worst bond film and why

another way to die

post your worst bond film and say why

Alex

This isn't a book-related topic, so it's a-moved to the films forum.

Troubleshooter007

Die Another Day there are too many reasons as to why it is the worst Bond film.

However a few of my reasons are it is too formulamatic and plays on stereotypes. The CGI looks too fake, the invisible car,the villian and the gene therapy.

Sir Hillary Bray

We must have 20 threads like this somewhere on the board. Do we really need another?

heartbroken_mr_drax

I find Live and let die pretty awful. DAF isnt much better.

DrMaybe

Sir Hillary Bray wrote:

We must have 20 threads like this somewhere on the board. Do we really need another?

Apparently.

You only post twice.....lalalala...

bacaret

avtak and mr both Moore films, Mr because of the whole space thing that does not work for Bond and avtak because Roger is too old and Tanya Roberts and Grace Jones are the worst Bond girl tandem in the series,

Railer 505

I really do not want to say Dr. No, but I am a person who loves action movies and Dr. No simply may have been before James Bond fimls evolved into what they are today. I haven't seen it in over six years when my friend rented it at the store and made me watch it (I was only 14 at the time). In this case I would probably say the same about Thunderball and Goldfinger, but now that I am six years older I would probably have more appreciation for these films.

BRIXMIS

Railer you heretic, get them on DVD ( preferably blu-ray) and watch them again. I am more of a Fleming fan, so the early films appeal more to me, and really, the Moore and Brosnan films leave me cold. Re-kindled interest with the Craig films, though. Honestly, get yourself a martini coctail, put your feet up and revisit Dr No, a classic IMHO{[]

By the way, my worst Bond film......anything with Pierce Brosnan in it!

Railer 505

BRIXMIS wrote:

Railer you heretic, get them on DVD ( preferably blu-ray) and watch them again. I am more of a Fleming fan, so the early films appeal more to me, and really, the Moore and Brosnan films leave me cold. Re-kindled interest with the Craig films, though. Honestly, get yourself a martini coctail, put your feet up and revisit Dr No, a classic IMHO{[]

By the way, my worst Bond film......anything with Pierce Brosnan in it!

Well I'm just saying Dr. No isn't my kind of movie yes that's just my opinion I understand how great it is for its worth... I admit Die Another Day had perhaps the worst bond girl but I still enjoyed many scenes of it like the chase on the ice and the ice fortress... and on the airplane afterwards.

Sweepy the Cat

http://www.ajb007.co.uk/index.php?topic=28584

Dan Same

Railer 505 wrote:

I really do not want to say Dr. No, but I am a person who loves action movies and Dr. No simply may have been before James Bond fimls evolved into what they are today. I haven't seen it in over six years when my friend rented it at the store and made me watch it (I was only 14 at the time). In this case I would probably say the same about Thunderball and Goldfinger, but now that I am six years older I would probably have more appreciation for these films.

Am I going to have to start a DN appreciation society? :v I admit that the action scnenes are less than ideal (and I adore *action films) but I think that in the case of DN, there truly is much to like, from Honey Rider to the intro of Bond (IMO the most important Bond scene ever), to the dialogue, to Connery himself, and not to mention Joseph Wiseman as Dr No, the killing of Dent and, in what is my favourite scene, the sleeping with Miss Taro before turning her into the police.

DN sadly seems to be among the most unappreciated of the Bond films. Perhaps it's because it came right before FRWL and GF; 2 acknowledged masterpieces (funnily enough TB also seems to be relatively underappreciated.) It may be that DN is indeed rough in some places, such as Connery's performance which was not quite as polished as it would be in the next three films, but I do think that DN is a masterpiece in its own way and I predict, or at least I hope, that DN will eventually be rehabilitated in the same way that OHMSS has.

*I don't really consider any of the Bond films to be action films; certainly not modern action films.

Loeffelholz

Dan Same wrote:

I don't really consider any of the Bond films to be action films; certainly not modern action films.

I'll disagree with that. IMRO, Eon and James Bond invented the modern action film.

If you're going to simply use another label, such as 'escapist' or 'adventure,' then we're just talking semantics, naturally But surely, whatever else they may be---thrillers, chase pictures, adventures, espionage tales, comedies (regrettably)---they are action pictures, in my view, if for no other reason than the fact that the vast majority of them are packed chock full of it...especially The Reviled QoS^TM :v

As to my opinion, re: the subject of this thread...check my favourites list :007)

Dan Same

Loeffelholz wrote:

Dan Same wrote:

I don't really consider any of the Bond films to be action films; certainly not modern action films.

I'll disagree with that. IMRO, Eon and James Bond invented the modern action film.

If you're going to simply use another label, such as 'escapist' or 'adventure,' then we're just talking semantics, naturally But surely, whatever else they may be---thrillers, chase pictures, adventures, espionage tales, comedies (regrettably)---they are action pictures, in my view, if for no other reason than the fact that the vast majority of them are packed chock full of it...especially The Reviled QoS^TM :v

I don't regard them as modern day action films, as IMO the genre really began in the 80's with the Arnie films, and of course Die Hard. Having alot of action scenes does not IMO make a modern action film. Rather it must be built around the action, which IMO does not apply to any of the Bond films, even QOS which I would describe as an action thriller rather than an action film.

