It appears to me that much of the high regard afforded to OHMSS is due to it's loyalty to Fleming's novel. That's not enough for me, I'm afraid.
That would not really be enough for me either MNL. Frankly, I'm glad that the picture Casino Royale added to the framework of the novel and departed from it significantly, while keeping the overall tone. Loyalty to some Fleming novels would be disastrous in terms of filming, with an absolutely faithful adaptation of Fleming's first novel being about forty minutes long and not very exciting (what makes fascinating reading does not, necessarily, make for fascinating viewing). As regards On Her Majesty's Secret Service, I afford it high praise not for fidelity to the original work but for its merits as a motion picture, which I think are many.
But you have to believe in what you see on the screen. And for the most part I don't believe in George Lazenby as Bond.
For me, I think Lazenby acquits himself extraordinarily well. There is a depth of character there, with a high degree of self-analysis, self-reflection and ponderance. Far more than we see in Connery (in fact, we don't see any of that in Connery—I think it a great myth that Lazenby was essentially cut from the same cloth as Connery only not as good) or Moore. Obviously, Craig takes the whole Bond thing to another level altogether, however Lazenby was a highly successful Bond who brought an incredibly *human* interpretation to the fore.
And for the most part, Diana Rigg is not as Emmappealing (in terms of acting and sexiness) as she was in The Avengers.
But then Emma Peel and Tracy are radically different characters. I think Rigg is sublime as both, although on reflection we do get to see her in leathers in The Avengers...
The two elements to OHMSS that are truly worthy of high regard are the excellent ski chase sequences and John Barry's superb score. An honourable mention goes to Telly Savalas who brings considerably more menace, physicality and believability to the role of Ernst Stavro Blofeld than either Donald Pleasance or Charles Gray.
And jetset, how does Goldeneye look cheap? It's very much NOT, and what really baffles me is how you say it's moreso cheap looking than "I could make this in my backyard" LTK?!?!
OK, I have 10% power left on my laptop and I can't get to a charger until tomorrow, so let me just use a couple of examples:
1) Model shots: in LTK, the pad of the OMI lifts up to allow the helicopter to descend below. It's a stunning, extremely effective use of foreground miniatures; if you didn't know it was a special effect, you wouldn't have twigged. I can't think of a single model shot in GE that didn't look like a Thunderbirds outtake.
2) Set design: in LTK, the Casino de Isthmus is a luxurious building extends into the back of the frame, and is stocked with beautiful women and mysterious men. In GE, the Monte Carlo Casino - which is a real place - consists of (a) the driveway (b) the entrance hall and (c) a very small set based around a single gaming table. A very important part about a Bond film is its' scale - these are the biggest action films in the world and shouldn't skimp. Compare the Barrelhead Bar with Zukovsky's club, the Wavekrest with the Admiral's yacht or the Darth Train, Sanchez's house with any of GE's locations.
3) Climaxes: I'll refer to my original point - the end of GE is two men running round a satellite dish, which then explodes unconvincingly in a rubbish model shot. LTK finishes with the OMI being blown to pieces, and is then followed by five petrol tankers being destroyed one by one, along with a jeep and a light plane, with the final explosion absolutely phenomonally huge and real. That's bang for your buck.
I now have 5% left so I should go, but that should be enough for you to get on with...
P.S. I will also deal with you misguided fools who think that OHMSS is overrated as well!
I'm finding a pattern here. It seems like the films that create strong criticism are those that either establish or re-establish Bond.
Bond began with Dr. No. It lacks many current elements such as gadgetry and multiple locales. The story takes its time. This one for me I highly enjoy because it is so solidly character driven. I love the detective and spy work done. The acting is quirky and retro, so I happily put this one in. The only segment that I believe to be overrated is the entrance of Ursula. There was nothing spectacular about it to me. A woman in a bikini walks into frame and chucks some dead sea creatures on the shore.
Goldfinger is the film to establish the formula. It is easily the one I think is most overrated. I've heard stories like it's actually changed someone's outlook on life . . . I guess I would've had to been alive at the time to realize how. It lacks a Binder sequence, which I find rather objectionable. On HD TV you can see just how scorched all the women are. The amazing Astin Martin ends up not being of much use, nor does the homing beacon. It solidified Felix Leiter's uselessness for decades to come. The only really great establishment that I can commend on this film is the corn cob shoved up Q's can whenever he has to deal with equipping Bond.
