Does "The Theory Of Bond RelativityTM" take into account the Bondian political party structure?
Could interaction between this new theory and the agenda driven Bond political parties result in something more akin to "Bondian Chaos" in which a form of victory is declared by heaping unwarrented criticism on a film/novel just to change its overall preception?
Does "The Theory Of Bond RelativityTM" take into account the Bondian political party structure?
Could interaction between this new theory and the agenda driven Bond political parties result in something more akin to "Bondian Chaos" in which a form of victory is declared by heaping unwarrented criticism on a film/novel just to change its overall preception?
Excellent and pertinent question, 7289, and I believe you might just be onto something. Circumstances such as the one you've described have been observed in the past---on both sides of the Bonditical aisle---and they've always been dismissed as isolated incidents. There's obviously a more intricate weave to this tapestry than meets the eye :v
Has The Theory of Bond RelativityTM laid the groundwork for a much more insidious Bondian Chaos TheoryTM 7289?
I'm commencing an in-depth investigation immediately.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE - I simply find the pacing rather slow.
THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH - This movie struck me as a Bond parody. The opening sequence makes me cringe: The power boat skidding along the streets of London's dock district is almost as bad as the gondola in MOONRAKER.
I don't know if a Bond film can be properly assessed as being over or under-rated, as the majority of them have never been properly critiqued as individual films, but as a product from the assembly line. Something that always irritated me, and I'm sure, many of the directors as well. After Goldfinger, they were pretty much regarded as a franchise, and rated according to how they fared against each other, and not other films. I remember GF being stacked up against the films of Fritz Lang, by different reviewers, and FRWL to North by Northwest and other Hitchcock films.
I guess, the weakest ones, IMO were, You Only Live Twice(the cheesiest looking of the Connery's)For Your Eyes Only(the dullest of the Moore's)and Licence to Kill(the most boring entrance for a new Bond).
Eh? Do you mean The Living Daylights, Dalton's first Bond, when you talk of 'new Bond'? LTK was his second. Or do you mean it has a boring pre-credits?
Eh? Do you mean The Living Daylights, Dalton's first Bond, when you talk of 'new Bond'? LTK was his second. Or do you mean it has a boring pre-credits?
I see I had my Daltons mixed up. I had the right title, but hadn't realized it was his 2nd. I still didn't care for it, regardless of the order, but I did enjoy Living Daylights, as it reminded me a bit of Diamonds are Forever. And better than average villains for a post-Moore Bond.
Re-edit: My dyslexia must be kicking up. ) Either that, or I haven't seen the 2 in so long, I forgot which was which. I stand by my first comment, the first Dalton. The second one I enjoyed. I think it's because both titles start with an L.:))
I guess, the weakest ones, IMO were, You Only Live Twice(the cheesiest looking of the Connery's)For Your Eyes Only(the dullest of the Moore's)and Licence to Kill(the most boring entrance for a new Bond).
Most Boring entrance for a new Bond? That honor goes to Live and Let Die. Bond (or an imgae of Bond) is not in the title sequence. Our first view of Roger Moore in the role: he is asleep with the lively Ms. Caruso. Not having sex, not in any danger. He's asleep. Really exciting way to be introduced to the most importatn character in the movie. And the excitement builds as we get to see Moore make coffee. What nonsense.
Most Boring entrance for a new Bond? That honor goes to Live and Let Die. Bond (or an imgae of Bond) is not in the title sequence. Our first view of Roger Moore in the role: he is asleep with the lively Ms. Caruso. Not having sex, not in any danger. He's asleep. Really exciting way to be introduced to the most importatn character in the movie. And the excitement builds as we get to see Moore make coffee. What nonsense.
That's funny, I'd say that is one of the better flesh and blood representations of James Bond (when in most other PTS he's essentially an Action Man figure).
'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...'
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Most Boring entrance for a new Bond? That honor goes to Live and Let Die. Bond (or an imgae of Bond) is not in the title sequence. Our first view of Roger Moore in the role: he is asleep with the lively Ms. Caruso. Not having sex, not in any danger. He's asleep. Really exciting way to be introduced to the most importatn character in the movie. And the excitement builds as we get to see Moore make coffee. What nonsense.
That's funny, I'd say that is one of the better flesh and blood representations of James Bond (when in most other PTS he's essentially an Action Man figure).
