OK, I'll say it: Die Another Day. Is it a great Bond film? No. Is it even a good one? Maybe not. But the vehemence of some fans toward this movie just astonishes me. You'd think that it was a snuff film written by Goebbels, directed by Charles Manson, produced by Stalin, and starring Pee-Wee Herman, Divine, and Sonny Tufts. Geeze, it's not that bad. And, please, people, don't anyone respond to this post by bashing DAD. We've got a whole thread devoted to that.
I don't want to bash DAD, but I think that I understand the venom that it gets. I think it's because the first half ( up to the Ice Palace ) is really vert strong and promising, and only marred by the awful Jinx. It had the potential to be a fine Bond film and a good swansong for Pierce. So I feel it's because of the sense of wasted opportunity that it gets so much negativity.
Like I've said many times Dalton is the best Bond ever. He had a very bad luck but he still did great work.
I think that License to kill was knock out by fans and people all over the world. Reviewers were very happy with the movie and it got good critique from them but the fans didn't respect or like this film and I can't understand why? Well, it was a little bit more violent than many others but have you seen die hard 1 and 2? Those were much more violent movies and made good box office. Bond's world is violent and CS was violent. It seems that Dalton was ahead of his time. This is the truth because now many fans have started to respect Tim's work more than before...
I just watched this one again last night. Not only has this film been bashed extensively, but most of the bashing has been unfair, misplaced, or just plain wrong.
Since before DAD, I have replied to many "rank your favorite Bond films" threads on this site. Almost without fail, I ranked OHMSS dead last. Now, I believe my lack of appreciation for OHMSS was wrong.
The main criticism of the film is the fact that Lazenby stars as Bond. Specifically, the main criticism of Lazenby's performance is, well, he's not Connery. I can't argue with that, but Lazenby does a good job of portraying the James Bond Fleming wrote about in the novels.
I think Lazenby's Bond's charm is more natural than many of the other actors'. He also does a great job at portraying Bond's ruthlessness and athleticism. His fight scenes are actually pretty realistic and exciting.
To be sure, the film is not perfect. By staying fairly true to the novel (which I always think is a good idea), the quantity of action scenes was limited. However, the quality was superb. As I've said, the fight scenes are realistic, the two ski chases are some of the best in the series, the bobsled chase is awesome (watch it again), and I like the stunt where Bond is hanging from the cable car cable.
Many years ago, I posted a criticism of OHMSS on this site that upset a few people. Specifically, I took issue with some of the editing of the fight scenes. I still have the same criticism, but let me be more clear. First, I acknowledge that Peter Hunt and John Glen are great editors, and I loved Hunt's direction of the film overall. The issue I have, although dubbed "an issue with the editing," is more of an issue with how the fight scenes come together. It has more to do with not having the right footage than doing a poor job cutting and pasting film. Some of the cuts are jumpy and inconsistent. Specifically, in one fight, where Bond is fighting Grunther or another henchman right before the ski chase, we see the bad guy laying on the floor and then it cuts to the a very similar camera angle and the bad guy is on his feet. Also, for obvious reasons, most of the camera angles for the PTS fight in the ocean are very similar, which forced the fight to be depicted without continuity.
All that being said, the editing of the fight scenes actually makes them more exciting than some of the Connery fights in previous films. I might not have made the cuts quite so quick, but the fast-paced editing, coupled with good choreography and Lazenby's great effort, made the fight scenes some of the best in the series.
There are many other good aspects of the film. The score is one of the best. Savalas's Blofeld is my favorite. The locations, although not numerous in quantity, are some of the most beautiful and memorable of all the films. Rigg's Tracy is probably my favorite Bond Girl. Although I have heard a lot of people taking issue with Blofeld's plot and the whole heraldry aspect of the story, I think it is actually one of the best villain plots in the series. Its quirkiness makes it more believable and also distinguishes it from the villains' plots in the other films which tend to be very similar.
