Dan, whilst I agree with a couple of your points, you are seriously embarrassing the Australian fans that visit this site.
Actually, I think you are embarassing the Asutralian fans here. 8-) If this post represents the calibre of your future posts to me, then I would hope that you don't again respond to me.
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).
Well, although I do love Brosnan, I am actually a fan of Connery. But why does it mattter anyway? Does it really matter wether I am, or am not, a fan of Brosnan? Does it matter that I am not a fan of the literally Bond? It's a big Bond universe out there. I don't think I need to like the same kind of things as you, in order to be a Bond fan.
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.
How is that objective? You do realize that it is just your opinion? As it happens, I do consider DAD to be the third worst Bond film of all time, however I don't think TND is quite that terrible. You do, fine, but don't call your opinion objective.
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.
God, you're condescending. X-( 8-) Yes, Bondy, I do consider TLD to be the second worst Bond film of all time, and it's not because GE was the first Bond film I ever saw (as a matter of fact it wasn't, but if it was; so what?) and it's not because of my age (my age does not concern you) but because I actually think that TLD is a piece of trash. 8-) You disagree, fine, but make no mistake about it; my opinion is just as valid as yours.
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.
How am I shooting myself in the foot here? I consider TLD to be a terrible film, and I'll go further. I consider Dalton's performance in it to be the SECOND WORST Bond performance of all time (After his 'performance' in LTK.) You're damn right, I'm having a go at Dalton. I thought he ws a horrible Bond. As an actor, he may be better than Brosnan (not that much better, but probably better nonetheless) but as a Bond, I thought he was the worst of all time, while Brosnan was the second best of all time. You do realise Bondy, that your views about Dalton and TLD (like mine) are just opinions?
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.
Uh, considering that my gender says male, I think you can assume that I'm male. 8-) As for Halle, thankyou so ever much for telling me what a real Bond fan would do. ) I have that photo of Halle, because I like her, which is of no concern to you.
Bondy, I don't really care whether you agree wuth me or not. But do not be condescending towards me or suggest that your OPINIONS are facts or question wether I'm a real Bond fan, because then, you'll just reveal yourself to be an even bigger fool than this post has revealed you to be.
"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
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...
GF is my all-time favourite Bond film. I was just making a joke as so many people were identifying it as overrated; something which I passionately disagree with.
"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
Dan, whilst I agree with a couple of your points, you are seriously embarrassing the Australian fans that visit this site.
Actually, I think you are embarassing the Asutralian fans here. 8-) If this post represents the calibre of your future posts to me, then I would hope that you don't again respond to me.
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).
Well, although I do love Brosnan, I am actually a fan of Connery. But why does it mattter anyway? Does it really matter wether I am, or am not, a fan of Brosnan? Does it matter that I am not a fan of the literally Bond? It's a big Bond universe out there. I don't think I need to like the same kind of things as you, in order to be a Bond fan.
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.
How is that objective? You do realize that it is just your opinion? As it happens, I do consider DAD to be the third worst Bond film of all time, however I don't think TND is quite that terrible. You do, fine, but don't call your opinion objective.
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.
God, you're condescending. X-( 8-) Yes, Bondy, I do consider TLD to be the second worst Bond film of all time, and it's not because GE was the first Bond film I ever saw (as a matter of fact it wasn't, but if it was; so what?) and it's not because of my age (my age does not concern you) but because I actually think that TLD is a piece of trash. 8-) You disagree, fine, but make no mistake aboiut it; my opinion is just as valid as yours.
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.
How am I shooting myself in the foot here? I consider TLD to be a terrible film, and I'll go further. I consider Dalton's performance in it to be the SECOND WORST Bond performance of all time (After his 'performance' in LTK.) You're damn right, I'm having a go at Dalton. I thought he ws a horrible Bond. As an actor, he may be better than Brosnan (not that much better, but probably better nonetheless) but as a Bond, I thought he was the worst of all time, while Brosnan was the second best of all time. You do realise Bondy, that your views about Dalton and TLD (like mine) are just opinions?
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.
Uh, considering that my gender says male, I think you can assume that I'm male. 8-) As for Halle, thankyou so ever much for telling me what a real Bond fan would do. ) I have that photo of Halle, because I like her, which is of no concern to you.
Bondy, I don't really care whether you agree wuth me or not. But do not be condescending towards me or suggest that your OPINIONS are facts or question wether I'm a real Bond fan, because then, you'll just reveal yourself to be an even bigger fool than this post has revealed you to be.
Dan you are correct mate, at the end of the day we all have different opinions about Bond and that will never change and that is what these forums are all about.
Like a number of bond fans I walked out of DAD and was bloody ropeable and regardless of the box office, I thought she was all over.
I guess its fair to say I was very suprised that your regarded TLD as the second worst Bond film. I think you will find that alot of Bond fans dont agree but then again that just comes back to the whole 'opinion' thing again.
I will argue though whilst there was several things I did not like during Brosnans time as Bond I certainly thought they could have done alot better with the scripts and understand that Brosnan has even come out and said this himself.
Dan, opinion aside, you must acknoweldge that Bond is Flemings creation and quite simply Brosnan never did justice to that creation(remember not necessarily his fault though and a damm shame) however Dalton did do his creation justice whilst also being a part of the same entertaining mould of film that was created when Connery began. Many would argue that the cinematic Bond should be very different to the literary Bond but to totally stray from that with crap like female Bond 'equals', cameos from people like Madonna and invisible cars is just plain wrong and as I said a damm shame because Flemings character deserves better and thank god they came up with CR when they did.