OHMSS was the film to bring Bond back to a norm after it went too over the top in YOLT. The parties seem to be very split on this one. It's either panned or revered. Very little middle ground exists. I personally love it to pieces. It's my second favorite. It would've still been on top if that damn new one hadn't come sailing in.
TSWLM re-establishes the formula of Bond after the 1970s Guy Hamilton trilogy. However, the thought of slapping Barbara Bach has entered my mind more than once. It's the combination of her cocky, accented line delivery and clear lack of actual espionage experience that make her not only counter-productive but a nasty wench also. I think Roger Moore left too much of his combat skills to his stunt doubles. It's hard for me to watch the Sandor fight on the roof which consists mostly of slapping and literal butt kicking. I was expecting a wet willy at any minute. On the upside, I love the funky Hamlisch music. Where some may think it's dorky, I think it fits the period excellently.
FYEO resets Bond to a more talent and innovation-based scenario. This one I also praise heavily. I think it's Moore's best. What some may not know is that had it not been for this movie, United Artists would have been up a creek. That Cimino film Heaven's Gate almost sank them permanently. This movie also came out the year I was born, so I have a special connection to it.
After the long gap, GoldenEye came along and returned attention to 007. While this is neither a strong favorite or least favorite, I will say something factual about the tone of the film. It looks drab. Color is scarce through the whole picture.
Finally the biggest reset of all time Casino Royale . . . I really can't talk about it because I'll just gush. If there's anyone who's guilty of waving the banner on this one, it's me. I was so enamored by so much on this one, it's hard to find fault other than Eva Green's atrocious makeup.
So to culminate a long analysis, Golfinger is to me the most overrated followed by TSWLM.
After looking that this thread http://www.ajb007.co.uk/index.php?topic=28044
I'll say The Spy who Loved Me is the most overrated. A remake of You Only Live Twice and not a very good one at that. It drops farther down my list every time I see it.
Yes. X-( I can not accept a Mod who doesn't adore, love and worship DN.
I want to make one comment before I provide my nominations. I do not believe that GE can be described as overrated in the slightest since it seems to me that there are numerous members who don't love it.
IMO the three most overrated Bond films of all time are GF, TLD and CR. I don't simply consider TLD to be overrated; rather I consider it to be the second worst Bond film of all time. I absolutely hate it. It's boring, terribly written, badly acted (does Dalton ever smile?), completely unoriginal, sexless (literally and figuratively), features one of the worst villains of all time and is one of only three Bond films (the others being AVTAK and DAD) which I wouldn't care about missing if it was on TV.
I don't consider CR to be a bad film. I actually think it's a pretty good film. However I think it's quite flawed (the screenplay, some of the performances, the theme song, the idea and execution of the reboot, among other things), and I also don't think that it is anywhere near the best Bond film in years. Nor do I consider Craig to be the best Bond since Connery. While I don't agree with JFF that it's tripe (I wouldn't have seen it twice if I thought that), I do think that it's overrated due to it being the latest film (as well as the last Fleming novel to be adapted), and I also think that its received so much positive attention as it's different to previous films. That is, I would imagine that alot of the members who absolutely adore CR were getting tired of the so-called 'formula,' and so they wanted something different.
Finally, I consider GF to be overrated, as while I do consider it to be the single greatest Bond film ever made, I don't think it's quite as good as Citizen Kane or The Godfather. -{
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
WHAT? You're saying GF is overrated when if any of us would sort of "insult" it, you told us to take a hike and never show our faces here again?
Firstly, I only said that it wasn't as good as certain non-Bond films (IMO the greatest films ever made) , but also, people obviously didn't listen to me as the GF critics are still here. X-( )
You know, repeating my name like that makes me think that I did something wrong.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
For me, I think Lazenby acquits himself extraordinarily well. There is a depth of character there, with a high degree of self-analysis, self-reflection and ponderance. Far more than we see in Connery (in fact, we don't see any of that in Connery—I think it a great myth that Lazenby was essentially cut from the same cloth as Connery only not as good) or Moore. Obviously, Craig takes the whole Bond thing to another level altogether, however Lazenby was a highly successful Bond who brought an incredibly *human* interpretation to the fore.
Lazenby acquits himself well in the action scenes, but little else. He's very good in the ski chase sequence with Tracy when they are trying to ski away from Blofeld, his henchmen, and then the avalanche. He can see she's struggling but he continues to give her as much encouragement and support as he can. He's also good in the scene after Bond's cover as Sir Hilary has been blown when Blofeld reveals his plans for "those girls". And he's also quite good in the sequence at Gumbold's Office.
