I agree with E. Skyfall was great but it lacking a bit more brutality, some more globetrotting (although they definitely wanted this to be a "Bond at home" movie, and there's nothing wrong with that), and perhps the pacing suffered in the transition between the second and third acts.
Except.... The Bond theme blaring over the end credits after Tracy's been shot. Should have been an instrumental of "We Have All the Time in the World" or, even better, no music, just the sound of the wind. Or... even better, eerie Savalas chanting about the chickens.
I think OHMSS might have been the ultimate Bond movie, were Sean Connery in it. Lazenby is the primary reason the film is noit as highly regarded as it should be, had a better actor been the lead then I think most would easily by vying for top spot on most people's lists. Goldeneye is Brosnan's best Bond film, I agree witht hose that said his stuff might have been better had he been allowed to make the sort of movies Craig has done. His stuff was better than what Moore did but it did get silly and OTT
Connery... and an interested Connery, perhaps. I'm still not sold that he could fall in love. I think the change worked out for the best, even if Lazenby can't act. If Connery turned in something like his YOLT performance, the film would collapse. I find that to be nearly the most reprehensible Bond performance. Even Brozzer was trying to do his best, and Moore always did his thang. Even in DAF Connery seems to be having a little bit more fun. But in YOLT his contempt for the series is apparent.
Roughly how many times do we have to state that there's no way - and no belief among critics - that Connery could have handled that death scene?
Given he is a better actor than Lazenby, he would have done a better job. Emotion might not be Connery's strongest suit (at least it wasn't at the time) , but would you rather Moore had done it? Connery had done the previous movies well enough, he's generally regarded as the best Bond for good reason.
And DAD was the highest grossing film for a while. Moonraker held that honour too. People like you will always respond to the explosions and wimmens and puns, but that doesn't mean you have taste. Lazenby wasn't an actor and managed to make the film that's best regarded by Bond aficionados worldwide. Most credit has to go to Peter Hunt for his direction, and Ian Fleming for the story, but Lazenby was a lot better than you give him credit for. Certainly better than Roger Moore ever got. Danny Peary put it best in his book Cult Movies 3: "I'm not sure I agree with those who insist that if Connery had played Bond it would definitely be the best of the entire Bond series...Connery's Bond, with his boundless humor and sense of fun and self-confidence, would be out of place in this picture. It actually works better with Lazenby because he is incapable of playing Bond as a bigger-than-life hero; for one thing he hasn't the looks...Lazenby's Bond also hasn't the assurance of Connery's Bond and that is appropriate in the crumbling, depressing world he finds himself. He seems vulnerable and jittery at times. At the skating rink, he is actually scared. We worry about him...On Her Majesty’s Secret Service doesn't have Connery and it's impossible to ever fully adjust to Lazenby, but I think that it still might be the best Bond film, as many Bond cultists claim." (Sourced from Wikipedia). Or, as per the 2nd edition of "Licence to Thrill: A Cultural History of the James Bond films" by James Chapman (note: the author also concedes that over time, this has become his favourite film), he quotes the president of the 007 International Fan Club who says, "To most informed Bond fans it is considered possibly the best film in the entire series." Emphasis on informed was mine, but it explains why the official 007 magazine fan poll voted for OHMSS as the number one film. http://www.007magazine.co.uk/ultimate_james_bond_poll.htm If Lazenby was terrible, and if you were right, then wouldn't OHMSS lose out to other favourites like Goldfinger or FRWL? Yeah, thought not.
It's good film, but it might be more favoured all-round had it had a better lead actor. You should not dismiss others so readily either, liking Connery Bonds doesn't mean one is a fan of Michael "Explosions!" Bay's awful Transformer movies. Movie opinions like most art opinions are subjective, there aren't a lot of right answers. And I'm not one for critics all of the time, but I find if they generally agree on something they often are right. There is a reason Connery's early Bonds tend to get a 5 or 4 star rating and most of the rest of the movies do not, and they are judged by people with far more knowledge of film than anyone here. Brosnan's movies get a much hihger rating than pretty much all past Bonds aside from Connery's & now Craig's. But again, that is their opinion that doesn't make them right. I've seen QoS get a 4 star rating in several film reviews and I personally don't think it deserves that. @Everton & @JoinTheSchwarz - What did you guys make of then ending of Skyfall?
