I was commenting to myself that I haven't really enjoyed a Bond film since LTK. Why is that? Did I change or did the films change? To this day, I really don't have an answer to that question. But I do rank LTK higher than CR. Sure, it has those dorky moments that Loef alluded to, but that never poisoned the film for me. The locales? I think they're interesting. The novels were never incredibly glamorous to begin with...sheesh, Doctor No ended in a guano factory, for pete's sake. The thing that heightened LTK for me was Dalton's believability as a three dimensional character. Craig is good in CR, but I think the story suffers from scenes that really fail to tap his potential. At the end of LTK, Bond is beaten, burned, filthy, and exhausted. His life energy was spent on a burning rage and desire for revenge. Once that was fulfilled, we see Dalton as a shell of an individual. He was empty from the loss of a friend, the loss of career, and now the loss of a nemesis. More than any other scene in a Bond film, I had have a stronger appreciation for Bond's inner demons. At the end of CR, what did we have? Bond sitting on the deck of a boat sailing in Venice, his cold and fitting delivery of Fleming's line, cheapened by M's cringe-worthy motherly response of "Well, now you know." At that point, CR lost me and never regained my confidence. I did not see Bond in that film as a man who lost anything, as a man transformed, as a man driven by personal demons. The final scenes in CR had an opportunity to show some really conflicted moments for Bond and the life he chose, but it didn't do that, while I think LTK did (if not perfectly, but at least better).
Finally, I know why I prefer LTK to CR... Great post darenhat.
DH, with all due respect, that's a lot of projecting onto LTK what you'd like it to be...the film itself just doesn't have all that in it IMO. It wants to, sure, but TMWTGG wants to be a great Bond film about a great Bond showdown...
I just watched LALD recently, and had a similar experience: in my mind, plot and character points had been much more refined, but watching it again I sadly realized the script, cast, and direction were not what I had created/augmented in my head. TSWLM is another great example, in the moment and at that time (when it was first released), I thought it was the best Bond ever...and it is, if a cartoon Bond is what you're after. CR may have flaws for you, but LTK suffers from poor writing, acting and directing to such an extent it places it in an entirely different strata of filmmaking IMO. It's like comparing a '06 DBS with a dent on its fender to a milk wagon, at least for me it is. IMHO the thread title is correct, sure, but LTK by its lonesome was a grand, perhaps well-intentioned (benefit of the doubt, it's a Bond film after all ), miasma of unevenly-shot sorta Bondish things swirled together in a Bass-o-matic blender of TV-mentality doom. It may be one of your highpoints with the Bond films, but it was perhaps the lowest point for me. Great idea for a Bond film, you can see that in bits and pieces, but LTK sucked.
Am I the only one who LIKES humour in my bond films!? I don't want Bond to be super-dark and gritty necessarily.
I love the dark films, but if they were all dark and gritty, the Bond series wouldn't appeal to me as much as it does.
You see, things like Moonraker. It's terrible for a Bond film, but I still enjoy watching it. I loved watching the majority of the Moore Bond's, because they're fresh and I love his humour.
So no, you're not the only one that likes humour in Bond films. I love it. But saying that, I love Licence To Kill and Casino Royale (the two really dark films of the series) aswell.
It all comes down to varying the films in my opinion. I like a mix, and the Bond Series has done that greatly in my opinion.
Comments
I just watched LALD recently, and had a similar experience: in my mind, plot and character points had been much more refined, but watching it again I sadly realized the script, cast, and direction were not what I had created/augmented in my head. TSWLM is another great example, in the moment and at that time (when it was first released), I thought it was the best Bond ever...and it is, if a cartoon Bond is what you're after. CR may have flaws for you, but LTK suffers from poor writing, acting and directing to such an extent it places it in an entirely different strata of filmmaking IMO. It's like comparing a '06 DBS with a dent on its fender to a milk wagon, at least for me it is. IMHO the thread title is correct, sure, but LTK by its lonesome was a grand, perhaps well-intentioned (benefit of the doubt, it's a Bond film after all
comparing a diamond to a nickel
comparing Angelina Jolie to a St. Bernard
comparing a Ferrari to a Pinto
I could go on but I think you all understand how I feel.
Come on, CR is great, but NOT that great. Am I the only one who sees it this way?
(said he, expecting the answer "Yes!")
No, you certainly are not. {[]
I love the dark films, but if they were all dark and gritty, the Bond series wouldn't appeal to me as much as it does.
You see, things like Moonraker. It's terrible for a Bond film, but I still enjoy watching it. I loved watching the majority of the Moore Bond's, because they're fresh and I love his humour.
So no, you're not the only one that likes humour in Bond films. I love it. But saying that, I love Licence To Kill and Casino Royale (the two really dark films of the series) aswell.
It all comes down to varying the films in my opinion. I like a mix, and the Bond Series has done that greatly in my opinion.