Movies you've seen recently... (23 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Boksic

Senior Member
May 11, 2005
14,324
Okay, I have to say this cause you people are relentless. Now, I realize that Bond started in the 60s and we didn't have a long history of film making back then. But at least now, in 2008, we know something, we've learned something.

A movie based on a book is not made for the people who love the book. There, I said it. I think we've seen time and time again that a movie that tries to stay true to the story in a novel ends up being deeply flawed in all sorts of ways. It's like trying to flush your cat down the toilet, it's possible (I assume) but noone would admire you for it. The movie is made for a different audience, a new one, a larger one. It gives people who never heard about the book a chance to enjoy the story, not the exact same story, but a similar story.

So Broccoli didn't make Bond like Ian Flemming wrote. Why would I care? I saw the movies, I liked them, especially as a teenager, that's really all I need to know. I haven't read the books and I have no plans to read them. The movies themselves make a perfectly good foundations to base opinions about Bond on
I agree with you, a movie doesn't need to stick to the book and in most cases I find movies to be better than the original books!

I'm just saying I liked Dalton's Bond and found him bringing the character back to its original roots refreshing after Roger Moore who was far more camp/lighthearted. Its strange that Craig receives such rave reviews for doing such a thing when Dalton did it.


you didn't like his personality?
No I didn't like how he played Bond, i don't really like Brosnan anyway. But the main problem for me was that the films were terrible. They relied on way too many cliches, many of them too far fetched. I remember one seen where he was falling off a cliff one minute and then starting surfing to safety on some object (i can't remember what it was, but it did not seem like you could surf on it)
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
I agree with you, a movie doesn't need to stick to the book and in most cases I find movies to be better than the original books!

I'm just saying I liked Dalton's Bond and found him bringing the character back to its original roots refreshing after Roger Moore who was far more camp/lighthearted. Its strange that Craig receives such rave reviews for doing such a thing when Dalton did it.
I think Dalton's biggest flaw was a lack of charisma. At least to me that is hugely important for the Bond character. And he came shortly after Moore so the contrast was huge. Obviously Craig doesn't have any either, but then Dalton at least had class and didn't speak cockney.
 

Boksic

Senior Member
May 11, 2005
14,324
I think Dalton's biggest flaw was a lack of charisma. At least to me that is hugely important for the Bond character. And he came shortly after Moore so the contrast was huge. Obviously Craig doesn't have any either, but then Dalton at least had class and didn't speak cockney.
I would agree Moore was more charasmatic, as this was a key trait that his character relied on and Dalton took on a more angry, darker role. Like you said the contrast was huge which is probably the main thing that I like about Bond under Dalton as I found it refreshing to see such a big change in playing such a character.
 

Bozi

The Bozman
Administrator
Oct 18, 2005
22,747
I am with boksic on this one! For me the bond movies under Moore were so over the top and camp that it was hard to take seriously. After connery it seemed to stop being a thriller and more like a set of 'carry on spying' movies! The problem is that everyone took this formula as the template for future bond movies. Both Dalton and Craig have addded their own style to the role, added a grit to the role that makes bond a far more realistic character, albeit a less likeable one.
I for one, think that these bond movies are far more enjoyable than the dross that we witnessed with Moore and brosnan.

Martin, you are normally very critical of movies and generally have high standards but anyone who thinks Moore is a better bond than sir Sean is a bit mental
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
Martin, you are normally very critical of movies and generally have high standards but anyone who thinks Moore is a better bond than sir Sean is a bit mental
Depends on whom Bond is to you, doesn't it? I just wrote up my fresh thesis about the notion of films standing for themselves. :p

The only reason everyone loves Sean is because he came first and you know it. First impressions, in my case Moore.
 

Il Re

-- 10 --
Jan 13, 2005
4,031
i agree the brosnan films wern't great, BUT i thought Goldeneye was decent, was interesting, and the villain of 006 Alec trevelyan (Sean Bean) was good, someone who could match up to Bond in every way, rather than poofy peodophiles who scream like a girl
 

Bozi

The Bozman
Administrator
Oct 18, 2005
22,747
Depends on whom Bond is to you, doesn't it? I just wrote up my fresh thesis about the notion of films standing for themselves. :p

The only reason everyone loves Sean is because he came first and you know it. First impressions, in my case Moore.
no i just thought that the Moore films were a bit too much like a farce than a serious film that Connery,Dalton and Craig have been in. while the Moore Bond films are certainly enjoyable romps they are also instantly forgettable, Connery had the mad,bad and crazy villains also but,for me, they were spy film first while the Moore films were madcap comic adventures of James Bond,spy,lover,playboy
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
Instantly forgettable? I think the Moore ones were some of the best productions of all in terms of plot and grandiosity. Take A view to a kill, the fabulous French palace, the ending in San Francisco with the mine and the golden gate. Max Zorin lovable too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 23)