124 replies to this topic

[plankattack]

I guess I just mostly subscribe to the line that films should be praised for what they are rather than what they aren't. I.E. if you want to argue FRWL is a brilliant film, an argument should hinge on what is in FRWL, rather than that FRWL isn't Moonraker or Tomorrow Never Dies or indeed Goldfinger. I have seen a fair few arguments which lean towards the later over the years.

Well, I can agree with that. Indeed, it seems rather obvious. From that line of argumentation, MANNEQUIN 2 deserves credit b/c it too shares very little with MOONRAKER. (If I recall.)

Probably the arguers in these cases are making their argument for the purpose of ranking the Bond films in the proper order, so going outside the Bond canon with my MANNEQUIN example isn’t appropriate/fair. To this end, it is understandably tempting to point to the badnesses in other films in order to justify the higher ranking of another.

I thought MANNEQUIN was excellent in all four films he was in and in no way over-rated. Even the one with the invisible car.

Ta dum.

[Judo chop]

I guess I just mostly subscribe to the line that films should be praised for what they are rather than what they aren't. I.E. if you want to argue FRWL is a brilliant film, an argument should hinge on what is in FRWL, rather than that FRWL isn't Moonraker or Tomorrow Never Dies or indeed Goldfinger. I have seen a fair few arguments which lean towards the later over the years.

Well, I can agree with that. Indeed, it seems rather obvious. From that line of argumentation, MANNEQUIN 2 deserves credit b/c it too shares very little with MOONRAKER. (If I recall.)

Probably the arguers in these cases are making their argument for the purpose of ranking the Bond films in the proper order, so going outside the Bond canon with my MANNEQUIN example isn’t appropriate/fair. To this end, it is understandably tempting to point to the badnesses in other films in order to justify the higher ranking of another.

I thought MANNEQUIN was excellent in all four films he was in and in no way over-rated. Even the one with the invisible car.

Ta dum.

Ha! Quite right my friend! Tho', allow me to add just one small clarification to your post… you are clearly continuing the conversation about MANNEQUIN 2.

The original MANNEQUIN appears in only one film, in which there may or may not have been an invisible car. Naturally, with such things it’s impossible to say for certain.

[freemo]

as rated by people in this thread, I'd say GOLDFINGER is rather underrated. The films third-quarter, which Bond spends captured, seems to be a bugbear for many (the portion of the film where Bond a) doesn't panic or lose his cool despite his situation, b.) crafty escapes from his prison cell, c) overhears Goldfinger's epic speech, d) makes an attempt to get word to the CIA through Mr. Solo but fails, and has to reassess his options, e) finesses the full details of Goldfinger's plan out from him, and f) "turns" Pussy Galore - most films would kill for a "weak" portion this good, if films were beings capable of murder that is)

Agreed. My problem with GOLDFINGER's last 1/3 is entirely due to its austere setting.

Fair enough. I do have to admit I find the arrival to Goldfinger's Kentucky ranch momentary jarring every time I watch the film. Not very other worldy, not very out of reach, not especially Bondian, is it? (And not especially presented as such, save for the "trick pool table") One doesn't exactly dream of chucking in the job and moving to... Kentucky (which I'm sure is a lovely place, but you know what I mean). Plus Bond does hang about there for what feels like a lot of screen time, despite the aforementioned list of activity.

[doublenoughtspy]

I'm not sure how anyone can say with a straight face that Goldfinger is overrated, when here we have the latest James Bond film, 48 YEARS LATER, with his car from, what film was that again? Oh yes, Goldfinger.

You are looking at Goldfinger through the prism of the 20 films that followed it. And were wholly/partially/completely influenced by it.

Answer me this: would the series survived had the 3rd Bond film been FRWL 2: Electric Bugaloo? Would we still be talking about the series had they continued in a low tech, pure Fleming, cold war vein? I don't think so.

Read my book on the Making of OHMSS. They didn't just want Goldfinger back for that film - they wanted him back for DAF and even for the Roger Moore era.

