Strong opinions, on all sides. But I agree CR was very good and I think alot of Fans where hoping for the same in QOS, instead we got a very different movie. Some love it while others hate it. Still it's always nice to read others opinions, even if we don't agree with them. -{
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,658Chief of Staff
I thought FOR YOUR EYES ONLY was brilliantly written by Richard Maibaum but ineptly executed by John Glenn, who wasn't ready to direct, and by Michael J. Wilson, who should have kept his hands off the script. It was a better script before he screwed it up.
The most over-rated Bond film is the first in the "Stop! Or My M. Will Shoot!" trilogy, CASINO ROYALE for reasons that have nothing to do with the casting. Fleming's subtext is replaced with an agenda, his story perverted in ways that are subtle and obvious. I don't buy into this new James Bond, not for an instant. It is a fraudulent and disingenuous Bond. How anyone can accept, let alone tolerate, the very idea that Bond is an uncouth idiot who has to be followed around the globe and taught how to be a better man by his M is beyond me. The film is an insult.
Richard
Wow...we are Mr Happy today....
If you think the films are that bad then I've no idea how you can stay a Bond fan and even less idea why you would post here
Ouch. While I agree that his comment was a little extreme, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I liked Casino Royale but find little redeeming value in the follow-up, QoS. Terrible movie.
You think ? Have you read his posts ? Go on, read 'em....out of 38 posts there are only about 4 that aren't a complaint about the series !
YNWA 97
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,658Chief of Staff
Strong opinions, on all sides. But I agree CR was very good and I think alot of Fans where hoping for the same in QOS, instead we got a very different movie. Some love it while others hate it. Still it's always nice to read others opinions, even if we don't agree with them. -{
I really don't have any problems with differing opinions....I'm perfectly happy to hear all well thought out and balanced opinions....but a constant tirade just becomes boring....sorry...
Strong opinions, on all sides. But I agree CR was very good and I think alot of Fans where hoping for the same in QOS, instead we got a very different movie. Some love it while others hate it. Still it's always nice to read others opinions, even if we don't agree with them. -{
I really don't have any problems with differing opinions....I'm perfectly happy to hear all well thought out and balanced opinions....but a constant tirade just becomes boring....sorry...
I think think it's because he's anti-Bond per se (of course not!), more that he's a Fleming fundamentalist of the most hardcore kind. Real fire-and-brimstone 300-ciggies-a-day stuff.
So, have YOU accepted the Lord Ian as your personal Saviour?
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,658Chief of Staff
Strong opinions, on all sides. But I agree CR was very good and I think alot of Fans where hoping for the same in QOS, instead we got a very different movie. Some love it while others hate it. Still it's always nice to read others opinions, even if we don't agree with them. -{
I really don't have any problems with differing opinions....I'm perfectly happy to hear all well thought out and balanced opinions....but a constant tirade just becomes boring....sorry...
I think think it's because he's anti-Bond per se (of course not!), more that he's a Fleming fundamentalist of the most hardcore kind. Real fire-and-brimstone 300-ciggies-a-day stuff.
So, have YOU accepted the Lord Ian as your personal Saviour?
Maybe he should post in the literary forum then...?...instead of getting upset at the films...
I honestly don't think I could hang in there as a fan if I hated so many films in the series. As it is I don't much like Moonraker, and that's about it. Even that film has some redeeming points. I think it's time to call it a day and think of yourself as a Fleming literary fan Richard-W and not bother with anymore films - I think Bond 23 will only ever disapoint you.
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
With a series like Bond with so many outings for our hero there's bound to be a couple that don't quite hit the mark ( my own personal hell being QOS ) But I love all the others, some are a little more si-fi based other more campy, some have a more realistic feel. Meaning there should be a Bond film for every Mood.
I'm not a big fan of the Literary Bond, I've read all the books ( even the dreadful R Benson's ) several times But it's the Movies I love. And being a fan I still watch QOS from time to time trying to find what others see in it, Because deep down I want to like them all.