Those moments I highlighted above show the potential for what might have been had Lazenby stayed on because undoubtedly he would have improved.
The Piz Gloria sequence is too long and dull for the most part.
What?! It is tense and exciting and suspensful! In my opinion, of course.
For me, the Piz Gloria sequence only comes alive when Bond's cover as Sir Hilary is blown. Prior to that the sequence drags and is dull for the most part.
I think response to appreciation for OHMSS is so heavy because of the compensation many feel is needed to lift up what was wrongfully shamed. I feel very comfortable with Lazenby's portrayal. I think that Rigg played an admirably complex character.
It doesn't do well for many specifically because of its lack of Connery, its momentary breaking of the fourth wall and its defiance in following the formula.
I'm still very upset that Lazenby lacked faith in the series. I'm enraged every time I think of the DAF that could've been.
But I guess we have a new opportunity with a new guy to try the waters that were never tested before. CR to me was like a very long version of the beginning sequence of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade where Bond wears his name like Jones wears his fedora.
I'll admit that I was overjoyed by CR's snub on the formula, and I hope that the next one continues to do so. The recipe needs to cut the fat and add some new ingredients, I believe. :007)
And jetset, how does Goldeneye look cheap? It's very much NOT, and what really baffles me is how you say it's moreso cheap looking than "I could make this in my backyard" LTK?!?!
OK, I have 10% power left on my laptop and I can't get to a charger until tomorrow, so let me just use a couple of examples:
1) Model shots: in LTK, the pad of the OMI lifts up to allow the helicopter to descend below. It's a stunning, extremely effective use of foreground miniatures; if you didn't know it was a special effect, you wouldn't have twigged. I can't think of a single model shot in GE that didn't look like a Thunderbirds outtake.
2) Set design: in LTK, the Casino de Isthmus is a luxurious building extends into the back of the frame, and is stocked with beautiful women and mysterious men. In GE, the Monte Carlo Casino - which is a real place - consists of (a) the driveway (b) the entrance hall and (c) a very small set based around a single gaming table. A very important part about a Bond film is its' scale - these are the biggest action films in the world and shouldn't skimp. Compare the Barrelhead Bar with Zukovsky's club, the Wavekrest with the Admiral's yacht or the Darth Train, Sanchez's house with any of GE's locations.
3) Climaxes: I'll refer to my original point - the end of GE is two men running round a satellite dish, which then explodes unconvincingly in a rubbish model shot. LTK finishes with the OMI being blown to pieces, and is then followed by five petrol tankers being destroyed one by one, along with a jeep and a light plane, with the final explosion absolutely phenomonally huge and real. That's bang for your buck.
I now have 5% left so I should go, but that should be enough for you to get on with...
P.S. I will also deal with you misguided fools who think that OHMSS is overrated as well!
Right with you, jetsetwilly. Goldeneye is easily the most overrated of the Bond films for me. In addition to the obvious models, I'd add the incredibly embarrassing rear projection work at the beginning (and Brosnan's bizarre decision to play it all straight . . . the bit where he looks to and fro while "gliding" alongside the plane, as though he's somehow really in total control of his descent, caused jeers in the theater and made me sink in my seat). Oh, and the fact that Bond is introduced to us along with a Russian soldier going potty.
Right with you, jetsetwilly. Goldeneye is easily the most overrated of the Bond films for me.
I said it earlier, but considering how many people identify GE as overrated, can it really be considered overrated then?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Right with you, jetsetwilly. Goldeneye is easily the most overrated of the Bond films for me.
I said it earlier, but considering how many people identify GE as overrated, can it really be considered overrated then?
Does this mean it is not overrated, because no-one rates it, and that possibly it may be underrated, because everyone says it is overrated, even though technically no-one rates it?
Or does it just mean it's just a heap o' crap?
Not for me, no; I'll still happily watch it. It's just after nearly five years of visiting and participating in this website, as well as following critical opinions in books and newspapers on GE, I've gained the impression that a lot of people think it's absolutely amazing and its flaws are minor. I disagree. I understand I am probably in the minority on this - in other words, a lot of people rate this film highly, where as I do not. Ergo, I think it is overrated.