I have to watch OHMSS again before I can say where it now ranks among the other twenty films. I think it is in the top ten, though. My icy feelings toward it started to melt after I read the novel, but I was still shocked at how much I enjoyed it last night. Read the novel and then give it another watch. I think you'll have a similar change of heart...
Just watched TMWTGG today, and did something kinda different: totally skipped the credits. Not seeing those dark and dodgy images and not hearing Lulu wail like that improved the overall film quite a bit for me. Always liked the title tune, just not as a sung single.
Not a perfect Bond film, but still one I appreciate for the things they do very well in it - and somehow my mind dials down the lamer stuff, as mostly it's not Bond being lame just other bit characters. Following Bond through this storyline is actually fun IMO, in a very mid-70s kinda way.
Best and Worst Bond films are purely a matter of opinion, but I'd have to say that the most unfairly bashed Bond film has to be Casino Royale, simply because I still know people who constantly spew venom about this film and they haven't even seen it yet??
That's unfair criticism.
I was unsure about CR. The first time I watched it, I was still unsure. Parts of it I loved, parts I didn't. Second time, rather more enthusiasm. After the third viewing, I was thinking it was quite possibly one of the best Bonds ever.
And I don't really like Daniel Craig. He's a fantastic actor, sure. And he plays the part to perfection. But he just doesn't look right. It's not the blonde hair - I don't get that criticism, because it's not like he's blonde blonde. He's only slightly fairer than Roger Moore, I'd say. He's more light brown than blonde. It's just that - well - I can't put it delicately, so I apologise in advance, but frankly, if a guy is getting out of the water wearing those trunks, the last think I should be noticing is how far his ears stick out.
Sorry, but it's true. ;%
To give him some credit though - apart from the fact he really is an outstanding actor (ears aside) and plays Bond perfectly - he has got gorgeous blue eyes.
Most of you will know that I'm gonna say AVTAK and have always given the reasons.
The MAIN reason AVTAK is unfairly bashed is because IMO has one of the greatest bond villains ever, Max Zorin.
Same applies to TMWTGG, Scaramaga. Although I'm not as keen on TMWTGG as I am AVTAK, it's still unfairly bashed.
AVTAK and TMWTGG are in my opinion the two most unfairly bashed.
I can't really think of any others. The only other bond flick that seems to be on the same level of general popularity as AVTAK and TMWTGG is DAD - but DAD IMO deserves this unpopularity.
Quite a number of Bond fans put it towards the bottom of their lists, but its a decent film.
The action scenes are well-staged, there's some tense moments (the crocodile farm immediately comes to mind), cheeky humour , and a beautiful Bond girl in the form of Jane Seymour.
Special mentions must also go to Sheriff J.W. Pepper and Tee Hee, who provide good value and make the film that much more entertaining. :v
"Well, he certainly left with his tails between his legs."
I really don't think personally that any bond film should be bashed, though I do see some fault with movies like AVTAK... you knew by the time you saw Max Zorin spam SMG rounds at his escaping workers throughout the mine as it starts to flood that change was certainly needed to a careening franchise. And changes there were given that TLD was a much better film with a 39-year old rather than 57-year old Bond.
I'll fess up that I criticize AVTAK more than I think it deserves. Despite the unavoidable onset of age in Roger Moore, he does manage to pull off a classy Brit from time to time. A lot of his charm falls away when he's attempting to act smug (such as his "flycasting" remark), but when he's talking to his superiors, he still has the boyish panache.
I loved the banter between him and Tibbet also. It's something that none of the other films have done, and it's really charming and funny.
Christopher Walken's Zorrin is certainly nobody I'd ever want to meet on a bad day. He was a little campy, but a whole lot crazy. I liked his character for the insensitive jerk that he was.
Tanya Roberts' character Stacy wasn't really all that unbelievable as a geologist. She worked in an office most of the time. Plus her story about plight to keep her house was a bit touching. Also, she really sold that quiche that James baked. I can't stand quiche at all, and she made it sound good.