LALD is my favourite Moore Bond; I've always admired that Eon delayed showing the new actor until after the PTS & titles...and the espresso machine speaks to one of my favourite aspects of Bond: his fastidious nature (I'd like to see a bit more of this in the current incarnation).
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I can hear the knives sharpening, but for me GF is rated too highly. I watched it recently and found that it really sagged in the middle .I found myself wondering 'where is Bond'
Also the final confrontation with Goldfinger seemed anti-climatic. It is so highly regarded as it contains some series defining and iconic moments and great scenes (Golf match, the car, great PTS,superb sets and of course Pussy Galore)
Its just as an end to end experience it is a tad disapointing coming after the superb FRWL. it also marks the beggining of Bond being overshadowed by sets & toys, which continued until the 'back to the drawing board, approach of OHMSS (a regualr occurence everytime a new actor to play Bond is introduced.
I can hear the knives sharpening, but for me GF is rated too highly. I watched it recently and found that it really sagged in the middle .I found myself wondering 'where is Bond'
Also the final confrontation with Goldfinger seemed anti-climatic. It is so highly regarded as it contains some series defining and iconic moments and great scenes (Golf match, the car, great PTS,superb sets and of course Pussy Galore)
Its just as an end to end experience it is a tad disapointing coming after the superb FRWL. it also marks the beggining of Bond being overshadowed by sets & toys, which continued until the 'back to the drawing board, approach of OHMSS (a regualr occurence everytime a new actor to play Bond is introduced.
Agree with your sentiments that FRWL is a better Bond film, but will have to respectfully disagree about GF being 'overrated' - its still up there as one of the best.
I'm afraid I'm with Zaphod on this. I found the whole storyline a bit too dull for me {:) I suppose I found Gert Frobe just not villianish enough (is that even a word??? )..however I know that I'm in the minority on this, so it's best I keep it short
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
I've never held FYEO in high regard as seemingly everyone else on the planet. Definitely the dullest villain ever - which I feel is a major negative for the film. Bill Conti's score sounds more like something that should be used in ABC's Wide World of Sports. And after Bond kills Locque, the film seems to lose a lot of steam.
Love Melina and love the appearance of Gogol though.
Of course when we talk about these films we should probably bear in mind the times in which they were made.I think that a little historical context is order.For example,while Goldfinger is not my absolute favorite among the many
007 movies,it is perhaps the most important film of the entire series.I saw this movie when it first came out and clearly recall just how enormous a hit Goldfinger was.
At the time it was made,there'd never been a movie quite like Goldfinger.It's success influenced many television shows and countless motion pictures;a great number of those movies being other James Bond films.Here,in Goldfinger, was the larger-than-life villain with a nefarious masterplan and a colorful thug at his side.And this became the general template for most of the later 007 movies--regardless of the actors playing 007, or the Bad Guy's name/looks,or the evil schemes,the bodyguards or the locales of these films.With Goldfinger, Eon found a frequently successful formula they seldom ignored.
In my opinion,had Goldfinger not been the international success it was in 1964--and had it's sequel, Thunderball(1965), not exceeded it's predecessor in worldwide popularity--we probably wouldn't have so many James Bond films including Casino Royale and the upcoming Quantum of Solace, to discuss today, because the Eon 007 series we're all familiar with might not have continued after 1964 or 1965.
Just a thought.:)
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Which is an important thing, Mr. Garvin. It reminds me of The Beatles (tying into the GF thing ), inasmuch as it seems chic in some circles to write them off as a band, Lennon & McCartney as composers, etc., to the point that the dreaded 'overrated' tag gets tossed about.
What's missing is the historical context of importance within the era---and the countless subsequent offspring in ensuing years. Just as many film archetypes were created by GF, many important musicians picked up instruments for the first time because of the four lads from Liverpool. There will never be another Bond era like early-1960s Connery. Two Beatles are gone forever, and the surviving two don't work at that level anymore.
So here we have two very distinct, seminal pop culture icons, each of whom seem to receive a discreet declination of proper credit as their original fan base ages, and youngers bring a different frame of reference to the debate.
Just an old man's perspective One of my father's favourite sayings goes as follows:
"The winds of youth blow dust and sand. The eyes are blind for a while."
B-)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Two Beatles are gone forever, and the surviving two don't work at that level anymore.
