.

Let me rephrase. I meant sub-par by Connery's - and now Craig's - highest standards. Thunderball, to me, is the height of Connery as James Bond.

In DN, you can see that in the 'fight' scene with the Jamaican driver, that he's struggling. Not the whole scene but some of it.

In FRWL, his best line "How can a friend be in debt" when they are about to kill Krilencu, is said off screen. A lost opportunity to show genuine sincerety.

Craig's best dialogue - indeed almost all of it - is on screen.

It feels like in some of the older Bonds - especially OHMSS - dialoge seems to be added in post production as a mere after thought.

We don't get that with Craig.

You must understand that in the modern world, dvd means every James Bond movie will get scrutinized to the Nth degree. So they have to be "more perfect" in almost every category than the 1960s films which were being made on the assumption that only in a theatre could you see the film. There was no thought that DN or FRWL would get scrutinized 4 months after release on Blu Ray.

[Judo chop]

You must understand that in the modern world, dvd means every James Bond movie will get scrutinized to the Nth degree. So they have to be "more perfect" in almost every category than the 1960s films which were being made on the assumption that only in a theatre could you see the film. There was no thought that DN or FRWL would get scrutinized 4 months after release on Blu Ray.

I agree completely. But I find your opening statement to be peculiar. I think if you DO understand context in which the older films were made, you will be able to enjoy them accordingly. It's like you're saying you understand, but then aren't walking the walk.

Are you going to downgrade all of your favorite 60's films now based on the same types of criticisms you're leveling at FRWL?

[HildebrandRarity]

You must understand that in the modern world, dvd means every James Bond movie will get scrutinized to the Nth degree. So they have to be "more perfect" in almost every category than the 1960s films which were being made on the assumption that only in a theatre could you see the film. There was no thought that DN or FRWL would get scrutinized 4 months after release on Blu Ray.

I agree completely. But I find your opening statement to be peculiar. I think if you DO understand context in which the older films were made, you will be able to enjoy them accordingly. It's like you're saying you understand, but then aren't walking the walk.

Are you going to downgrade all of your favorite 60's films now based on the same types of criticisms you're leveling at FRWL?

No I don't think it's a question of downgrading. It's a question of re-evaluation and re-ranking.

If DAD in my mind trumped 'Spy and Moonraker than so be it...but, in my mind, it didn't.

Craig comes along, and in my mind, trumps everything save Thunderball where Connery is MIGHTY and the film is on the absolute knife edge of being docu-realistic and Bond-and-Beyond. His makeup (lipstick - if there is any - etc) is not glaring and at least he appears early in the movie.

If I re-think FRWL within the context of 1962-1974 and it dawns on me that Bond doesn't appear until 18m and there's no action until 45min within that context, is that a bad thing?

Are we to leave 45 year old movies alone just "because"?

[Daddy Bond]

OK, here's a dumb question. Where in FRWL is his "makeup" overdone? The only place I can think of is in the PTS, in the garden, but that's intentional because he's supposed to be someone else wearing a Bond mask. The extra makeup is to give the fake Bond a look as if he's wearing a mask.

I haven't watched through FRWL in the UE edition yet. Is there anywhere else where the makeup is this glaring?

[Judo chop]

You must understand that in the modern world, dvd means every James Bond movie will get scrutinized to the Nth degree. So they have to be "more perfect" in almost every category than the 1960s films which were being made on the assumption that only in a theatre could you see the film. There was no thought that DN or FRWL would get scrutinized 4 months after release on Blu Ray.

I agree completely. But I find your opening statement to be peculiar. I think if you DO understand context in which the older films were made, you will be able to enjoy them accordingly. It's like you're saying you understand, but then aren't walking the walk.

Are you going to downgrade all of your favorite 60's films now based on the same types of criticisms you're leveling at FRWL?

No I don't think it's a question of downgrading. It's a question of re-evaluation and re-ranking.

If DAD in my mind trumped 'Spy and Moonraker than so be it...but, in my mind, it didn't.

Craig comes along, and in my mind, trumps everything save Thunderball where Connery is MIGHTY and the film is on the absolute knife edge of being docu-realistic and Bond-and-Beyond. His makeup (lipstick - if there is any - etc) is not glaring and at least he appears early in the movie.

If I re-think FRWL within the context of 1962-1974 and it dawns on me that Bond doesn't appear until 18m and there's no action until 45min within that context, is that a bad thing?

Are we to leave 45 year old movies alone just "because"?

Well, you are citing two different criticisms, and I think they are galaxies apart in fairness. I think the above crticism is fair. No Bond for 18m and no action for 45m is something which I think can be considered regardless of the age of the film. That amounts to story-telling and ALL movies of any decade should be held to that type of standard. I don't agree that it works as a negative in FRWL's case, but it is at least a valid platform on which to start an argument.

As for the make-up... well, that's completely unjust in my mind. As would be a complaint against the use of rear-projection during car chases, just as another example. That's simply how things were done. Even if Sean's make-up is more noticable in FRWL than it is in TB, I think it's still a nitpick of the most trivial sort. And if you hold that particular grievance against FRWL, then you'll have to 're-rank' many, many other films of the early 60's (not just Bond) likewise.

[HildebrandRarity]

OK, here's a dumb question. Where in FRWL is his "makeup" overdone?

I haven't watched through FRWL in the UE edition yet. Is there anywhere else where the makeup is this glaring?