I must confess Dan I have just got myself two weeks leave and am jumping on the plane tommorow to basically destroy my liver, spend alot of money and have a ****load of casual sex but when I get back I want to see a post from yourself fully explaining, in your opinion of course, why TLD and Daltons performance in it was so poor, and dont just say 'because it was trash or boring'! Its going to need more than that to give your arguments any credibility and please do not say that Daltons efforts were too 'Fleming like' because you then you will be shooting yourself in the foot.
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...
GF is my all-time favourite Bond film. I was just making a joke as so many people were identifying it as overrated; something which I passionately disagree with.
Soz, then=)))) The joke was too complicated, if u know what I mean ):)):D
I guess its fair to say I was very suprised that your regarded TLD as the second worst Bond film. I think you will find that alot of Bond fans dont agree but then again that just comes back to the whole 'opinion' thing again.
Well, all I will say is that if that surprises you, then you will be shocked by some of the views around here.
I will argue though whilst there was several things I did not like during Brosnans time as Bond I certainly thought they could have done alot better with the scripts and understand that Brosnan has even come out and said this himself.
I agree with this. I loved Brosnan, but I felt that the scripts were less than ideal. Even GE and TWINE (the two best written Bond films of the past decade IMO) had IMO script problems.
Dan, opinion aside, you must acknoweldge that Bond is Flemings creation and quite simply Brosnan never did justice to that creation(remember not necessarily his fault though and a damm shame) however Dalton did do his creation justice whilst also being a part of the same entertaining mould of film that was created when Connery began. Many would argue that the cinematic Bond should be very different to the literary Bond but to totally stray from that with crap like female Bond 'equals', cameos from people like Madonna and invisible cars is just plain wrong and as I said a damm shame because Flemings character deserves better and thank god they came up with CR when they did.
Well, obviously Bond is Fleming's creation, but I think that a destinction needs to be made between the cinematic Bond and the literature Bond. That is, the cinematic Bond is arguably based upon the Connery mode (which may or may not be faithful to the books), and which as a consequence may be disliked by a fan of the literature Bond. That is to say, a fan of the literature Bond may prefer Dalton to Moore, however a fan of the cinematic Bond may prefer Moore to Dalton. Obviously this is entirely subjective and personal, but what I'm saying is that it doesn't particularly concern me how faithful a Bond is to the novels. Dalton may be incredibly faithful to the literature Bond, however he is my least favourite Bond, while Moore (who may be unfaithul to the literature Bond) is my third favourite Bond. I base my preferred Bond on the type of Bond that Connery was. (He remains my ideal Bond.) That is why I loath Dalton's Bond and why it doesn't concern me wether Brosnan did justice to Fleming's creation. Similarly, I am not a fan of Craig at all.
Nonetheless, I certainly dislike 'female Bond 'equals', cameos from people like Madonna and invisible cars.'
but when I get back I want to see a post from yourself fully explaining, in your opinion of course, why TLD and Daltons performance in it was so poor, and dont just say 'because it was trash or boring'!
I don't really owe you an explanation, and I'm not certainly going to provide such a post, however I will say that the reasons I hate TLD are the following; I consider it to be incredibly derivative and non-creative (especially at a time when some of the all-time greatest action/thrillers were released); I think it's boring (as valid a reason as any); I thought that the plot was completely inane and was executed horribly (it's not the worst plot in the series but I think it lacked all creativity); I also think that the screenplay itself was horrible; I couldn't stand either the villains or the Bond girl; I thought that Dalton was totally humourless, but also had no personality and was just plain horrible and wasn't interesting in the slightest; I thought that the action sequences were cheap-looking, stale and quite boring; I didn't like the music; I didn't like the one-woman aspect and I thought that the title didn't fit the film at all. I think it's a terrible Bond film and I try to think about it as little as possible.
Its going to need more than that to give your arguments any credibility and please do not say that Daltons efforts were too 'Fleming like' because you then you will be shooting yourself in the foot.
Uh, my arguments (and opinions) already are credible, and I don't need to prove the credibility of my arguments or views to you. I'm not here to prove anything to you, and wether you agree with my opinions or approve of my arguments is not my concern. That said, you talk about how great TLD was, well, then give me arguments to explain why it is. Provide me with credible arguments.
One last thing; You keep on talking about 'shooting myself in the foot.' This isn't a courtroom; it's a forum. I'm not trying to persuade or convince you of anything. I'm simply stating my opinions (and arguments for them), so how you can think that I could 'shoot myself in the foot' is beyond me. 8-)
"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 think the most over-rated Bond film is The Spy Who Loved Me. I like it, but I just don't see why it's such a great film. I think the most under-rated films are DAF and AVTAK, what is so bad about them?!?
I guess its fair to say I was very suprised that your regarded TLD as the second worst Bond film. I think you will find that alot of Bond fans dont agree but then again that just comes back to the whole 'opinion' thing again.
Well, all I will say is that if that surprises you, then you will be shocked by some of the views around here.
I will argue though whilst there was several things I did not like during Brosnans time as Bond I certainly thought they could have done alot better with the scripts and understand that Brosnan has even come out and said this himself.