Who knows some day I'll have an Epiphany and Everthing will fall into place and I'll be a convert )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I honestly don't think I could hang in there as a fan if I hated so many films in the series. I think it's time to call it a day and think of yourself as a Fleming literary fan Richard-W and not bother with anymore films - I think Bond 23 will only ever disapoint you.
I guess the above point is what I was trying to get across....just rather ham-fistedly ;%
I've often thought TLD was rather overrated by fans.
Don't get me wrong, its a solid film in the series with a good performance from Dalton but I've heard some call it a "masterpiece". It isn't IMO.
-Dud main bad guys who don't really leave an overall impression despite the actors good efforts.
-Rather convoluted main plot.
-Slightly too childish Bond girl.
And don't get me started on Monneypenny.
I'd still give it a 7/10 though as it does have some great moments (the plane fight being one).
Casino Royale, when I first saw the film at the cinema I really liked it, but like all Bond movies, upon further viwings, my opinion has changed. The film has a lot of flaws, the two biggest being the worlds worst casino card game and a love story I never bought.
It is a very different thing to say what your opinion is on the "most over-rated" film and the one you like least.
A lot of the posts seem to merge the two.
I could say what is my least fav, but next week or the week after it would be a different one.
As far as most over-rated, wow, I guess to me it would have to be DAD. Putting Madonna and Halle in it just seemed pretentious.
but I own it, and if it was on I would watch it any day
It is a very different thing to say what your opinion is on the "most over-rated" film and the one you like least.
A lot of the posts seem to merge the two.
I could say what is my least fav, but next week or the week after it would be a different one.
As far as most over-rated, wow, I guess to me it would have to be DAD. Putting Madonna and Halle in it just seemed pretentious.
but I own it, and if it was on I would watch it any day
I think GF belongs to another age, in that for me and my generation it's a great family Bond film, to be watched on telly in a laid-back, happy frame of mind. It's communal viewing and Bond's lack of urgency complements this. It's a happy occasion.
Nowadays fans watch the films alone on the DVD with the full cinema experience if possible. The more serious films like TLD and OHMSS benefit from this treatment, where you're alone and it doesn't matter if the jokes fall flat.
I have to say the cinematography from GF dates it a bit, it's okay but a bit jarring, not as smooth and lush as its successor TB.
I think GF belongs to another age, in that for me and my generation it's a great family Bond film, to be watched on telly in a laid-back, happy frame of mind. It's communal viewing and Bond's lack of urgency complements this. It's a happy occasion.
Nowadays fans watch the films alone on the DVD with the full cinema experience if possible. The more serious films like TLD and OHMSS benefit from this treatment, where you're alone and it doesn't matter if the jokes fall flat.
I have to say the cinematography from GF dates it a bit, it's okay but a bit jarring, not as smooth and lush as its successor TB.
I honestly don't think I could hang in there as a fan if I hated so many films in the series. As it is I don't much like Moonraker, and that's about it. Even that film has some redeeming points. I think it's time to call it a day and think of yourself as a Fleming literary fan Richard-W and not bother with anymore films - I think Bond 23 will only ever disapoint you.
It will probably will.
I don't hate "so many films in the series."
I've been going to Bond films since the summer of 1970 when the Connery films were re-released as double-features in the USA. I always left the Connery films feeling exhilarated, as did everyone in those days. A great many Bond fans were disappointed in the Roger Moore era. Personally, I'm a huge fan of Roger Moore, and his presence is what I like best about his films -- and the Maibaum element that survived in the scripts. The Moore films were a mixed bag for many fans; it got talked about a lot. There was usually more to enjoy than not. There is a huge difference between self-deprecation tongue-in-cheek and outright camp. Take TSWLM. I don't react well to self-ridicule, farce, and slapstick. Those elements have no business in a Bond film, and introducing them into the series was a mistake. Jaws obliterated any dramatic grounding or sense of risk the series had to offer. On one hand I could enjoy Maibaum's plot, the casting, the locations, M and Moneypenny, the stunning cinematography by Renoir, and of course Roger Moore and Catherine Bach, but then Jaws comes on, and it all goes to hell. So there are good things and bad things. In fact, the thread titles on this forum bear this out. So many threads about rating the films, how to change or improve or what should be done differently.
