My view is that although there is a difference in quality between the best films of the series and the worst I still enjoy watching all of them. The broad differences of opinion show that all of the films deserve at least some credit. Together each film has it's place in making this one of the greatest and most long running film franchises and if any of them was absent it would be missed. -{
My view is that although there is a difference in quality between the best films of the series and the worst I still enjoy watching all of them. The broad differences of opinion show that all of the films deserve at least some credit. Together each film has it's place in making this one of the greatest and most long running film franchises and if any of them was absent it would be missed. -{
My view is that although there is a difference in quality between the best films of the series and the worst I still enjoy watching all of them. The broad differences of opinion show that all of the films deserve at least some credit. Together each film has it's place in making this one of the greatest and most long running film franchises and if any of them was absent it would be missed. -{
Perfectly summed up! -{
{[]
"Hostile takeovers. Shall we?"
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
Glen's five films in the 80s, like they don't exist.
Interesting to see someone who dislikes the Glen Bonds that much, he seems to be quite beloved on this site.
He's my 2nd fave Bond director, but it's refreshing to see someone who's not a fan of his Bonds.
By the time I was watching LTK in the theatre, I was pretty sure Glen had put a stake through Bond's heart, poured acid on him, and set him on fire. I was so sad. Jump starting the series 6 years later with Brosnan was, well, interesting I guess, but it took EON casting Craig to get me to believe in Bond again like I did early in life. I think of Glen's films as Bondsplotation, Dalton notwithstanding.
I treat the lesser ones with the patient love that one affords a challenged family member.
Hello MR, nice to see you again. You need help making sense? That's okay; take your time....
MR ?:)
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
Craig was actually great in The Power of One. First real movie role, and it suited him perfectly. And I genuinely loved him in Defiance. So he can play both goodies and baddies. But most actors have their limitations (except, perhaps, those few like Ben Kingsley, who can play just about anyone - Lenin, Gandhi, you name it - and they are still convincing). I'm also pretty sure Craig could play Le Chiffre, Silva, or the new Bloefeld better than the actors who got the roles. Moreover, when Craig talks about the character of Bond - his misogyny and so on, I agree with him 99% of the time. But he's just totally unconvincing when he tries to play Bond. But you know what my worst 007 fear is? It's not that Craig will keep playing Bond for 5 or 10 more movies, or even for life - it is that the next actor they choose to portray Bond will be even more unconvincing. So please spare me the patronising claim that I dislike Craig. I don't. I just genuinely love Bond and am concerned about the direction the more recent movies have taken.
My view is that although there is a difference in quality between the best films of the series and the worst I still enjoy watching all of them. The broad differences of opinion show that all of the films deserve at least some credit. Together each film has it's place in making this one of the greatest and most long running film franchises and if any of them was absent it would be missed. -{
I expressed a similar opinion before, though not in this thread, and got more flak that I'd expected. From "Bond fans"! )
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Craig was actually great in The Power of One. First real movie role, and it suited him perfectly. And I genuinely loved him in Defiance. So he can play both goodies and baddies. But most actors have their limitations (except, perhaps, those few like Ben Kingsley, who can play just about anyone - Lenin, Gandhi, you name it - and they are still convincing). I'm also pretty sure Craig could play Le Chiffre, Silva, or the new Bloefeld better than the actors who got the roles. Moreover, when Craig talks about the character of Bond - his misogyny and so on, I agree with him 99% of the time. But he's just totally unconvincing when he tries to play Bond. But you know what my worst 007 fear is? It's not that Craig will keep playing Bond for 5 or 10 more movies, or even for life - it is that the next actor they choose to portray Bond will be even more unconvincing. So please spare me the patronising claim that I dislike Craig. I don't. I just genuinely love Bond and am concerned about the direction the more recent movies have taken.
Well, so far as I know, this is the first time you've ever said something about him that was complimentary, so perhaps I am to be forgiven for presuming? And you are certainly one to speak about patronizing. What a hoot )
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
You know, the same people wrote this film were also involved in writing Craig's films. Both Craig's and Brosnan's films had bad script writing. You don't need to make this about Craig vs. Brosnan.