Bedroom antics aside, Grace Jones played a formidable Mayday. She's a nasty adversary, and she's a great companion. I would love to have a friend like her to help kick some butt to those who opposed me. She takes loyalty seriously. I admire that.
a view to a kill has to be the most unfairly bashed bond ever. personally it is my favourite bond film and my favourite film of all time. i know you must think iam mad but i love this film to bits.
I liked the ending on the plane in DAD the music went well with it i liked DAD quite a lot but LTK did not fit in somehow there was some good stunts in that film it went up there with AVTAK .
There are those who vocalise that dislike more than others I suppose, so I can understand that fans of the film must tire of the criticism. (Then again, some people criticise films I like all the time, such as Casino Royale, yet I don't believe they shouldn't write whatever they want about the film).
L880, my view is NOT that people shouldn't criticize the film (and I'm not a huge fan of DAD myself); I am simply taking the topic at face value and pointing out a movie that I believe is unfairly bashed. There are criticisms leveled against the film that I feel are fair and with which I agree; but DAD seems to generate such hyperbolic overreactions that you'd think the movie was on the level of the killer video from The Ring. Let me draw a comparison between the kind of bashing I think is legitimate and that I find over the top:
"DAD has a good first half that's negated by a terrible second half." FAIR.
"DAD is just so bad from the second it begins until the second it ends that it has to rank as the worst thing put on film since the Lumiere brothers introduced narrative film, ca. 1900." UNFAIR.
"DAD is ruined by OTT gimmicks like a laser satellite, a face-changing machine, and an invisible car." FAIR.
"DAD has a cameo by Madonna, so Mickey and Babs should be brought to The Hague on charges of committing crimes against humanity." UNFAIR.
It's the exaggerations, the melodrama, the vitriol, and the just plain silliness in some of the criticisms that I object to. If some people don't like DAD, fine; if they have legitimate gripes, air 'em; I just wish they'd stop acting like DAD is an abomination against man, God, and nature.
Excellent post, Hardyboy. ITA. DAD and MR are by far the most unfairly bashed Bond films. And I'm not just saying that because they are my favorite Brosnan and Moore films, respectively.
I have no problem with folks saying DAD and MR are their least favorite Bond films or that they don't like them, that's fair. But I read on amazon.com one reviewer who compared MR fans to Hitler apologists. X-(
That type of criticism is more ridiculous and OTT than anything either Lewis Gilbert or Lee Tamahori could ever have come up with in the films they're criticizing.
"DAD has a good first half that's negated by a terrible second half." FAIR.
"DAD is just so bad from the second it begins until the second it ends that it has to rank as the worst thing put on film since the Lumiere brothers introduced narrative film, ca. 1900." UNFAIR.
"DAD is ruined by OTT gimmicks like a laser satellite, a face-changing machine, and an invisible car." FAIR.
"DAD has a cameo by Madonna, so Mickey and Babs should be brought to The Hague on charges of committing crimes against humanity." UNFAIR.
It's the exaggerations, the melodrama, the vitriol, and the just plain silliness in some of the criticisms that I object to. If some people don't like DAD, fine; if they have legitimate gripes, air 'em; I just wish they'd stop acting like DAD is an abomination against man, God, and nature.
It's funny, 'cause even though DAD ranks last for me (I only rate the first twenty - as far as I'm concerned, CR starts a whole different franchise), I don't feel this way for any of the typical reasons. My problems boil down to writing that's so bad I can't suspend my disbelief (a villain who has a genetic overhaul, becomes world renowned and is knighted - all in 18 months?!?) and Halle Berry's "acting". Besides that I enjoy the flick like I do all of Bonds; just not as much as the rest.
So while I agree the bashing of DAD is a bit hyperbolic, I'd have to say that Timothy Dalton's films (especially LTK) are the most unfairly bashed. I find them to be two of the best.