Casino Royale caused me to go back and re-evaluate the Bond films and my experience with them. I appreciate the earlier films more, the new films less. The Daniel Craig era is not for me. He's a fine actor, but that's not the point. There is an agenda at work in the new Bonds that I fundamentally disagree with, and I'm disappointed in Craig for selling it. I have lost respect for the producers. I can't help it. Casino Royale was too abrasive. Sure, the Bond films needed to change, but not this change.
I prefer the change that was made when Timothy Dalton came on board. He was a right and proper Bond, and he had two superb Maibaum scripts. That there were problems in the execution of his films is not his fault. Michael Wilson is a no-talent hack, and he should have left those scripts alone. John Glen is a stunt director and action co-ordinator, which is where his talent lies, but he is no dramatist. Those two scripts needed a real director, like Peter Hunt.
Richard
The top 7 Bond films: 1) Dr No. 2) From Russia With Love. 3) Thunderball. 4) On Her Majesty's Secret Service. 5) For Your Eyes Only. 6) The Living Daylights. 7) Licence to Kill.
I think GF belongs to another age, in that for me and my generation it's a great family Bond film, to be watched on telly in a laid-back, happy frame of mind. It's communal viewing and Bond's lack of urgency complements this. It's a happy occasion.
Nowadays fans watch the films alone on the DVD with the full cinema experience if possible. The more serious films like TLD and OHMSS benefit from this treatment, where you're alone and it doesn't matter if the jokes fall flat.
I have to say the cinematography from GF dates it a bit, it's okay but a bit jarring, not as smooth and lush as its successor TB.
Adults in 1964 were still adjusting to the use of the word "Pussy" as a woman's name. Times have changed. Perhaps now it doesn't seem risque and parents can watch it with their kids.
Love the color in Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and Thunderball. These films have a darker mood and atmosphere that seems right for espionage. Goldfinger is brighter and less subtle. Bond plays the role of a passive observer throughout much of the film. I agree with critics who think the film could be a lot tighter.
Richard
The top 7 Bond films: 1) Dr No. 2) From Russia With Love. 3) Thunderball. 4) On Her Majesty's Secret Service. 5) For Your Eyes Only. 6) The Living Daylights. 7) Licence to Kill.
I thought FOR YOUR EYES ONLY was brilliantly written by Richard Maibaum but ineptly executed by John Glenn, who wasn't ready to direct, and by Michael J. Wilson, who should have kept his hands off the script. It was a better script before he screwed it up.
The most over-rated Bond film is the first in the "Stop! Or My M. Will Shoot!" trilogy, CASINO ROYALE for reasons that have nothing to do with the casting. Fleming's subtext is replaced with an agenda, his story perverted in ways that are subtle and obvious. I don't buy into this new James Bond, not for an instant. It is a fraudulent and disingenuous Bond. How anyone can accept, let alone tolerate, the very idea that Bond is an uncouth idiot who has to be followed around the globe and taught how to be a better man by his M is beyond me. The film is an insult.
Richard
Wow...we are Mr Happy today....
If you think the films are that bad then I've no idea how you can stay a Bond fan and even less idea why you would post here
That's a nasty thing to say to a forum member, isn't it.
I never said all the films were that bad, just Casino Royale.
Since I like other Bond films, I remain a Bond fan.
Don't overlook the ton of criticism leveled at the films by other Bond fans on this forum.
The films are fair game for criticism, but putting down a forum member is inappropriate.
Richard
The top 7 Bond films: 1) Dr No. 2) From Russia With Love. 3) Thunderball. 4) On Her Majesty's Secret Service. 5) For Your Eyes Only. 6) The Living Daylights. 7) Licence to Kill.
I honestly don't think I could hang in there as a fan if I hated so many films in the series. As it is I don't much like Moonraker, and that's about it. Even that film has some redeeming points. I think it's time to call it a day and think of yourself as a Fleming literary fan Richard-W and not bother with anymore films - I think Bond 23 will only ever disapoint you.
