James Bond: The Ultimate Collection (1962-2012) + Volume Collections

[MJD64]

A View To A Kill still gets my vote for the worst Bond film but I can still watch it; that's the beauty of the series for me, even the "lesser" entries are watchable as hell, and all have their incidental pleasures whether in villains, heroines, locations, scores or an especially memorable set-piece or two.

I think that's the secret to the Bond's longevity, there's not one that's completely intolerable.

Cue posters who are going to say which films are intolerable...

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by MJD64

A View To A Kill still gets my vote for the worst Bond film but I can still watch it; that's the beauty of the series for me, even the "lesser" entries are watchable as hell, and all have their incidental pleasures whether in villains, heroines, locations, scores or an especially memorable set-piece or two.

I think that's the secret to the Bond's longevity, there's not one that's completely intolerable.

Cue posters who are going to say which films are intolerable...

I agree. I can never say I dislike a Bond film, there's just some I like less than others. Moonraker was always my least favourite just because of the outer space stuff and some of the jokes (the pigeon, the Jaws-Dolly romance) but aside from that it's still got some classic moments. I'm not a fan of the Brosnan era stuff either but I can still enjoy those if I'm in the right mood. Some of the others that people hate like Diamonds Are Forever or The Man With The Golden Gun I actually really enjoy.

[balthazar_bee]

There's a lot of truth there. I like a good "pile on" when it comes to my least favourites, like Live and Let Die or A View to a Kill (or even the strangely beloved You Only Live Twice), but the fact is I enjoy them all.

Having said that, it's been a loooong time since I broke out some of the above titles. But there was a time when the whole series was in regular rotation.

Now, since I don't watch them regularly, it's hard to imagine a situation where I'd think, "I'm in the mood for a Bond film -- let's watch The Man with the Golden Gun!" It's pretty much down to the first four, OHMSS, the Dalton films, the first two Craig films, maybe For Your Eyes Only or a whimsically chosen Brosnan entry.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by BluProofie

I've honestly always felt that Octopussy was the worst in the entire series... It's the most generic and boring... Octopussy is just dull.

[drush9999]

I like all Bond movies for different reasons, but I find the Tom Mankiewicz era Diamonds to Golden Gun the least good. I liked A View to a Kill and Die Another Day on rewatches.

[Shillingbury Tales]

Originally Posted by balthazar_bee

For all the heat Octopussy takes (from insufferable literary Bond purists -- of which I am one -- and otherwise), I've always found it an enjoyable and satisfying way to spend two hours. This is particularly true relative to some of the other Moore Bonds. Moreover, apart from a couple of glaring moments, I don't even think it's as silly as its reputation suggests.

The only real problem are some of the jokes. I expect there are many people, even UK viewers who miss the Barbara Woodhouse references and also are not aware that Vijay Amritraj was a professional tennis player at the time

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Shillingbury Tales

The only real problem are some of the jokes. I expect there are many people, even UK viewers who miss the Barbara Woodhouse references and also are not aware that Vijay Amritraj was a professional tennis player at the time

Sure, but stuff like that is always gonna be a product of its time & place, and not everyone is gonna be a tennis fan. Vijay also got a slot in Star Trek IV though (and not a tennis racket in sight!), so he must've been doing something right.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by Shillingbury Tales

The only real problem are some of the jokes. I expect there are many people, even UK viewers who miss the Barbara Woodhouse references and also are not aware that Vijay Amritraj was a professional tennis player at the time

Even if they don't get the Woodhouse reference, they can still laugh at the fact that he gets the tiger to sit and as for Amritraj, there are enough context clues vis-a-vis tennis jokes for someone to figure that he has something to do with tennis and they can always Google him afterwards. Just because they might not fully understand a few jokes, doesn't mean there's going to be "a problem". I imagine there are far less people out there who will understand the Duke of Wellington joke in Dr. No.

[Shillingbury Tales]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Sure, but stuff like that is always gonna be a product of its time & place, and not everyone is gonna be a tennis fan. Vijay also got a slot in Star Trek IV though (and not a tennis racket in sight!), so he must've been doing something right.

