Most Overrated "Recent" Bond Movie.

[trevanian]

I'm surprised at how many people feel that CR was overrated. To me it was a true return to form for the franchise and most certainly a Bond movie through and through. The thing to remember, and maybe that's part of the issue, is that this is a modern Bond. Much as many of the Bond's that came before it, it's a child of its time. And because it's not desperately trying to be something that was cool or ok a few decades ok (e.g. what DAD was doing) I think it succeeds.

I think CR's success is all smoke&mirrors. I've only loved Bond films from the 60s and 80s (Connery and Dalton), and think some are only worthwhile for production design by Ken Adam, but CR fails on every level for me, because there's no reason to buy into this guy being so immature at his age. He has issues with hot-blooded kills but is fine with the cold-blooded ones? That just makes this guy a weird-eyed psycho, and unless they call him Bond-DEXTER Bond, it won't play for me.

 

[MyCylon]

^
Interesting. I'm not sure what you mean about "hot-blooded kills". What examples do you have for hot-blooded and cold-blooded ones in CR?

I thought Craig is pretty spot on in his portrayel of how I'd imagine an agent like this. He is a bit of a psycho since I don't see any other way a human being with a sense of morality and a conscience could handle having to eliminate people the way Bond does.
In that sense I'd almost argue that (nearly) all the previous Bonds came across even more as psychos since they'd often have a grin or make a funny remark after they'd just killed somebody.
In CR, it ain't no fun. Which is the way it should be, really. IMHO.

 

[Starkers]

I think the point is that he's calm when shotting someone, but get all cut up when he's strangled/drowned someone. To be honest i makes sense to me. Shotting someone is clean and clinical, its easier (I imagine) to distance yourself from the act of murder, whereas its a lot harder to do when you've strnagled a guy with your bare hands. Of course he stabs Demitrious and doesn't seem cut up about it.

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

I have not seen Daniel Craig's movies yet. I enjoyed--but did not love--all of Pierce Brosnan's films, but did not think any were particularly overrated. The World is Not Enough is the one I found least engaging. Die Another Day was absurd, but far more fun than its predecessor.

 

[CaptJimboJones]

I don't think any of these films are overrated, frankly. But then I'm a huge Bond fan, and find lots to enjoy even in the crappiest of 007 films (I think the first half of the stinker "Moonraker" is actually pretty good, for example, and I LOVE the opening of the otherwise dreadful "Die Another Day.").

 

[MyCylon]

I think the point is that he's calm when shotting someone, but get all cut up when he's strangled/drowned someone. To be honest i makes sense to me. Shotting someone is clean and clinical, its easier (I imagine) to distance yourself from the act of murder, whereas its a lot harder to do when you've strnagled a guy with your bare hands. Of course he stabs Demitrious and doesn't seem cut up about it.

Ok, I see (if that is the point). Yes, I'd imagine there's quite a difference between pulling a trigger and fighting somebody so close up the way Bond does at the beginning of CR. It's no sudden death - it's a violent, painful struggle.
As to why it's easier with Dimitrios, maybe because there's more urgency, the stakes are higher at that point. Also, this isn't his first time anymore.
I have to say I don't really remember when exactly all the bits and pieces took place. But I do think that was later on in the movie.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Although, he seems far more shaken up when he strangles those African rebels in the stairwell than he did during his second kill when he shot the former MI6 section chief in the prologue.

 

[trevanian]

I think the point is that he's calm when shotting someone, but get all cut up when he's strangled/drowned someone. To be honest i makes sense to me. Shotting someone is clean and clinical, its easier (I imagine) to distance yourself from the act of murder, whereas its a lot harder to do when you've strnagled a guy with your bare hands. Of course he stabs Demitrious and doesn't seem cut up about it.

I'm taking it from the point of view of how Dalton and Connery USUALLY (not always) played it, and from what I took out of the Fleming novels.

Bond usually enjoys fights, and gets satisfaction from a hands-on hotblooded kill, something that doesn't seem too sociopathic.