And what do we see Pierce drive in GE & TWINE and Daniel drive in 2/3rds of his films? The car from Goldfinger. They are trying to instill the cool from Goldfinger onto the new Bonds.

You can not like the film, you can rank it low, you can call it overrated, but you cannot deny that it is the most influential Bond film - at least as far as Eon is concerned.

[plankattack]

DoubleNought - I agree that it's the most influential Bond film. But it continually tops the lists as the best Bond film, which I think are two different things.

OHMSS, IMHO, is a "better" film, but I don't think I've ever seen it top a list.

That is the thing about this whole thread though - the differences between best, popular, iconic, etc And non-fans/meida/writers continually hail GF as the "best" film. I for one agree with everything you said, but I don't think it's the "best" film. It's topped by OHMSS, for starters.......!

[Loomis]

doublenoughtspy, I know that this is off-topic but I'm very curious as to what you think of SKYFALL. Have you posted a review of the film here?

[doublenoughtspy]

DoubleNought - I agree that it's the most influential Bond film. But it continually tops the lists as the best Bond film, which I think are two different things.

OHMSS, IMHO, is a "better" film, but I don't think I've ever seen it top a list.

Here's one, for starters... http://www.007magazi...s_bond_poll.htm

That is the thing about this whole thread though - the differences between best, popular, iconic, etc And non-fans/meida/writers continually hail GF as the "best" film. I for one agree with everything you said, but I don't think it's the "best" film. It's topped by OHMSS, for starters.......!

Oh I agree. OHMSS is clearly superior

And I realize too that just because Goldfinger is the most iconic and the most influential it does not automatically gain "Best film" status.

Bond is an aspirational character and there are plenty of times in Goldfinger where that isn't the case (Man, I really wish I was in a jail cell with a Korean eyeing me, that would be AWESOME!).

As John Cork talks about on the audio commentary - the stucture of Goldfinger really throws traditional story structure and action film structure on its head.

Is Goldfinger the best Bond villain? I'd say you could make an easy argument for yes.

Is Oddjob the best henchman? Again, easy to say yes. I'm others might argue for Grant, but cmon, Oddjob almost literally has Bond by the balls when he picks him up by his legs and tosses him around in Ft Knox.

Is Honor Blackman the best Bond girl. Not really.

Best song? Probably.

Best gadgets? Easily.

One of the things I love so much about Goldfinger is how relaxed Connery is in it - and the set photos show that. He's always leaning back, as if to say "I am the coolest man in the world. Gaze upon my splendor." It speaks to the old Etonian catchphrase of "Effortless superiority."

[Tarl_Cabot]

Skyfall....let the backlash begin!!


Really, it isn't that much better than QOS. It's not say Bourne 2 vs Bourne 1 better or Dark Knight vs Batman begins better. It's a slightly better Bond film. Tonally, it's just as debbie downer as QOS.

[The Shark]

Since when was THE BOURNE SUPREMACY better than IDENTITY?

[Tarl_Cabot]

Since when was THE BOURNE SUPREMACY better than IDENTITY?

since 2004.

[The Shark]

Aside from the excellent coda, SUPREMACY is overrated tosh. None of the BOURNE films are great cinema, but at least IDENTITY has a human touch throughout.

[SecretAgentFan]

I agree. The Greengrass effect was startling back then and deceived audiences into believing that this was new and urgent and gritty when it was only hammering them artlessly, something Oliver Stone already had done more interestingly.

BOURNE 1, at least, had a human being in its center. From then on, it became a video game-character, fighting his way through the most severe beatings for hours without suffering the consequences.

[Turn]

The Bourne films are okay. I've seen them once and that's enough. I have no real desire to even own them on DVD/Blu-ray, unless I found them at an outrageous Black Friday price, which may be a way to reassess them, but I'm in no hurry.

That's the difference between those and the Bond series, I still want to watch those over and over again and I dislike the blanket statement that the Craig era is heavily influenced by Bourne.

