Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Zencat's DAD review: "THE BEST BOND MOVIE EVER?"


654 replies to this topic

#511 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 30 May 2012 - 06:37 AM

We deserve a TRUE James Bond film, far more like Die Another Day then Quantum of Solace, living up the legacy of Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman. We want to celebrate, and celebrations are meant to be fun. Let's hope we get that.


I'm not going to argue your opinion, because it's just that, your opinion. I will say though, that I find both of Craig's films to be incredibly fun, and miles ahead of the Brosnan films. Which I want to note, that I do enjoy, but even back then I felt something was lacking. I get that with the Craig films.

#512 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 30 May 2012 - 07:02 AM

I liked it enough that I was hoping for a 5th Brosnan film in 2004. : (

#513 Bill

Bill

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 257 posts
  • Location:Levittown, New York

Posted 30 May 2012 - 07:29 PM

Fair enough, JimmyBond. Hopefully SkyFall will be fun.

#514 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 30 May 2012 - 08:03 PM

... and a recent posting on a related Facebook page pointed me to an article wherein Marc Foster's left wing agenda was deliberately injected into the film. That is so wrong for Bond on so many levels.


Yes, I miss the days when there was double-knobbage of Russian spies, be it vengeful lovers or Jacuzzied simpletons, M held drinkies with the head of the KGB in his office - twice - and Bond was awarded the Order of Lenin.

007 - a hero of the Soviet Union.

#515 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 30 May 2012 - 08:14 PM

Do you remember the times when nobody gave a [censored] about supposed agendas in Bond films? Nobody outside the Pravda offices, they always suspected he was one of them...

#516 Bryce (003)

Bryce (003)

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10110 posts
  • Location:West Los Angeles, California USA

Posted 30 May 2012 - 08:31 PM

It never gets old this thread. Probably one of the best weekends of my life. 40 years of Bond on Friday and 35 years of me on Monday. 'Twas a good year...Along with the sultry latina that became my girlfriend for the next five months. Yeah...Good times.

#517 Bill

Bill

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 257 posts
  • Location:Levittown, New York

Posted 30 May 2012 - 09:08 PM

Yes, I miss the days when there was double-knobbage of Russian spies, be it vengeful lovers or Jacuzzied simpletons, M held drinkies with the head of the KGB in his office - twice - and Bond was awarded the Order of Lenin.

007 - a hero of the Soviet Union.

Jim, as you know the Order of Lenin was a joke, as Gogol himself admitted that Russian research would be nowhere without Silicon Valley. Bond was teamed with Anya out of necessity, and had his fling with Pola to extract information. M was merely being hospitable.

Nowhere in the first 21 films is Bond's role as defender of liberty and Western values questioned. Marc Foster turned that completely around.

#518 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 31 May 2012 - 06:55 AM

Really? I've always taken (especially) The Spy who Loved Me and A View to a Kill to be manifest socıalıst dogma dressed up as simplistic entertainment, and all the more enjoyable for it.

Defender of liberty? Guardian of the status quo at best.

#519 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 09:47 AM

While CR is good, QoS is the worst film in the series, and a recent posting on a related Facebook page pointed me to an article wherein Marc Foster's left wing agenda was deliberately injected into the film.


Nowhere in the first 21 films is Bond's role as defender of liberty and Western values questioned. Marc Foster turned that completely around.


I've seen this now a few times, discussed it at some length with members and tried to watch QOS with a specific eye on this element, but all to no avail. I cannot claim to follow the argument Forster introduced anything close to a left wing agenda to Bond, let alone changed the entire series around even. I really think if that had been the case there'd have been much more controversity and outcry over it, and cetainly not just from the outer right fringe of the US political landscape. As it is, the majority of commentators and reviewers still regarded QOS as a largely unpolitical (as far as the subject of a secret agent story allows) work of fictional entertainment. Regardless whether they liked or hated it, mind you. Complaints about QOS come in all sizes and colours, but the vast majority concern itself with more substantial gripes.

As this is so I have to ask, is the mere absence of a right wing agenda now seriously already regarded as proof for a left wing one? Because this in my view would constitute a major - a fundamental - misconception of the state of affairs in the world and apparently also about the supposed worth of the so-called Western values. Freedom - or liberty if that's more to your liking - cannot be defined by blind obedience and conformity, and to the best of my knowledge the Bond films never propagated such, to the contrary.