I agree with this. I loved Brosnan, but I felt that the scripts were less than ideal. Even GE and TWINE (the two best written Bond films of the past decade IMO) had IMO script problems.
Dan, opinion aside, you must acknoweldge that Bond is Flemings creation and quite simply Brosnan never did justice to that creation(remember not necessarily his fault though and a damm shame) however Dalton did do his creation justice whilst also being a part of the same entertaining mould of film that was created when Connery began. Many would argue that the cinematic Bond should be very different to the literary Bond but to totally stray from that with crap like female Bond 'equals', cameos from people like Madonna and invisible cars is just plain wrong and as I said a damm shame because Flemings character deserves better and thank god they came up with CR when they did.
Well, obviously Bond is Fleming's creation, but I think that a destinction needs to be made between the cinematic Bond and the literature Bond. That is, the cinematic Bond is arguably based upon the Connery mode (which may or may not be faithful to the books), and which as a consequence may be disliked by a fan of the literature Bond. That is to say, a fan of the literature Bond may prefer Dalton to Moore, however a fan of the cinematic Bond may prefer Moore to Dalton. Obviously this is entirely subjective and personal, but what I'm saying is that it doesn't particularly concern me how faithful a Bond is to the novels. Dalton may be incredibly faithful to the literature Bond, however he is my least favourite Bond, while Moore (who may be unfaithul to the literature Bond) is my third favourite Bond. I base my preferred Bond on the type of Bond that Connery was. (He remains my ideal Bond.) That is why I loath Dalton's Bond and why it doesn't concern me wether Brosnan did justice to Fleming's creation. Similarly, I am not a fan of Craig at all.
Nonetheless, I certainly dislike 'female Bond 'equals', cameos from people like Madonna and invisible cars.'
but when I get back I want to see a post from yourself fully explaining, in your opinion of course, why TLD and Daltons performance in it was so poor, and dont just say 'because it was trash or boring'!
I don't really owe you an explanation, and I'm not certainly going to provide such a post, however I will say that the reasons I hate TLD are the following; I consider it to be incredibly derivative and non-creative (especially at a time when some of the all-time greatest action/thrillers were released); I think it's boring (as valid a reason as any); I thought that the plot was completely inane and was executed horribly (it's not the worst plot in the series but I think it lacked all creativity); I also think that the screenplay itself was horrible; I couldn't stand either the villains or the Bond girl; I thought that Dalton was totally humourless, but also had no personality and was just plain horrible and wasn't interesting in the slightest; I thought that the action sequences were cheap-looking, stale and quite boring; I didn't like the music; I didn't like the one-woman aspect and I thought that the title didn't fit the film at all. I think it's a terrible Bond film and I try to think about it as little as possible.
Its going to need more than that to give your arguments any credibility and please do not say that Daltons efforts were too 'Fleming like' because you then you will be shooting yourself in the foot.
Uh, my arguments (and opinions) already are credible, and I don't need to prove the credibility of my arguments or views to you. I'm not here to prove anything to you, and wether you agree with my opinions or approve of my arguments is not my concern. That said, you talk about how great TLD was, well, then give me arguments to explain why it is. Provide me with credible arguments.
One last thing; You keep on talking about 'shooting myself in the foot.' This isn't a courtroom; it's a forum. I'm not trying to persuade or convince you of anything. I'm simply stating my opinions (and arguments for them), so how you can think that I could 'shoot myself in the foot' is beyond me. 8-)
Well, Dan, my feelings are hurt. I used to be your Number One nemesis at AJB, but I guess I've been cast aside like an aging Bond actor. Oh well ...
But enjoy your two-weeks leave, Bondy, and have yourself a few of these: -{ I'll try and soften Dan up for you while you're gone, but it won't be easy, he's a tough one )
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Well, Dan, my feelings are hurt. I used to be your Number One nemesis at AJB, but I guess I've been cast aside like an aging Bond actor. Oh well ...
But enjoy your two-weeks leave, Bondy, and have yourself a few of these: -{ I'll try and soften Dan up for you while you're gone, but it won't be easy, he's a tough one )
As another former nemesis of Dan's, I share your sense of loss and abandonment, HH )
As for Dalton, and TLD...I'd disagree that Dalton is totally humourless---the moment when he puts Koskov into the pipeline 'pig' is pretty amusing, and Dalton's reading of the line, "You're the first!" represents (regrettably) his best humourous moment of his tenure, I'd have to say.
(I'd quickly concede that Dalton wasn't comfortable with the humourous aspects of cinema Bond, which have become de rigeur, for better or worse, and it certainly didn't help that the two scripts he got were wildly uneven in that regard.)
I rather enjoyed the action in TLD: the Aston chase (though here again, the car getting 'stuck' in the little barn, and bringing it out onto the ice lake, is a self-consciously bad Bond moment ); the Gibraltar PTS; the springing of Koskov from the safe house; the faux-assassination of Pushkin---and subsequent rooftop chase...
And, the finale fisticuffs with Drago---hanging off the back end of the C-130 Hercules!---with the net full of opium bags flopping about in an impossible-to-fake jetstream was, in my opinion, one of the great triumphs of the Bond stunt team.
Did Dalton's tenure adhere more closely to Fleming? Well, compared to Moore's last three... :v suffice to say, it was an overdue step in the right direction, as far as I'm concerned Unfortunately, Dalton paid the price for being such a markedly transitional Bond...but, as was pointed out by a TV host during a recent interview with Dalton, he seems to be enjoying a bit of redemption of late, and I'm happy about that.