I have an abridged opinion. That opinion is that I'm probably reacting to Casino Royale in the same way that my father's generation reacted when Goldfinger came out. Yes, it was at the time the greatest thing to ever be shown in theaters. Granted, my dad was younger when he saw GF that I am having just seen CR, but I think it's the sense of youth that gels a certain aura into your memory. Sometimes the aura outshines the actual memory. I know though that I can't stand many of the modern cartoons on TV because I constantly compare them to what I used to watch. Someone growing up watching Spongebob would likely wonder what the big deal was about Ren and Stimpy.
It's all relative. I often watch each film within days of each other when most people space them apart by a number of years. Anyone who knows as much about the films as we do can easily identify what makes each one different whereas those who don't figure each Bond film has the exact same plot as the previous.
Does this mean it is not overrated, because no-one rates it, and that possibly it may be underrated, because everyone says it is overrated, even though technically no-one rates it?
Not for me, no; I'll still happily watch it. It's just after nearly five years of visiting and participating in this website, as well as following critical opinions in books and newspapers on GE, I've gained the impression that a lot of people think it's absolutely amazing and its flaws are minor. I disagree. I understand I am probably in the minority on this - in other words, a lot of people rate this film highly, where as I do not. Ergo, I think it is overrated.
I personally love GE (although I don't think it's as good as some of the earlier Bond films) but I can understand why some people (such as yourself) might think it's overrated. It just struck me as interesting that on a thread such as this, so many people were identifying GE as overrated. It leads me to believe that a film which is truly overrated is one that hasn't been mentioned; FRWL perhaps?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I personally love GE (although I don't think it's as good as some of the earlier Bond films) but I can understand why some people (such as yourself) might think it's overrated. It just struck me as interesting that on a thread such as this, so many people were identifying GE as overrated. It leads me to believe that a film which is truly overrated is one that hasn't been mentioned; FRWL perhaps?
FRWL was amazing, but hardly anyone in the US applauded it en masse like they did for Goldfinger. GF was Bond's biggest arrival.
I will have to somewhat reluctantly second mentions of CR. It's great film, yes, and a vast, vast, vast improvement on DAD, but some of the sheer excessive praise lavished on it by some ('invalidates the rest of the series', 'the only real Bond movie', etc) is stifling.
Since you list AVTAK as #2 all time I would say you tastes are........ Questionable at best!
Whoa . . . dude. The tastes may be altered, but hardly without valid opinion and well-thought-out discussion. JFF has risen some very thought-provoking nuggets of info concerning AVTAK, so you'd best watch your behind if you're not looking for a strong argument and battle of the wits.
id say GE, its one of my fav bond movies but everytime i watch it i kinda get ticked off at the cheesy sound effects, compared to other films of the same year like HEAT, i dont know why they used such outdated and cheap sound effects.
I have a friend who is very new to the series. The first Bond picture she saw all the way through was CR, and she loved it. She wanted me to introduce her to the rest of the series. She'd heard a lot about GF, so I indulged. Afterward she was very very confused. "Is this supposed to be kinda over the top?" "Yes," that was the idea then. I've also shown her DAF, to which she was just a little let down by the sheer camp. "I thought Bond women were supposed to be glamourous!" "Oh many are, just in the Americanized Bond films, they cheapen it a little to pull in a wider audience," I said.
Yes. X-( I can not accept a Mod who doesn't adore, love and worship DN.
I want to make one comment before I provide my nominations. I do not believe that GE can be described as overrated in the slightest since it seems to me that there are numerous members who don't love it.
IMO the three most overrated Bond films of all time are GF, TLD and CR. I don't simply consider TLD to be overrated; rather I consider it to be the second worst Bond film of all time. I absolutely hate it. It's boring, terribly written, badly acted (does Dalton ever smile?), completely unoriginal, sexless (literally and figuratively), features one of the worst villains of all time and is one of only three Bond films (the others being AVTAK and DAD) which I wouldn't care about missing if it was on TV.
I don't consider CR to be a bad film. I actually think it's a pretty good film. However I think it's quite flawed (the screenplay, some of the performances, the theme song, the idea and execution of the reboot, among other things), and I also don't think that it is anywhere near the best Bond film in years. Nor do I consider Craig to be the best Bond since Connery. While I don't agree with JFF that it's tripe (I wouldn't have seen it twice if I thought that), I do think that it's overrated due to it being the latest film (as well as the last Fleming novel to be adapted), and I also think that its received so much positive attention as it's different to previous films. That is, I would imagine that alot of the members who absolutely adore CR were getting tired of the so-called 'formula,' and so they wanted something different.
