Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on September 06, 2005, 01:58:48 PM
-
reference: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1141
personally, the thought of Hugh Grant as James Bond chokes me up with laughter.
-
As a huge Bond fan, I quite liked this article, and have a lot of opinions on the subject. I pretty much agree with your ratings, though I want to point out that Valentin, the Russian smuggler, was a strong recurring character and gave us the best moment in "The World is not Enough." There was so much potential in that movie, and it breaks my heart that it sucked so much. Also, despite the buzz that Berry got for role, I think it goes without saying that Michelle Yeoh was much better and would make a far more interesting and watchable character were they ever to bring a Bond Girl back or spin one off into her own series.
As for new Bonds, Clive Owen is the obvious one, but I could see Gruffud doing something interesting with the role. Mcmahon has been wretched in everything I've ever seen him in. Mcgregor is awesome, but I'm not sure I can see him as Bond, and Grant I just...I can't see it working. He's never played a character that didn't evoke a puppy dog at some point, with his stammering and bumbling and fawning, and I doubt he has the range to turn that around into a good Bond. Ledger is an intriguing suggestion, and I could probably be convinced.
My favorite suggestion, however, is not on your list: Christopher Walken. He would be older, yes, and the accent would either be gone or terrible, but just imagine him in the role--he could do everything Bond needs to do, and he'd do it with a perfect mix of style, wit, and underlying danger. Bond is a man who kills people for a living, often casually, and often accompanied by heartless one-liners--Walken could bring out the darker undercurrents of that character in a remarkable way.
-
Just to clarify, we did not write the headline for this article. Brosnan did NOT leave, he was fired by the Broccoli's.
-
I'd suggest Bale, but he just doesn't do the right kind of characters. Bale does tormented characters, and Bond's only moments of torment occur over whether or not to attach a union jack to his top secret stealth vehicles.
-
As a huge Bond fan, I quite liked this article, and have a lot of opinions on the subject. I pretty much agree with your ratings, though I want to point out that Valentin, the Russian smuggler, was a strong recurring character and gave us the best moment in "The World is not Enough." There was so much potential in that movie, and it breaks my heart that it sucked so much. Also, despite the buzz that Berry got for role, I think it goes without saying that Michelle Yeoh was much better and would make a far more interesting and watchable character were they ever to bring a Bond Girl back or spin one off into her own series.
As for new Bonds, Clive Owen is the obvious one, but I could see Gruffud doing something interesting with the role. Mcmahon has been wretched in everything I've ever seen him in. Mcgregor is awesome, but I'm not sure I can see him as Bond, and Grant I just...I can't see it working. He's never played a character that didn't evoke a puppy dog at some point, with his stammering and bumbling and fawning, and I doubt he has the range to turn that around into a good Bond. Ledger is an intriguing suggestion, and I could probably be convinced.
My favorite suggestion, however, is not on your list: Christopher Walken. He would be older, yes, and the accent would either be gone or terrible, but just imagine him in the role--he could do everything Bond needs to do, and he'd do it with a perfect mix of style, wit, and underlying danger. Bond is a man who kills people for a living, often casually, and often accompanied by heartless one-liners--Walken could bring out the darker undercurrents of that character in a remarkable way.
I agree about Valetin. He was the best part of "The World is Not Enough." As we mentioned in the atricle, Michelleo Yeoh was fabulous, and and I agree that I would much rather see a movie about Wait lin than Jinx.
I know the Hugh grant thing seems silly to alot of people, and a bit so to me, too, but i do feel that with "Bridget Jones" nd "about a Boy" he has moved on from the stammering puppy dog to more of a roguinsh cad personailty, which is ceratinyl the Bond of the films. As for how he would work in the action, who knows, but it's worth pointing out htat many people felt that Brosnan wouldn't be cedible doing action, and they are eating crow.
-
I just wanted make it abundantly clear that the Orlando Bloom bashing, whether you agree with it or not, comes from the editor, not from the writers of this article.
-
I could not see Christopher Walken as the next Bond. I do love him in just about every movie he has been in, but he is not the Bond type. Walken never strikes me as a fast moving action stare that the Bond is. I think his talents would be much better suited to being an evil villain in one of the Bond movies...that would be great, but he could not play Bond.
-
Part of what I like about Walken is that he would playBond a little slower--going back to the "Bond is a spy" idea rather than the "Bond is an action star" that the series has turned into. I admit that it's still a very out-there casting idea, but I have seen the vision, and I must now spread the good word.
-
well then by all means Preach on brother Preach on.
-
I saw one of the sean connery bond films (one where he was in japan) and it's sheer stupidity nearly destroyed my mind.
-
so that's what did it
-
Is this the "insult the person above you thread"?
=Þ
-
I saw one of the sean connery bond films (one where he was in japan) and it's sheer stupidity nearly destroyed my mind.
It was "Diamonds are Forever," I'll wager.
-
You are WRONG, WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Roger Moore was the best bond. Sean Connery was the second best. Timothy Daltan was the biggest mistake in a Bond film.
Diamonds are Forever is excellent. Moonraker is excellent. The World is not Enough is excellent. Licence to kill is the least interesting peice of trash ever to call itself a bond movie. Tomorrow never dies was only ok.
My opinions are obviously right. If you disagree, you are quite clearly wrong.
-
I'd suggest Bale, but he just doesn't do the right kind of characters. Bale does tormented characters, and Bond's only moments of torment occur over whether or not to attach a union jack to his top secret stealth vehicles.
Bale would have been on our list, most definitely, but it is our opinion that once you've played one iconic character, such as "Btaman," it's too much to take on two of them. Harrison Ford is of course the exception, but he made Indiana Jones and Han Solo into icons, rather than stepping into the shows of already inconic haracters known worldwide.
Bond does experience more torment in the Ian Fleming novels, and in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," when his wife is killed (though it's hard to tell with George Lazenby's miserable acting.). There is also a tormented edge to Timothy Dalton's performance in "Liscene to Kill," where he is out to avenge the attack on his firend, Felix Leiter. And even Peirce Brosnan is "GoldenEye" is driven by the guilt of believing that he was responsible for the death of 006, who of course turns out to be alive and the villain of the peice.
Still, for the most part, looking at the movies as a whole, your amusing comment still rings true.
-
I agree with JP, Roger Moore was the best Bond hands down he also had some of the best movies (screenplay wise) and License to Kill was a heaping pile of crap. While I like Brosnan the only decent film he was in was Goldeneye, in fact I think all the Bong movies from Living Daylights on in have been subpar compared to the older ones, they not care more about blowing stuff up more the the actual characters and personality of Bond himself. Movies like Thunderball were great not because of the action but because of the interaction between the characters which is something lost of a lot of Hollywood studios today.
-
Bong movies? I'd so see them.
-
ew.
Roger Moore? I *still* don't understand that choice for an actor.
-
I could not see Christopher Walken as the next Bond. I do love him in just about every movie he has been in, but he is not the Bond type. Walken never strikes me as a fast moving action stare that the Bond is. I think his talents would be much better suited to being an evil villain in one of the Bond movies...that would be great, but he could not play Bond.
Um.... you do know he was a Bond Villain Right? Go re-watch A view to a kill and try to decide if he's evil by himself, or if his hair makes him more evil.
-
I've seen View To A Kill, but I try to forget it. My vote for the worst Bond movie ever.
-
Yeah he plays Max....something or other in it right
-
You are WRONG, WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Roger Moore was the best bond. Sean Connery was the second best. Timothy Daltan was the biggest mistake in a Bond film.
Diamonds are Forever is excellent. Moonraker is excellent. The World is not Enough is excellent. Licence to kill is the least interesting peice of trash ever to call itself a bond movie. Tomorrow never dies was only ok.
My opinions are obviously right. If you disagree, you are quite clearly wrong.
Gosh, when you put it that way . . . you're still wrong. You know what else is excellent? The '80's version of "Flash Gordon." Maybe Sam J. Jones should play Bond.
p.s. Dalton (the guy who makes Roger Moore look totally inefectual, which granted is not very specific.), spells his name with an O. ;D
-
Nevermind him, he's just trying to troll anyone he can in any location he can.
-
...umm...but...the 80s version of Flash Gordon was excellent...and it had Timothy Dalton in it!! And Topol!!! Bond+Tevye...that movie rocked!!
FLASH!! AH-ah!!