Dalton began a course correction which Brosnan---albeit haltingly, IMRO---continued...and which Craig might have just made complete :007)
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
I watched OHMSS at a late show 3:AM showing friday night. Really, I'm amazed fans think it's overrated. The entire thing is beautiful, with an elegant and masterful score sweeping throughout it and with solid performances from all principals involved. There's also the proper amount of both humor and pathos involved. Which defines the definition of professional screenplay.
All things considered, OHMSS has got to be one of the best guarantees for a delicious evening night's viewing experience. Heck. I have to save it for those times I need a pick-me-up reminder of why I am a Bond fan to begin with. And it definitely had that hold over me, despite the familiarity.
I wish all Bond films were "overrated" like OHMSS ...
I watched OHMSS at a late show 3:AM showing friday night. Really, I'm amazed fans think it's overrated.
I'm not amazed fans think it's overrated, Alex. For me, the only beautiful things about OHMSS are the excellent ski chase sequences and John Barry's superb score. But I am pleased that you had a delicious late night's viewing experience.
Well, Dan, my feelings are hurt. I used to be your Number One nemesis at AJB, but I guess I've been cast aside like an aging Bond actor. Oh well ...
The truth is, I'm scared of you. ;% I don't mind debating with people who have different opinions, but I refuse to debate with someone whose sole purpose for joining this site is to destroy me. Sorry, whoever you are, but I need to protect my health. )
As another former nemesis of Dan's, I share your sense of loss and abandonment, HH )
Sorry Loeff, but I'm personally rather happy that we moved past that particular episode. It wasn't one of my favourite times on this site.
"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 watched OHMSS at a late show 3:AM showing friday night. Really, I'm amazed fans think it's overrated.
I'm not amazed fans think it's overrated, Alex. For me, the only beautiful things about OHMSS are the excellent ski chase sequences and John Barry's superb score. But I am pleased that you had a delicious late night's viewing experience.
Why a British spy would mix with the businesses of Americans, of Fort Knox ? As soon as gold is on an aircraft of the American government, or in Fort Knox it's an internal affair. Even if the villain is English or Russian !
And Pussy which manages to thwart the plan of Goldfinger in ONE night by changing gas AND by preventing the authorities … WAOW |)
Why a British spy would mix with the businesses of Americans, of Fort Knox ? As soon as gold is on an aircraft of the American government, or in Fort Knox it's an internal affair. Even if the villain is English or Russian !
I'm not an economist, but the consequences of Goldifinger's plan would have been to destroy the economies of the West, not just America's. I would imagine then that the US wouldn't have minded a British Spy getting involved (as long as they got the credit ) since it wasn't merely an internal affair.
And Pussy which manages to thwart the plan of Goldfinger in ONE night by changing gas AND by preventing the authorities … WAOW |)
She's an impressive woman.
"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
Bond was the only outside person who knew the slightest information about Operation Grand Slam, so who else would be trying to stop Goldfinger? He learned about the caper while investigating for the British government. No one else had any other incriminating evidence of Goldfinger's plans. Even Felix said he was clean as far as the CIA knew. And eventually Bond was being held prisoner, wasn't he? He did attempt to notify the authorities, but that failed at the auto yard. So the solo British agent did the job he had to do and was the only person who knew what to do.
As for Pussy Galore being able to switch the gas and notify the Feds: hey, the movie is a male fantasy. One role in the hay with Bond and Pussy was ready to join the side of right and virtue. (I can just hear the feminist claptrap now.) Apparently Goldfinger didn't micro-manage every step of the plan and Pussy was able to ruin the plan.
Man, all this carping on the movies gets tiring. If you people want strict doses of reality, then watch documentaries. Bond movies have always included an element of fantasy, primarily male.
If you don't get that, you just do not understand the series.
Back to the original question: I don't think any movie in the series is over-rated. Each of them has its fans and detractors. There's something for everyone
One role in the hay with Bond and Pussy was ready to join the side of right and virtue.
He also converted her from gay to straight. GF is indeed a male fantasy and should not be taken as anything more than that; well, except as a great film.
"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
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
As another former nemesis of Dan's, I share your sense of loss and abandonment, HH )
Sorry Loeff, but I'm personally rather happy that we moved past that particular episode. It wasn't one of my favourite times on this site.
In all seriousness, I feel the same way {[] I was just taken aback by the new guy's vitriol in going after you, and was trying---along with HH---to lighten the mood a bit.
Perhaps you wronged him in a previous life
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
I don't think there's a Bond film I truly hate. I know some people actively dislike certain films or in some cases Bond actors, but I don't feel that way. In terms of the film I think has the highest reputation and doesn't deserve it, I'd go with GE. I think that 6-year break meant that people were willing to overlook a lot of things that didn't work, just because we were finally getting Bond back. I remember being slightly let down, and feeling as some people do with CR, that this isn't quite right. That this is not the Bond I grew up with.
