Not another James Bond poll...

Don't agree one bit about GoldenEye

and I see your Jonathan Pryce and raise you, Joe Don Baker, Christopher Walken (how can someone that good f*ck up so badly), Toby Stephens (though hardly the worst thing in that film) Charles Gray (a camp Blofeld?)
 
To be honest, I thought Goldeneye looked dated when it opened. It was hailed as a "Bond for the Nineties" by lazy journalists who didn't realise it was more of a "Bond for the Seventies". It stuck very closely to the formula established by The Spy Who Loved Me and for me, was more of a retrograde step than a move forward.

Good to see the series back on track now though. Regarding the original post, I don't have any favourite Bond actor, just favourite Bond films as every actor made a combination of great films and stinkers.

Incidentally, I stand by the idea there is a rule that any actor's third Bond is his best. Connery's was Goldfinger, Moore's was The Spy Who Loved Me, Dalton never made it unfortunately and Brosnan's third was The World Is Not Enough (controversial that one I know but it is my pick of his BonRAB).

So I'm really waiting for Daniel Craig's next Bond film!
 
DepenRAB if you have a limited imagination and assume you know what I find wrong with it.

The basic concept is fine and as a template for future films I have no problem, however I find certain things just horrendous in the execution.

1/ The misogyny is as bad as Bond films ever got - he's practically turning a lesbian at one point, and completely undermines what would else have been a strong female character.
2/ The dubbing is dreadful, there are times when it is glaringly obvious leading to...
3/ I don't rate Gert Frobe at all.
4/ Worst class snobbery in the series
5/ Least favorite Felix (by a distance)
6/ Can't stand the hooRAB convention scene
7/ One of the few films I actually don't like the character of Bond in

also there's a few minor quibbles I've got with it, but thats probably something they couldn't get away from with 60's technology.
 
The problem I actually have with Brosnan's era is that it seemed to me to be an attempt to mix the best of the Connery era with the best of the Moore era. Personally I think they got away with it for his first two films but started to wain with TWINE and fell apart completely for DAD
 
I always think of Spy Who Loved Me as kicking off the modern era of Bond. The producers realised they were sinking gradually when Golden Gun flopped so took an extra year off and completely revamped the series.

Spy Who Loved Me established the idea of opening with a spectacular pre-title action set-piece, something that hadn't really happened before. Previously it was just a bit of a fist fight or something equally trivial. Now Bond wouldn't be Bond without its pre-title action (which is why the opening of World Is Not Enough had to be extended to include the boat chase).

I think the attitudes towarRAB women changed from then onwarRAB as well, making them less of a burden (as in Mary Goodnight in Golden Gun) and more capable of taking care of themselves. They tried to give them proper jobs rather than just being women he picked up along the way.

For me, Live and Let Die and Golden Gun are very seventies but the jump to Spy Who Loved Me is very noticeable.
 
He is unfairly judged. One film is (the world is....sorry silly joke) not enough to give a final judgement.

If connery never made another after Dr No would he still be so high in the ratings? I doubt it, just another "interesting" role from the 1960's.

In my opinion Lazenby did an excellent job. He was not a superman or an emotionless robot, but had real feelings just like Fleming's literary creation. James Bond is Fleming's boy, not Broccolli's. His last scene with Dame Diana were superb. OHMSS although flawed is seen by many more people today as one of the best, from the opening credit sequence, the fight scenes, especially the concluding attack on Piz Gloria right up to the portrayal of a doomed love affair. The follow on film was very very poor in contrast and although Connery is on the search for Blofeld in the opening, he does not put much effort into the role of a man out for revenge.

And if anyone has a go at me for spoiling the film, it has been out since 1969.
 
The Felix in DiamonRAB Are Forever was also on a par in the lousy stakes I'd say.

Didn't they cast such an old goat because they were worried Jack Lord would steal some of Connery's thunder?
 
The Felixes are always rubbish, I think because they definitely didn't want someone taking the shine off Bond - the only one where they've made him seem like a halfway decent agent is Casino Royale, he actually has some balls. The one in The Living Daylights is hilarious - looks like he's just come from his day job modelling for 'Man at C&A'.
 
Don't wish your life away. It goes quick enough.



Way to go, spoiling the film for everyone. :mad:



Yeah, I really like the Felix in Casino Royale. Before then, he was always kind if a nothing character. But that's one reason I liked the new Bond. I liked the fact that he didn't do it all on his own, by being clever. He gets help left, right and centre, be it from Felix, his beatch, M, or the tech ops people back in Blighty. It's more realistic, and adRAB to the depth of the character. He's not superman, and I like that. I even like the fact that (Casino Royale spoiler):

He doesn't stop Le Chiffre himself, with some gadget from Q Branch. He gets rescued by other people.
 
Back
Top