It could be argued that one of them never did, but that's a different point (see * below). Good points, Loeff- it's all about context. GF at it's time established the iconic 007, solidified by TB shortly thereafter and those of us who were about at that time have a different perspective to the newer Bond fans.
* There are those who claim that current McCartney is but a shadow of the work he did with The Beatles. While there is some truth in that, The Man is still operating at a level so far above the average musician that only history will bear him out. We take him so much for granted, you know....
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
There are those who claim that current McCartney is but a shadow of the work he did with The Beatles. While there is some truth in that, The Man is still operating at a level so far above the average musician that only history will bear him out. We take him so much for granted, you know....
True enough...I was speaking in terms of commercial success, mostly---and that's the pity, isn't it, that his skills haven't eroded (quite the opposite, most likely), but that the old yardstick doesn't apply anymore. When you have to rely upon history for redemption...
[political commentary withheld ]
And to be fair to Mr. Starkey...he's done far better than most drummers gone solo---except for that guy from Genesis {:) ) And while Phil's done just fine for himself, I'll take Ringo anyday...
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
There are those who claim that current McCartney is but a shadow of the work he did with The Beatles. While there is some truth in that, The Man is still operating at a level so far above the average musician that only history will bear him out. We take him so much for granted, you know....
I think it's also because of what he did with the Beatles was so amazing and so acclaimed that, unfair as it might be, he never really had a chance as everything he would do would be compared to the Beatles (or at least would be looked down upon as the solo work of a former Beatle.)
Even though much of his post-Beatles work has been acclaimed and some of it has been commercially successful, he will probably always be spoken of as a 'former Beatle,' (It's not all that different to someone like Brian Wilson or Jimmy Page who is still spoken of as 'Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin.')
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Even though much of his post-Beatles work has been acclaimed and some of it has been commercially successful, he will probably always be spoken of as a 'former Beatle,' (It's not all that different to someone like Brian Wilson or Jimmy Page who is still spoken of as 'Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin.')
Or indeed, "former 007 Roger Moore" or "ex-James Bond Brosnan", etc. Once the press has put a label on somebody or something, it sticks. Some would call that journalistic shorthand, some would say it's just plain lazy. I'd say that it's okay once in a while but not when constantly repeated (three times in one article, for instance).
Loeff, before you turn this into a 'battle of the generations' debate, need I remind you that GF is my single all-time favourite Bond film? In fact I would revere it irrespective of its significance within its era or, for that matter, any era. I would argue that when it comes to the magnificence of GF, it doesn't how matter how old you are; as like Casablanca and The Godfather, its brilliance is timeless.
I'd say that it's okay once in a while but not when constantly repeated (three times in one article, for instance).
Or when you would assume that the person is so famous that they don't need to be introduced as a 'former' whatever. I understand that Jimmy Page is probably not so famous that he can't be introduced on his own, but I still read articles introducing McCartney as a 'former Beatle,' when he is one of the most famous musicians in the world. )
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Very true. The man is a living legend. With his new work, naturally, it would be very hard to reach the heights of The Beatles, with all of that creative energy flying around. Not saying his new stuff is bad, just that The Beatles was a once in a lifetime thing.
Definitely the dullest villain ever - which I feel is a major negative for the film. Bill Conti's score sounds more like something that should be used in ABC's Wide World of Sports. And after Bond kills Locque, the film seems to lose a lot of steam.
Agreed. The final 1/3 is very dull and anti-climactic for me. It seems like they were overreacting to the excesses of the outer space finale of MR so they came up with an ending so low-key that it failed to generate any true excitement. The Bond dangling from the cliff bit is impressive but that's about it.
Love Melina and love the appearance of Gogol though.
Agreed. There's some good characters(Melina, Columbo, Lisl), stunts and locations in FYEO. Unlike most, I actually enjoy the sequel to the events of OHMSS pre-title sequence and the gag ending with Dame Maggie and Dennis. And I laud EON for returning to Fleming material for the first time in over a decade.
That stated, I don't find FYEO the be all end all Bond film it's often acclaimed as. It was EON's attempt to give Moore his FRWL or OHMSS but it's not as satisfying as either of those earlier classics for me. It tends to play for me like a great episode of The Saint. I have a feeling if EON had stayed faithful to Fleming material in all their 1970s Bond films, FYEO wouldn't be seen as anything more than a decent, mid-range entry in the series.