In fact I'm surprised EON didn't sue themselves for plagiarising their own franchise. They also nicked a couple of lines of dialogue from 'Die Hard,' when Natalya and 006 have the 'you're just a thief exchange.' Also Brosnan had bad hair. OK so Sean Connery's hair was owned by the prop department and he gave it back to them at the end of the day, but that's not his fault. You can't do something with nothing. Brosnan had a full head of hair and yet he had the same haircut since 'Remington Steele.' That's taking the p**s. Somebody really should have pointed that out and made him cut it. And he wears a cravat. A cravat! Only men advertising sherry on television, or who have just undergone a tracheotomy operation and need to hide the scar wear a cravat. Thankfully they sorted this out for TND, in which Brosnan looked and acted the part. Apart from the tank chase and pool fight with Xenia, I felt I'd seen all this before. To me, GE is like one of Connery's wigs. It looks like the real thing, but I know it's a fake.
In all seriousness, I feel the same way {[] I was just taken aback by the new guy's vitriol in going after you, and was trying---along with HH---to lighten the mood a bit.
I was rather taken back by his aggressiveness. Anyway, thanks, you and HH certainly did lighten the mood.
"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
Sweepy the CatHalifax, West Yorkshire, EnglaPosts: 986MI6 Agent
Oh no, more brozzer bashing
SB_DiamondNorth Miami Beach, FLPosts: 126MI6 Agent
edited September 2007
Ok, I have not seen every single Bond film (for shame, I know) but of the ones I have seen I will say this. It's hard to speak ill of GE since it was the first Bond movie I ever saw and that when they go to "Cuba" to find that satellite that everyone keeps going on about, they are actually here in Puerto Rico believe it or not (The Observatory of Arecibo). But I can understand peoples qualms about it looking cheap though. Now while I'm not Brosnan's biggest fan I did enjoy him in this as well as the bad Bond girl (Xenia Onatopp) and Alan Cumming stands out to me. Now I think that AVTAK was actually quite good. I enjoy Walken (I almost always do) and I liked that Grace Jones was in it and her cronies were supermodel looking (a sign of the times I suppose). Also the fact that the Bond girl in this one was gorgeous though I don't usually care for blondes. The only thing I didn't like about her (bear with me JFF) was her annoying helplessness. I understand why she was that way and all but there were times when I was like SHUT UP AND QUIT SCREAMING SO MUCH!!!! X-( Now calling CR over-rated might as well be a crime to me considering I was very skeptical and all ****ed about it like everyone else who remotely liked Brosnan, yet I was completely converted upon viewing it (over and over and over again). As far as under-rated I will have to agree about OHMSS. Just watch it for what it is (a guy who isn't an actor trying to act) and you'll see it's pretty good considering. And finally getting to most over-rated I would say DAD. Now I know that someone said it can't be over-rated when the general consensus doesn't like that movie, but there are people that liked it and there is even a post where someone defended it and even said it was better than CR after many people called it a piece of crap (it might have been JFF, big surprise). So I will stick to saying that yeah, it is over-rated.
Imo, it should have been closer to the book and less to being an attempt (a successful one) to mimic and compete against 24 and Bourne. I loved the ambience of the book, but I think a part of it was ditched for the movie, in order to bridge the movie with the filmic Bond universe.
The action scenes kind of left me bored. Instead, I would have preferred a longer chase sequence. Less running around; we get it, Bond is resourceful, can run well etc, but it did bore me.
My ideal Casino Royale would be with Clive Owen starring, closer to the book (but keeping some of the stuff we got in the actual movie), more ambience and the terror we sometimes see with Fleming (the hero being unsure and aware he is in mortal danger, etc), less action or at least better action than the one Martin Campbell delivers.
I can understand why I am in the minority about this and that my version would not be the mega-successful movie EON wanted this reboot to be (which, of course, it was, both as a film and a hugely profitable intellectual property), but I think the source material was tons better than this movie.
Or: '53 book >> '06 movie
And if I could pick a director to direct such a script, Tarantino would be really good. Note: I don't really fancy his recent films, or would agree to CR being a final Brosnan vehicle, but I think he knows, both in theory and execution, what works in cinema. Unfortunately he hasn't applied that to most of his recent films -and, come on, a Bond reboot using the 50+ y.o. last protagonist?
Sweepy the CatHalifax, West Yorkshire, EnglaPosts: 986MI6 Agent
For me, the most overrated on here is The Spy Who Loved Me. I also don't like the fact that Bond teams up with a Russian female agent. Fleming's Bond likes to work alone, he had cursed M for sending him a woman to work with him on a "man's job" on several occasions, even if the woman was a British agent. How much more would he despise having to team up with a female Russian agent? That is completely out of character for Bond.
It is called The Spy Who Loved Me, so naturally Bond had to team up with one. Plus, it was the 1970s when women decided to leave their kitchens and go into the workforce. Fleming's Bond was a man of the 1950s who believed women were inferior to men. Times have changed alot since Fleming's day, so get over it. I doubt the film was going to be The Spy Who Stopped Being a Spy Just So She Could Cook All My Meals and Wash All My Dishes.
Times have changed alot since Fleming's day, so get over it. I doubt the film was going to be The Spy Who Stopped Being a Spy Just So She Could Cook All My Meals and Wash All My Dishes.
You know, just because someone else has a different view to you, doesn't mean that you should tell them to get over it. Their view is just as valid as yours.
Everyone can certainly say that they feel a film is overrated. But it'd be interesting to say why you feel that way.
Well said... I always find that opinions are all to infrequently backed up by online opinion "columns". Even the supposed Bond "experts" rarely fully explain their opinions.