Finally, I consider GF to be overrated, as while I do consider it to be the single greatest Bond film ever made, I don't think it's quite as good as Citizen Kane or The Godfather. -{
Dan, whilst I agree with a couple of your points, you are seriously embarrassing the Australian fans that visit this site. Plus your call about GF does not make any sense, if it is the greatest Bond in your mind, you wouldnt also be calling it overated.
Even though I dont know your age, I have worked out you are a Brosnan fan and It seems you are not a fan of the literary Bond which Brosnan really struggled with (perhaps not his fault though).
Seriously though mate, you need to be objective here and if you want to look at two of the worst Bond films which I never rated the first place and will never see again and dont even fall into the 'rated' category, you dont have to look any further than TND and DAD. To suggest that TLD is a poorer film is sheer madness but then again I probably just see you as an adolescent who watched GE before you read a Fleming novel and wouldnt know any better. To put it simply to argue that TLD is the second worst Bond film and badly acted (and you are having a go at Dalton here, who is at the very least a superior actor to Brosnan hands down) you are just shooting yourself in the foot.
I'll go even further and say a dinkum Bond fan would never have that disgrace Halle Berry (please let me know if you are female as this will explain a couple of things) in the photo alongside their name in this forum.
IMO the three most overrated Bond films of all time are GF
Do not agree...GF is one of my favs, and I think it's really well-made. The one I don't like is The License to Kill,just because it was the one I watched right after all the Connery's movies. Sean is undoubtedly the best Bond, and it was pretty hard for me to see Dalton palying this part...
I'll go even further and say a dinkum Bond fan would never have that disgrace Halle Berry (please let me know if you are female as this will explain a couple of things) in the photo alongside their name in this forum.
No offense to anyone, who love HAlly, and I'm a female, but... I agree fully {[]
I don’t blame her for being confused. I’ve spent years being confused about GF, considering that it has been pounded into me over and over again, on how it was the definitive Bond movie. But when I last saw it, I finally realized how much I truly disliked GF.
As for GOLDFINGER being over-the-top, so were movies like YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, LIVE AND LET DIE, MOONRAKER, etc. But for some reason GF is the only “over-the-top” Bond film I have ever developed a deep dislike for. Well . . .that along with THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN and TOMORROW NEVER DIES.
Fish, I gotta ask...are you sure you are a Bond fan? So much of it seems to annoy you.
OHMSS was so underrated that eventually everybody started calling an underrated classic, etc. They did this so much that in a sense, it has become overrated (in a underrated way ) If that makes sense!
Comments
For me, I think Lazenby acquits himself extraordinarily well. There is a depth of character there, with a high degree of self-analysis, self-reflection and ponderance. Far more than we see in Connery (in fact, we don't see any of that in Connery—I think it a great myth that Lazenby was essentially cut from the same cloth as Connery only not as good) or Moore. Obviously, Craig takes the whole Bond thing to another level altogether, however Lazenby was a highly successful Bond who brought an incredibly *human* interpretation to the fore.
What?! It is tense and exciting and suspensful! In my opinion, of course.
Personally I think this adds to the brutality and physicality of the violence immensely.
But then Emma Peel and Tracy are radically different characters. I think Rigg is sublime as both, although on reflection we do get to see her in leathers in The Avengers...
Absolutely agreed.
OK, I have 10% power left on my laptop and I can't get to a charger until tomorrow, so let me just use a couple of examples:
1) Model shots: in LTK, the pad of the OMI lifts up to allow the helicopter to descend below. It's a stunning, extremely effective use of foreground miniatures; if you didn't know it was a special effect, you wouldn't have twigged. I can't think of a single model shot in GE that didn't look like a Thunderbirds outtake.
2) Set design: in LTK, the Casino de Isthmus is a luxurious building extends into the back of the frame, and is stocked with beautiful women and mysterious men. In GE, the Monte Carlo Casino - which is a real place - consists of (a) the driveway (b) the entrance hall and (c) a very small set based around a single gaming table. A very important part about a Bond film is its' scale - these are the biggest action films in the world and shouldn't skimp. Compare the Barrelhead Bar with Zukovsky's club, the Wavekrest with the Admiral's yacht or the Darth Train, Sanchez's house with any of GE's locations.