GE is the second most overrated for me. Some decent locations, characters, scenes and ideas are in it. But somehow it never gels into a satisfying whole for me.
As much as I enjoy Goldfinger, I do think that it is highly overrated. I would guestimate that 75% or so of Bond purists consider Goldfinger the high-point of the series. Granted, it has its very inventive and entertaining moments (not to mention an awesome opener and bad Bond girl in Pussy), but I don't think it is better than other Bond greats like The Spy Who Loved Me or Casino Royale.
Then again, it could be because the movie is so old now. And yet, I still think that From Russia With Love and, to some extent, Dr. No and Thunderball hold up considerably well after all these years.
The most overrated Bond film imo is Goldfinger. It was a great movie, but it wasn't perfect. Many people are saying how its the best action movie ever or the best Bond film ever, but it isn't.
Agree that GF despite some truly iconic elements does not cohere. Our chap is incarcerated for far too much of the film. At the risk of getting all high faulting by bringing literary theory into the discussion this neuteres and undermines the function of the 'Hero' who in order to function as such must be responsible for his success. The 'lucky break' which GF relies upon (Pussy and the note) belong to the realm of 'anti-hero.
I thought FOR YOUR EYES ONLY was brilliantly written by Richard Maibaum but ineptly executed by John Glenn, who wasn't ready to direct, and by Michael J. Wilson, who should have kept his hands off the script. It was a better script before he screwed it up.
The most over-rated Bond film is the first in the "Stop! Or My M. Will Shoot!" trilogy, CASINO ROYALE for reasons that have nothing to do with the casting. Fleming's subtext is replaced with an agenda, his story perverted in ways that are subtle and obvious. I don't buy into this new James Bond, not for an instant. It is a fraudulent and disingenuous Bond. How anyone can accept, let alone tolerate, the very idea that Bond is an uncouth idiot who has to be followed around the globe and taught how to be a better man by his M is beyond me. The film is an insult.
Richard
The top 7 Bond films: 1) Dr No. 2) From Russia With Love. 3) Thunderball. 4) On Her Majesty's Secret Service. 5) For Your Eyes Only. 6) The Living Daylights. 7) Licence to Kill.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,757Chief of Staff
I thought FOR YOUR EYES ONLY was brilliantly written by Richard Maibaum but ineptly executed by John Glenn, who wasn't ready to direct, and by Michael J. Wilson, who should have kept his hands off the script. It was a better script before he screwed it up.
The most over-rated Bond film is the first in the "Stop! Or My M. Will Shoot!" trilogy, CASINO ROYALE for reasons that have nothing to do with the casting. Fleming's subtext is replaced with an agenda, his story perverted in ways that are subtle and obvious. I don't buy into this new James Bond, not for an instant. It is a fraudulent and disingenuous Bond. How anyone can accept, let alone tolerate, the very idea that Bond is an uncouth idiot who has to be followed around the globe and taught how to be a better man by his M is beyond me. The film is an insult.
Richard
Wow...we are Mr Happy today....
If you think the films are that bad then I've no idea how you can stay a Bond fan and even less idea why you would post here
I thought FOR YOUR EYES ONLY was brilliantly written by Richard Maibaum but ineptly executed by John Glenn, who wasn't ready to direct, and by Michael J. Wilson, who should have kept his hands off the script. It was a better script before he screwed it up.
The most over-rated Bond film is the first in the "Stop! Or My M. Will Shoot!" trilogy, CASINO ROYALE for reasons that have nothing to do with the casting. Fleming's subtext is replaced with an agenda, his story perverted in ways that are subtle and obvious. I don't buy into this new James Bond, not for an instant. It is a fraudulent and disingenuous Bond. How anyone can accept, let alone tolerate, the very idea that Bond is an uncouth idiot who has to be followed around the globe and taught how to be a better man by his M is beyond me. The film is an insult.
Richard
Wow...we are Mr Happy today....
If you think the films are that bad then I've no idea how you can stay a Bond fan and even less idea why you would post here
Ouch. While I agree that his comment was a little extreme, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I liked Casino Royale but find little redeeming value in the follow-up, QoS. Terrible movie.
Comments
Does "The Theory Of Bond RelativityTM" take into account the Bondian political party structure?