Rot.
It is not necessary for you to tell me what I am or what I enjoy, thank you very much.
Casino Royale, when I first saw the film at the cinema I really liked it, but like all Bond movies, upon further viwings, my opinion has changed. The film has a lot of flaws, the two biggest being the worlds worst casino card game and a love story I never bought.
The love story kicks in rather abruptly about 90 minutes into the film. I don't find it convincing, either. It starts much sooner in the novel. It goes wrong at their first meeting on the train. Everyone really enjoys the banter between them, but the wrong things are emphasized, and new elements are being introduced that don't need to be there.
The most overrated Bond film? Definitely Casino Royale. Don't get me wrong, I loved it, but so many people think it has saved the Bond series, when the series was just fine before it's release.
It was doing well financially but there was such a horrendous backlash about DAD critically (just read the internet forums) that the producers had to change direction and fast.
One thing Cubby taught Barbara is listen to the fans.
Personally I think DAD is an abomination. A wart on the end of the nose of the franchise. A metaphorical dog turd that if the franchise had continued this way it would have easier to put out of its misery.
DAD doesn't seem to be very well-liked on this forum, or other forums.
At least it's in color. It's a talkie. It has exotic locations. Brosnan carries it well. It has a couple of beautiful women. These are virtues even though, as a Bond adventure, it stinks.
Richard
The top 7 Bond films: 1) Dr No. 2) From Russia With Love. 3) Thunderball. 4) On Her Majesty's Secret Service. 5) For Your Eyes Only. 6) The Living Daylights. 7) Licence to Kill.
I think Goldfinger is the most overrated, although there are a few scenes i love like the great PTS and the Miami hotel scene, the film just bores me, i feel that it lacks energy and doesn't really hold my interest for too long, but i can understand how most see it as the pinnacle of the Bond series.
I thought FOR YOUR EYES ONLY was brilliantly written by Richard Maibaum but ineptly executed by John Glenn, who wasn't ready to direct, and by Michael J. Wilson, who should have kept his hands off the script. It was a better script before he screwed it up.
The most over-rated Bond film is the first in the "Stop! Or My M. Will Shoot!" trilogy, CASINO ROYALE for reasons that have nothing to do with the casting. Fleming's subtext is replaced with an agenda, his story perverted in ways that are subtle and obvious. I don't buy into this new James Bond, not for an instant. It is a fraudulent and disingenuous Bond. How anyone can accept, let alone tolerate, the very idea that Bond is an uncouth idiot who has to be followed around the globe and taught how to be a better man by his M is beyond me. The film is an insult.
Richard
Wow...we are Mr Happy today....
If you think the films are that bad then I've no idea how you can stay a Bond fan and even less idea why you would post here
That's a nasty thing to say to a forum member, isn't it.
I never said all the films were that bad, just Casino Royale.
Since I like other Bond films, I remain a Bond fan.
Don't overlook the ton of criticism leveled at the films by other Bond fans on this forum.
The films are fair game for criticism, but putting down a forum member is inappropriate.
Richard
If thats your idea of nasty then you need to get out more 8-)
And the vast majority of your posts are negative....it just seems odd that you constantly criticise yet claim to be a Bond fan...which films do you like then ?
Who is overlooking the "ton of criticism leveled at the films by other Bond fans"...?...
And can you tell me where I put you down ?
The top 7 Bond films: 1) Dr No. 2) From Russia With Love. 3) Thunderball. 4) On Her Majesty's Secret Service. 5) For Your Eyes Only. 6) The Living Daylights. 7) Licence to Kill.
On this forum, OHMSS. Why? Because it's consistently rated as "perfect," which it's not. Exhibit A: Blofeld sitting in the front of the car wearing a neck brace while Irma Bunt (who never shows up again) pulls the trigger and kills Tracy. In the novel, Blofeld kills Tracy, and I think it worked a lot better in the novel. Exhibit B: Blofeld's character isn't fully explored/the wannabe aristocrat angle is hinted at, but not explained. Exhibit C: When I first watched that film objectively and after having read the novel, I was waiting for at least A BIT more complex of an explanation as to how Blofeld's techniques in hypnotism worked, as well.
