Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2023 22:41:38 GMT
Which one do you prefer, the Joel Silver style Bond movie or the back to basics debut for Brosnan? I honestly enjoy Licence to Kill more. It was my favourite Bond movie for so long and even though that isn't the case anymore I still think it's in the top half of 80s action movies. I also have fond memories of watching it as a kid and being blown away by it. Goldeneye is perhaps visually superior and has Famke (I know she's yours, Burrunjor. I'm backing off) , but I don't find the story as engaging. Also, Michael Kamen > Erica Serra.
|
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Feb 26, 2023 22:58:18 GMT
Licence is a better story, but Goldeneye has way more flair, better pace and memorable characters. It's the perfect Bond film for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Feb 26, 2023 23:14:24 GMT
Goldeneye.
Two words. Big Fam.
Beyond that however, License to Kill is dreary, boring and the most dated Bond film. For years after 9/11 it wasn't shown because Bond helps one of the most evil and twisted terrorist organisations, the Mujahideen come to power! I'm amazed it ever gets shown to be honest.
It reminds me of these stupid celebs pledging their support to Ukraine today. It just goes to show you that celebs and popular franchises have always had a bad habit of jumping on the current thing without knowing what they are supporting.
Again though even without that it's crap. I can barely remember anything else about License to Kill other than how controversial its terrorist loving plot is. Off the top of my head however so much of Goldeneye sticks in my head, like its spectacular end where Sean Bean gets killed more than any other guy in the history of anything LOL.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian MK.II on Feb 26, 2023 23:25:32 GMT
Better Bond: Dalton (Funnily enough, despite Brosnan's films getting worse in quality, his performance drastically improved, here he's really good but clearly not as comfortable) Better Lead Girl: Tied Better Villain: Tied (Although I'd say Sanchez has the edge for how intimidating he is) Better Villainess/Secondary Girl: Xenia Better Henchmen: Licence (Although Truman Lodge got on my wick enough for me to cheer when he got riddled with Uzi clips) Better Plot: Licence Better Score: Goldeneye (I like Kamen's work but it's a bit generic for my liking whereas I dig Serra's experimental score) Better Visuals: Goldeneye Better Direction: Goldeneye Better Theme: Licence Better Secondary song: Tied (Patti Labelle's tune is pleasant enough listening and a nice closer to the classic era of Bond but feels really kitschy and out of place and Serra's song is a shit demo of his unused Leon track) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2023 23:27:11 GMT
Goldeneye. Two words. Big Fam. Beyond that however, License to Kill is dreary, boring and the most dated Bond film. For years after 9/11 it wasn't shown because Bond helps one of the most evil and twisted terrorist organisations, the Mujahideen come to power! I'm amazed it ever gets shown to be honest. It reminds me of these stupid celebs pledging their support to Ukraine today. It just goes to show you that celebs and popular franchises have always had a bad habit of jumping on the current thing without knowing what they are supporting. Again though even without that it's crap. I can barely remember anything else about License to Kill other than how controversial its terrorist loving plot is. Off the top of my head however so much of Goldeneye sticks in my head, like its spectacular end where Sean Bean gets killed more than any other guy in the history of anything LOL. That's Daylights. Licence to Kill was the one where Bond quits the service and goes after a drug lord. By the way, I don't think Daylights is terrorist loving. How could they have predicted 9/11 at the time? |
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Feb 27, 2023 0:03:35 GMT
Daylights is still eons ahead of the likes of Thunderball and For Your Eyes Only. At least it has Dalton giving a grand performance, and that whole section in Bratislava is classic Cold War Bond.
|
|
|
|
Post by iank on Feb 27, 2023 0:14:03 GMT
Licence to Kill by miles. Nasty, gritty little thriller. Goldeneye was fun at the time but hasn't aged well.
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Feb 27, 2023 9:50:48 GMT
Right sorry about the mistake. I thought we were comparing first Bond movies so I got them mixed up. Well in that case I'd still say Goldeneye as it's more what I think a Bond film should be, IE a big campy, fun spectacle with outrageous characters, but the second Dalton one is an absolutely brilliant film overall. Definitely years ahead of his first. It's not really my idea of a Bond film however, but then again I do prefer the Roger Moore films for being a bit more campy and fun. I suppose to those who are fans of the books, the second Dalton one is ironically more of a proper Bond film.
Sorry Maxil, whilst they couldn't have predicted 9/11 at the time, they still shouldn't have had Bond help them. The Muhjideen were a terrorist cell back then, who had already committed atrocities. They were portrayed as the good guys in western media because they were against the evil Ruskys.
It's exactly the same thing now with Ukraine. Celebs are duped into thinking it's the evil rusky's without realising the government they are supporting in Ukraine is a Nazi loving one.
