Dirty Benny's Weekly Rant

[The Saint 007]

Second, Bond must be suave and sophisticated. This is the essence of Bond. Without it he’d just be another action hero like Dirty Harry. Now obviously I’m a fan of Dirty Harry (just look at the name) but I love Bond because he is NOT Dirty Harry or any other beer drinking, muscle car driving, hand cannon shooting “badass”. Bond is the antithesis of this type of movie hero. He charms women; he doesn’t flex his bicep like Arnold Schwarzenegger and make them come running. He wears finely tailored suits not bomber jackets and jeans.

Agree very much with this. I enjoy the suave and sophisticated Bond, not some stereotypical muscle-bound macho man. Compared to the others, Craig's Bond is mostly brawn than brain. Can't imagine Connery or Moore's Bond saying "A bloody big ship" during Skyfall's art appreciation scene. They would have gave the kid a detailed know-it-all description of the painting and put him in his place. But in all honesty, I still think Dirty Harry has more charisma than Craig's Bond.

[John P. Drake]

Second, Bond must be suave and sophisticated. This is the essence of Bond. Without it he’d just be another action hero like Dirty Harry. Now obviously I’m a fan of Dirty Harry (just look at the name) but I love Bond because he is NOT Dirty Harry or any other beer drinking, muscle car driving, hand cannon shooting “badass”. Bond is the antithesis of this type of movie hero. He charms women; he doesn’t flex his bicep like Arnold Schwarzenegger and make them come running. He wears finely tailored suits not bomber jackets and jeans.

Agree very much with this. I enjoy the suave and sophisticated Bond, not some stereotypical muscle-bound macho man. Compared to the others, Craig's Bond is mostly brawn than brain. Can't imagine Connery or Moore's Bond saying "A bloody big ship" during Skyfall's art appreciation scene. They would have gave the kid a detailed know-it-all description of the painting and put him in his place. But in all honesty, I still think Dirty Harry has more charisma than Craig's Bond.

Hats off to this man!!

[dirtybenny]

Agree with pretty much all of this, though describing OHMSS as "the actor's best" is cheating a little

Sent from my GT-S7500 using Tapatalk 2

True it is cheating But as you point out in your favorite Bond film list, parallel OHMSS starring Connery would have been awesome!

But in all honesty, I still think Dirty Harry has more charisma than Craig's Bond.

True, but back in the 70's even loose cannon detectives had charisma. Now-a-days you can just throw a second rate soccer hooligan in to a tuxedo and call him James Bond!

[dirtybenny]

Rant 7

Skyfall (SF) Vs. Goldfinger (GF)

There are two things these two movies have in common. One is the use of the gadget laden DB 5, the other is both movies were primarily filmed “on location” at Pinewood studios. As I pointed out in my “Skyfall” rant, other than Istanbul, Scotland was the only country the principle actors traveled to outside of England (and to be honest that’s really no great feat). Well I recently learned that trip was even shorter than I thought. Craig and Dench only spent one day in Scotland filming the drive up to Wayne… I mean Skyfall manor, the rest was done in Surrey!

So where am I going with this? Well while GF excels in staying close to home, SF misses the mark. Let’s examine the different use of locations and look at why this is. In both movies we actually only physically travel to one country outside Great Brittan. In GF we go to Switzerland where we drive through the majestic mountains and back roads of the Alps, where as in SF we rush past the Grand Bazaar and ride a freight train like Hobos in Turkey. Now for the real comparison, In GF despite the cheesy rear projection and the fact the second unit never left Miami, we feel like we are actually at the Fontainebleau hotel in Miami, on a stud farm in Kentucky and storming the real Fort Knox! I was genuinely surprised when I found out the truth that Connery never set foot in the U.S. during the filming of that film (and this was only because Connery was filming Marne and not because EON was being cheap). SF however was quite the opposite, as the use of locations was so uninspired; finding out the roof top pool in Shanghai was actually a four seasons in London didn't faze me at all!(this time it was because EON was cheap) What is the difference here?

It’s Ken Adams and his fantastic sets! His backdrops are so fantastic they are an exotic location in their own right! Even the basement cell below the stables on Goldfinger’s farm has an exotic feel to it, whereas between the bland, uninspired design, and poor lighting the “new’ MI6 headquarters in SF feel like a medieval torture chamber. The Fort Knox set was so dead on, the vault’s Chief Operating Officer wrote to Adams to congratulate him on his accuracy. Compare that to SF where we can practically see the Styrofoam in the walls of the backdrops. So GF showed us Bond can be done close to home and still impress despite the lack of travel, if the production crew uses their imagination, while SF took us on a tour of the office buildings, industrial parks and storage lockers of London. YAWN!

[commander0077again]

Agree with pretty much all of this, though describing OHMSS as "the actor's best" is cheating a little

Sent from my GT-S7500 using Tapatalk 2

True it is cheating But as you point out in your favorite Bond film list, parallel OHMSS starring Connery would have been awesome!