But in general, I'll agree with the above and put it as FYEO in general.
Casino Royale, IMDB points 8.0, the highest of all Bond films. I liked this movie, but to be the honest I wouldn't consider it as the best of alltime Bonds. Definitely most overrated. Just a while ago I watched Goldfinger and I still think it's one of the best. I'll watch Goldfinger anyday rather than Casino Royale. I consider the first 3 James Bond movies as they're rated out there, not overrated at all.
I find Richard W's account of the making of FYEO revelatory and fascinating, can I ask where you get your info? It rings true and all that Bibi stuff was toe-curling, odd in that it feels worse to me than anything off MR, the previous film. Even then, the same script could be made brilliant, for instance if it were made clear that Kristatos would beat to a bloody pulp and torture any man who touched Bibi, in a Marcellus Wallace sort of way, hence Bond's refusal would have an edge to it, rather than being just a prissy David Niven in Casino Royale type scene.
I find Richard W's account of the making of FYEO revelatory and fascinating, can I ask where you get your info?
Especially since Richard Maibaum in numerous published sources said that he and Wilson wrote the script together, side-by-side, which was the first time he'd ever done such a collaboration. We had another member who used to expound the same "Wilson ruined Maibaum's script" argument (what was his name again? Rick? Ricardo?), but it wasn't his lack of real, documented hard evidence that got him in trouble at AJB. . .
In any case, I too have thought about reediting FYEO, not least with a John Barry soundtrack, maybe the one off The Specialist. Keep the theme song, add All the Right Places to it at some point (maybe with Lisl scene), edit down the jokey Blofeld pay off. Cut out the crap jokes.
Comments
You think ? Have you read his posts ? Go on, read 'em....out of 38 posts there are only about 4 that aren't a complaint about the series !
I really don't have any problems with differing opinions....I'm perfectly happy to hear all well thought out and balanced opinions....but a constant tirade just becomes boring....sorry...
I think think it's because he's anti-Bond per se (of course not!), more that he's a Fleming fundamentalist of the most hardcore kind. Real fire-and-brimstone 300-ciggies-a-day stuff.
So, have YOU accepted the Lord Ian as your personal Saviour?
Maybe he should post in the literary forum then...?...instead of getting upset at the films...
http://apbateman.com
I'm not a big fan of the Literary Bond, I've read all the books ( even the dreadful R Benson's ) several times But it's the Movies I love. And being a fan I still watch QOS from time to time trying to find what others see in it, Because deep down I want to like them all.
Who knows some day I'll have an Epiphany and Everthing will fall into place and I'll be a convert
http://apbateman.com
I guess the above point is what I was trying to get across....just rather ham-fistedly ;%
Don't get me wrong, its a solid film in the series with a good performance from Dalton but I've heard some call it a "masterpiece". It isn't IMO.
-Dud main bad guys who don't really leave an overall impression despite the actors good efforts.
-Rather convoluted main plot.
-Slightly too childish Bond girl.
And don't get me started on Monneypenny.
I'd still give it a 7/10 though as it does have some great moments (the plane fight being one).
A lot of the posts seem to merge the two.
I could say what is my least fav, but next week or the week after it would be a different one.
As far as most over-rated, wow, I guess to me it would have to be DAD. Putting Madonna and Halle in it just seemed pretentious.
but I own it, and if it was on I would watch it any day
-{ cheers
I think GF belongs to another age, in that for me and my generation it's a great family Bond film, to be watched on telly in a laid-back, happy frame of mind. It's communal viewing and Bond's lack of urgency complements this. It's a happy occasion.
Nowadays fans watch the films alone on the DVD with the full cinema experience if possible. The more serious films like TLD and OHMSS benefit from this treatment, where you're alone and it doesn't matter if the jokes fall flat.
I have to say the cinematography from GF dates it a bit, it's okay but a bit jarring, not as smooth and lush as its successor TB.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
It will probably will.
I don't hate "so many films in the series."