#520 Bill

Bill

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 257 posts
  • Location:Levittown, New York

Posted 31 May 2012 - 04:24 PM

The article to which I refer to is here:

http://nymag.com/mov...features/51819/

I had many problems with Quantum of Solace, but fundamentally, it does not present Bond's mission in terms of absolutes. In all of the films and books (aside from Devil May Care, which also came out in 2008), Bond is always on the side of good--meaning, if you will, fighting to preserve liberty, as well as, in Jim's view, the status quo.

Fleming created Bond as a champion of the Cold War--a hero who was successful in working to stop Nazism and related fascism from taking over the world and applying those skills to combatting the equally threatening communist totalitarianism. While he doubted his mission in the beginning of Casino Royale, by the end, with Vesper's sucide and revelation as a traitor, he dedicated himself to fighting, as President Reagan later would describe them, the Evil Empire. As tensions eased among the superpowers, Fleming later gave us SPECTRE and Blofeld, an international terrorist organization. Bond never sympathized with their goals, and always put his life on the line to defeat them. Fleming's last full length novel put him at odds, once again, with the KGB--not forgetting that he had just survived their attempt to brainwash him. The continuation authors continued Bond's struggle against communism, with Gardner giving us an overt alliance between the resurrected SPECTRE and the Soviets. When the Cold War appeared to be winding down, the terrorist threat remained, such as the Union in Benson's books.

In all of the novels, the reader never gets the impression that there are any shades of gray. While Bond may have occasional doubts (I seem to remember passages in Goldfinger and Quantum of Solace) at the end of the day, he fights for Queen and Country, and her allies--the United States being the most prevalent. After all, it is telling that his best friend is an on and off CIA agent.

Just look at the passage in You Only Live Twice when Bond responds to Tiger Tanaka's attempt to belitte Britain--I don't have the book with me here, but it is a wonderful defense of the British people.

With the films, Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman were taking a risk in that the films were made for an international market, so a decision was made to tone down the Cold War aspect and make SPECTRE the main villain. However, there was never any representation that the British and Americans were anything but pure in their motivations. As the films progressed, we got General Gogol, as benevolent a KGB Director that you will find. With Octopussy, the scenario that General Orlov put forth was one that was very close to becoming reality. I suspect that Gogol's opposition and Brezhnev's statement that "world socıalısm would be achieved peacefully" were merely inserted to appeal to a broader audience. Just look at For Your Eyes Only and the Soviets in Afghanistan for proof of Bond's fight against the Soviet threat.

The films never sought to potray Bond's fight and the governments that he worked for in a negative light. M and his/her staff, along with the Ministers of Defense represented the United Kingdom, and Felix, Holly, Chuck Lee, Jack Wade and Jinx represented the US. All were good--pure, if you will--no murkiness. There was never any doubt that the West was decent and its values worth preserving.

That idea remained even with the rebooted Casino Royale--M is as strong a figure as ever and Felix is there to have Bond's back. With Quantum of Solace, that all changed. For the first time, we have a CIA whose motivations are questionable--and them actually putting a hit on Bond is a cardinal sin. M's explanation of all being good at the end does very little to take away how wrong that is. In the article cited above, Forster states “Bond isn’t a clear good guy—the villain and Bond overlap.” No, no, no--Bond IS a good guy--at least, he was in book and film for 55 years at that point.

Dustin, I do not think that Forster changed the entire series around--he cannot take away 21 films with one outing, and I do not think SkyFall will continue in the vein that QoS did--M's comment to Bond at the end would seem to support this. However, portraying the CIA as motivated by greed without care for the people of the country they appeared to be protecting is as left wing an agenda as you will find in a Bond film. The fact that the film itself is so murky, if you will, may be the reason for the lack of outcry over its politics, as the CIA are not a major element of the story.

As I stated elsewhere, there are plenty of other books, films and television shows that give the viewer a look at the world that is not black and white. Bond should not fall to their trap. Fleming would have hated it, as would Cubby.

I do not know Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli's personal politics, but given their pedigree, I doubt they are left wing idealogues. While Bond's adventures, book and film, have not always been created by right wingers, the fact remains that his role as the modern day Saint George fighting the dragon and preserving Western values is his proper role--and one that truly transcends partisan politics. I am optimistic that SkyFall will continue in that tradition.