Oh, and MR is slagged too much. Another one of the best! -{
Comments
I don't want to bash DAD, but I think that I understand the venom that it gets. I think it's because the first half ( up to the Ice Palace ) is really vert strong and promising, and only marred by the awful Jinx. It had the potential to be a fine Bond film and a good swansong for Pierce. So I feel it's because of the sense of wasted opportunity that it gets so much negativity.
I think that License to kill was knock out by fans and people all over the world. Reviewers were very happy with the movie and it got good critique from them but the fans didn't respect or like this film and I can't understand why? Well, it was a little bit more violent than many others but have you seen die hard 1 and 2? Those were much more violent movies and made good box office. Bond's world is violent and CS was violent. It seems that Dalton was ahead of his time. This is the truth because now many fans have started to respect Tim's work more than before...
I just watched this one again last night. Not only has this film been bashed extensively, but most of the bashing has been unfair, misplaced, or just plain wrong.
Since before DAD, I have replied to many "rank your favorite Bond films" threads on this site. Almost without fail, I ranked OHMSS dead last. Now, I believe my lack of appreciation for OHMSS was wrong.
The main criticism of the film is the fact that Lazenby stars as Bond. Specifically, the main criticism of Lazenby's performance is, well, he's not Connery. I can't argue with that, but Lazenby does a good job of portraying the James Bond Fleming wrote about in the novels.
I think Lazenby's Bond's charm is more natural than many of the other actors'. He also does a great job at portraying Bond's ruthlessness and athleticism. His fight scenes are actually pretty realistic and exciting.
To be sure, the film is not perfect. By staying fairly true to the novel (which I always think is a good idea), the quantity of action scenes was limited. However, the quality was superb. As I've said, the fight scenes are realistic, the two ski chases are some of the best in the series, the bobsled chase is awesome (watch it again), and I like the stunt where Bond is hanging from the cable car cable.
Many years ago, I posted a criticism of OHMSS on this site that upset a few people. Specifically, I took issue with some of the editing of the fight scenes. I still have the same criticism, but let me be more clear. First, I acknowledge that Peter Hunt and John Glen are great editors, and I loved Hunt's direction of the film overall. The issue I have, although dubbed "an issue with the editing," is more of an issue with how the fight scenes come together. It has more to do with not having the right footage than doing a poor job cutting and pasting film. Some of the cuts are jumpy and inconsistent. Specifically, in one fight, where Bond is fighting Grunther or another henchman right before the ski chase, we see the bad guy laying on the floor and then it cuts to the a very similar camera angle and the bad guy is on his feet. Also, for obvious reasons, most of the camera angles for the PTS fight in the ocean are very similar, which forced the fight to be depicted without continuity.
All that being said, the editing of the fight scenes actually makes them more exciting than some of the Connery fights in previous films. I might not have made the cuts quite so quick, but the fast-paced editing, coupled with good choreography and Lazenby's great effort, made the fight scenes some of the best in the series.
There are many other good aspects of the film. The score is one of the best. Savalas's Blofeld is my favorite. The locations, although not numerous in quantity, are some of the most beautiful and memorable of all the films. Rigg's Tracy is probably my favorite Bond Girl. Although I have heard a lot of people taking issue with Blofeld's plot and the whole heraldry aspect of the story, I think it is actually one of the best villain plots in the series. Its quirkiness makes it more believable and also distinguishes it from the villains' plots in the other films which tend to be very similar.
I have to watch OHMSS again before I can say where it now ranks among the other twenty films. I think it is in the top ten, though. My icy feelings toward it started to melt after I read the novel, but I was still shocked at how much I enjoyed it last night. Read the novel and then give it another watch. I think you'll have a similar change of heart...
Just watched TMWTGG today, and did something kinda different: totally skipped the credits. Not seeing those dark and dodgy images and not hearing Lulu wail like that improved the overall film quite a bit for me. Always liked the title tune, just not as a sung single.