Personally, I find Goldfinger is expected to be the "definitive" Bond, yet to me it has an entertaining air, but its far from my favorite, even of the Sean outings. Reasons, reasons, well... sure its hi-octane and entertaining but I find the plot and sequence of events quite slow and simple.
They try to show Bond in a uncontrollable situation... but From Russia With Love handles this scenario much better. Bond shows venerability much more effectively at Red Grant's gunpoint than at Goldfinger's laser.
Goldfinger is written to tie a host of action sequences together, where as From Russia With Love relies on an intriguing plot to keep us watching...
On the whole I find that Goldfinger is just a big budget Bond... and show's far less attention to detail or raw character than the previous two Bond films did.
Times have changed alot since Fleming's day, so get over it. I doubt the film was going to be The Spy Who Stopped Being a Spy Just So She Could Cook All My Meals and Wash All My Dishes.
You know, just because someone else has a different view to you, doesn't mean that you should tell them to get over it. Their view is just as valid as yours.
The person's view was not valid. Fleming's novels, although great, are very much part of the 1950s and represent how people thought and felt in those days. Like everyone else, James Bond had to change or evolve. The films of the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s had to go along with their times and appeal to audiences of the later half of the 20th century and the 21st century. The James Bond character could not continue if the films were stuck in the 1950s and refused to change with everyone and everything else. The person I was replying to has their head in the 50s which is not being valid or even realistic.
I would say that CR is probably the most overrated Bond film. It's okay, but I think its screenplay is quite flawed, I didn't like Eva Green at all and I don't think that Craig is such an amazing Bond.
They try to show Bond in a uncontrollable situation... but From Russia With Love handles this scenario much better. Bond shows venerability much more effectively at Red Grant's gunpoint than at Goldfinger's laser.
You know, I actually think that while some people have differing opionions on what sequence were better, both IMO were superb. The train sequence was a masterclass in acting, physicality and suspence, while the laser sequence saw Bond reach a level of desperation that he rarely ventured into and the acting in this scene was also IMO absolutely fantastic. I truly loved both sequences. {[]
Goldfinger is written to tie a host of action sequences together, where as From Russia With Love relies on an intriguing plot to keep us watching....
It's interersting that you say that as GF certainly relied upon action sequences more than FRWL. However I consider GF's plot to be the greatest of all the Bond films. I think it was truly outstanding (although FRWL's plot was also great.)
On the whole I find that Goldfinger is just a big budget Bond... and show's far less attention to detail or raw character than the previous two Bond films did.
I'm not one that believes that focus on character is all that important to make a great film, however regarding GF, I would argue that the discussion scene with Goldfinger (when we learned Goldfinger's plan) was a brilliant examination of not just Bond's character but Goldfinger's as well.
postman pat, GF is my favourite Bond film, but I don't want you to think that I'm forcing my opinion upon you. I'm all too aware that not everybody holds GF in the same regard as I do. -{
"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
Comments
I wa making a JOKE.
Well, although I do love Brosnan, I am actually a fan of Connery. But why does it mattter anyway? Does it really matter wether I am, or am not, a fan of Brosnan? Does it matter that I am not a fan of the literally Bond? It's a big Bond universe out there. I don't think I need to like the same kind of things as you, in order to be a Bond fan.
How is that objective? You do realize that it is just your opinion? As it happens, I do consider DAD to be the third worst Bond film of all time, however I don't think TND is quite that terrible. You do, fine, but don't call your opinion objective.
God, you're condescending. X-( 8-) Yes, Bondy, I do consider TLD to be the second worst Bond film of all time, and it's not because GE was the first Bond film I ever saw (as a matter of fact it wasn't, but if it was; so what?) and it's not because of my age (my age does not concern you) but because I actually think that TLD is a piece of trash. 8-) You disagree, fine, but make no mistake about it; my opinion is just as valid as yours.
How am I shooting myself in the foot here?
Uh, considering that my gender says male, I think you can assume that I'm male. 8-) As for Halle, thankyou so ever much for telling me what a real Bond fan would do.
Bondy, I don't really care whether you agree wuth me or not. But do not be condescending towards me or suggest that your OPINIONS are facts or question wether I'm a real Bond fan, because then, you'll just reveal yourself to be an even bigger fool than this post has revealed you to be.
Dan you are correct mate, at the end of the day we all have different opinions about Bond and that will never change and that is what these forums are all about.
Like a number of bond fans I walked out of DAD and was bloody ropeable and regardless of the box office, I thought she was all over.
I guess its fair to say I was very suprised that your regarded TLD as the second worst Bond film. I think you will find that alot of Bond fans dont agree but then again that just comes back to the whole 'opinion' thing again.
I will argue though whilst there was several things I did not like during Brosnans time as Bond I certainly thought they could have done alot better with the scripts and understand that Brosnan has even come out and said this himself.
Dan, opinion aside, you must acknoweldge that Bond is Flemings creation and quite simply Brosnan never did justice to that creation(remember not necessarily his fault though and a damm shame) however Dalton did do his creation justice whilst also being a part of the same entertaining mould of film that was created when Connery began. Many would argue that the cinematic Bond should be very different to the literary Bond but to totally stray from that with crap like female Bond 'equals', cameos from people like Madonna and invisible cars is just plain wrong and as I said a damm shame because Flemings character deserves better and thank god they came up with CR when they did.