#521 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 09:17 PM

Thanks for that link, Bill. I shall read that article and comment on it later. First I'm going to take a look at Bond and his relationship with the USA in the books (mainly Fleming, but a tiny bit of Gardner for good measure too)


In all of the novels, the reader never gets the impression that there are any shades of gray.


Really? And how about Blofeld working for the 'good guys' (Bond's own service as well as the French and the Americans) before operation Thunderball? Also I seem to remember an ongoing audit of the SIS at the start of SCORPIUS, under the supervision of one Lord Shrivenham. Whose daughter conveniently is involved with a dubious figure. As far as I recall M leaves little doubt he's intending to make the most out of this connection and sees the results of the audit much more relaxed since he discovered this. Just two off the top of my hat. I think there are plenty shades of grey in the books, we just conveniently like to overlook them.



Just look at the passage in You Only Live Twice when Bond responds to Tiger Tanaka's attempt to belitte Britain--I don't have the book with me here, but it is a wonderful defense of the British people.


Indeed Bond is fond of Felix. But not because Felix is an American. Bond admires American achievements and the luxury that came with their lifestyle. But he's not blindly and unfalteringly in love with the country or the people. He warms to individuals like Leiter or Cureo, and he also admires the remarkable results the CIA achieves with unrestricted funds and manpower. But he doesn't expect a lot of friendliness and isn't inclined to awe and respect towards their representatives.

Bond waits for an American CIA contact at the Nassau airport in TB:

'The man from the CIA was due in by Pan American at 1.15. His name was F. Larkin. Bond hope dhe wouldn't be a muscle-bound ex-college man with a crew-cut and a desire to show up the incompetence of the British, the backwardness of their little Colony, and the clumsy ineptitude of Bond, in order to gain credit with his chief in Washington.'

Not really a love-affair, is it?

You bring up YOLT's defence of the British people, and interestingly that same passage also concerns itself with Americans:

'... Our American residents are of a sympathetic type - on a low level of course. They enjoy the subservience, which I may say is only superficial, of our women. They enjoy the remaining strict patterns of our life - the symmetry, compared with the chaos that reigns in America. They enjoy our simplicity, with its underlying hint of deep meaning, as expressed for instance in the tea ceremony, flower arrangements, NO plays - none of which of course they understand. They also enjoy, because they have no ancestors and probably no family life worth speaking of, our veneratio of the old and our worship of the past. For, in their impermanent world, they recognise these as permanent things just as, in their ignorant and childish way, they admire the fictions of the Wild West and other American myths that have become known to them, not through their education, of which they have none, but through television.'

'This is though stuff, Tiger. I've got a lot of American friends who don't equate with what you're saying. Presumably you're talking of the lower level GIs - second generation Americans who are basically Irish or Germans or Czechs or Poles who probably ought to be working in the fields or coalmines of their countries of origin instead of swaggering around a conquered country under the blessed coverlet of the Stars and Stripes with too much money to spend. ...'



What at first glance here looks like another speech of defence, this time in favour of the Americans, at closer inspection turns out even more damning than Tiger's original Philippic. Because who actually passes Bond's examination of worthless Americans? Certainly not third, forth or fifth generation immigrants from Eire, Germany and Poland or wherever. I doubt Spaniards, Italians or Russians would fare better. So in the end it's down to Merry Old England and her bold colonisers once more. One might of course ask who did all the conquering, if not these GIs in question. But the fact remains that Fleming used to be quite aware of the state of affairs in the world and Britain's diminishing importance therein. And he was not afraid to address the not-quite-flattering aspects of it, even if these concerned American vanities.

Fleming - and thus Bond - nonetheless was not too critical on American society and way of life (politics hardly mattered in his books), but he also can't be said to have been entirely living in a fantasy world. His talent was to wrap his observations in such a way that made us nod knowingly and approvingly, even if we were meant to be the very target of his arrows.


With the films, Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman were taking a risk in that the films were made for an international market, so a decision was made to tone down the Cold War aspect and make SPECTRE the main villain.


Actually, the films were made from the start with a mind to enter and conquer the US market. Because that used to be the main place where everything of interest in the industry happened, and where the big money was made. 'International' wasn't a category prior to Bond. International nearly exclusively meant American films that were doing business abroad. Bond films were changing that game, where previously British films could not expect to have an international audience beyond that of the Commonwealth and some Western European countries.