Yes but as you say the Star Trek role didn't play on his status as a tennis player which the Bond movie did and there are several references to it which only people over a certain age will notice.

Apart from the dated humour I thought the rest of the movie was quite good.
Thankfully some of the potentially good moments ruined by stupidity deliberately by John Glen ( and according to the commentaries he still doesn't realise what a mistake they were) in earlier films were less apparent although the aforementioned dated humour is typical of the sort of crap Glen used to like adding.
Many great moments in For Your Eyes Only were spoilt by his unnecessary attempts to get laughs where they were not appropriate

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by Shillingbury Tales

Yes but as you say the Star Trek role didn't play on his status as a tennis player which the Bond movie did and there are several references to it which only people over a certain age will notice.

Apart from the dated humour I thought the rest of the movie was quite good.
Thankfully some of the potentially good moments ruined by stupidity deliberately by John Glen ( and according to the commentaries he still doesn't realise what a mistake they were) in earlier films were less apparent although the aforementioned dated humour is typical of the sort of crap Glen used to like adding.
Many great moments in For Your Eyes Only were spoilt by his unnecessary attempts to get laughs where they were not appropriate

The stuff with Maggie and Denis makes me cringe every time I watch that film. He had planned to have a scene with lookalikes of Charles and Diana in The Living Daylights. Thankfully that didn't happen.

[BrickWaters]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I love Octopussy, it's a million times better than A View to a Kill and has all the great Roger Moore Bond stuff in it. I think the people who really hate it just dislike the Moore era in general.

I love Octopussy. I also love the way Louis Jourdan says "Octopussy."



It's one of Roger Moore's best film. As a matter of fact I think, The Spy Who Love Me (1977), Moonraker (1979), For Your Eyes Only (1981), and Octopussy (1983) is one of the strongest stretches of films in the series. I had a blast seeing The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only on the big screen for the Roger Moore tribute. I would love to see a double feature of Moonraker and Octopussy as well.

And because why not?

Stephen King's Octopussy

[Markgway]

I'm always bemused by series fans who rave over the 'dark and serious' For Your Eyes Only but lament Octopussy for its silliness.

I mean, is their anything in the latter that compares with Bond dropping a Blofeld dummy down a chimney ('keep your hair on!'), a Maggie Thatcher impersonator talking to a parrot(!) on the phone, or Bond being pursued by a horny nymphet skater a third of his age...?

[StingingVelvet]

I like both styles. For Your Eyes Only is great in it's more grounded (but still insanely silly and Moore-ish) approach, but Octopussy is also super fun. Plenty of room for both.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by MJD64

A View To A Kill still gets my vote for the worst Bond film but I can still watch it; that's the beauty of the series for me, even the "lesser" entries are watchable as hell, and all have their incidental pleasures whether in villains, heroines, locations, scores or an especially memorable set-piece or two.

I think that's the secret to the Bond's longevity, there's not one that's completely intolerable.

Great post! It says it all for me. When everything is said and done, even a bad Bond movie is better than no Bond movie.

[Bobbyjoe766]

Originally Posted by Markgway

I'm always bemused by series fans who rave over the 'dark and serious' For Your Eyes Only but lament Octopussy for its silliness.

I mean, is their anything in the latter that compares with Bond dropping a Blofeld dummy down a chimney ('keep your hair on!'), a Maggie Thatcher impersonator talking to a parrot(!) on the phone, or Bond being pursued by a horny nymphet skater a third of his age...?

Wasn't there a Benny Hill-style slap to Blofeld's pate before being unloaded from the helicopter skid, down into the chimney? I haven't seen these films in years.

I didn't like the double-take the pigeon did in MOONRAKER much either.

[ChromeJob]

I was happy with FYEO on release, thanking the stars for something more down to earth and "tough" than Moonpussy, but then came Octofaker with Tarzan yells, Barbara Woodhouse tiger training, crocodile submarines, etc, circus clown disguises (sorry guys, I just can't see the literary Bond doing that), etc. It's on par with TSWLM, and that's probably my issue: I like LALD, TMWTGG even, FYEO a little (I've cooled to it after watching the BD) but TSWLM was a downturn for me. Jaws, quoting Jarre's theme from Lawrence of Arabia, aping YOLT, etc. I only kind of enjoy there of Moore's outings. Octopussy ain't one o' them.