I agree with Jag on everything except commercialisation. I don't think any of Craig's films have been as bad in that regard compared to Buy Another Day.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear what about the commercialisation. It’s not so much about product placement and brands – I understand it’s one more way to raise funds to make the movie and improve the bottom line. I think it may have its place, though it’s often been overdone, like with all those ugly BMW’s in Brosnan’s movies. The commercialisation I’m against is about making a movie whose goal is solely to make millions and millions of dollars, and sacrificing everything to achieve this goal. I’d much rather see unknowns write, direct and act in a good movie than big names legitimising a bad one. Take Xavier Bardem – he was given a weak character to play, when he was capable to play a really scary villain, like he did in No Place for Old Men! Same with Waltz, and too many more to mention. Those actors were give their roles to be money magnets rather than to show their acting skills.
Many writers, directors and producers have been behind a number of movies, but it’s perfectly possible to someone to write, direct or produce a worse movie after a better one. Maybe they became bored, or run out of ideas. In Spectre, relatively good directing tries to make up for bad writing, so it’s possible to redeem some bad aspect, but only to a degree.
Also, I would never try to make it about actor A versus actor B. Actors are what they are, there are things they can’t change, and they need to play what has been written for them.
Craig was actually great in The Power of One. First real movie role, and it suited him perfectly. And I genuinely loved him in Defiance. So he can play both goodies and baddies. But most actors have their limitations (except, perhaps, those few like Ben Kingsley, who can play just about anyone - Lenin, Gandhi, you name it - and they are still convincing). I'm also pretty sure Craig could play Le Chiffre, Silva, or the new Bloefeld better than the actors who got the roles. Moreover, when Craig talks about the character of Bond - his misogyny and so on, I agree with him 99% of the time. But he's just totally unconvincing when he tries to play Bond. But you know what my worst 007 fear is? It's not that Craig will keep playing Bond for 5 or 10 more movies, or even for life - it is that the next actor they choose to portray Bond will be even more unconvincing. So please spare me the patronising claim that I dislike Craig. I don't. I just genuinely love Bond and am concerned about the direction the more recent movies have taken.
Well, so far as I know, this is the first time you've ever said something about him that was complimentary, so perhaps I am to be forgiven for presuming? And you are certainly one to speak about patronizing. What a hoot )
Don't presume. When in doubt - ask. Simples!
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Riiight 8-) Never presume after 175 negative posts.
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
Comments
Are you saying this or questioning this?
CR had the terrible line about Omega, and all the phone branding. But I think DAD still had more.
Perfectly summed up! -{
{[]
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
MR ?:)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I expressed a similar opinion before, though not in this thread, and got more flak that I'd expected. From "Bond fans"!
Well, so far as I know, this is the first time you've ever said something about him that was complimentary, so perhaps I am to be forgiven for presuming?
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Perhaps I did not make myself clear what about the commercialisation. It’s not so much about product placement and brands – I understand it’s one more way to raise funds to make the movie and improve the bottom line. I think it may have its place, though it’s often been overdone, like with all those ugly BMW’s in Brosnan’s movies. The commercialisation I’m against is about making a movie whose goal is solely to make millions and millions of dollars, and sacrificing everything to achieve this goal. I’d much rather see unknowns write, direct and act in a good movie than big names legitimising a bad one. Take Xavier Bardem – he was given a weak character to play, when he was capable to play a really scary villain, like he did in No Place for Old Men! Same with Waltz, and too many more to mention. Those actors were give their roles to be money magnets rather than to show their acting skills.
Many writers, directors and producers have been behind a number of movies, but it’s perfectly possible to someone to write, direct or produce a worse movie after a better one. Maybe they became bored, or run out of ideas. In Spectre, relatively good directing tries to make up for bad writing, so it’s possible to redeem some bad aspect, but only to a degree.
Also, I would never try to make it about actor A versus actor B. Actors are what they are, there are things they can’t change, and they need to play what has been written for them.
Don't presume. When in doubt - ask. Simples!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM