U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-08-2015, 05:04 PM
 
2,029 posts, read 1,429,792 times
Reputation: 3030

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayJayCB View Post
Moonraker and Octopussy were both pretty stupid, though. Same with A View To A Kill although Christopher Walken and Grace Jones are pretty cool.
I like Moonraker and Octopussy. A View To A Kill is arguably the worst Bond ever. But then again, so is Diamonds Are Forever, with Connery.

I think most of the Bond acters have had at least one stinker, with the exception of Lazenby, who got a great movie on his first and only turn as Bond, and Dalton who only did two, but they were two solid ones.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-08-2015, 06:39 PM
 
7,897 posts, read 3,724,574 times
Reputation: 10385
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
When I was growing up as a kid, it seemed that everyone loved Roger Moore. In fact, no one even wanted to talk about Sean Connery. He was that guy from the "old" films that weren't nearly as exciting as the new ones which Moore was in. The RM movies were always huge blockbusters.

But nowadays, it seems like Connery's films have become even more popular than Moore.

Is this true? What gives?
Last time I read a poll on favorite 007's it was the following order;

1)Connery
2)Moore
3)Brosnan
4)Craig
5)Lazenby
6)Dalton
That of course is not including the older guys in the original Casino Royale like Niven or Nelson.

In my view both Connery & Moore are interchangeable at #1 for different reasons. Connery was more aggressive with the women and had the it factor, therefore has a slight edge. Still Moore had more humor and sophistication. He had the misfortune of getting the role when he was already older than you'd expect 007 to be.
In my view he stayed too long and a few of the films like Moonraker were over the top. Yet he ended well with A View To A Kill.

I also find Brosnan and Craig to be able to stake a claim for 3rd, again for very different reasons. Brosnan seemed made for the part with his looks and attitude. Craig brings a raw magnetism to the role, but in my view he is not sophisticated enough. So I give a slight edge to Brosnan.

The rest are forgettable, but still had the distinction of playing one of the coolest characters ever written about and put on the big screen.

`
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2015, 07:21 PM
 
2,029 posts, read 1,429,792 times
Reputation: 3030
Another reason why Moore was a great Bond:

Only Moore could pull off over the top movies like Moonraker and Octopussy and make them entertaining and enjoyable.

On the other hand, I can think of quite a few Bond movies where you could have replaced the Bond actor with another one and they would have either been just as good or better. Ones like The Living Daylights, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and Goldeneye come to mind. Not that those three were bad, because they are three of my favorites and are generally well regarded. It's just that those movies weren't good solely BECAUSE of who the Bond actor was (especially not OHMSS), while Roger Moore had so much charisma, screen presence, and star power that he often made the movies he was in good/entertaining, even if the scripts were over the top or a bit silly at times.

Moore LOVED being James Bond, and it always came across on screen. I think that's one reason why he was able to connect with audiences so well during his tenure as Bond, which would explain why he was so popular during his time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2015, 06:29 AM
 
Location: Maine
15,072 posts, read 19,718,275 times
Reputation: 17188
The problem with a lot of the Brosnan flicks and both the Dalton flicks was not the actors. Both Brosnan and Dalton made great Bonds. The problem was that the scripts were so awful.

The Dalton flicks committed the ultimate Bond sin in that they were boring. A Bond movie can be bad in many ways, but the one badness you can never forgive is boredom.

Brosnan had some really good Bond movies, but they got progressively more and more ridiculous as they went on. Kite-surfing a tsunami? Really?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2015, 08:47 AM
 
2,029 posts, read 1,429,792 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
The problem with a lot of the Brosnan flicks and both the Dalton flicks was not the actors. Both Brosnan and Dalton made great Bonds. The problem was that the scripts were so awful.

The Dalton flicks committed the ultimate Bond sin in that they were boring. A Bond movie can be bad in many ways, but the one badness you can never forgive is boredom.

Brosnan had some really good Bond movies, but they got progressively more and more ridiculous as they went on. Kite-surfing a tsunami? Really?
That's why I said Moore was really the only Bond who could take a bad script and still shine and make the movie he was starring in enjoyable. What other Bond actor could make a movie about Bond going to space and still make it entertaining?

Also, the Living Daylights was a really good Bond film that had many of the classic Bond elements, and License To Kill was not an entirely bad concept itself. It's just that Dalton was boring (not BAD, just boring).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2015, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Miami, FL
8,088 posts, read 7,311,669 times
Reputation: 6650
Roger Moore brought humor to the role and of course Sean Connery's more brutal depiction of an Alpha Male is what is popular now. I mean the in your face approach.

Personally I loved Man with the Golden Gun, Live and Let Die, Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only, etc. Although the later films are fairly weak. I mean Christopher Walken as a bad guy should rank as one of the best Bond films but I find nothing memorable about it. Well, except Walken gunning down his own workers with maniacal laughter.

I just read a bit more. Timothy Dalton I thought was an excellent Bond. I recall critics said he always looked like he was working on a Calculus exercise. I thought he brought back some of the Sean Connery attitude. License to Kill was excellent. I think Living Daylights could have had a tighter script.

I disliked Brosnan although find him quite good now, November Man, etc. As I wrote in the other post, I think a strong female M hurt Bond.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2015, 12:19 AM
 
2,029 posts, read 1,429,792 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
Roger Moore brought humor to the role and of course Sean Connery's more brutal depiction of an Alpha Male is what is popular now. I mean the in your face approach.

Personally I loved Man with the Golden Gun, Live and Let Die, Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only, etc. Although the later films are fairly weak. I mean Christopher Walken as a bad guy should rank as one of the best Bond films but I find nothing memorable about it. Well, except Walken gunning down his own workers with maniacal laughter.
Yep, that's exactly what it is: The lighthearted, humorous approach was in when Moore was playing Bond, and he excelled at that approach, so he was extremely popular as Bond during his time and so were his Bond movies. But dark and gritty heroes are all the rage now, so it has become popular to trash Moore and his Bond movies now in hindsight since his take on Bond is currently out of style for the moment.

Personally, I can enjoy different takes on Bond instead of just being beholden to one take by one actor, so I love Moore as Bond and enjoy most of his movies. Moonraker () is my favorite Moore movie and I also love Octopussy (again, ) and The Spy Who Loved Me. A View to a Kill and the second half of For Your Eyes Only are boring as all get out, though, and put me to sleep.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
I just read a bit more. Timothy Dalton I thought was an excellent Bond. I recall critics said he always looked like he was working on a Calculus exercise. I thought he brought back some of the Sean Connery attitude. License to Kill was excellent. I think Living Daylights could have had a tighter script.
Timothy Dalton is probably the best---as in most talented---actor to ever play Bond. But with that being said, I can see why his take on Bond wasn't very popular at the time. Dalton's strengths were his physical and emotional intensity and how well he conveyed a wide range of emotions with his facial expressions. That no doubt came from his fine theatrical training. But he also lacked the screen presence and leading man charisma that other Bonds before him who were more MOVIE stars---like Connery and Moore---had.

Also, people always talk about how it's "a shame" that Daniel Craig is so popular as Bond when Dalton played Bond in same vein 25 years earlier but never got any credit for it. But the difference to me isn't that people still wanted to see a lighthearted, humorous Roger Moore type Bond by the late 80's, like many people claim; we know that's not true because the 80's were all about big, kill-happy, serious action stars, so if anything, Dalton's brand of Bond fit right into the decade and should have helped the Bond franchise keep up with the times. The big difference, though, is that unlike Craig's Bond, when Dalton decided to do a darker, more serious take on Bond that was closer to the literary version, the writers, directors, and producers were not really on the same page with Dalton, which made Dalton's seriousness and intensity stick out and look out of place and over the top, even for an 80's action movie.

For example, it didn't help that The Living Daylights---while one of my personal favorite Bond movies---was shot from a generic script that had been rewritten from being tailored to Roger Moore if he returned for one more movie and again from being tailored to Pierce Bronsan if he accepted the role like he was originally set to do; they basically didn't know who would be playing Bond by the time the final script was done, so the script was not tailored to Dalton's strengths as an actor or how he wanted to play Bond. Also, once the writers, producers, and directors finally claimed they understood that Dalton was going for a darker, more serious Bond who was close to the one from the Flemming books, they did seem to come up with a somewhat darker than usual plot for License to Kill (Friend maimed and his wife raped and killed, Bond seeks revenge, faces South American drug lord). However, the end result was very uneven and they undermined Dalton's attempt at a dark and gritty Flemming-esque OO7 at every turn, but adding silly stuff like Q following him around in the field half the movie making lame jokes, some of the silliest gadgets of the entire franchise, and Wayne Newton's character .

Moreover, the movie was also cheaply made and had very poor production quality, including laughable set pieces and props and plenty low budget camera work, which gave it sort of a made for TV feel instead of the high quality production that people had come to expect from a Bond film, gritty script or not. Definitely wasn't enough to compete with stuff like Batman and Lethal Weapon 2, which both had huge budgets and plenty of promotion and were also out the same summer as License to Kill.

So yeah, poor Tim Dalton had a LOT working against him during his tenure as OO7.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
I disliked Brosnan although find him quite good now, November Man, etc. As I wrote in the other post, I think a strong female M hurt Bond.
Aside from most of his movies being forgettable and cliched, I think Brosnan was pretty middle of the pack, if anything. At the time, people cut Brosnan a lot of slack as Bond because he had FINALLY gotten the role after Remington Steele unfairly kept him from signing on as Bond years prior, and because he LOOKED like a Bond. But as far as his acting goes, I thought he played it extremely safe as Bond---doing a mix of the two most popular Bonds at the time, Connery and Moore---and didn't really bring anything unique of his own to the role. Even George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton brought their own unique strengths to the character. Brosnan, however, brought nothing but his James Bondish looks and copied other people's takes on the character. He did it well, but I'm just saying!!!