Could interaction between this new theory and the agenda driven Bond political parties result in something more akin to "Bondian Chaos" in which a form of victory is declared by heaping unwarrented criticism on a film/novel just to change its overall preception?
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Excellent and pertinent question, 7289, and I believe you might just be onto something. Circumstances such as the one you've described have been observed in the past---on both sides of the Bonditical aisle---and they've always been dismissed as isolated incidents. There's obviously a more intricate weave to this tapestry than meets the eye :v
Has The Theory of Bond RelativityTM laid the groundwork for a much more insidious Bondian Chaos TheoryTM 7289?
I'm commencing an in-depth investigation immediately.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH - This movie struck me as a Bond parody. The opening sequence makes me cringe: The power boat skidding along the streets of London's dock district is almost as bad as the gondola in MOONRAKER.
I guess, the weakest ones, IMO were, You Only Live Twice(the cheesiest looking of the Connery's)For Your Eyes Only(the dullest of the Moore's)and Licence to Kill(the most boring entrance for a new Bond).
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I see I had my Daltons mixed up. I had the right title, but hadn't realized it was his 2nd. I still didn't care for it, regardless of the order, but I did enjoy Living Daylights, as it reminded me a bit of Diamonds are Forever. And better than average villains for a post-Moore Bond.
Re-edit: My dyslexia must be kicking up.
No worries.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Ah Ha!
The "Bondian Chaos Theory" strikes!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Most Boring entrance for a new Bond? That honor goes to Live and Let Die. Bond (or an imgae of Bond) is not in the title sequence. Our first view of Roger Moore in the role: he is asleep with the lively Ms. Caruso. Not having sex, not in any danger. He's asleep. Really exciting way to be introduced to the most importatn character in the movie. And the excitement builds as we get to see Moore make coffee. What nonsense.
That's funny, I'd say that is one of the better flesh and blood representations of James Bond (when in most other PTS he's essentially an Action Man figure).
LALD is my favourite Moore Bond; I've always admired that Eon delayed showing the new actor until after the PTS & titles...and the espresso machine speaks to one of my favourite aspects of Bond: his fastidious nature (I'd like to see a bit more of this in the current incarnation).
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Also the final confrontation with Goldfinger seemed anti-climatic. It is so highly regarded as it contains some series defining and iconic moments and great scenes (Golf match, the car, great PTS,superb sets and of course Pussy Galore)
Its just as an end to end experience it is a tad disapointing coming after the superb FRWL. it also marks the beggining of Bond being overshadowed by sets & toys, which continued until the 'back to the drawing board, approach of OHMSS (a regualr occurence everytime a new actor to play Bond is introduced.
Agree with your sentiments that FRWL is a better Bond film, but will have to respectfully disagree about GF being 'overrated' - its still up there as one of the best.
Love Melina and love the appearance of Gogol though.
007 movies,it is perhaps the most important film of the entire series.I saw this movie when it first came out and clearly recall just how enormous a hit Goldfinger was.
At the time it was made,there'd never been a movie quite like Goldfinger.It's success influenced many television shows and countless motion pictures;a great number of those movies being other James Bond films.Here,in Goldfinger, was the larger-than-life villain with a nefarious masterplan and a colorful thug at his side.And this became the general template for most of the later 007 movies--regardless of the actors playing 007, or the Bad Guy's name/looks,or the evil schemes,the bodyguards or the locales of these films.With Goldfinger, Eon found a frequently successful formula they seldom ignored.
In my opinion,had Goldfinger not been the international success it was in 1964--and had it's sequel, Thunderball(1965), not exceeded it's predecessor in worldwide popularity--we probably wouldn't have so many James Bond films including Casino Royale and the upcoming Quantum of Solace, to discuss today, because the Eon 007 series we're all familiar with might not have continued after 1964 or 1965.
Just a thought.:)
Which is an important thing, Mr. Garvin. It reminds me of The Beatles (tying into the GF thing
What's missing is the historical context of importance within the era---and the countless subsequent offspring in ensuing years. Just as many film archetypes were created by GF, many important musicians picked up instruments for the first time because of the four lads from Liverpool. There will never be another Bond era like early-1960s Connery. Two Beatles are gone forever, and the surviving two don't work at that level anymore.