[Judo chop]

I'm frustrated to see how quickly this conversation turned to Bourne... when we never finished the conversation about Mannequin!

I like the plot turns at the end of SUPREMACY. It has that on IDENTITY. But IDENTITY is a better watch, by a stretch. ULTIMATUM is the funniest of the 3, though I don't think it means to be.

[Miles Miservy]

<sub>MOONRAKER! Definately MOONRAKER!

Hands down, Roger Moore's 4th movie is so over-the-top, it borders on ridiculous. Was it lavishly filmed with beautiful women & exotic locations? Yes. Did it top all gross box office sales to date? Yes. Did it follow, chapter and verse, the OO7 cookie cutter formula? Yes.

So why should this film be more over-rated above all the others? Because EVERYTHING is above & beyond. There's a certain degree of fantastic license that one must take with each OO7 film but this one tests the boundries of scientific fact vs scientific fiction:

* Accept that the UK has its own space shuttle program... but no space shuttles.
* Accept that NASA has space shuttle and astronaut commandos on standby with the readiness of curbside taxis.
*Accept that Bond is able to determine what Drax & his cronies are up to right away, despite the CIA having an agent in place for, presumably, months.
*Accept that Jaws keeps showing up like Wyle E. Coyote & that OO7 still hasn't figured out not to punch him in the face.
* Accept that an agent, expected to be operating clandestinely, can drive a gondola/hovorcraft through the center of Venice.
*Accept that when stranded on a cable car, thousands of feet above the ground, outside is better than in.
*Accept that it is possibe for Drax to snap his fingers, even with gloved hands.

About the only realism I found in all 126 minutes of this film was the fact that Gen. Gogol's pajamas were red. I believe firmly that this was the exact reason the producers pulled back and away from this ridiculous sort of filmmaking with the release of FRWL, which I think is the finest of Roger Moore's performances.

Now in all fairness, none of this is to say that I don't like MOONRAKER; far from the truth. It's a very entertaining OO7adventure I was 13 years old when it was released and I'm proud to say that I persoanally contributed, repeatedly, to its initial box office gross. But as far as its rankings as a Bond film.... I'm not so convinced it lives up to the hype it has received all these years.</sub>

[Miles Miservy]

The Bourne films are okay. I've seen them once and that's enough. I have no real desire to even own them on DVD/Blu-ray, unless I found them at an outrageous Black Friday price, which may be a way to reassess them, but I'm in no hurry.

That's the difference between those and the Bond series, I still want to watch those over and over again and I dislike the blanket statement that the Craig era is heavily influenced by Bourne.

Several people are always comparing Fleming's franchise with Ludlum's franchise. Now I suppose it's inevitable but you really cannot compare the two. It's like asking, which vehicle is better, a Ferrari Testa Rosa or a Lear Jet? Two didfferent writing styles... two different periods of time. Fleming's Bond loves his job. His distinction and role in life is very clear. When he's not on an assignment he's thinking about being on one. Ludlum's Bourne has no definition, no direction. As each story progresses, he learns more and more about himself. His true enemt is actually the organization he'd been trained to work for.

I suppose that the only similarities between both authors (besides being dead) is that the films scarcely resemble the original novels.

[Judo chop]

...with the release of FRWL, which I think is the finest of Roger Moore's performances.

Not a big fan of Roger's Bond I take it?

MOONRAKER; I'm not so convinced it lives up to the hype it has received all these years.

I'm not so convinced the hype you're talking about exists. Among Bond fans, I see it ranked as a middling Bond at best, and more often in the lower quandrant. And in the ranking lists I see from 'critics' in general, it's consistently blasted to smithereens with the same criticisms you just cited.

From where I stand, MOONRAKER is generally a low-ranked Bond film however you cut it.

[glidrose]

Goldeneye is the most overrated Bond movie by a country mile; utterly dreadful film in any wider (non-Bond) context.

Bless your heart. Goldeneye is indeed the most overrated Bond movie - and I say that as a devout fan of Brosnan-as-Bond. With - ahem - FRWL and TSWLM competing for second and third most overrated.