3) Climaxes: I'll refer to my original point - the end of GE is two men running round a satellite dish, which then explodes unconvincingly in a rubbish model shot. LTK finishes with the OMI being blown to pieces, and is then followed by five petrol tankers being destroyed one by one, along with a jeep and a light plane, with the final explosion absolutely phenomonally huge and real. That's bang for your buck.
I now have 5% left so I should go, but that should be enough for you to get on with...
P.S. I will also deal with you misguided fools who think that OHMSS is overrated as well!
@merseytart
Bond began with Dr. No. It lacks many current elements such as gadgetry and multiple locales. The story takes its time. This one for me I highly enjoy because it is so solidly character driven. I love the detective and spy work done. The acting is quirky and retro, so I happily put this one in. The only segment that I believe to be overrated is the entrance of Ursula. There was nothing spectacular about it to me. A woman in a bikini walks into frame and chucks some dead sea creatures on the shore.
Goldfinger is the film to establish the formula. It is easily the one I think is most overrated. I've heard stories like it's actually changed someone's outlook on life . . . I guess I would've had to been alive at the time to realize how. It lacks a Binder sequence, which I find rather objectionable. On HD TV you can see just how scorched all the women are. The amazing Astin Martin ends up not being of much use, nor does the homing beacon. It solidified Felix Leiter's uselessness for decades to come. The only really great establishment that I can commend on this film is the corn cob shoved up Q's can whenever he has to deal with equipping Bond.
OHMSS was the film to bring Bond back to a norm after it went too over the top in YOLT. The parties seem to be very split on this one. It's either panned or revered. Very little middle ground exists. I personally love it to pieces. It's my second favorite. It would've still been on top if that damn new one hadn't come sailing in.
TSWLM re-establishes the formula of Bond after the 1970s Guy Hamilton trilogy. However, the thought of slapping Barbara Bach has entered my mind more than once. It's the combination of her cocky, accented line delivery and clear lack of actual espionage experience that make her not only counter-productive but a nasty wench also. I think Roger Moore left too much of his combat skills to his stunt doubles. It's hard for me to watch the Sandor fight on the roof which consists mostly of slapping and literal butt kicking. I was expecting a wet willy at any minute. On the upside, I love the funky Hamlisch music. Where some may think it's dorky, I think it fits the period excellently.
FYEO resets Bond to a more talent and innovation-based scenario. This one I also praise heavily. I think it's Moore's best. What some may not know is that had it not been for this movie, United Artists would have been up a creek. That Cimino film Heaven's Gate almost sank them permanently. This movie also came out the year I was born, so I have a special connection to it.
After the long gap, GoldenEye came along and returned attention to 007. While this is neither a strong favorite or least favorite, I will say something factual about the tone of the film. It looks drab. Color is scarce through the whole picture.
Finally the biggest reset of all time Casino Royale . . . I really can't talk about it because I'll just gush. If there's anyone who's guilty of waving the banner on this one, it's me. I was so enamored by so much on this one, it's hard to find fault other than Eva Green's atrocious makeup.
So to culminate a long analysis, Golfinger is to me the most overrated followed by TSWLM.
I'll say The Spy who Loved Me is the most overrated. A remake of You Only Live Twice and not a very good one at that. It drops farther down my list every time I see it.
I want to make one comment before I provide my nominations. I do not believe that GE can be described as overrated in the slightest since it seems to me that there are numerous members who don't love it.
IMO the three most overrated Bond films of all time are GF, TLD and CR. I don't simply consider TLD to be overrated; rather I consider it to be the second worst Bond film of all time. I absolutely hate it. It's boring, terribly written, badly acted (does Dalton ever smile?), completely unoriginal, sexless (literally and figuratively), features one of the worst villains of all time and is one of only three Bond films (the others being AVTAK and DAD) which I wouldn't care about missing if it was on TV.
I don't consider CR to be a bad film. I actually think it's a pretty good film. However I think it's quite flawed (the screenplay, some of the performances, the theme song, the idea and execution of the reboot, among other things), and I also don't think that it is anywhere near the best Bond film in years. Nor do I consider Craig to be the best Bond since Connery. While I don't agree with JFF that it's tripe (I wouldn't have seen it twice if I thought that), I do think that it's overrated due to it being the latest film (as well as the last Fleming novel to be adapted), and I also think that its received so much positive attention as it's different to previous films. That is, I would imagine that alot of the members who absolutely adore CR were getting tired of the so-called 'formula,' and so they wanted something different.