-
King of the impossible!
I think I know what DVD I'm buying with this paycheck.
-
Big O?
-
Roger!
-
...umm...but...the 80s version of Flash Gordon was excellent...and it had Timothy Dalton in it!! And Topol!!! Bond+Tevye...that movie rocked!!
FLASH!! AH-ah!!
I own that DVD. I bought it for $5.00 at Graywhale, and yes, it does feature Dalton as Prince Barin. You also left out Boss Nass (Brian Blessed), who played Zoltan, King of the Hawkmen). It's great fun for it's nostalgic camp value, but certainly not good.
Roger Moore simply bares no resemblance to the actual character of Bond (not just Moore's fault. That was the direction they wanted to take the franchise in at the time.). The indisputable fact is, Dalton was the epitome of Fleming's character on screen. Which version you prefer is up to you, but choosing Moore's films as the best is roughly the same as choosing the Joel Schumacher "Batman" films over "Batman Begins." (which is fine if you feel that way. I myself prefer "Batman Forever" to "Batman Returns.") The fact is, it all comes down to individual taste.
After all, Tom Clancy insists that Ben Affleck is the closest to his vision of Jack Ryan, and I don't think you're going to find a lot of fans who prefer Affleck to Ford or Baldwin.
"Liscence to Kill" is one of my favorites because it broke the mold and did it's own thing, and it has a great, instense score by the late, great composer Michael Kamen. If you watch it on it's own, you will probably be dissapointed by it, because it doesn't habve so many of the signature moments you expect from Bonb. I learned to love the film when I was on a kick of watching as mnay Bond films as I could, and discovered that most of them were pretty much the same. "LTK" was a nice, gritty change of pace.
-
I don't care about Fleming or the character of bond or rubbish.
The moore films were BETTER MOVIES.
-
I guess along with Orlando Bloom, Daniel Radcliff is one of the younger actors being considered for the role of Bond. Kind of...
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/index.php?id=32314
-
Flash Gordon is a lot of fun. Therefore, it is a good movie.
-
I agree with Ookla.
fun=good
boring=bad
Thats why I like flash Gordon and hate the Harry Potters.
I don't believe in over-analyzing things like movies since it takes the fun out of them, the people I know who do this can't just simply enjoy a movie.
-
I prefer to complexly enjoy a movie.
-
yeah, analysis *is* the fun of stories and movies.
-
But you're enjoying the analysis not the movie, you could easly replace the movie with anything else and get the same enjoyment. I like to watch movies for the sake of watching movies and don't care to be very judgmental.
-
That's not at all true. The analysis is a) inseparable from the film it is of, and b) different from film to film.
Some films are no fun at all to analyze. Others are better created and worth analyzing.
Note, I'm not saying at all that your reasons or methods for enjoying a film are invalid. I think you should enjoy it on your own terms. I'm just pointing out that it's an error to assume that enjoying film analysis is separate from film viewing.
-
I don't care about Fleming or the character of bond or rubbish.
The moore films were BETTER MOVIES.
If you mean better in the sense of "unbearably stupid" than I concede your point. Moore is a terrible actor, and his films were parodies without the laughs.
-
I agree with Ookla.
fun=good
boring=bad
Thats why I like flash Gordon and hate the Harry Potters.
I don't believe in over-analyzing things like movies since it takes the fun out of them, the people I know who do this can't just simply enjoy a movie.
The very last statement in this post simply isn't true. I have spent my whol life watching movies, and there's no one out there who enjoys movies more than I do. If a movie is just trying to fun, and succceeds at doing that, but at little else, like "Twister," for example, I will give it credit for that and say that I enjoyed the movie, and that it worked. How did I arrive at that conclusion? BY ANALYZING THE MOVIE. Anyone who appreciates film as an art form can't watch a movie without analyizing it some level, and people who don't appreciate film as an art form are the reason there are so many bad movies out there.
Have you watched "Flash Gordon" recently? It doesn't hold up the way it did when we were kids. Personally, I love the Harry Potter books and films, and find them to be the model of fun and interesting, without ever being boring. Again, taste varies from person to person.
-
I watched it within the last few years, and it was still good. But we have a low amusement threshold in this house.
-
plues I always find movies like flash Gordon funnier now just because of how old and cheesey it is now
-
You're an idiot.
