43 replies to this topic

[Guy Haines]

I've never felt Bond has copied Bourne. Bond created the fast action seen in Bourne films back in the 60s, Bond (and Bourne) is just copying Bond now that they have a lead actor again who can do such action convincingly (like Bourne using Damon to similar effect). Not like gritty ever went away, just need the right guy to pull it off, just like you need the right guy (Moore) to pull smooth off.

The 60s will never come again, Bond can only flash into existence once. Thereafter EON needs to be savvy and tailor to the times, as they've done more or less successfully ever since. One thing to note, no one has ever successfully duplicated Bond, not long term. Yet, bumps and bruises inclusive, Bond remains. For my money QOS is the most Bond film in decades, only OHMSS bests it.

As I said above, not that it stops me rating CR and QoS very highly indeed. If Bourne takes his cue from Bond, well, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The Bourne people may see it that way regarding the current Bond, but, as you point out, without Bond we most likely wouldn't have had Bourne. A sort of symbiotic relationship?

[DR76]

The 60s will never come again, Bond can only flash into existence once.

Bond has been in existence for the past 48-50 years. And I certainly don't want a replay of what the Bond franhcise was like during the 1960s. Sorry, but I'm just not one of those who believe that the epitome of the franchise was during that period. I think that opinion is highly overrated, along with half of the 60s Bond films.



As for DAF, I think it was crap. However, it was fun crap, so I don't have anything against it.

[RJJB]

The 60s will never come again, Bond can only flash into existence once.

Bond has been in existence for the past 48-50 years. And I certainly don't want a replay of what the Bond franhcise was like during the 1960s. Sorry, but I'm just not one of those who believe that the epitome of the franchise was during that period. I think that opinion is highly overrated, along with half of the 60s Bond films.

The 60s Bond films were not only the epitome of the seried, five of the six of them are the essentials, the exception being YOLT. They developed the character, the look, the tone, the music and the success of James Bond. Any Bond movie that followed them owes its existence to what those movies laid out. The 70s and 80s were a dark period until Dalton took over the role and the capitulation to juvenile humor was jettisoned. The producers would love to duplicvate the freshness of the early years, both on terms of quality and audience acceptance.

DAF certainly falls into the juvenile category and is not up to the standards of its predeccors, but it's Sean Connery so it's bearable. much more than the seven unwatchable movies that follow it. DAF was the first Bond movie in which I was genuinely disappointed, but it has a sentimental hook for me that allows me to watch it about once a year. It's painful in places, but the pain passes.

[AMC Hornet]

DAF was the first Bond I ever saw. I loved it then and I love it now. I never thought about how it was an inadequate follow-up to OHMSS, and although I can appreciate that sentiment now, it doesn't change my affection for it. What's done is done. To complain now is like watching the two Addams Family movies, then watching the old TV series and saying "they got it wrong - John Astin should have been more like Raul Julia."

I don't hate any Bond film. I can even watch AVTAK occasionally and appreciate the effort that went into it, and although it is my least favorite, I'm aware that others have their reasons for liking it best (such as it was their first exposure to 007).

[Guy Haines]

The 60s will never come again, Bond can only flash into existence once.

Bond has been in existence for the past 48-50 years. And I certainly don't want a replay of what the Bond franhcise was like during the 1960s. Sorry, but I'm just not one of those who believe that the epitome of the franchise was during that period. I think that opinion is highly overrated, along with half of the 60s Bond films.

The 60s Bond films were not only the epitome of the seried, five of the six of them are the essentials, the exception being YOLT. They developed the character, the look, the tone, the music and the success of James Bond. Any Bond movie that followed them owes its existence to what those movies laid out. The 70s and 80s were a dark period until Dalton took over the role and the capitulation to juvenile humor was jettisoned. The producers would love to duplicvate the freshness of the early years, both on terms of quality and audience acceptance.

DAF certainly falls into the juvenile category and is not up to the standards of its predeccors, but it's Sean Connery so it's bearable. much more than the seven unwatchable movies that follow it. DAF was the first Bond movie in which I was genuinely disappointed, but it has a sentimental hook for me that allows me to watch it about once a year. It's painful in places, but the pain passes.

I agree with almost everything you've said. It's hard to imagine Bond without those 60s films, because they did set the tone for what followed in many ways. While I don't think the 70s and early 80s films are unwatchable, as there are many decent scenes in them, I do agree that the trend to juvenile, largely visual "humour" was regrettable. I think the producers had decided that Roger Moore's biggest strength was his light humour, so the films should be geared to it. Maybe so, but I think a way could have been found to build on Roger's approach without resorting to juvenile, and fairly obvious sight gags. But there we are. As for DAF, I like it because Connery is in it, and in spite of some of it being camp and over the top, it still has a dark, funereal edge to it, imo. Plus, I saw it during a period of about a year to eighteen months when I was catching up with the Bonds from the 60s I had missed when I was too young to see them. I saw these films in the school holidays, in four hour plus double bills (the cinema chain wasn't daft, bolt two Bond films together during the school break and wait for those bored kids to come in and watch!) So DAF is, in my mind, part of a first wave of Bond movies I saw. Another reason, I suppose, that I still think fondly of it.