Finally, I consider GF to be overrated, as while I do consider it to be the single greatest Bond film ever made, I don't think it's quite as good as Citizen Kane or The Godfather.
Dan... Dan... Dan...
You know, repeating my name like that makes me think that I did something wrong.
Lazenby acquits himself well in the action scenes, but little else. He's very good in the ski chase sequence with Tracy when they are trying to ski away from Blofeld, his henchmen, and then the avalanche. He can see she's struggling but he continues to give her as much encouragement and support as he can. He's also good in the scene after Bond's cover as Sir Hilary has been blown when Blofeld reveals his plans for "those girls". And he's also quite good in the sequence at Gumbold's Office.
Those moments I highlighted above show the potential for what might have been had Lazenby stayed on because undoubtedly he would have improved.
It doesn't do well for many specifically because of its lack of Connery, its momentary breaking of the fourth wall and its defiance in following the formula.
I'm still very upset that Lazenby lacked faith in the series. I'm enraged every time I think of the DAF that could've been.
But I guess we have a new opportunity with a new guy to try the waters that were never tested before. CR to me was like a very long version of the beginning sequence of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade where Bond wears his name like Jones wears his fedora.
I'll admit that I was overjoyed by CR's snub on the formula, and I hope that the next one continues to do so. The recipe needs to cut the fat and add some new ingredients, I believe. :007)
Does this mean it is not overrated, because no-one rates it, and that possibly it may be underrated, because everyone says it is overrated, even though technically no-one rates it?
Or does it just mean it's just a heap o' crap?
Not for me, no; I'll still happily watch it. It's just after nearly five years of visiting and participating in this website, as well as following critical opinions in books and newspapers on GE, I've gained the impression that a lot of people think it's absolutely amazing and its flaws are minor. I disagree. I understand I am probably in the minority on this - in other words, a lot of people rate this film highly, where as I do not. Ergo, I think it is overrated.
@merseytart
It's all relative. I often watch each film within days of each other when most people space them apart by a number of years. Anyone who knows as much about the films as we do can easily identify what makes each one different whereas those who don't figure each Bond film has the exact same plot as the previous.
I personally love GE (although I don't think it's as good as some of the earlier Bond films) but I can understand why some people (such as yourself) might think it's overrated. It just struck me as interesting that on a thread such as this, so many people were identifying GE as overrated. It leads me to believe that a film which is truly overrated is one that hasn't been mentioned; FRWL perhaps?
FRWL was amazing, but hardly anyone in the US applauded it en masse like they did for Goldfinger. GF was Bond's biggest arrival.
Whoa . . . dude. The tastes may be altered, but hardly without valid opinion and well-thought-out discussion. JFF has risen some very thought-provoking nuggets of info concerning AVTAK, so you'd best watch your behind if you're not looking for a strong argument and battle of the wits.
Good man. {[]
Let's hope that JFF hasn't slit his wrists over your convictions...
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Dan, whilst I agree with a couple of your points, you are seriously embarrassing the Australian fans that visit this site. Plus your call about GF does not make any sense, if it is the greatest Bond in your mind, you wouldnt also be calling it overated.
Even though I dont know your age, I have worked out you are a Brosnan fan and It seems you are not a fan of the literary Bond which Brosnan really struggled with (perhaps not his fault though).
Seriously though mate, you need to be objective here and if you want to look at two of the worst Bond films which I never rated the first place and will never see again and dont even fall into the 'rated' category, you dont have to look any further than TND and DAD. To suggest that TLD is a poorer film is sheer madness but then again I probably just see you as an adolescent who watched GE before you read a Fleming novel and wouldnt know any better. To put it simply to argue that TLD is the second worst Bond film and badly acted (and you are having a go at Dalton here, who is at the very least a superior actor to Brosnan hands down) you are just shooting yourself in the foot.
I'll go even further and say a dinkum Bond fan would never have that disgrace Halle Berry (please let me know if you are female as this will explain a couple of things) in the photo alongside their name in this forum.
No offense to anyone, who love HAlly, and I'm a female, but... I agree fully {[]
Fish, I gotta ask...are you sure you are a Bond fan? So much of it seems to annoy you.
OHMSS was so underrated that eventually everybody started calling an underrated classic, etc. They did this so much that in a sense, it has become overrated (in a underrated way