Moore is an excellent actor, and his films were the strongest in terms of plot, character, and cinematography.
EDIT: That's the humourous, semi sarcastic, over the top "You're an idiot" not the insulting personal one.
-
You're an idiot.
Moore is an excellent actor, and his films were the strongest in terms of plot, character, and cinematography.
EDIT: That's the humourous, semi sarcastic, over the top "You're an idiot" not the insulting personal one.
The Moore films have NO plot, No characters, and utterly flat cinematography (there is a difference between shot composition and cinematography. When most people talk about cinematography, they misuse the term, and I am guessing you are one of those people. If that sounds rude, then I mean in the "over the top,sarcastic way."). Never actually looking at the camera doesn't qualify Moore as a great actor. His Bond is all right in some of his early films ("Live and Let Die," for example), but it became one of the laziest performances in the history of cinema.
-
I watched it within the last few years, and it was still good. But we have a low amusement threshold in this house.
I tried to watch it in the last few months, and I found it surprisingly hard to watch. Still, in the right mood, I'm sure I could still enjoy it as a fun bit of nostalgia, like watching an old "G.I. Joe" cartoon.
-
You're an idiot.
Not in the sarcastic way. You really are in idiot.
You're gonna [frolic with puppy dogs]. I'm [happy] and [in love with life]. TWICE.
-
Patrick, ignore the troll
Jam, stop trolling. You're supposed to be the reasonable moderator.
-
I guess along with Orlando Bloom, Daniel Radcliff is one of the younger actors being considered for the role of Bond. Kind of...
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/index.php?id=32314
I have to say I find this both disturbing and intriguing. I don't know how I feel about a movie regaling James Bond's teenage years at Eton. It could be cool, or really dumb. I just hope that it wouldn't have so many sexual exploits--I'd particularly be sad to see Daniel Radcliffe as some hormonal teenage womanizer.
However, I do hope to continue to see Daniel Radcliffe on screen. I think he captured a depth and poignancy in the Harry Potter character. There are moments in the first and third film when my heart actually ached at the loneliness Harry was feeling. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive, but I really do think Daniel Radcliffe is an interesting and complex actor. If they wanted to explore how James Bond became a spy from a kind of pyschological perspective, it could be interesting.
(I do realize that by admitting that I like the Harry Potter films I am opening myself up for criticism. But I do, so there.)
-
You've already gone into detail about your love for Disney Channel shows aimed at children half your age, so no, talking about Harry Potter at this point can only raise your credibility. :)
-
/me makes disparaging remarks about old fogies who watch cartoons
-
I resent that. I am not old or a fogie. :P
But, yes, I do seem to have the humor of a fifteen year-old most of the time. ;)
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4256024.stm
Some titbits on how the next film will develop. No Q, no gadgets. The character will be under 30, and will be a colder, more realistic Bond than the Brosnan one. Goldeneyes director is back, one Martin Campbell. (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0132709/)
Paul Haggis (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0353673/) will be writing. Martin Campbell appears to have directed the apparently crap Zorro, and other than goldeneye I don't recognize a single film by him. I'm not much of a movie buff though. And Paul Haggis doesn't look like typical Bond stock - his last film was about a middle-aged woman becoming a boxer, and the one before that about racial tensions. Maybe they decided to bring someone in who doesn't write goofy plots as part of the new 'colder, more realistic' bond.
-
It's official they've ruined Bond, though I've known that since Dalton played him.
-
That Zorro was actually pretty good.
But no Q. No Gadgets. Under 30. Make him hip and sardonic adn dark.
Ick.
-
A Bond with no gadgets is not a Bond. But a bond without Purvis and Wade is a hallelujah miracle. So now I'm confused. Goldeneye was the best of the modern Bonds, and Paul Haggis is apparently an awesome screenwriter, so I'm sure they'll make a good movie, but...no Q? I want to punch somebody.
As for actors, I nominate Callum Blue.
-
you want to punch Callum Blue?
-
well to be fair there was no Q or gadgets in the book Casino Royal. Now if the film makers were gutsy they'd set the movie in the 50-60s as a prequel to Dr. No.
-
If they were really gutsy, they would tempt my wrath by ruining a classic series.