[Turn]

DAF was the first Bond I ever saw. I loved it then and I love it now. I never thought about how it was an inadequate follow-up to OHMSS, and although I can appreciate that sentiment now, it doesn't change my affection for it. What's done is done. To complain now is like watching the two Addams Family movies, then watching the old TV series and saying "they got it wrong - John Astin should have been more like Raul Julia."

I don't hate any Bond film. I can even watch AVTAK occasionally and appreciate the effort that went into it, and although it is my least favorite, I'm aware that others have their reasons for liking it best (such as it was their first exposure to 007).

Well said and in line with my own thoughts. DAF wasn't the first Bond film I saw, but it was the first Bond film I saw when it was new in a cinema when I was just a preschool kid and I still love it on that basis. Again, there are enough films in the series that are different from each other it makes it interesting.

The OHMSS missed opportunity stuff gets old, just like when people complain Connery wasn't in OHMSS, that QoS wasn't CR and that Brosnan should have gotten a fifth film. Interesting stuff for a while on the forums, but way too much emphasis sometimes. Nobody's going to agree 100 percent on all topics, but some get out of hand.

[sharpshooter]

The OHMSS missed opportunity stuff gets old, just like when people complain Connery wasn't in OHMSS, that QoS wasn't CR and that Brosnan should have gotten a fifth film. Interesting stuff for a while on the forums, but way too much emphasis sometimes.

Full agreement.

[Safari Suit]

The OHMSS missed opportunity stuff gets old, just like when people complain Connery wasn't in OHMSS, that QoS wasn't CR and that Brosnan should have gotten a fifth film. Interesting stuff for a while on the forums, but way too much emphasis sometimes. Nobody's going to agree 100 percent on all topics, but some get out of hand.

I agree; man it's a shame we were deprived a movie about a man* avenging somebody's death. What a unique motion picture experience that would have been!

*Or even Bond himself at this point

[Bond111]

Never was a fan of this one, but just watched it today with my girlfriend; it was her first time seeing the film. I found myself enjoying it quite a bit more with someone who hadn't seen it, and was laughing a good deal throughout.

I think it's a great film as long as you realize how silly it is, almost parody really. Though not a great Bond film, perhaps, it's a good deal of fun.

[DR76]

I rewatched DAF today, usually i had it pegged as one of the worst Bond movies Ive ever seen, but today I watched it, and loved it.

DAF is a fun movie and I really enjoyed it. Connery isn't the only thing in DAF that I liked. I also enjoyed Jill St. John's role (except for the last 30 minutes) and Charles Gray. But the writing sucked . . . and I still believe it's one of the worst Bond movies ever.

[sharpshooter]

I think Wint and Kidd are worth mentioning. They're entertaining, sinister, odd and unassuming all at once. I like their morbid sense of humor, and how they finish each others sentences in a very politely spoken manner. Good casting. Oh, and their theme courtesy of John Barry is excellent.

[BoogieBond]

Yes, DAF is a strange one to classify, when I watch it I am entertained, but save for the elevator fight it has no great stunts or exciting action and the sets and set pieces feel a little small scale. I can't deny the dialog is pretty good, but the story goes bonkers when the lazer angle is introduced.
Sean is pretty good, but not as his Thunderball best, and John Barrys score is great. It does have a classic feel for me, even though I feel its far from the best bond film.

[sharpshooter]

I think the deleted scene where Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd chop down Tree (I’m getting as bad as them now!) should’ve been instated. First off, we see the death itself, and secondly, we get more cheesy puns:

Tree: “I haven’t changed my act in 40 years.”
Kidd: Ah, but this one’s sure fire.”
Tree: “That’s the oldest...”
Wint: “And this one will kill you.”

And finally:

Kidd: “Two’s company Mr. Wint.”
Wint: “And Tree was a crowd, Mr. Kidd.”

[Guy Haines]

I think Wint and Kidd are worth mentioning. They're entertaining, sinister, odd and unassuming all at once. I like their morbid sense of humor, and how they finish each others sentences in a very politely spoken manner. Good casting. Oh, and their theme courtesy of John Barry is excellent.

I agree with you. And I liked the theme Barry wrote for them as well. I was glad to see it restored in full on the remastered CD of the DAF soundtrack. The theme - and indeed the characters - manages to be amusing, disturbing and sinister all at once.

I think the deleted scene where Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd chop down Tree (I’m getting as bad as them now!) should’ve been instated. First off, we see the death itself, and secondly, we get more cheesy puns:

Tree: “I haven’t changed my act in 40 years.”
Kidd: Ah, but this one’s sure fire.”
Tree: “That’s the oldest...”
Wint: “And this one will kill you.”

And finally:

Kidd: “Two’s company Mr. Wint.”
Wint: “And Tree was a crowd, Mr. Kidd.”

I think they should have left the scene in place as well. Also, why was the cameo by Sammy Davis Junior dropped? If you hire a big name for even a cameo role, it is a shame to drop the scene in the cutting room. That scene would have added to the Las Vegas atmosphere in that part of the film, and also further explained Burt Saxby's role in the film as the link man to Willard Whyte.