I'm definitely NOT talking PTS.

I'll re-watch it tonight after the everyone's asleep and list the times.

[Mr. Blofeld]

OK, here's a dumb question. Where in FRWL is his "makeup" overdone?

I haven't watched through FRWL in the UE edition yet. Is there anywhere else where the makeup is this glaring?

I'm definitely NOT talking PTS.

I'll re-watch it tonight after the everyone's asleep and list the times.

You're not talking about the PTS? I swear, that's when he's got the most makeup on, in order to have his face look more like a mask...

As for the ever-shifting hairpiece, I never noticed; it could be due to having to film all of the Kerim Bey scenes first.

[Daddy Bond]

OK, here's a dumb question. Where in FRWL is his "makeup" overdone?

I haven't watched through FRWL in the UE edition yet. Is there anywhere else where the makeup is this glaring?

I'm definitely NOT talking PTS.

I'll re-watch it tonight after the everyone's asleep and list the times.

I believe you folks, I just don't recall it being that obvious.

[MaFru]

1. From Russia With Love
2. Tomorrow Never Dies
3. Licence To Kill
4. The Man With The Golden Gun
5. The Return of The Man From U.N.C.L.E

[HildebrandRarity]

OK, here's a dumb question. Where in FRWL is his "makeup" overdone?

I haven't watched through FRWL in the UE edition yet. Is there anywhere else where the makeup is this glaring?

I'm definitely NOT talking PTS.

I'll re-watch it tonight after the everyone's asleep and list the times.

You're not talking about the PTS? I swear, that's when he's got the most makeup on, in order to have his face look more like a mask...

As for the ever-shifting hairpiece, I never noticed; it could be due to having to film all of the Kerim Bey scenes first.

Well, i'm EXCLUDING the PTS because "James Bond" is not in the PTS.

[Mr. Blofeld]

OK, here's a dumb question. Where in FRWL is his "makeup" overdone?

I haven't watched through FRWL in the UE edition yet. Is there anywhere else where the makeup is this glaring?

I'm definitely NOT talking PTS.

I'll re-watch it tonight after the everyone's asleep and list the times.

You're not talking about the PTS? I swear, that's when he's got the most makeup on, in order to have his face look more like a mask...

As for the ever-shifting hairpiece, I never noticed; it could be due to having to film all of the Kerim Bey scenes first.

Well, i'm EXCLUDING the PTS because "James Bond" is not in the PTS.

Technically, you're right, but Connery is.

[HildebrandRarity]

Well yes, Connery is but his make-up is exaggerated intentionally because it's a SPECTRE exercise and he's supposed to be someone else with a mask of James Bond on his face. So I don't have a problem with that part.

It's later on where the problem lies.

[Mr. Blofeld]

It's later on where the problem lies.

Well, where does the problem start?

[Colossus]

Ah so we finally now have a 2nd criticism of FRWL behind the regular 'it's boring' one, and it is..... Connery's makeup!!

Turkish straws are the toughest to grasp i tells ya. Ya gotta love it!

[sharpshooter]

Indeed, seems a little silly to discount an entire film for makeup that frankly I don’t notice or don’t particularly care about. Sean Connery’s performance speaks for itself. As does the film. In the novel, Bond does not appear until part two – halfway through. It’s essential to build up the solid assassination plot, and then let the fuse burn. It’s the stuff of pure thriller.

And the apparent ‘mistake’ of the shot oil drums – FRWL throws away the typical movie explosion clichés. Ignition just would not happen, only perhaps with tracer rounds and fired from long distance. CR on the other hand…

The propane bottle explosion in CR is flat out impossible. There is no way a 9mm handgun can pierce one, the bullet will bounce off, leaving only a dent. You need a mini-gun firing thousands of tracer rounds a minute. The explosion would be absolutely massive and it’d rip through that area, giving Bond third degree burns, very likely fatal.

But, I don’t particularly care of that. They are nothing more than nitpicks. It doesn’t take anything away from the film. On the whole, it is what it is.

[Qwerty]

If ranking them now, it'd probably go something like:

• Quantum of Solace
• Tomorrow Never Dies
• From Russia With Love
• The Man with the Golden Gun
• Licence to Kill

[HildebrandRarity]

It's later on where the problem lies.

Well, where does the problem start?

Right after he leaves M's office. While cheek-to-cheek with Moneypenny. You can see the thick eyeliner especially. And the lipstick is glaring all the way from there to the gypsy camp as he's tapping the knife on the table during the belly dance. And the toupe' changes even within one scene, when he and Kerim are looking at the blue plans to the consulate after he get's Tanya's plans at the St Sophia mosque.

And the apparent ‘mistake’ of the shot oil drums – FRWL throws away the typical movie explosion clichés. Ignition just would not happen, only perhaps with tracer rounds and fired from long distance. CR on the other hand…

Well, it *is* from a distance...and the final gasoline drum (the one closest to Bond) has rounds going all the way from the base *through* the side. It's a couple of double punctures in one drum.

And to top it off, Morzeny orders the other two boats to stop right beside the fuel drums after he's seen what they are through his binoculars.

How dumb!

[sharpshooter]

Well, if it's from a distance, and they are standard bullets, they are not going to cause an explosion. It'd be some amazing fluke of luck.

And he's probably keeping a safe distance between himself and Bond. Doesn't know if he's armed or not. I bet he didn't see that little trick of Bond's unfolding.