So here we have two very distinct, seminal pop culture icons, each of whom seem to receive a discreet declination of proper credit as their original fan base ages, and youngers bring a different frame of reference to the debate.
Just an old man's perspective
"The winds of youth blow dust and sand. The eyes are blind for a while."
B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
It could be argued that one of them never did, but that's a different point (see * below). Good points, Loeff- it's all about context. GF at it's time established the iconic 007, solidified by TB shortly thereafter and those of us who were about at that time have a different perspective to the newer Bond fans.
* There are those who claim that current McCartney is but a shadow of the work he did with The Beatles. While there is some truth in that, The Man is still operating at a level so far above the average musician that only history will bear him out. We take him so much for granted, you know....
True enough...I was speaking in terms of commercial success, mostly---and that's the pity, isn't it, that his skills haven't eroded (quite the opposite, most likely), but that the old yardstick doesn't apply anymore. When you have to rely upon history for redemption...
[political commentary withheld
And to be fair to Mr. Starkey...he's done far better than most drummers gone solo---except for that guy from Genesis {:)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Even though much of his post-Beatles work has been acclaimed and some of it has been commercially successful, he will probably always be spoken of as a 'former Beatle,' (It's not all that different to someone like Brian Wilson or Jimmy Page who is still spoken of as 'Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin.')
Or indeed, "former 007 Roger Moore" or "ex-James Bond Brosnan", etc. Once the press has put a label on somebody or something, it sticks. Some would call that journalistic shorthand, some would say it's just plain lazy. I'd say that it's okay once in a while but not when constantly repeated (three times in one article, for instance).
Or when you would assume that the person is so famous that they don't need to be introduced as a 'former' whatever. I understand that Jimmy Page is probably not so famous that he can't be introduced on his own, but I still read articles introducing McCartney as a 'former Beatle,' when he is one of the most famous musicians in the world.
You're not alone, rennervision. I think it's the most overrated one as well. And often feel that no one else thinks the same way.
Agreed. The final 1/3 is very dull and anti-climactic for me. It seems like they were overreacting to the excesses of the outer space finale of MR so they came up with an ending so low-key that it failed to generate any true excitement. The Bond dangling from the cliff bit is impressive but that's about it.
Agreed. There's some good characters(Melina, Columbo, Lisl), stunts and locations in FYEO. Unlike most, I actually enjoy the sequel to the events of OHMSS pre-title sequence and the gag ending with Dame Maggie and Dennis. And I laud EON for returning to Fleming material for the first time in over a decade.
That stated, I don't find FYEO the be all end all Bond film it's often acclaimed as. It was EON's attempt to give Moore his FRWL or OHMSS but it's not as satisfying as either of those earlier classics for me. It tends to play for me like a great episode of The Saint. I have a feeling if EON had stayed faithful to Fleming material in all their 1970s Bond films, FYEO wouldn't be seen as anything more than a decent, mid-range entry in the series.
GE is the second most overrated for me. Some decent locations, characters, scenes and ideas are in it. But somehow it never gels into a satisfying whole for me.
Then again, it could be because the movie is so old now. And yet, I still think that From Russia With Love and, to some extent, Dr. No and Thunderball hold up considerably well after all these years.
Agree that GF despite some truly iconic elements does not cohere. Our chap is incarcerated for far too much of the film. At the risk of getting all high faulting by bringing literary theory into the discussion this neuteres and undermines the function of the 'Hero' who in order to function as such must be responsible for his success. The 'lucky break' which GF relies upon (Pussy and the note) belong to the realm of 'anti-hero.
The most over-rated Bond film is the first in the "Stop! Or My M. Will Shoot!" trilogy, CASINO ROYALE for reasons that have nothing to do with the casting. Fleming's subtext is replaced with an agenda, his story perverted in ways that are subtle and obvious. I don't buy into this new James Bond, not for an instant. It is a fraudulent and disingenuous Bond. How anyone can accept, let alone tolerate, the very idea that Bond is an uncouth idiot who has to be followed around the globe and taught how to be a better man by his M is beyond me. The film is an insult.
Richard
Wow...we are Mr Happy today....
If you think the films are that bad then I've no idea how you can stay a Bond fan and even less idea why you would post here
Ouch. While I agree that his comment was a little extreme, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I liked Casino Royale but find little redeeming value in the follow-up, QoS. Terrible movie.