However, there was never any representation that the British and Americans were anything but pure in their motivations. As the films progressed, we got General Gogol, as benevolent a KGB Director that you will find. With Octopussy, the scenario that General Orlov put forth was one that was very close to becoming reality. I suspect that Gogol's opposition and Brezhnev's statement that "world socıalısm would be achieved peacefully" were merely inserted to appeal to a broader audience. Just look at For Your Eyes Only and the Soviets in Afghanistan for proof of Bond's fight against the Soviet threat.

The films never sought to potray Bond's fight and the governments that he worked for in a negative light. M and his/her staff, along with the Ministers of Defense represented the United Kingdom, and Felix, Holly, Chuck Lee, Jack Wade and Jinx represented the US. All were good--pure, if you will--no murkiness. There was never any doubt that the West was decent and its values worth preserving.


But I don't see that QOS changed that. OK, there is a corrupt CIA official and probably a number of corrupt people behind that guy. But I don't regard them differently from Ed Killifer for example. They have their interests, they try to use their positions within the organisation they have penetrated, and Bond's actions interfere with their plans, so they try to get him out of the picture. Not really a surprising development. LTK had Bond in a similar position, only here CIA team wasn't trying to fill their own pockets.



That idea remained even with the rebooted Casino Royale--M is as strong a figure as ever and Felix is there to have Bond's back. With Quantum of Solace, that all changed. For the first time, we have a CIA whose motivations are questionable--and them actually putting a hit on Bond is a cardinal sin. M's explanation of all being good at the end does very little to take away how wrong that is. In the article cited above, Forster states “Bond isn’t a clear good guy—the villain and Bond overlap.” No, no, no--Bond IS a good guy--at least, he was in book and film for 55 years at that point.

Dustin, I do not think that Forster changed the entire series around--he cannot take away 21 films with one outing, and I do not think SkyFall will continue in the vein that QoS did--M's comment to Bond at the end would seem to support this. However, portraying the CIA as motivated by greed without care for the people of the country they appeared to be protecting is as left wing an agenda as you will find in a Bond film. The fact that the film itself is so murky, if you will, may be the reason for the lack of outcry over its politics, as the CIA are not a major element of the story.


I think you may misinterprete this whole CIA angle. The CIA's sole raison d'être is to see to the interests of the USA, nobody elses. And why should they? They are paid by American taxpayers, they must keep the best interests of these people at the top of their list of priorities. Seriously there can not really be any discussion about this. You seem to be at odds with this depiction, but the simple truth is, nobody really holds this against the USA.

I've had a discussion with The Shark about this same matter and I suppose most of the actual disappointment about this - minor - element of QOS probably stems from the timing. Hardly anybody would have reacted all that critical to this detail if the film had come out a few years earlier or later. As it was the whole thing hit the screen when the political turmoil in the real world reached a - temporary - climax with the actual regime change in the USA and everything was seen as somehow related to this, a commentary, a film à clef, an allegory.

All I can say to this is: it's just a Bond film.

#522 B5Erik

B5Erik

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 465 posts
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 03 June 2012 - 05:55 PM

Back on DAD...

It's funny, looking back ten years to the original debate about the merits of what turned out to be Brosnan's final Bond film. I still feel the same way now about DAD that I did then. It has it's moments (almost all in the first half), and then it falls apart as too many things on screen break the laws of physics (as I said then, Bond films should bend the laws of physics, not break them). The dialogue in the movie got pretty bad when Jinx was on the screen, and there were a number of other major flaws in the movie. It's not horrible, but it isn't nearly as good as Brosnan's final Bond film should have been.

I'm glad that EON recognized just how far they had gone with DAD and went back to realism for Casino Royale. I wish QOS had been better, but it wasn't bad.

#523 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 03 June 2012 - 07:29 PM

Nice to see you around these parts again Erik :)

I remember once upon a time we had a rather heated debate regarding DAD. I in the pro camp of course.

Seems silly some of the things we used to argue about, but then there you go.

#524 DLibrasnow

DLibrasnow

    Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16568 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.. USA

Posted 04 June 2012 - 09:27 AM

It's sweet, innit? Total waste of one's enthusiasm, but the enthusiasm itself cannot be argued with. Such innocent days, 2002. How happy were once were, the summers seemed longer, the meadows so much more replete with flowers, how we chased each other through sun-dappled orchards and our grins outshone the sun.