As for 'escapist', I never use the term as I think it could apply to anything (perhaps not Holocaust themed films ), while the term 'adventure' hasn't really been properly used IMO in years. Anyway, although the term 'action film' does become used to cover anything from the Indiana Jones films to the Bond films (which is one reason why I prefer to use the term 'modern action film'), I do think that only urban violent films in which the story is based around the action (or violence, as IMO an action film must be violent) and features a hero or heroes who dispatches the villains make up a modern action film. Bond has had some superb action scenes; but if someone asked me to recommend an action film, or more specifically a modern action film, I would not recommend a Bond film.

Loeffelholz

Like someone whom I admire so often says, the vast majority of people's frame of reference naturally begins near the time of their birth, which is probably why you and I see the 'modern era' beginning twenty years apart )

For me, DN was clearly a departure from films that had come before that had action set pieces, which were so often period adventures, such as Errol Flynn as Robin Hood and Captain Blood, and the Western, which was a genre all its own back in the day, and of course war pictures. The films which presaged the Bond style, pre-Bond, are relatively few---I'd put Hitchcock's North By Northwest at the top of that very short list, even though it's comparatively light on action---but IMO it was Bond who brought action into the modern (yes, modern! ) ) era...and its unique blend of action, style and what screenwriter Richard Maibaum so adroitly termed 'deadpan spoofing,' the action genre was changed forever.

The era you view as modern---with Schwartzenegger, and then Bruce Willis with the first Die Hard---to me simply represents the rest of the movie world finally catching up with 007. Admittedly they did, because by that time Bond (IMRO) had been in a nearly decade-long decline. *

However we define it, I'll gladly recommend James Bond for anyone craving an action film :007)

Naturally, opinions will vary.

*_{Merely the opinion of the post's author; not intended as a smite upon anyone else's opinion, nor a proclamation of absolutely the last word on the subject. In some instances, may cause chafing, the condition known as 'sausage fingers,' visions of the apocalypse, hyperventilation, varying box office returns in different countries for reasons the author had best not comment on, loose bowel syndrome, the shakes, the creeping crud, the screaming meemies, trench foot, an appreciation for a darker Fleming-inspired James Bond, the heartbreak of psoriasis, acid reflux, night sweats, post-posting stress disorder, a firm conviction that Amy Winehouse is hiding under the bed with a pirate's dagger clenched between her teeth, and jungle rot. If rash develops, discontinue use.}

7289

Since I see ASP9MM, Dan Same and Loeffelholz all posting here I will join in.

Actually I don't feel there is a "worst" Bond film since all of them feature top notch production values and good pacing. I consider those with Moore and Brosnan less than stellar. but watchable films. A Bond flick is always a cut above standard film fare.

The bottom of the can got very very close with the last PB entry, but the last two films have really brought the franchise back and updated in a way I would never have thought possible.

The best hope to sustain the series is to revisit the original novels (I know - broken record) since all but a couple were discarded when first produced. Casino Royale proved you ca revist a novel with good results, the same can be done with LALD, since 90% of it was trashed, and what parts have been used could be easily tweaked to avoid repetition.

Loeffelholz

'Worst' is probably a poor choice of words. I suppose I prefer 'least favourite.'

I'm with 7289, at least inasmuch as I think there's still Fleming to be had---though I don't think actual titled remakes will be a possibility.

Newsman

AVTAK - it looks cheap..Moore was too old and Tanya Roberts was an awful actress. The stunts were below par as well.

DAD had bad parts but it starts out great.

dougie007

Goldfinger's the worst. Shirley Bassey's theme is very weak, Sean Connery's acting is terrible, the action is poor. I think its safe to say that its probably the least liked of the franchise!!

stumac7

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

I find Live and let die pretty awful. DAF isnt much better.

I agree

stumac7

dougie007 wrote:

Goldfinger's the worst. Shirley Bassey's theme is very weak, Sean Connery's acting is terrible, the action is poor. I think its safe to say that its probably the least liked of the franchise!!

I totally disagree

dougie007

stumac7 wrote:

dougie007 wrote:

Goldfinger's the worst. Shirley Bassey's theme is very weak, Sean Connery's acting is terrible, the action is poor. I think its safe to say that its probably the least liked of the franchise!!

I totally disagree

Sorry stumac7 - my tongue was firmly in cheek!!!

Dan Same

dougie007 wrote:

Sorry stumac7 - my tongue was firmly in cheek!!!

It better be tongue in cheek. :v Say whatever you want, but insult GF? No, that is completely unacceptable. X-(

dougie007

Dan Same wrote:

dougie007 wrote:

Sorry stumac7 - my tongue was firmly in cheek!!!

It better be tongue in cheek. :v Say whatever you want, but insult GF? No, that is completely unacceptable. X-(

Ha Ha, you crack me up!!!