Great list Judo Chop, looks right to me, though I always felt LIVE AND LET DIE was a little more popular than that among the wider, wider "public pool."

Agreed. In my experience casual movie goers who don't particularly care for Bond generally like this film. Colored people (Black people? what the hell's the politically correct term for them nowadays?) like this film a lot.

How overrated can GOLDFINGER be if everyone thinks it's overrated?

Was anyone surprised by the film named when they clicked on the thread?

Excellent point. On these fora, GF is underrated.

[Hockey Mask]

Goldeneye is the most overrated Bond movie by a country mile; utterly dreadful film in any wider (non-Bond) context.

Bless your heart. Goldeneye is indeed the most overrated Bond movie - and I say that as a devout fan of Brosnan-as-Bond. With - ahem - FRWL and TSWLM competing for second and third most overrated.

Great list Judo Chop, looks right to me, though I always felt LIVE AND LET DIE was a little more popular than that among the wider, wider "public pool."

Agreed. In my experience casual movie goers who don't particularly care for Bond generally like this film. Colored people (Black people? what the hell's the politically correct term for them nowadays?) like this film a lot.

How overrated can GOLDFINGER be if everyone thinks it's overrated?

Was anyone surprised by the film named when they clicked on the thread?

Excellent point. On these fora, GF is underrated.

Colored people hasn't been acceptable for decades.

Edited by 00Hockey Mask, 30 November 2012 - 10:36 PM.

[Iceskater101]

Yeah I don't know where your getting the idea about Moonraker, I hated that Bond film and it is definitely my least favorite.

[Guy Haines]

I've waffled on about it on this site ad nauseum but MR is one of my least favourite Bond films because from first getting into the Bond films and books I was really looking forward to the film version of "Moonraker". The book was one of my favourites, one of the first I read as a young whippersnapper, had a great villain, and a suitably Bond film sized plot, yet when they came to film it almost all of the basic story was thrown out in an attempt to cash in on the craze in the late 1970s for space based science fiction films. (If I'm wrong about the "cash-in", why wasn't FYEO filmed after TSWLM?)

It is an entertaining film if you put the book it is "based upon" to one side, but it could have been so much better if they had stuck with the basic storyline from the Fleming novel, albeit shifting some of the action abroad rather than outside the planet altogether.

[Judo chop]

It is an entertaining film if you put the book it is "based upon" to one side,

I think that goes without saying. There's not enough in common between the two to make a comparison relevant. MOONRAKER the film is its own creature. Heck, give it your own title if it helps to disassociate it from the book.

[plankattack]

It is an entertaining film if you put the book it is "based upon" to one side,

I think that goes without saying. There's not enough in common between the two to make a comparison relevant. MOONRAKER the film is it's own creature. Heck, give it your own title if it helps to disassociate it from the book.

SpacePigeon

[Safari Suit]

In fairness, I would say Moonraker is certainly no longer the whipping boy of the franchise (that would be DAD) and these days you see a lot more praise of it on sites like these than you do attacks. Praise often phrased in defensive terms, yes, but perhaps defence against a reistance that isn't there any more. At what point does a film stop being underrated and become overrated? You may not think OHMSS has gone all the way over to the other side, but I suspect few here would still have it in the underrated column. Has Moonraker crossed the same line? It's possible.

[Odd Jobbies]

I think this is a thread already somewhere but I'll say it again, CASINO ROYALE is the most overrated Bond film. It takes a big man to walk though drywall.

The point was that he didn't know (and didn't care) what was on the other side.

Running through a drywall is one thing, but you try doing that mid chase in a high rise building site with no clue what waited; buzz-saw or sheer drop, i'd certainly think twice. Craig's Proto-Bond didn't, he was a bull-dozer - yet to master subtler moves.

CR was a triumph.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 02 December 2012 - 07:56 PM.

[The Shark]

CR was crap, but Bond running through dry walls was the least of its problems.