Then we had to watch Die Another Day and everything went to cack.


Good Lord, has it really been 10 years since DAD?

It's good to see you back on the boards B5Erik!

#525 Miles Miservy

Miles Miservy

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Location:CT

Posted 04 June 2012 - 06:19 PM

Die Another Day is the best Bond film in 20 years.


You get the sense that the producers were trying too hard when they thought it neccesary to put Halle Barry on an equal footing w/Pierce Brosnan on all the promotional posters as well as the DVD jackets.

Just plain..... bad.

I can remember some of the most vivid OO7 villains:

Gert Frobe
Donald Plesance
Christopher Lee
Kurt Jergens
Christopher Walken
Robert Davi

Who the FRACK is Toby Stephens?

#526 PPK_19

PPK_19

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1312 posts
  • Location:Surrey, England.

Posted 04 June 2012 - 10:54 PM


Die Another Day is the best Bond film in 20 years.


You get the sense that the producers were trying too hard when they thought it neccesary to put Halle Barry on an equal footing w/Pierce Brosnan on all the promotional posters as well as the DVD jackets.

Just plain..... bad.

I can remember some of the most vivid OO7 villains:

Gert Frobe
Donald Plesance
Christopher Lee
Kurt Jergens
Christopher Walken
Robert Davi

Who the FRACK is Toby Stephens?


Exactly. Stephens' career has gone to hell since he did DAD. Terrible villain in an ok Bond film. Listen to when he says this to Vlad: "This...is still a suitcase"

Just terrible.

#527 Golden Claw

Golden Claw

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 219 posts
  • Location:Ind-yeah!

Posted 07 June 2012 - 02:54 PM

Pierce Brosnan co-stars as James Bahnd in the Halle Berry film, Die Another Day.

#528 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5857 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 05:43 PM

Sorry, still don't see it.

Not Halle Berry's 'bad' acting, or the story 'falling apart' in the second half, and apart from the wonky parasurfing scene, not the bad CGI either. As much as I love TSWLM as well, I'll still buy an impossibly perfect invisible Aston Martin over a fully-convertible Lotus Esprit dry-sub any day (and I do love that Lotus!).

I loved DAD when it came out (once Bond got cleaned up in HK), and I'm not going to let a lot of post-game analysis change my mind.

Perhaps my position is best explained by pointing out that my other favorites are TB (love the underwater climax), OHMSS, DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, OP & TLD, so what the hell do I know?

#529 Double-Oh Agent

Double-Oh Agent

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4325 posts

Posted 09 June 2012 - 11:04 AM

I always get a chuckle when this thread pops up again. The gift that keeps on giving. Bless you zencat.

I also don't understand all the vitriol that has been leveled at Die Another Day in the intervening years. (Has any Bond film fallen so far so fast?) Is it a great Bond film? No, but it is an enjoyable one. Far from perfect (i.e. wind surfing scene, knighthood timeline logic), but there's a lot to like about it, particularly in those first two acts (the PTS, Bond's entrance into the hotel, the sword fight, and the car duel to name a few, not to mention Pierce Brosnan's best performance as 007). Consequently, I find that DAD gets a bad rap. It's not the bottom of the barrel of the series so many around here seem to claim, rather it is simply just a middle of the road picture celebrating 40 years of Bondom that all too often hits the target but misses the bullseye.

Man, I can't believe it's been 10 years since DAD came out. How time flies.

#530 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 09 June 2012 - 11:25 AM

It will always be the second "Moonraker" - overblown, campy but hugely enjoyable.

#531 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 09 June 2012 - 02:53 PM

Moonraker still did it much better. It wasn't ruined by MTV editing, CGI, Purvis & Wade writing etc. etc..

I think DAD would have been more successful if they'd set out to make a classic, overblown, film in the Lewis Gilbert mood. Instead we get this film which is supposed to please everyone.

#532 scaramunga

scaramunga

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1083 posts
  • Location:United States

Posted 09 June 2012 - 03:15 PM

Back on DAD...

