|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2015 14:58:51 GMT -5
Definitely Connery's worst Bond film but it does have one my favorite quotes of the entire francise. Plenty O'Toole: "Hi, I'm Plenty." James Bond: "But of course you are." Plenty O'Toole: "Plenty O'Toole." James Bond: "Named after your father perhaps? " ―Plenty introduces herself to Bond. Lana Wood would've made a MUCH better Bond girl than Jill St. John. Case starts out a smart Bond girl, capable of handling herself, but by the end of the film she devolves into an idiot fretting about useless things. Her role in the third act of the film is particularly frustrating as she messes up Bond’s plan more than once whenever she tries to help. Whenever I watch the Bond films I always tend to skip this one. Blasphemy! Fun fact: Lana Wood was Natalie Woods sister. Yeah, it wasn't as tight as the other Connery films but it has a soft spot in my heart.don't tell me you didn't like Bambi and Thumper? Yeah...no...I will take ALMOST any Roger Moore movie over Diamonds Are Forever. This movie is an absolute trainwreck of epic proportions. This is mainly due to the fact that it isn't the revenge story it should have been and Lazenby should be here, not Connery. Connery's return is simply disappointing. He looks like he aged about 20 years since You Only Live Twice and seemed bored and uninterested and was only there for the money, having been paid a million, the highest paid salary at that time. Furthermore, after a promising start in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, it's simply tragic that Lazenby (and Savalas and Hunt) didn't come back for a second film as he had the potential to be better than Connery if he'd stuck around for more, plus getting closure for the events in the previous film. While more or less every other Bond film has some energy to it and the cast and crew put in a considerable effort, everything about the film in general is just so goddamn lazy. After the critical aftermath of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, the producers decided to play it safe and pretend that the 1969 film didn't exist and generally play it for laughs. With everything that is wrong with this film, the very fact that it wasn't the revenge story it should have been or at least some revenge angle, the film really doesn't deserve to see the light of day in my opinion. And let's not forget the villains. Firstly, Gray's Blofeld is such a unsinister villain that you don't care whether or not his plan actually succeeds or not. Secondly, Wint and Kidd's homosexuality in the novel was only hinted at and both characters were serious hit men, but here their homosexuality is grossly exaggerated (in comparison to the book) and nothing like their literature counterparts. There is no disguising that this is a very disappointing film to watch, and a times is almost dreadful. On the plus side, the film does feature a fantastic song by Shirley Bassey, the film's only redeemable quality besides Lana Wood.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Nov 26, 2015 17:51:06 GMT -5
Blasphemy! Fun fact: Lana Wood was Natalie Woods sister. Yeah, it wasn't as tight as the other Connery films but it has a soft spot in my heart.don't tell me you didn't like Bambi and Thumper? Yeah...no...I will take ALMOST any Roger Moore movie over Diamonds Are Forever. This movie is an absolute trainwreck of epic proportions. This is mainly due to the fact that it isn't the revenge story it should have been and Lazenby should be here, not Connery. Connery's return is simply disappointing. He looks like he aged about 20 years since You Only Live Twice and seemed bored and uninterested and was only there for the money, having been paid a million, the highest paid salary at that time. Furthermore, after a promising start in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, it's simply tragic that Lazenby (and Savalas and Hunt) didn't come back for a second film as he had the potential to be better than Connery if he'd stuck around for more, plus getting closure for the events in the previous film. While more or less every other Bond film has some energy to it and the cast and crew put in a considerable effort, everything about the film in general is just so goddamn lazy. After the critical aftermath of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, the producers decided to play it safe and pretend that the 1969 film didn't exist and generally play it for laughs. With everything that is wrong with this film, the very fact that it wasn't the revenge story it should have been or at least some revenge angle, the film really doesn't deserve to see the light of day in my opinion. And let's not forget the villains. Firstly, Gray's Blofeld is such a unsinister villain that you don't care whether or not his plan actually succeeds or not. Secondly, Wint and Kidd's homosexuality in the novel was only hinted at and both characters were serious hit men, but here their homosexuality is grossly exaggerated (in comparison to the book) and nothing like their literature counterparts. There is no disguising that this is a very disappointing film to watch, and a times is almost dreadful. On the plus side, the film does feature a fantastic song by Shirley Bassey, the film's only redeemable quality besides Lana Wood. I still like it.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 26, 2015 18:47:17 GMT -5
Yeah...no...I will take ALMOST any Roger Moore movie over Diamonds Are Forever. This movie is an absolute trainwreck of epic proportions. This is mainly due to the fact that it isn't the revenge story it should have been and Lazenby should be here, not Connery. Connery's return is simply disappointing. He looks like he aged about 20 years since You Only Live Twice and seemed bored and uninterested and was only there for the money, having been paid a million, the highest paid salary at that time. Furthermore, after a promising start in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, it's simply tragic that Lazenby (and Savalas and Hunt) didn't come back for a second film as he had the potential to be better than Connery if he'd stuck around for more, plus getting closure for the events in the previous film. While more or less every other Bond film has some energy to it and the cast and crew put in a considerable effort, everything about the film in general is just so goddamn lazy. After the critical aftermath of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, the producers decided to play it safe and pretend that the 1969 film didn't exist and generally play it for laughs. With everything that is wrong with this film, the very fact that it wasn't the revenge story it should have been or at least some revenge angle, the film really doesn't deserve to see the light of day in my opinion. And let's not forget the villains. Firstly, Gray's Blofeld is such a unsinister villain that you don't care whether or not his plan actually succeeds or not. Secondly, Wint and Kidd's homosexuality in the novel was only hinted at and both characters were serious hit men, but here their homosexuality is grossly exaggerated (in comparison to the book) and nothing like their literature counterparts. There is no disguising that this is a very disappointing film to watch, and a times is almost dreadful. On the plus side, the film does feature a fantastic song by Shirley Bassey, the film's only redeemable quality besides Lana Wood. I still like it. Yeah, cooper brings up a lot of good points, many of which are very hard to argue with. (I'm a big fan of On Her Majesty's Secret Service!) But I just shrug and say "I like Diamonds Are Forever" anyway. In my lifetime, I've seen Secret Service twice. I couldn't tell you how many times I've seen Diamonds. Ten? At least!
