Most Underrated Bond film?
Brosnan_fan
Sydney, AustraliaPosts: 521MI6 Agent
My five most underrated Bonds are:
1. LTK
Dalton is very good and the makers were clearly aiming for something other than a cartoon film.
2. MR
A beautiful love interest, sexy girls, exotic locales, a practically out-of-this-world story and JAWS! It's popcorn entertainment, remember.
3. OHMSS
George Lazenby wasn't really that bad; he was just a new face to everyone and the film made a surprising change in Bond's life.
4. DAD
Like OHMSS and LTK this ventured out into new territory with its story of betrayal and capture, yet the film still retained the essential formulaic elements. Seeing Brosnan like Robinson Crusoe was quite a departure in the series.
5. TB
Rather slow-paced in the underwater scenes but plenty on the espionage factor; my favourite elements were the jet-pack and the yacht/hydrofoil.
1. LTK
Dalton is very good and the makers were clearly aiming for something other than a cartoon film.
2. MR
A beautiful love interest, sexy girls, exotic locales, a practically out-of-this-world story and JAWS! It's popcorn entertainment, remember.
3. OHMSS
George Lazenby wasn't really that bad; he was just a new face to everyone and the film made a surprising change in Bond's life.
4. DAD
Like OHMSS and LTK this ventured out into new territory with its story of betrayal and capture, yet the film still retained the essential formulaic elements. Seeing Brosnan like Robinson Crusoe was quite a departure in the series.
5. TB
Rather slow-paced in the underwater scenes but plenty on the espionage factor; my favourite elements were the jet-pack and the yacht/hydrofoil.
"Well, he certainly left with his tails between his legs."
Comments
Never Say Never Again
Simply put, the most underrated Bond film that ever existed... Well, it and MR!
I would argue that most people would recognise TB for what it is (IMO): a classic. TB was, after all, the most profitble Bond film ever made if adjusted to inflation.
In terms of being underrated, I think a destinction needs to be made between films which are underrated among the general public and films which are underrated among hard-core fans.
In regards to general public, I would argue that the three most underrated films are: (in chronological order)
1)DN (probably the least known of the 60's Connery films, more people have probably heard about FRWL, GF, TB and YOLT)
2)OHMSS (Many people know of Lazenby as the 'Australian Bond' or the 'fifth Bond' but not many realise just what a brilliant film OHMSS really was)
3)FYEO (among Moore films, most people would have heard of LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, MR and OP but not as many people would be aware of the brilliance of this smaller film)
Among hard-core Bond fans, I would argue that the three most underrated films are: (in chronological order)
1)DAF (yes, it wasn't as good as Connery's 60's films but I would still argue that it was one of the greatest Bond films ever made)
2)LALD (perhaps it isn't underrated, but I still get the sense that some hard-core fans don't give it the recognition which IMO it deserves; one of the very best Bond films of the 70's)
3)TMWTGG (terrible in so many ways, but at least it's better than AVTAK and DAD. Plus it's got some really good things going for it such as Christopher Lee, Bond's ruthlessness and Nick Nack)
Also, DAD is, more or less, Fleming's MR brought to the screen, even if it isn't called like that - there even was talk of Agent Brandt to appear, but the character changed so much it became Miranda Frost.
Anyway, I will state again THE most underrated Bond film of them all:
Never Say Never Again.
Period.
The only reason that NSNA has not been brought up as an underrated film, is that in order for it to be underrated, it must have some merit.
Anyway, NSNA has the best Bond, two of the best villains EVER, good plot, great dialogue, excellent, tight direction and overall it is a very entertaining film, DESPITE its terrible score and lack of EON templates (gunbarrel, title sequence).
Overall, to this day, NSNA remains THE most underrated James Bond movie of all time.
Plus what does Luthor have to do with anything? ?:)
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Believe me, I will respond to it as soon as I can.
Now, I want to answer to Dan...
NSNA is a great return to the Bond of the old... A down-to-Earth Bond that delivers. I remember I watched Bonds in order, and after FYEO, I saw this - and believe me, after I saw OP, I felt NSNA was a much truer "sequel" to FEYO (although I clasify it as a prequel, myself, as should anyone), in matters of reality and suspence. I just felt I was a thriller, whereas with OP I was watching a action-meets-comedy-meets-parody-meets-adventure. NSNA was really, a truer Bond movie. And I really feel many of the official entries (most Moore films) are honestly worser than NSNA. It has, simply, class.