Last edited by Tex Luthor; 04-12-2015 at 12:31 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2015, 07:11 PM
 
26,163 posts, read 14,453,442 times
Reputation: 17235
Smile  

Quote:
Originally Posted by blkgiraffe
Connery overall is the better actor.
Ya I agree....... The movie YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE is K-RAD!!!!!!


However I have 3 movies from Mr. Moore which are amazing also!!

1) For your eyes only
2) A view to a kill (His last one)
3) Octopussy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2015, 02:37 PM
 
18,107 posts, read 16,448,492 times
Reputation: 9747
Moore's films had some great plots, the best soundtracks and great villains( until the last one or two). Connery's films were more low budget and less spectacular and relied more on him to carry the story along.
Pierce Brosnan made a good Bond but never had the plots or the soundtrack hits.
Woody Allen, David Niven and Peter Sellers all made outstanding Bonds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 01:32 AM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
8,853 posts, read 4,823,610 times
Reputation: 7680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentallect View Post
..........Also, the Living Daylights was a really good Bond film that had many of the classic Bond elements, and License To Kill was not an entirely bad concept itself. It's just that Dalton was boring (not BAD, just boring).
Well, that's one the unusual aspects about a Bond flick in that it is a spy flick that is not really spy flick. How Timothy Dalton appeared in "The Living Daylights" might be compared to, gadgets aside, a Harry Palmer flick or to "Innocent Bystanders" (violence aside).

It works in those flicks (for as far as they went); it does not necessarily work in a Bond flick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icy Tea View Post
...........Woody Allen, David Niven and Peter Sellers all made outstanding Bonds.
I would agree with that partially, especially Sellers once he got to the table. But.....Terence Cooper was the most impressive of them all!

Two things.

First of all, does it change one's acceptance of the flick if they have read the story first? Granted, hardly any Bond flick is like the book (though OHMSS comes the closest), but if one knows the book, does it change it? For example, having read the short story "The Living Daylights", I could see the source in it.

Secondly, Bond flicks are often the exception in so many ways such as there usually isn't much guess work to who the villain is, either for the audience or for Bond. He is usually sent out or at least finds himself straight on the path to who the bad guy is. Such as the enemy making himself apparent right off by having the stuffing beaten out of our hero such as in "Tomorrow Never Dies" (or lightly torturing him such as in the book Live and Let Die).

Part of that, audience wise, is due to production costs. The bad guy is usually a leading actor, a well known name in the credits, so the audience can usually put those two and two together.

It doesn't always happen, at least not cleanly, but usually. Ie,

Dr. No....probably not on either side (audience/Bond) but it was the first movie

From Russia with Love....yes with the audience, no with Bond

Goldfinger.......yes on both

Thunderball........yes with the audience and just about as quick with Bond

You Only Live Twice.......yes with both but it was drawn out

OHMSS.........yes with both but Bond "knew" it sooner

Diamonds are Forever...........that's one flick which is more of a No. Charles Gray may not have been as famous in 1971 as he is now so killing him off in the teaser, like the same with Michael Billington in TSWLM, could be accepted, maybe, as the end of him in the flick.

Live and Let Die........yes with the audience and pretty quick with Bond

TMWTGG.......yes with the audience. Production/story wise with Bond, it has a nice series of detective work and twists so not to follow the same straight forward path. Yes, Bond knew who the villain was right off but only to find that he wasn't but then again, he was.

The Spy Who Loved Me.....yes with the audience, iffy with Bond though it was more luck than detective work of him figuring out who the crook was

Moonraker....yes on both

For Your Eyes Only.....no on both; took rather a while to id the crook

Octopussy......yes on both

A View to a Kill.......yes on both

The Living Daylights.........took a while on both to figure that one out

Licence to Kill.......yes on both

GoldenEye...........Unlike DAF, Sean Bean was rather well known by then, so it might have been a pretty good stretch for the audience not to suspect him, but 007 was decently surprised

Tomorrow Never Dies.......yes on both

The World is Not Enough............no on both when it came to Elektra....but it probably should have been suspected since 007 was led right up the garden path to her. Renard was rather quick.

Die Another Day..............rather quickly for both audience and Bond

That ends it here since I stopped watching Bond after the reboot.

That's a Bond movie for one.......they aren't written like Alistair MacLean books like Puppet on a Chain or The Black Shrike.

Last edited by TamaraSavannah; 04-17-2015 at 01:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top