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Feb 27, 2023 9:53:02 GMT
Daylights is still eons ahead of the likes of Thunderball and For Your Eyes Only. At least it has Dalton giving a grand performance, and that whole section in Bratislava is classic Cold War Bond. No way is it ahead of For Your Eyes Only. The cliff sequence in FYEO along is peak Bond. I'll give you that Thunderball is quite boring, but even then at least Bond didn't help cause 9/11 in it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2023 11:50:34 GMT
Licence to Kill seems to be quite popular amongst non Bond fans as well. It's like a combination between Miami Vice (which is a great show, by the way) and Lethal Weapon (they're similar in terms of music as well). You've even got Robert Davi and Grand L. Bush (what a name!) from Die Hard in it too. It's strange because even as a kid I knew Licence was the real deal. Carey Lowell really did a lot for me back then and still does. I'm not sure when I started preferring Daylights. My Bond rankings have changed a lot since I became a fan. They'll no doubt change again.
I prefer campy Bond films too, but I'm not opposed to a serious one every once and while. Funnily enough, Goldeneye is actually the most serious of the Brosnan films.
|
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Feb 27, 2023 13:16:12 GMT
Daylights is still eons ahead of the likes of Thunderball and For Your Eyes Only. At least it has Dalton giving a grand performance, and that whole section in Bratislava is classic Cold War Bond. No way is it ahead of For Your Eyes Only. The cliff sequence in FYEO along is peak Bond. I'll give you that Thunderball is quite boring, but even then at least Bond didn't help cause 9/11 in it. I don't get the love for that movie at all. 99% of FYEO is just stuff that's already been done. Ski chase? OHMSS. Underwater sequence? Thunderball. Trying to reach a MacGuffin ahead of Russia? From Russia With Love. Julian Glover is a top tier choice for main villain, but his character is given no depth at all. He's just some random criminal doing a job. Whitaker from Living Daylights at least has his toy soldiers gimmick. The whole film has always fallen incredibly flat for me. I'd much rather see Roger in his silly element than him trying to do the Connery thing again (which was one of the biggest criticisms of Man With The Golden Gun, but for some reason is ignored here despite being much more prevalent). Yes, him knocking the car off is cool and the climbing scene is tense, but those are only small parts of the film. It might genuinely be my least favourite. Thunderball has some glorious photography and set design going for it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2023 15:01:13 GMT
With For Your Eyes Only, it's a more down to Earth adventure after Moonraker (BADOOM TISH!!!!!!!!). The direction is actually better here than in the other John Glen films and Melina is perhaps the coolest and strongest Bond girl of the 1980s. I do find it a bit dry, though. I must say I prefer Octopussy because it balances the campy stuff from Moonraker and mixes it with the darker, more serious stuff from FYEO.
|
|
|
|
Post by iank on Feb 27, 2023 21:12:26 GMT
Living Daylights starts off great but hits the Afghan section and gets incredibly boring. Octopussy takes till the 90 minute mark to get remotely interesting (by far the worst Moore). FYEO is great fun and has by far the sexiest Bond girl IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2023 10:31:37 GMT
Right sorry about the mistake. I thought we were comparing first Bond movies so I got them mixed up. Well in that case I'd still say Goldeneye as it's more what I think a Bond film should be, IE a big campy, fun spectacle with outrageous characters, but the second Dalton one is an absolutely brilliant film overall. Definitely years ahead of his first. It's not really my idea of a Bond film however, but then again I do prefer the Roger Moore films for being a bit more campy and fun. I suppose to those who are fans of the books, the second Dalton one is ironically more of a proper Bond film. Sorry Maxil, whilst they couldn't have predicted 9/11 at the time, they still shouldn't have had Bond help them. The Muhjideen were a terrorist cell back then, who had already committed atrocities. They were portrayed as the good guys in western media because they were against the evil Ruskys. It's exactly the same thing now with Ukraine. Celebs are duped into thinking it's the evil rusky's without realising the government they are supporting in Ukraine is a Nazi loving one. But in the context of film, the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan and, like in real life, caused great destruction in the country. Are we supposed to side with them in the movie? |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Mar 29, 2023 13:05:44 GMT
Right sorry about the mistake. I thought we were comparing first Bond movies so I got them mixed up. Well in that case I'd still say Goldeneye as it's more what I think a Bond film should be, IE a big campy, fun spectacle with outrageous characters, but the second Dalton one is an absolutely brilliant film overall. Definitely years ahead of his first. It's not really my idea of a Bond film however, but then again I do prefer the Roger Moore films for being a bit more campy and fun. I suppose to those who are fans of the books, the second Dalton one is ironically more of a proper Bond film. Sorry Maxil, whilst they couldn't have predicted 9/11 at the time, they still shouldn't have had Bond help them. The Muhjideen were a terrorist cell back then, who had already committed atrocities. They were portrayed as the good guys in western media because they were against the evil Ruskys. It's exactly the same thing now with Ukraine. Celebs are duped into thinking it's the evil rusky's without realising the government they are supporting in Ukraine is a Nazi loving one. But in the context of film, the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan and, like in real life, caused great destruction in the country. Are we supposed to side with them in the movie? In real life whilst the Soviets did cause destruction to some extent, the Muhjideen were worse. We essentially propped up a frankenstein's monster of Islamic extremism and it later came back to bite us in the arse and in the James Bond universe, this means Bond helped cause 9/11. ] Quite a good video from, John Pilger, whose work is strongly recommended. |
|