Yeah, yeah, I kinda enjoy TMWTGG despite J. W. Pepper, Tick Tack, and the slide whistle on the car jump. Britt Eklund is a double-edged delight: annoying and vapid, but da-yam she could rock a bikini. (Maud Adams no less so.)

Originally Posted by baheidstu

Even if they don't get the Woodhouse reference, they can still laugh at the fact that he gets the tiger to sit and as for Amritraj, there are enough context clues vis-a-vis tennis jokes for someone to figure that he has something to do with tennis and they can always Google him afterwards. Just because they might not fully understand a few jokes, doesn't mean there's going to be "a problem". I imagine there are far less people out there who will understand the Duke of Wellington joke in Dr. No.

I thought Woodhouse was an international book and TV phenomenon, so the joke carried around the First World at least.

The painting "joke" in Dr. No was a very different kind of humor. Not sure if all the quips in Dr. No were fr Terence Young, but cast members said he had that very dry and sly humor that that film and FRWL feature. I think Young said the idea for the painting was his...? I'd have to watch the interviews again. Point being, Young's humor was deadpan wit, no wink, then move on. You can see it in "Make sure he doesn't get away," "I think they were on their way to a funeral," ""oh, I'm just looking," etc. No smirk and almost-wink to the fourth wall the way the Moore films did. Mankiewicz's style of humor wasn't so much a wicket to the tush, but a baseball bat to your head.

[Geoff D]

"I sure am, boy!"

One of my favourite Bond moments

[ChromeJob]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

"I sure am, boy!"

One of my favourite Bond moments

Yeah. Moore could do comedy like no one's business. I also like his look when he recognizes Pepper. "Hey, I know you — " "Oh, noooo…."


\\ Sent from an Android or iOS device //

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

Great post! It says it all for me. When everything is said and done, even a bad Bond movie is better than no Bond movie.

Like pizza and sex (they say), even when it's bad it's good.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by ChromeJob

I was happy with FYEO on release, thanking the stars for something more down to earth and "tough" than Moonpussy, but then came Octofaker with Tarzan yells, Barbara Woodhouse tiger training, crocodile submarines, etc, circus clown disguises (sorry guys, I just can't see the literary Bond doing that), etc. It's on par with TSWLM, and that's probably my issue: I like LALD, TMWTGG even, FYEO a little (I've cooled to it after watching the BD) but TSWLM was a downturn for me. Jaws, quoting Jarre's theme from Lawrence of Arabia, aping YOLT, etc. I only kind of enjoy there of Moore's outings. Octopussy ain't one o' them.

Yeah, yeah, I kinda enjoy TMWTGG despite J. W. Pepper, Tick Tack, and the slide whistle on the car jump. Britt Eklund is a double-edged delight: annoying and vapid, but da-yam she could rock a bikini. (Maud Adams no less so.)



I thought Woodhouse was an international book and TV phenomenon, so the joke carried around the First World at least.

The painting "joke" in Dr. No was a very different kind of humor. Not sure if all the quips in Dr. No were fr Terence Young, but cast members said he had that very dry and sly humor that that film and FRWL feature. I think Young said the idea for the painting was his...? I'd have to watch the interviews again. Point being, Young's humor was deadpan wit, no wink, then move on. You can see it in "Make sure he doesn't get away," "I think they were on their way to a funeral," ""oh, I'm just looking," etc. No smirk and almost-wink to the fourth wall the way the Moore films did. Mankiewicz's style of humor wasn't so much a wicket to the tush, but a baseball bat to your head.

You claim to like LALD and TMWTGG yet you denigrate Mankiewicz. "I think they were on their way to a funeral"? That line sinks like a lead balloon. "Speak or forever hold your piece" is infinitely more witty.