And TWINE... Yeah, I also noticed the backlash it receives. Lately, I've seen people to like TND over it, which is plain weird, because it makes no sense. TWINE is a Bond movie with the right aspects (even the Fleminigian-silly name, Dr. Christmas Jones) and Brosnan in his best ever performance as Bond.
TB is DENINETELY overrated... While Connery is perfect, the rest... Doesn't leave up to its premise. Its big, but its shallow. Not a really great Bond film...
Yes, I can see NSNA as a sequel to FYEO, they both retread past accent a fair bit. Someone said it worked best as a belated sequel to Dr No, as if all those films in between hadn't happened.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I'm glad you agree with me, Napoleon, because I really feel FYEO and NSNA share more with each other than OP does. Bond's wits and physical prowress are the focus of both films, and both actors give absolutely great performances as Bond (although Moore in OP was equally good, I think). Chronologically, though, I set NSNA before FEYO because of the Blofeld PTS in FYEO, and because of M's absence (leave the door open to believe that NSNA's M was on leave, OR rather, was ready to leave the service, behind the curtain-style). Makes perfect sense, still.
I am sorry, but I do not even consider NSNA a Bond film, just a terrible spy clip Sean Connery acted in.
Its not an EON Bond film, but it is a Bond film, per se. The main character IS James Bond, and nobody can deny that.
(Oh, and Klaus Maria Brandauer was pretty good as well but I much prefer Adolfo Celi)
True, it's a Bond film, but that doesn't mean we (I) need to acknowledge it. Plus, it's an unofficial film and I personally have no desire to consider it an official film.
Plus, you didn't answer my question: What does Luthor (who?) have to do with this discussion?
NSNA is a great Bond film. Certainly (I'm convinced, totally) its better than many Moore flicks, and MUCH better than, the otherwise good Bond film, OP.
Brandauer's performance is the best villain performance in all Bonds because the actor actually approached the character as a psycho, a businessman bent on making more money... One of Kershner's strengths as a director, is that he can give weight to the characters that he directs, and Brandauer can certainly benefit from that. His is a complex performance, a nuance act that is only surpassed by Gert Frobe's Goldfinger, the archetypical Bond villain - still the best - and Sanchez, whose devotion to loyalty gives him a sympathetic angle, despite himself. How can anyone prefer Adolfo Celi has always alluded me - he's a one-dimensional villain, at best, smart at times, but not really that threatening. I'm not fond of him.
And I wouldn't say OP is underrated... Certainly not, amongst the fans, no. And I do like the film, at all times. My thinking is this should've been Moore's last (how ideal would it have been, Connery and Moore finishing their Bond at the same year, leaving a newcomer to arrive in 1985? Ideal, really), because Moore so good, and the film is very Moore-esque. But I won't prefer it over NSNA. Not in any way...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
That's your opinion. Personally I consider NSNA to be the 5th worst Bond film of all time (excluding 54's and 67's 's CR).
Three things: First, I don't consider Brandauer's villain performance to be the best (far from it) as I didn't find him threatening enough. I want a villain to be be truly dangerous, and I wan unconvinced by Brandauer.
Second, I agree about Goldfinger being the best, but I disagree about Sanchez. To me, he was just a drug dealer, and among drug dealers I have always preffered Kananga. (Drug dealers are generally IMO a very un-Bondian villain. The reason is that I think they're a little bland, except for Kananga whom IMO was a great villain.)
Third, the reason why I consider Celi to be a much better villain is because to me he WAS threatening. He was an outrageous villain (eye patch, sharks), he was enormously threatening yet he was realistic. That is, I was convinced that someone like him could exist.
Seriously, how can it be all that bad?
NSNA did better in the US markets than in Europe. The US elements are in how it looks like an early Arnie movie in some ways (the opening anticipates Commando), the lampooning of the British, the US sounding score which might sound less awful to some Americans yes I suppose I'm treading a fine line, here.
I am slightly mystified about Jimmy's love for NSNA, though interested in his McClory DVD. I guess it's like JFF and AVTAK, or Red Grant and DAD.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
However, it IS better than TB, for the fact that the story plays out more realistically and on the whole acts like a thriller in the FRWL-FYEO vain, whereas TB was action sequence for action sequence. Really, TB is a nice Bond film, with Connery in his last golden performance for 18 years, and GREAT music. But NSNA wins out because it feels like a much more realistic, gritty thriller. Like Bond of the old.