Not a perfect Bond film, but still one I appreciate for the things they do very well in it - and somehow my mind dials down the lamer stuff, as mostly it's not Bond being lame just other bit characters. Following Bond through this storyline is actually fun IMO, in a very mid-70s kinda way.
That's unfair criticism.
I was unsure about CR. The first time I watched it, I was still unsure. Parts of it I loved, parts I didn't. Second time, rather more enthusiasm. After the third viewing, I was thinking it was quite possibly one of the best Bonds ever.
And I don't really like Daniel Craig. He's a fantastic actor, sure. And he plays the part to perfection. But he just doesn't look right. It's not the blonde hair - I don't get that criticism, because it's not like he's blonde blonde. He's only slightly fairer than Roger Moore, I'd say. He's more light brown than blonde. It's just that - well - I can't put it delicately, so I apologise in advance, but frankly, if a guy is getting out of the water wearing those trunks, the last think I should be noticing is how far his ears stick out.
Sorry, but it's true. ;%
To give him some credit though - apart from the fact he really is an outstanding actor (ears aside) and plays Bond perfectly - he has got gorgeous blue eyes.
The MAIN reason AVTAK is unfairly bashed is because IMO has one of the greatest bond villains ever, Max Zorin.
Same applies to TMWTGG, Scaramaga. Although I'm not as keen on TMWTGG as I am AVTAK, it's still unfairly bashed.
AVTAK and TMWTGG are in my opinion the two most unfairly bashed.
I can't really think of any others. The only other bond flick that seems to be on the same level of general popularity as AVTAK and TMWTGG is DAD - but DAD IMO deserves this unpopularity.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Quite a number of Bond fans put it towards the bottom of their lists, but its a decent film.
The action scenes are well-staged, there's some tense moments (the crocodile farm immediately comes to mind), cheeky humour
Special mentions must also go to Sheriff J.W. Pepper and Tee Hee, who provide good value and make the film that much more entertaining.
I loved the banter between him and Tibbet also. It's something that none of the other films have done, and it's really charming and funny.
Christopher Walken's Zorrin is certainly nobody I'd ever want to meet on a bad day. He was a little campy, but a whole lot crazy. I liked his character for the insensitive jerk that he was.
Tanya Roberts' character Stacy wasn't really all that unbelievable as a geologist. She worked in an office most of the time. Plus her story about plight to keep her house was a bit touching. Also, she really sold that quiche that James baked. I can't stand quiche at all, and she made it sound good.
Bedroom antics aside, Grace Jones played a formidable Mayday. She's a nasty adversary, and she's a great companion. I would love to have a friend like her to help kick some butt to those who opposed me. She takes loyalty seriously. I admire that.
Another prop for AVTAK, the John Barry score was wicked sweet.
Excellent post, Hardyboy. ITA. DAD and MR are by far the most unfairly bashed Bond films. And I'm not just saying that because they are my favorite Brosnan and Moore films, respectively.
I have no problem with folks saying DAD and MR are their least favorite Bond films or that they don't like them, that's fair. But I read on amazon.com one reviewer who compared MR fans to Hitler apologists. X-(
That type of criticism is more ridiculous and OTT than anything either Lewis Gilbert or Lee Tamahori could ever have come up with in the films they're criticizing.
It's funny, 'cause even though DAD ranks last for me (I only rate the first twenty - as far as I'm concerned, CR starts a whole different franchise), I don't feel this way for any of the typical reasons. My problems boil down to writing that's so bad I can't suspend my disbelief (a villain who has a genetic overhaul, becomes world renowned and is knighted - all in 18 months?!?) and Halle Berry's "acting". Besides that I enjoy the flick like I do all of Bonds; just not as much as the rest.
So while I agree the bashing of DAD is a bit hyperbolic, I'd have to say that Timothy Dalton's films (especially LTK) are the most unfairly bashed. I find them to be two of the best.
Oh, and MR is slagged too much. Another one of the best! -{