With Craig, he seems to have difficulty dealing with the bloody reality of death, the first thing he should NOT have a problem with, given his sociopathic behavior most of the time. But while he seems fine when dispatching the guy in the office at the beginning and the unarmed guy after the run jump chase, he seems all shook up after the staircase and the toilet guy. I know they're trying to make him more 'human' but they're trying to have their cake and eat it too, and for me, Craig's Bond (which is as much Paul Haggis' Bond at this point) just seems like an immature brat and a psycho. If they cast him younger, I could buy the immaturity, but Craig? uh-uh.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Quite a backlash against Casino Royale, but I wouldn't be surprised that a stripped down movie that is somewhat atypical for a Bond movie (like Dr. No, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, or License to Kill) would not be to everyone's taste.

Dr. No is deathly dull in places. And while it's certainly not as fantastic as Moonraker or Die Another Day, I find Dr. No himself, in particular, to be pretty silly.
License to Kill failed to hold my attention in any way. However, Dalton's 1st stripped down movie, The Living Daylights, is one of my favorites.

I've yet to go to the QoS Discussion thread till I see the movie. I had hoped it would be better than the overrated Roayle but reviews like this keep popping up. Then I heard that BBC radio commentator just rake it over the coals.

I'm never prone to let critics tell me what to see. I will see it but hope I see it differently than they do. I so want a better Bond movie than I was last given.

The 2 reviews I've read here in the local papers have been split. The guy from The Arizona Republic loved it. The guy from the New Times thought it was hyperactive garbage. But then, I think I have far different expectations than either of these 2 critics because both of them loved Casino Royale. (The New Times guy said it just barely fell short of eclipsing From Russia With Love has his favorite 007 flick.)

 

[MyCylon]

Although, he seems far more shaken up when he strangles those African rebels in the stairwell than he did during his second kill when he shot the former MI6 section chief in the prologue.

I remember that scene being very intense. In that case, it's not just one on one. He has to deal with two(?) guys at the same time. Plus Vesper is there which might have changed things for him.

I'm taking it from the point of view of how Dalton and Connery USUALLY (not always) played it, and from what I took out of the Fleming novels.

Bond usually enjoys fights, and gets satisfaction from a hands-on hotblooded kill, something that doesn't seem too sociopathic.

How's that not sociopathic, getting satisfaction out of a kil (whatever kind)?

With Craig, he seems to have difficulty dealing with the bloody reality of death, the first thing he should NOT have a problem with, given his sociopathic behavior most of the time. But while he seems fine when dispatching the guy in the office at the beginning and the unarmed guy after the run jump chase, he seems all shook up after the staircase and the toilet guy.

Well, the guy in the office is not his first kill, that's the one in the toilet. And it comes across as far more intense than shooting the guy in the office IMHO. Death is a lot closer to Bond himself, among other things because he has too struggle to keep the upper hand in order to even survive.

I know they're trying to make him more 'human' but they're trying to have their cake and eat it too, and for me, Craig's Bond (which is as much Paul Haggis' Bond at this point) just seems like an immature brat and a psycho. If they cast him younger, I could buy the immaturity, but Craig? uh-uh.

I suppose it really comes down to gut reaction. Beyond all reasoning for either side, that's what sticks.

When I saw the movie the first time as well as the second time, it just seemed completely spot on. I never had the feeling he reverted back or jumped character between scenes.
The fights / killings were always staged in such a way that I could totally buy into his reaction to them. The toilet and the staircase scenes, for example, were both incredibly violent IMHO. Bond cannot separate himself from what's going on. There's no gun between him and the 'bad guys', no quick and easy kill. He literally has to bring them down in a life and death struggle. I'd totally imagine being far more stirred up after that.
But, again, it's down to gut feeling. If you don't buy it, you don't buy it, I guess.

 

[Good Will Riker]

Quantum of Solace.

I give this film a grade of "F."

It really is one of those popcorn films that give Hollywood a bad name. If you replaced the character of James Bond with some generic action hero character played by Jean-Claude Van Damm, this film would be soon forgotten. The Russian girl is hot though, I will give you that.

Alas, as an official 007 film it is here to stay.

 

[TedShatner10]

Dr. No is deathly dull in places. And while it's certainly not as fantastic as Moonraker or Die Another Day, I find Dr. No himself, in particular, to be pretty silly.

What seems chilling and mysterious in the early 1960s seems trite and cliche' today, but Wiseman was amazing and so was Ken Adam's early Bond sets.

License to Kill failed to hold my attention in any way. However, Dalton's 1st stripped down movie, The Living Daylights, is one of my favorites.