[Major Tallon]

I'm with Odd Jobbies. CR was a triumph.

[00Twelve]

I'm with Judo on my conflicted feelings about how to determine an "overrating." While only the most hardcore fanboys will even be likely to read this (and I should, therefore, base my choice on our collective opinions), I cannot ignore the populace of casual fans (on whom EON makes their bread and butter).

Taking both demographics into consideration, I believe I'm also with Judo in choosing YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE.

YOLT boasts undeniable influence in its iconography-- Pleasence's Blofeld, the Volcano lair, the space capsule-eater, the plot to start (and rule the world after) WWIII, hundreds of sword-wielding ninjas assaulting the villain's army-- and contains some of the very best cinematography, set design and soundtrack scoring of the entire series. Like the much-analyzed GOLDFINGER, there are echoes of YOLT's influence throughout the rest of the series and further into popular culture. Without YOLT, we'd never have had TSWLM, MR, TND, DAD (well, those last two wouldn't be such a loss), or, I daresay, even OHMSS (in the superior state in which it exists).

However, unlike GOLDFINGER, YOLT's influence outside the series isn't so much one of immeasurable cool factor as it is one of reaching the limits of excess. GOLDFINGER gave the world the gadget-laden sports car, the invincible otherworldly henchman, the golden girl, the bombastic jazzy title song and soundtrack, the tux-under-a-wetsuit. YOLT gave the world...Austin Powers. (On the plus side, The Incredibles-- with a GOLDFINGER-inspired score, no less.) In addition, GOLDFINGER benefits from following its source novel closely. YOLT is based on what is (IMO) a vastly superior source novel, yet distances itself from that work nearly as far as possible-- only retaining the villain, the general global location, a couple of altered minor characters, and the idea of Bond "becoming" Japanese, dying and getting married (all played as obvious falsehoods in the film).

YOLT is less about the cool spy factor or thrilling cold war espionage, and more about the kitchen sink. For its place in the fanboy Bondian pantheon and its largely self-parodical place in pop culture, I vote YOLT as the most overrated Bond film.

[Miles Miservy]

...with the release of FRWL, which I think is the finest of Roger Moore's performances.

Not a big fan of Roger's Bond I take it?

MOONRAKER; I'm not so convinced it lives up to the hype it has received all these years.

I'm not so convinced the hype you're talking about exists. Among Bond fans, I see it ranked as a middling Bond at best, and more often in the lower quandrant. And in the ranking lists I see from 'critics' in general, it's consistently blasted to smithereens with the same criticisms you just cited.

From where I stand, MOONRAKER is generally a low-ranked Bond film however you cut it.

No, quite the opposite, Judo. My fan-hood BEGAN with Roger Moore (TMWTGG) In fact, when the earlier 60's movies were broadcast on television, I would ask, "Who the heck is this guy pretending to be James Bond?", not realizing that Connery came first (Gimme a break; I was 7).

I was referring to Moonraker as the film itself. The locations, stunts & special effects were phonomenal... ahead of its time. But the story vein(another megalo-maniac poised to destroy the world; simply because he can) was getting tapped. In the films to follow, where greed, power & revenge became motivational factors, the villains became much more compelling.

[Judo chop]

...with the release of FRWL, which I think is the finest of Roger Moore's performances.

Not a big fan of Roger's Bond I take it?

MOONRAKER; I'm not so convinced it lives up to the hype it has received all these years.

I'm not so convinced the hype you're talking about exists. Among Bond fans, I see it ranked as a middling Bond at best, and more often in the lower quandrant. And in the ranking lists I see from 'critics' in general, it's consistently blasted to smithereens with the same criticisms you just cited.

From where I stand, MOONRAKER is generally a low-ranked Bond film however you cut it.

No, quite the opposite, Judo. My fan-hood BEGAN with Roger Moore

I was just poking fun at your type-o. You said Roger Moore's finest performance was in a film he never appeared in ("FRWL").
I'm confident you meant to say FYEO. Pedantic humor at its best.