Maybe I am, indeed, like Red Grant on DAD (which, BTW, IS a nice film, too).
And Dan Same... Why don't you like Dalton and his films? I don't understand that - LTK, in specific, is clearly a Brosnan Bond film, with more violence and a wee bit more seriousness in it. We get an introspective Bond, like in all of Dalton and Brosnan's films (maybe thats why I adore them so much...).
I honestly believe that from 1987 to 2002, with one exception, Bond films have been in an all time high. A Bond who uses more his wits and physical prowress than his gadgets (a thread which harmed the Moore Bonds, immensly), and storylines that are realistic and gives chances for character development.
Like NSNA!
Because, unlike you, I do not consider Brosnan and Dalton to be similar Bonds. I consider them to be totally different. To me, Dalton was completely ruthless, overly intense, non-humerous, non-suave and a bland sour-puss. Brosnan, whom I would compare to Connery, was IMO a ruthless, suave, gentlemanly killer. I don't think Dalton and Brosnan are alike at all, and in fact Brosnan is my second favourite Bond while Dalton is my second least favourite Bond. (Dalton would probably be 5th on my list as Lazenby is only below him due to him having done just one film. Unlike Lazenby, I don't think that Dalton had any redeeming features at all.) It is true that several of Brosnan's films were introspective but I think they are completely different to the Dalton films due to Brosnan realising that while Bond is a killer, he is also a gentleman.
You mentioned LTK. I would have loved for Brosnan (or Connery, or even Moore) to do LTK as I consider Dalton to be the major reason why LTK was IMO a really bad film. I therefore do not consider LTK to be a Brosnan film, but rather a Dalton film. I'll tell you a LTK-type film which I do consider to be a Brosnan film: FRWL. I think that most of the Connery films and several of the Moore films could be considered Brosnan films, if one included the lead performance as a consideration. However, if one includes the lead performance as a consideration, then I don't think either of the Dalton films could be considered Brosnan films, as I don't think that Dalton and Brosnan were anything alike.
I don't agree. With the possible exception of MR, I do not consider the Moore films to have been overly reliant on gadgets. Therefore, I do not consider the Moore films to have been 'immensly harmed' by this.
Sean Connery jogging in his underwear... 'nuff said.
And seriously, wasn't Connery excellent in NSNA, throughout? I thought he gave his best performance for 18 years, and thought he was very involving and convincing, despite his age.
Let me restate that... Sean Connery is jogging in his UNDERWEAR and he fights bad guys with his URINE. Even one of these scenes would be a killer, but putting them together in the same movie with the worst butchered score of all times results in an incredible handicap nobody could work down.
Your enthusiasm for the Brosnan films and FYEO does, however, explain to me your liking for NSNA. In my view, these films are rather drier and saltier than the fresh flavour of the 60s and 70s films. John Glen had a drier style, less of a light tough, and the same with Spottiswoode for TND, and Tamorahi. And NSNA falls into that category, too. It's a different style of film.
Also, the Brosnan films had an emphasis on slightly arch references to Bond's trappings ie the vodka martini et al, which NSNA has a fair bit of, it's a bit self-conscious.
Also, while NSNA breaks no real new ground in terms of action, you can say the same of the likes of TND. There's the same cloudy sunshine locations, and the sense that although they're playing it straight, it's not at all believable, thanks to some truly daft scenes (the urine in the face - how would that blind someone?) and the car plunging into a crowded shopping centre and not exploding or killing any passer-by (TND) for instance.
Compared to Pryce, Bean and lacklustre Brosnan villains, Max Largo in NSNA is both menacing and plausible.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Still, NSNA is not without its flaws - the lack of good score, a signature score like for the rest of the films, the editing being somewhat lacking in places, and the climax of the final battle being very dissapointing - one thing TB surpasses NSNA is this, the climax. Although I love the ending with the wink wink on the camera (007!). Also, several scenes that might've explained the action better, are cut (I ain't talking of Blofeld, I'm glad that scene was cut). I rate this film as an equal to FYEO.
Napoleon, why don't you edit your favorite Bond films? What is you opinion on FYEO, NSNA and the Dalton/Brosnan films?
Will get back to you on reediting stuff...
Roger Moore 1927-2017