It's funny, looking back ten years to the original debate about the merits of what turned out to be Brosnan's final Bond film. I still feel the same way now about DAD that I did then. It has it's moments (almost all in the first half), and then it falls apart as too many things on screen break the laws of physics (as I said then, Bond films should bend the laws of physics, not break them). The dialogue in the movie got pretty bad when Jinx was on the screen, and there were a number of other major flaws in the movie. It's not horrible, but it isn't nearly as good as Brosnan's final Bond film should have been.

I'm glad that EON recognized just how far they had gone with DAD and went back to realism for Casino Royale. I wish QOS had been better, but it wasn't bad.


I agree. I always felt that they were pushing story and character in The World Is Not Enough, but for me it just didn't work. With Die Another Day there was a lot going on, but I think the first part of the film was good and then in a lot of ways it was just too much in the 2nd half of it. The casting of Halle Berry was a mis step I think. It's all water under the bridge (Ice Palace?) at this point though..

I always liked Pierce as Bond, but felt his scripts got worse with each of his films. Still like his first two films a lot, but TWINE and DAD will always be hard ones for me to watch.

It was fun to see a thread like this pop up again as it has been 10 years now! Wow!

I was so excited for Die Another Day and I really enjoyed the Bond world at that time too. It's still fun now, but in a different way. Skyfall looks to be the darkest Bond film ever done in a lot of ways. I'm sure it will be entertaining and can't wait to see it, but it is much different then all of the Bond films that we had in the past.

That could most likely be said about all of the Bond films. Each is different and it changes each time and especially generation wise to stay relevant to what is currently happening in films.

Looking forward to the Bond 50 blu ray set in September!

#533 Colossus

Colossus

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1490 posts
  • Location:SPECTRE Island

Posted 12 June 2012 - 12:32 AM

Moonraker... you mean when Moore was on top of the world as 007 still, his last appearance as a Believable agent?

#534 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 12 June 2012 - 04:44 AM

... as a believable agent, going into space, shooting laser guns...

#535 DR76

DR76

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1673 posts

Posted 12 June 2012 - 08:59 PM

The dialogue in the movie got pretty bad when Jinx was on the screen, and there were a number of other major flaws in the movie.



There were plenty of bad dialogue when Jinx WASN'T on the screen.


I always liked Pierce as Bond, but felt his scripts got worse with each of his films. Still like his first two films a lot, but TWINE and DAD will always be hard ones for me to watch.



TND was utter crap to me. Pure generic Bond. GE was probably the best. TWINE is second best to me, despite the terrible locations. DAD is a mixed bag for me. I liked most of the movie, except for the Godawful ice palace. And Miranda Frost turned out to be one of the dumbest minor villains in the franchise.

#536 Colossus

Colossus

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1490 posts
  • Location:SPECTRE Island

Posted 12 June 2012 - 10:00 PM

... as a believable agent, going into space, shooting laser guns...


I meant he looked pretty fit and young where in FYEO he's entered the aged playboy routine.

#537 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 18 July 2012 - 05:26 AM

What I wish they could have changed about Die Another Day:

1. The DNA story line I felt was a little to far fetched.

2. I hated the ice palace.

3. Icarus was right out of Bat Man and Robin

4. The casting was horrible IMO.

5. Since they use North Korea I wish they had of used 'THE HOTEL OF DOOM' doesn't it scream Bond villain lair? It is finished now but it was left alone for 16 years do to money issues.

Posted Image

#538 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 05:35 AM

I once was in Beirut where I came across a very similar building. Used to be more conventionally square though, it only was redesigned by a number of efforts, mostly military ones. Also the holes weren't nearly as regularly spread across the structure. And certainly nobody considered spending a night there...

#539 Miles Miservy

Miles Miservy

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Location:CT

Posted 18 July 2012 - 04:39 PM

Moonraker... you mean when Moore was on top of the world as 007 still, his last appearance as a Believable agent?

Funny you mention that...
Not having seen it in a while, I thought it amusing to notice in the end credits, "Moonraker was filmed on location in England, Brazil, Italy, Florida and Outer Space."

#540 scaramunga

scaramunga

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1083 posts
  • Location:United States

Posted 22 July 2012 - 08:14 PM


Moonraker... you mean when Moore was on top of the world as 007 still, his last appearance as a Believable agent?

Funny you mention that...
Not having seen it in a while, I thought it amusing to notice in the end credits, "Moonraker was filmed on location in England, Brazil, Italy, Florida and Outer Space."


Yes! I love seeing that in the end credits for Moonraker!!!