License to Kill is dated and kinda ill judged in places, but it's villains were more unpleasant and memorable than The Living Daylights' bland band of criminals with their 'meh' plan of doing a gun and opium exchange in Afghanistan, using the name 'SMERSH' as a risible cocktease.

 

[KB24]

Love Goldeneye. Hate Casino Royale. How is Craig's action and dark update so beloved and overblown and Dalton's so hated?

Casino Royale Review

 

[trevanian]

Love Goldeneye. Hate Casino Royale. How is Craig's action and dark update so beloved and overblown and Dalton's so hated?

Casino Royale Review

Did somebody have me cloned when I was asleep? Nice stuff.

 

[trevanian]

Bond usually enjoys fights, and gets satisfaction from a hands-on hotblooded kill, something that doesn't seem too sociopathic.

How's that not sociopathic, getting satisfaction out of a kil (whatever kind)?

It is, for good or bad, very human. Part of that is just the act of survival. Survival usually trumps mercy unless you're Shatner's James T. Kirk.

So I'd say it is survival, coupled with the joy that comes from doing something well. If the act were UNmotivated and doing this caused joy, then I would consider it pathological.

 

[The Old Mixer]

But then again, I like Roger Moore, so what do I know?

1:25

 

[T'Baio]

But then again, I like Roger Moore, so what do I know?

1:25

That's awesome!

...I don't want to get punched in the face.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Seriously, I think Moore gets a bad rap. I'm an old fan of the books who was disappointed with the direction of the Moore years back when it was still happening...and AVTAK is my single least favorite Bond film to be sure...but overall his films were highly entertaining for what they were, and contributed greatly to the success of the franchise, that it might live to see grittier, more Flemingesque days. Other directions were considered back in the day (*shudder*BurtReynolds*shudder*) that surely would have brought the whole shebang to an undignified end.

 

[T'Baio]

I grew up on the Moore years, and A View To A Kill was the first Bond movie I ever saw. While in retrospect it's not that great (but c'mon, it's way better than Die Another Day!), and Moore was a little too old at that point, I loved it as a kid and it made me love Bond. That swaggering, smoking, quippy, sexist, kitschy, man-whore Bond is the one I will always love. I think Connery is great, Craig is great for the type of movies he's in...same with Dalton...Brosnan was great for what he had to work with, which wasn't much, and even Lazenby wasn't that bad...but Roger Moore is James Bond to me.

So everyone can now disqualify my opinions on all things Bond.

 

[Joby]

With James Bond, I'm not sure if there is a "correct way" to do a Bond movie. Bond fans may well be the most fickle group there ever are, people seem to have their own interpretation of what James Bond should be. In other franchises, there is a general consensus of what the really good or great flicks are within that particular franchise. With James Bond, really never. There is no Wrath of Khan, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Empire Strikes Back, original Die Hard or original Superman within the James Bond franchise that most people think is the best. People may say "oh well, uhhh Connery's movies". Yeah well which Connery movie? And honestly when was the last time most folks sat and watched an entire Sean Connery Bond flick? I realize that Goldfinger introduced a lot of iconic Bond elements to the franchise back in the 1960s, but I thought the movie was boring as hell, and that song, "Gooold--feeenguur", I thought it was bad as in bad. Not so bad it's good, but just bad.

One man's trophy Bond is another's pile of shit Bond that should have never been made. Some people say it's not Bond if it doesn't have Q, Moneypenny, gadgets and funny one liners....others think that's just too cheesy. Some want over the top villains, while others feel that any darker, meaner Bond (Timothy Dalton, Daniel Craig) is automatically "Fleming's Bond". Just make a damn good movie, if there's a British spy in the flick named James Bond aka 007, answers to someone named M and has the famous Bond theme in it somewhere in the film, then screw it...it's a James Bond movie IMO.

Oh to answer the original question, I thought Tommorrow Never Dies the most overrated Bond on the list. I saw it in the theaters in 1997 and found it dull, Teri Hatcher was also irritating as hell. There is good reason for me to give it the "overrated" status, I distinctly remember both Roger Ebert and the late Gene Siskel giving TND "two thumbs up" as they were impressed with media controlling villain of the film, I saw it on their recommendation and remember being hugely dissapointed.