I must confess Dan I have just got myself two weeks leave and am jumping on the plane tommorow to basically destroy my liver, spend alot of money and have a ****load of casual sex but when I get back I want to see a post from yourself fully explaining, in your opinion of course, why TLD and Daltons performance in it was so poor, and dont just say 'because it was trash or boring'! Its going to need more than that to give your arguments any credibility and please do not say that Daltons efforts were too 'Fleming like' because you then you will be shooting yourself in the foot.
Soz, then=)))) The joke was too complicated, if u know what I mean
Well, all I will say is that if that surprises you, then you will be shocked by some of the views around here.
I agree with this. I loved Brosnan, but I felt that the scripts were less than ideal. Even GE and TWINE (the two best written Bond films of the past decade IMO) had IMO script problems.
Well, obviously Bond is Fleming's creation, but I think that a destinction needs to be made between the cinematic Bond and the literature Bond. That is, the cinematic Bond is arguably based upon the Connery mode (which may or may not be faithful to the books), and which as a consequence may be disliked by a fan of the literature Bond. That is to say, a fan of the literature Bond may prefer Dalton to Moore, however a fan of the cinematic Bond may prefer Moore to Dalton. Obviously this is entirely subjective and personal, but what I'm saying is that it doesn't particularly concern me how faithful a Bond is to the novels. Dalton may be incredibly faithful to the literature Bond, however he is my least favourite Bond, while Moore (who may be unfaithul to the literature Bond) is my third favourite Bond. I base my preferred Bond on the type of Bond that Connery was. (He remains my ideal Bond.) That is why I loath Dalton's Bond and why it doesn't concern me wether Brosnan did justice to Fleming's creation. Similarly, I am not a fan of Craig at all.
Nonetheless, I certainly dislike 'female Bond 'equals', cameos from people like Madonna and invisible cars.'
I don't really owe you an explanation, and I'm not certainly going to provide such a post, however I will say that the reasons I hate TLD are the following; I consider it to be incredibly derivative and non-creative (especially at a time when some of the all-time greatest action/thrillers were released); I think it's boring (as valid a reason as any); I thought that the plot was completely inane and was executed horribly (it's not the worst plot in the series but I think it lacked all creativity); I also think that the screenplay itself was horrible; I couldn't stand either the villains or the Bond girl; I thought that Dalton was totally humourless, but also had no personality and was just plain horrible and wasn't interesting in the slightest; I thought that the action sequences were cheap-looking, stale and quite boring; I didn't like the music; I didn't like the one-woman aspect and I thought that the title didn't fit the film at all. I think it's a terrible Bond film and I try to think about it as little as possible.
Uh, my arguments (and opinions) already are credible, and I don't need to prove the credibility of my arguments or views to you. I'm not here to prove anything to you, and wether you agree with my opinions or approve of my arguments is not my concern. That said, you talk about how great TLD was, well, then give me arguments to explain why it is. Provide me with credible arguments.
One last thing; You keep on talking about 'shooting myself in the foot.' This isn't a courtroom; it's a forum. I'm not trying to persuade or convince you of anything. I'm simply stating my opinions (and arguments for them), so how you can think that I could 'shoot myself in the foot' is beyond me. 8-)
Well, Dan, my feelings are hurt.
But enjoy your two-weeks leave, Bondy, and have yourself a few of these: -{ I'll try and soften Dan up for you while you're gone, but it won't be easy, he's a tough one
As another former nemesis of Dan's, I share your sense of loss and abandonment, HH
As for Dalton, and TLD...I'd disagree that Dalton is totally humourless---the moment when he puts Koskov into the pipeline 'pig' is pretty amusing, and Dalton's reading of the line, "You're the first!" represents (regrettably) his best humourous moment of his tenure, I'd have to say.
(I'd quickly concede that Dalton wasn't comfortable with the humourous aspects of cinema Bond, which have become de rigeur, for better or worse, and it certainly didn't help that the two scripts he got were wildly uneven in that regard.)
I rather enjoyed the action in TLD: the Aston chase (though here again, the car getting 'stuck' in the little barn, and bringing it out onto the ice lake, is a self-consciously bad Bond moment
And, the finale fisticuffs with Drago---hanging off the back end of the C-130 Hercules!---with the net full of opium bags flopping about in an impossible-to-fake jetstream was, in my opinion, one of the great triumphs of the Bond stunt team.
Did Dalton's tenure adhere more closely to Fleming? Well, compared to Moore's last three... :v suffice to say, it was an overdue step in the right direction, as far as I'm concerned
Dalton began a course correction which Brosnan---albeit haltingly, IMRO---continued...and which Craig might have just made complete :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
All things considered, OHMSS has got to be one of the best guarantees for a delicious evening night's viewing experience. Heck. I have to save it for those times I need a pick-me-up reminder of why I am a Bond fan to begin with. And it definitely had that hold over me, despite the familiarity.
I wish all Bond films were "overrated" like OHMSS ...
I'm not amazed fans think it's overrated, Alex. For me, the only beautiful things about OHMSS are the excellent ski chase sequences and John Barry's superb score. But I am pleased that you had a delicious late night's viewing experience.
Sorry Loeff, but I'm personally rather happy that we moved past that particular episode.
Why a British spy would mix with the businesses of Americans, of Fort Knox ? As soon as gold is on an aircraft of the American government, or in Fort Knox it's an internal affair. Even if the villain is English or Russian !