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 26, 2015 18:56:46 GMT -5
I feel the same way about A View to a Kill. It's sooooo stupid. But I love it! From the Duran Duran theme to Grace Jones to Christopher Walken to Tanya Roberts to the fire engine chase scene in San Francisco.
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Nov 26, 2015 19:22:29 GMT -5
Here's 1: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is a perfectly enjoyable popcorn flick IF you watch it before you read the book.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 26, 2015 19:34:41 GMT -5
Here's 1: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is a perfectly enjoyable popcorn flick IF you watch it before you read the book. I don't believe you.
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Nov 26, 2015 19:50:50 GMT -5
Here's 1: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is a perfectly enjoyable popcorn flick IF you watch it before you read the book. I don't believe you. Ive not read the comic book and I enjoyed the movie.
|
|
|
Post by batlaw on Nov 26, 2015 20:24:34 GMT -5
I think the Nolan Batman films are uniformly pretty bad. And they get worse with each successive film. While I don't personally agree with this opinion exactly, I do think the Nolan movies and nolans work in general is highly overrated. I think he is good, but he's best at convincing people his stuff is much more than it really is. Kindve an "emperors new clothes" ability. I've suffered the wrath of the cult of Nolan myself for suggesting his movies aren't "all that". Begins was good or good enough. Dark knight was really good. Great even? But not life affirming. It is far from a perfect movie or perfect batman movie. Rises, while entertaining and having good ideas, completely falls apart under any degree of scrutiny. Rises is the perfect example of nolans ability to "polish a turd" and impress people. Im still wowed by people's defense of rises and the degree to which they slavishly praise TDK and refuse to admit any possible flaws.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2015 23:36:38 GMT -5
Dark knight was really good. Great even? But not life affirming. But what movie is? I dunno what some people expected Nolan to do but I liked his movies. The previous Batman movies, except for maybe that one that introduced Robin and had the Seal song, made me want to throw up.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Nov 26, 2015 23:42:40 GMT -5
Dark knight was really good. Great even? But not life affirming. But what movie is? I dunno what some people expected Nolan to do but I liked his movies. The previous Batman movies, except for maybe that one that introduced Robin and had the Seal song, made me want to throw up. The way Nolan's take on Batman comes across is that of a man who hates the innate ludicrous nature of superheroes and would rather use the Batman name to give his generic crime thrillers greater traction with the public.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Nov 27, 2015 0:06:10 GMT -5
Here's 1: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is a perfectly enjoyable popcorn flick IF you watch it before you read the book. It's true. I saw it in the theater while at the San Diego con then read the first series that night. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and then I really enjoyed the comics. I've revisited both many times since. It's like any film adaptation of a good novel. The differences between the two styles of storytelling virtually guarantees that the very quality that makes a novel unique, the authorial personality as expressed through the narrative (and, in this case, the art), is lost in the translation. Not always, mind you, but the exceptions are few. Cei-U! I summon the post-turkey pontification!
|
|
|
Post by batlaw on Nov 27, 2015 0:15:43 GMT -5
Here's 1: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is a perfectly enjoyable popcorn flick IF you watch it before you read the book. It's true. I saw it in the theater while at the San Diego con then read the first series that night. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and then I really enjoyed the comics. I've revisited both many times since. It's like any film adaptation of a good novel. The differences between the two styles of storytelling virtually guarantees that the very quality that makes a novel unique, the authorial personality as expressed through the narrative (and, in this case, the art), is lost in the translation. Not always, mind you, but the exceptions are few. Cei-U! I summon the post-turkey pontification! Yeah I never quite understood all the hate for this movie.
|
|
|
Post by batlaw on Nov 27, 2015 0:29:37 GMT -5
Dark knight was really good. Great even? But not life affirming. But what movie is? I dunno what some people expected Nolan to do but I liked his movies. The previous Batman movies, except for maybe that one that introduced Robin and had the Seal song, made me want to throw up. None in my opinion. And I really liked nolans batman movies too. Much moreso than not. I'm also mostly fond of the previous series of batman movies. But there are a great many fans who's love and praise for the Nolan films just borders on crazy. Just my experience and observations of course. D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2015 0:30:19 GMT -5
I feel the same way about A View to a Kill. It's sooooo stupid. But I love it! From the Duran Duran theme to Grace Jones to Christopher Walken to Tanya Roberts to the fire engine chase scene in San Francisco. I also dig the ending of it. It was incredible for Roger Moore to do this film at the age of 58. I seen this movie about 4-5 times and I just love it too. Amazing Scene at the Golden State Bridge
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Nov 27, 2015 7:18:12 GMT -5
All the Bond films have been exciting Roller Coaster rides. I appreciate them as such. The only film I can remember being bad and goofy was Moonraker. But you always know what you're going to get in a bond movie.
|
|