I've been going to Bond films since the summer of 1970 when the Connery films were re-released as double-features in the USA. I always left the Connery films feeling exhilarated, as did everyone in those days. A great many Bond fans were disappointed in the Roger Moore era. Personally, I'm a huge fan of Roger Moore, and his presence is what I like best about his films -- and the Maibaum element that survived in the scripts. The Moore films were a mixed bag for many fans; it got talked about a lot. There was usually more to enjoy than not. There is a huge difference between self-deprecation tongue-in-cheek and outright camp. Take TSWLM. I don't react well to self-ridicule, farce, and slapstick. Those elements have no business in a Bond film, and introducing them into the series was a mistake. Jaws obliterated any dramatic grounding or sense of risk the series had to offer. On one hand I could enjoy Maibaum's plot, the casting, the locations, M and Moneypenny, the stunning cinematography by Renoir, and of course Roger Moore and Catherine Bach, but then Jaws comes on, and it all goes to hell. So there are good things and bad things. In fact, the thread titles on this forum bear this out. So many threads about rating the films, how to change or improve or what should be done differently.
Casino Royale caused me to go back and re-evaluate the Bond films and my experience with them. I appreciate the earlier films more, the new films less. The Daniel Craig era is not for me. He's a fine actor, but that's not the point. There is an agenda at work in the new Bonds that I fundamentally disagree with, and I'm disappointed in Craig for selling it. I have lost respect for the producers. I can't help it. Casino Royale was too abrasive. Sure, the Bond films needed to change, but not this change.
I prefer the change that was made when Timothy Dalton came on board. He was a right and proper Bond, and he had two superb Maibaum scripts. That there were problems in the execution of his films is not his fault. Michael Wilson is a no-talent hack, and he should have left those scripts alone. John Glen is a stunt director and action co-ordinator, which is where his talent lies, but he is no dramatist. Those two scripts needed a real director, like Peter Hunt.
Richard
Adults in 1964 were still adjusting to the use of the word "Pussy" as a woman's name. Times have changed. Perhaps now it doesn't seem risque and parents can watch it with their kids.
Love the color in Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and Thunderball. These films have a darker mood and atmosphere that seems right for espionage. Goldfinger is brighter and less subtle. Bond plays the role of a passive observer throughout much of the film. I agree with critics who think the film could be a lot tighter.
Richard
That's a nasty thing to say to a forum member, isn't it.
I never said all the films were that bad, just Casino Royale.
Since I like other Bond films, I remain a Bond fan.
Don't overlook the ton of criticism leveled at the films by other Bond fans on this forum.
The films are fair game for criticism, but putting down a forum member is inappropriate.
Richard
Rot.
It is not necessary for you to tell me what I am or what I enjoy, thank you very much.
The love story kicks in rather abruptly about 90 minutes into the film. I don't find it convincing, either. It starts much sooner in the novel. It goes wrong at their first meeting on the train. Everyone really enjoys the banter between them, but the wrong things are emphasized, and new elements are being introduced that don't need to be there.
DAD doesn't seem to be very well-liked on this forum, or other forums.
At least it's in color. It's a talkie. It has exotic locations. Brosnan carries it well. It has a couple of beautiful women. These are virtues even though, as a Bond adventure, it stinks.
Richard
If thats your idea of nasty then you need to get out more 8-)
And the vast majority of your posts are negative....it just seems odd that you constantly criticise yet claim to be a Bond fan...which films do you like then ?
Who is overlooking the "ton of criticism leveled at the films by other Bond fans"...?...
And can you tell me where I put you down ?
Let's not frighten the fish.
But in general, I'll agree with the above and put it as FYEO in general.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Especially since Richard Maibaum in numerous published sources said that he and Wilson wrote the script together, side-by-side, which was the first time he'd ever done such a collaboration. We had another member who used to expound the same "Wilson ruined Maibaum's script" argument (what was his name again? Rick? Ricardo?), but it wasn't his lack of real, documented hard evidence that got him in trouble at AJB. . .
I thought I'd recognised the speech style...
He's got more incarnations that actors who play Blofeld.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Roger Moore 1927-2017