And Pussy which manages to thwart the plan of Goldfinger in ONE night by changing gas AND by preventing the authorities … WAOW
She's an impressive woman.
Fish, {[]
See you !
As for Pussy Galore being able to switch the gas and notify the Feds: hey, the movie is a male fantasy. One role in the hay with Bond and Pussy was ready to join the side of right and virtue. (I can just hear the feminist claptrap now.) Apparently Goldfinger didn't micro-manage every step of the plan and Pussy was able to ruin the plan.
Man, all this carping on the movies gets tiring. If you people want strict doses of reality, then watch documentaries. Bond movies have always included an element of fantasy, primarily male.
If you don't get that, you just do not understand the series.
Back to the original question: I don't think any movie in the series is over-rated. Each of them has its fans and detractors. There's something for everyone
He also converted her from gay to straight.
In all seriousness, I feel the same way {[] I was just taken aback by the new guy's vitriol in going after you, and was trying---along with HH---to lighten the mood a bit.
Perhaps you wronged him in a previous life
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
In fact I'm surprised EON didn't sue themselves for plagiarising their own franchise. They also nicked a couple of lines of dialogue from 'Die Hard,' when Natalya and 006 have the 'you're just a thief exchange.' Also Brosnan had bad hair. OK so Sean Connery's hair was owned by the prop department and he gave it back to them at the end of the day, but that's not his fault. You can't do something with nothing. Brosnan had a full head of hair and yet he had the same haircut since 'Remington Steele.' That's taking the p**s. Somebody really should have pointed that out and made him cut it. And he wears a cravat. A cravat! Only men advertising sherry on television, or who have just undergone a tracheotomy operation and need to hide the scar wear a cravat. Thankfully they sorted this out for TND, in which Brosnan looked and acted the part. Apart from the tank chase and pool fight with Xenia, I felt I'd seen all this before. To me, GE is like one of Connery's wigs. It looks like the real thing, but I know it's a fake.
I would imagine so.
Imo, it should have been closer to the book and less to being an attempt (a successful one) to mimic and compete against 24 and Bourne. I loved the ambience of the book, but I think a part of it was ditched for the movie, in order to bridge the movie with the filmic Bond universe.
The action scenes kind of left me bored. Instead, I would have preferred a longer chase sequence. Less running around; we get it, Bond is resourceful, can run well etc, but it did bore me.
My ideal Casino Royale would be with Clive Owen starring, closer to the book (but keeping some of the stuff we got in the actual movie), more ambience and the terror we sometimes see with Fleming (the hero being unsure and aware he is in mortal danger, etc), less action or at least better action than the one Martin Campbell delivers.
I can understand why I am in the minority about this and that my version would not be the mega-successful movie EON wanted this reboot to be (which, of course, it was, both as a film and a hugely profitable intellectual property), but I think the source material was tons better than this movie.
Or: '53 book >> '06 movie
And if I could pick a director to direct such a script, Tarantino would be really good. Note: I don't really fancy his recent films, or would agree to CR being a final Brosnan vehicle, but I think he knows, both in theory and execution, what works in cinema. Unfortunately he hasn't applied that to most of his recent films -and, come on, a Bond reboot using the 50+ y.o. last protagonist?
Well said... I always find that opinions are all to infrequently backed up by online opinion "columns". Even the supposed Bond "experts" rarely fully explain their opinions.
Personally, I find Goldfinger is expected to be the "definitive" Bond, yet to me it has an entertaining air, but its far from my favorite, even of the Sean outings. Reasons, reasons, well... sure its hi-octane and entertaining but I find the plot and sequence of events quite slow and simple.
They try to show Bond in a uncontrollable situation... but From Russia With Love handles this scenario much better. Bond shows venerability much more effectively at Red Grant's gunpoint than at Goldfinger's laser.
Goldfinger is written to tie a host of action sequences together, where as From Russia With Love relies on an intriguing plot to keep us watching...
On the whole I find that Goldfinger is just a big budget Bond... and show's far less attention to detail or raw character than the previous two Bond films did.
The person's view was not valid. Fleming's novels, although great, are very much part of the 1950s and represent how people thought and felt in those days. Like everyone else, James Bond had to change or evolve. The films of the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s had to go along with their times and appeal to audiences of the later half of the 20th century and the 21st century. The James Bond character could not continue if the films were stuck in the 1950s and refused to change with everyone and everything else. The person I was replying to has their head in the 50s which is not being valid or even realistic.
Why do you think that?
You know, I actually think that while some people have differing opionions on what sequence were better, both IMO were superb. The train sequence was a masterclass in acting, physicality and suspence, while the laser sequence saw Bond reach a level of desperation that he rarely ventured into and the acting in this scene was also IMO absolutely fantastic. I truly loved both sequences. {[]
It's interersting that you say that as GF certainly relied upon action sequences more than FRWL. However I consider GF's plot to be the greatest of all the Bond films. I think it was truly outstanding
I'm not one that believes that focus on character is all that important to make a great film, however regarding GF, I would argue that the discussion scene with Goldfinger (when we learned Goldfinger's plan) was a brilliant examination of not just Bond's character but Goldfinger's as well.
postman pat, GF is my favourite Bond film, but I don't want you to think that I'm forcing my opinion upon you. I'm all too aware that not everybody holds GF in the same regard as I do.