 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
remember the Las Vegas Sheriff who also shows up in Louisiana in Live and Let Die?).
Sorry, but Sheriff JW Pepper from LALD was NOT the same sheriff that chased Bond around Las Vegas in DAF. He did however return in TMWTGG.
It's quite interesting reading some of these recent Bond threads that a few people do seem to be relying upon distant memories of the movies they're talking about and wonder how many opinions would change if they watched the entire series again, back to back.
You're almost as condescending as those Hamilton directed Bonds, starting with Diamonds are Forever. I realize that (about Pepper). The character I'm speaking of is a Las Vegas Sheriff in Diamonds are Forever played by actor Roy Hollis who also is the same actor who played a Louisiana Sheriff in Live and Let Die. I know all too well about JW Pepper the character who first appeared in Live and Let Die and re-appeared in The Man with the Golden Gun played by Clifton James. They are different characters and actors, but both are indicative of a new Bond order, injecting forced exaggerated reactions of meaningless buffoon like characters and juvenile, cheap running gags thrown in with no concern about the plot, reminding us time and again to not take ANYTHING seriously, forget everything you knew about Bond and would be beneath the comedy writing in Dude, Where's My Car. Those Hamilton Bonds (except for Goldfinger) were more offensive to many of us than the first Casino Royale (1967) which at least didn't pretend to be a continuation of anything before it.
Now I ask you again, what are you comparing On Her Majesty's Secret Service to? Any of those Hamilton directed Bond films (sans Goldfinger) I'm referring to? Just for the record is it worse than those? All or which ones?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 29, 2015 - 6:10 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike_J
(Member)
|
Now I ask you again, what are you comparing On Her Majesty's Secret Service to? Any of those Hamilton directed Bond films (sans Goldfinger) I'm referring to? Just for the record is it worse than those? All or which ones?
Well, firstly, I have to say that I think OHMSS is a bad film strictly on its own merits. I think the action is horrendously shot and edited, the acting almost universally awful, for example.
But to address your specific question, I much prefer LALD and TMWTGG to OHMSS, for numerous reasons, but to cite a few, they don't bore me the way Hunt's film does, they are not pretentious and they are not edited in such a jarring manor. And all the actors in the Hamilton movies have charm, a quality hugely lacking in OHMSS.
I've omitted DAF from that list because, although I used to love it when I was younger, it really hasn't dated well and some of it is gut-wrenchingly terrible. I'd still probably prefer to watch it over OHMSS but I don't really rate either of them as good movies.
NB. Re the point about the sherrifs in DAF and subsequent Hamilton movies - sorry, I didn't get the point you were trying to make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Storyteller about O.H.M.S.S. writes: "Not the script, nor the acting, nor even the directing are what makes this compelling in any way." (and then) "It is our beloved hero torn apart in the midst of potential happiness that kills us all in those last few memorable moments."
Don't you honestly think that those final moments you find so effective were due to went on earlier, the relationship between them and how that was developed and integrated into the story, ergo the script, the acting, the directing etc?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Mike J for addressing my question of comparison. Most of the issues you've raised this time I understand at least, i.e. boring, bad acting, lack of charm, jarring editing although aside from the editing remark, I could not be more in disagreement with, but hey, at least I don't need any further explanations.
In response to your last statement about not understanding my point about the two different characters, I'm not sure if you still do not understand what I was saying or that you do now but didn't before. Would you mind clarifying that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
double post
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 29, 2015 - 11:40 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike_J
(Member)
|
Thanks Mike J for addressing my question of comparison. Most of the issues you've raised this time I understand at least, i.e. boring, bad acting, lack of charm, jarring editing although aside from the editing remark, I could not be more in disagreement with, but hey, at least I don't need any further explanations.
In response to your last statement about not understanding my point about the two different characters, I'm not sure if you still do not understand what I was saying or that you do now but didn't before. Would you mind clarifying that?
Yes, Arthur, I understand what you were trying to make, rather than my original assumption that you had just mistaken Pepper for another dumb hick sherrif. Hence the apology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 29, 2015 - 12:12 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
BobJ
(Member)
|
Storyteller about O.H.M.S.S. writes: "Not the script, nor the acting, nor even the directing are what makes this compelling in any way." (and then) "It is our beloved hero torn apart in the midst of potential happiness that kills us all in those last few memorable moments."
Don't you honestly think that those final moments you find so effective were due to went on earlier, the relationship between them and how that was developed and integrated into the story, ergo the script, the acting, the directing etc?
No, I don't.
Look, I don't want to keep rehashing this over and over, but there are "effective moments" (as I've already stated), but this does not make a good film. I don't feel like I know Rigg's character well enough. It would have been a much more entertaining film if it had been about Bond going up against a man he doesn't like (her father), then being shocked by the request to marry her. Had we followed the characters this film is actually supposed to be about, then yes, I might have cared. But when she is shot, all I was thinking is, "Wow! what a brave way to end a Bond film", because it was... and that's it. I don't like seeing one of my favorite characters in pain, but even that feeling is based more on the previous films than this one. And to amend my earlier statement, Lazenby does this scene passably well enough. But on the whole, It's the difference between feeling something based on what I've been shown up to this point, and being told what to feel because of what is currently shown... which is exactly what is going on here. I have more feelings for Agent XXX in "The Spy Who Loved Me", or Kara Milovy in "The Living Daylights" than I do Tracy in this film.
I'm sorry, but it is a poorly told story, in a badly edited, and acted film.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 29, 2015 - 12:53 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike_J
(Member)
|
Storyteller about O.H.M.S.S. writes: "Not the script, nor the acting, nor even the directing are what makes this compelling in any way." (and then) "It is our beloved hero torn apart in the midst of potential happiness that kills us all in those last few memorable moments."
Don't you honestly think that those final moments you find so effective were due to went on earlier, the relationship between them and how that was developed and integrated into the story, ergo the script, the acting, the directing etc?
No, I don't.
Look, I don't want to keep rehashing this over and over, but there are "effective moments" (as I've already stated), but this does not make a good film. I don't feel like I know Rigg's character well enough. It would have been a much more entertaining film if it had been about Bond going up against a man he doesn't like (her father), then being shocked by the request to marry her. Had we followed the characters this film is actually supposed to be about, then yes, I might have cared. But when she is shot, all I was thinking is, "Wow! what a brave way to end a Bond film", because it was... and that's it. I don't like seeing one of my favorite characters in pain, but even that feeling is based more on the previous films than this one. And to amend my earlier statement, Lazenby does this scene passably well enough. But on the whole, It's the difference between feeling something based on what I've been shown up to this point, and being told what to feel because of what is currently shown... which is exactly what is going on here. I have more feelings for Agent XXX in "The Spy Who Loved Me", or Kara Milovy in "The Living Daylights" than I do Tracy in this film.
I'm sorry, but it is a poorly told story, in a badly edited, and acted film.
I'm 100% with you in this. The final scenes of Bond upset over Tracy's death carry zero resonance with me foor two reasons; Firstly, the "romance" has been utterly unconvincing throughout, secondly because Lazenby's acting in that sequence is just abysmally amateur. I found it laughably bad when I first saw OHMSS as a kid, that's how dreadful the performance is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 29, 2015 - 4:05 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Tall Guy
(Member)
|
...I agree the post-LICENCE TO KILL entries are a distinct step down.
In what way did SKYFALL present a cliff-edge? I think I understand what you mean, but it might help if you explain it.
I'm willing to accept the changes necessary to keep the JB007 franchise alive - hence I enjoy Moonraker even though it is one long glorious joke whereas I generally prefer the more serious ones. The dark tone introduced with Pierce Brosnan - GoldenEye - didn't gel with me but I enjoyed the ride; its follow-up leaves me with mixed feelings but I think I do prefer it. His third outing is my favourite ... I really felt that they had got back into the true JB007 mould albeit there are a number of problems with the film ... and then came Die Another Day in which the faults far outweigh the good parts.
As much as I disapproved of the re-boot I felt Casino Royale was a significant improvement (despite the film's many faults) and I held out the hope that its direct sequel Quantum of Solace would help right many of the script/story problems ... only to find it did nothing of the sort and we watched The Bourne Idea masquerading as a (poor) JB007 film.
And then all the hype ... a wonderful British (English) director with a British (English) Actor celebrating the 50th Anniversary of my life-long cinematic interest. Only to be presented with a film which not only destroyed the character just re-booted but also the history of JB007 in the cinema ... and in a somewhat tedious and uninteresting film at that. I struggle to find one good thing to say about Skyfall other than it makes Quantum ... appear so much better. I've watched it three times now and will watch it again at some time in the hope that I may find some of the enjoyment most others have garnered but so far each viewing leaves me more depressed. As a life-long fan I feel as if I've been kicked in the teeth just as if the pop-star you've idolised and spent a fortune following throws a glass of water over you rather than signing your copy of their new album.
Mitch
I do sympathise, Mitch, while seeing it differently. I think, having survived the re-boot (and the short Quantum, magpie of a film though it is) Skyfall has a chance of putting the series back on track, with a new generation M, Q and Moneypenny. We'll only know this, I think, when we see SPECTRE, an event to which I'm looking forward tremendously.
I tend to take 007 films as I find them. I may gripe about the odd thing (or six!) but I've been watching them for long enough to know that a few years and films will see another change of direction if I don't like the current one. And in the meantime there's always - always - something to like in each one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