Thanks for the link @Ender_Sai - some interesting choices by the fans there. I'm fairly happy with which films they ranked 1st for each Bond actor (Goldfinger for Connery, The Spy Who Loved Me for Moore, only Dalton's I have a question mark over - I do like License To Kill and might have ranked it above The Living Daylights, but it's close).
Same. LTK is, IMO, the best of the Dalton films and one of my top 3 Bond films of all time. It's telling if hardcore Bond films all vote OHMSS their favourite...
I'll have to watch On Her Majesty's Secret Service again one day - haven't seen it since I was a teenager, and I didn't like it much then (which isn't saying much - The Man With The Golden Gun was probably one of my favourite Bond films at the time, blech ).
Interesting to see TSWLM voted as the best Moore film, and pretty much every Connery movie above Dalton's. Very small difference in score between the top 3 I wonder where Skyfall would rank
I mean with regards to Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content) Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler M's death and how Bond reacted to it. There were reviewers critical of that part saying it made the movie too sentimental and/or was agaisnt the character. Judi Dench was great, but she's Bond's boss and as expendable as any other employee in the Secret Service. Plenty of other Ms have been before.
I didn't think it was that over the top, probably because I had heard about it and was expecting some serious melodrama but the whole scene lasts something like three seconds. It felt weird, I have to admit, but fit with the closer relationship between them that the post-reboot Bond and this movie in particular had established.
Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content) Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler Had M been taken out in the attack on MI6 near the start, or by an assassin whilst walking her dog, then I don't think there would've been any weeping or even, melodrama (if indeed there was any of the latter). Everyone (including Bond) would've got on with their job. That wasn't how it went down, though. It happened in a confined space, an oppressive atmosphere, at the end of a grueling 'woman-hunt'. Everyone was strung out, wound up in the moment (no car to chase, or detonation to stop), so everyone's going to be emotionally effected. Even Bond. So it worked.
I was already, unintentionally spoiled for the ending, so let me say this: Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content) Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler Bond has always been fond of and close to M. If you'd read any Fleming, as you claim Richie, you'd know it stems from this point. The Admiral, and later Dench's M, fill the role of almost-parent to Bond. If Bond's emotionally affected by M's death, it's consistent with the character. Admittedly, you've been duped by an octogenarian pervert superhuman with no emotions into thinking that is James Bond, which he is not.
Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content) Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler Understandibly he would be emotional at the death of his wife or vesper whom he loved. And it's fine if he felt a strong connection to M, but would he have reacted that way had any of the previous Ms died? I can't see him doing the same for any field agent or Q. Emotional attachment makes the character interesting because of the going rogue revenge-type stories but it is also a hinderance to the job that requires you to kill in cold blood. Even soldiers can't become emotionless zombies, but they are largely required to act in that manner when dealing with enemies. Judi Dench did deserve something special given her popularity and I agree with what Everton said about the situation around M's death being very stressful, especially with Bond failing having gone through all the effort to protect her
It wasn't out of place in the movie at all and, ultimately, that's what matters. Just wait until you see it.
I agree that given the relationship between Judi Dench's M & Daniel Craig's Bond in particular, I think it was more acceptable. Their relationship was stronger than say the one between Brosnan's Bond & Dench which seemed more like just an employee and his boss which was in the previous Bond movies. I think that is what is confusing, given Bond is the same character despite all the actor changes but the way he is done now and his relationship with those around him is different to how it was before.
Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content) Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler The film had to show Bond being at least as upset by M's demise as he was to that of his Aston Martin minutes earlier.
Connery-Lazenby-Moore-Dalton-Brosnan is the same character. Craig is separate. Arguably both Dalton and Brosnan are reboots, but the references to Tracy (direct with Dalton, indirect with Brosnan) are indicators, as well as Dalton already having an established relationship with Felix. Craig actually meets Felix for the first time, as Connery did. ...and now we're talking about continuity between EON films. One of the more foolish endeavours.