Ideally, if Connery had made OHMSS he would have been in the good shape he was in TB. Second, the film would have remained Peter Hunt's vision, without gadgets. However, if we are remaining true to the real time line, Connery would have likely been YOLT shape, plus a few pounds. Perhaps he wouldn't have had the thick eyebrows as in DAF, but he wouldn't have been in the best of shape. However, I could overlook most of that. The more critical thing is that it's possible with Connery, Peter Hunt would have been overruled in some cases, especially adding gadgets. Maybe he would have had jet-powered skis, with a complete backpack with laser guided grenades (in the book there is the joke of Bond having Q make exploding snowballs, btw ). So, in retrospect it would have nice to have the Connery back, even with the possible downgrade. However, the real OHMSS was a fine film, and with Lazenby, Hunt was able to tweak the Bond formula a bit, and to the better. Bond was even driving an ordinary Aston Martin. Imagine, with Connery Tracy wouldn't have been shot, because his AM would've had Blofeld-resistant glass. And if Tracy had been killed, Connery would've just tossed her aside coldly: "Sorry, little girlie!" went off after Blofeld (just kidding).

But in all honesty, I still think Dirty Harry has more charisma than Craig's Bond.

True, but back in the 70's even loose cannon detectives had charisma. Now-a-days you can just throw a second rate soccer hooligan in to a tuxedo and call him James Bond!

On the point of Dirty Harry having more charisma than Craigster, yes, he had lots more. A tangent, in the Spaghetti Western topic here in DCinB, I vote that Lee Van Cleef had more charisma than Eastwood, and if he had played Dirty Harry, the bad guys all would've ran away from San Francisco.

[commander0077again]

On Rant # 7: let's give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt. They have a terrible Bond, boring script. But as DB hits the mark, they could have at least filmed in attractive locations ... and made Scotland look half-way tremendous, at the least, for example.

[carl stromberg]

I did a Google search to see if Craig had been mentioned for a Dirty Harry remake. He had - along with several other actors - in an article on the AMC website. The article repeated the myth that "Craig saved Bond", which should be a topic for a rant.

[Daltonite Toothpaste]

Craig as Dirty Harry?

Old Skool Badass:


Perennial Pouter:


No, just... no.

[dirtybenny]

I did a Google search to see if Craig had been mentioned for a Dirty Harry remake. He had - along with several other actors - in an article on the AMC website. The article repeated the myth that "Craig saved Bond", which should be a topic for a rant.

Consider it done Carl, look for this rant coming soon!

As for Craig playing Dirty Harry! AAAGGGGHHH don't make me sick!!! Why would ANYONE, EVER, entertain that idea, even as a joke! I mean a DH remake is a bad enough idea but with Craig! Besides hasn't every cop movie since 1971 been a loose remake of DH or Bullit in some sort of way?

[dirtybenny]

Craig as Dirty Harry?

Old Skool Badass:


Perennial Pouter:


No, just... no.

Check out those pictures. Clint is about 58 in that one as I believe that is from The Dead Pool from 1988, and Craig is 14 years YOUNGER in his!

[Daltonite Toothpaste]

The Clint picture is indeed from The Dead Pool.

[dirtybenny]

Rant #8

Jesus Craig savior of Bond, or the second coming of Connery

First I want to thank Carl Stromberg for suggesting this rant.

Well were to start? Everywhere you turn there is some critic ($$$$$) or fanboy (delusional) praising the great and powerful Craig. If they were just saying he’s pretty good, or not bad, or at least he’s not Lazenby (it’s just an example, Lazenby fans) it would hold some weight. Instead we are inundated with BEST BOND EVA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The hyperbole destroys any and all credibility.

Let’s look at this review for one of Craig’s movies.

This was ranked as Rotten Tomatoes #14 Bond movie of all time

Critics Consensus: Brutal and breathless, XXXXXXXX (title redacted) delivers tender emotions along with frenetic action. Not as good as franchise reboot Casino Royale, but still an impressive entry to the Bond canon.

Which one was it? You got a 50/50 chance.

You guessed it, Quantum Of Solace! Even a lot of fanboys hate that movie and yet there you have it! Number 14 all time!

Let us remember many of these same “experts” were singing the praises of Pierce Brosnan not so long ago, now he’s the series Pariah. Funny enough it was the same hyperbole verbatim. Best Bond ever! Best since Connery! Saved the series! Brings a fresh perspective! I can’t wait until Craig moves on so I can read all the same praise foisted upon the next guy, deserved or not, and laugh myself out of my chair.

Let’s strip away our disdain for the direction the series has taken. Even if EON had kept the Bond elements we all hold so dear and miss so much, Craig would still be a substandard choice. What is so special about Craig? I’d really like to know. Is it Craig’s physical fitness? I mean what else could it be? It’s not his acting chops! Rugged good looks? Nope! Charisma? HA! He’s an action figure for little boys who've never seen a Bond film before. The comparisons to Connery are laughable! Connery had a rough and rugged, yet refined and charismatic charm about him. Craig looks like he was stuffed into a child’s tux and sent drunkenly stumbling on set to mutter his lines. I just can’t understand what has everyone so smitten with Craig. Between his rough face, mumbled delivery, and wooden personality he wouldn't have gotten an audition for “henchman #4” under the old regime!

So I ask again, what’s so special about Craig? (Besides how good he looks in a dress )

[Daltonite Toothpaste]

Rant #8Jesus Craig savior of Bond, or the second coming of Connery

The exact same thing was said of Brosnan back in the 1990's. And if Craig's successor if successful, then the same will be said of him.


As for what is so special about Craig's Bond, I don't have a clue. Nothing...?

[The Saint 007]

I remember a time when I was watching Octopussy years ago, my father started razzing me about how Moore's Bond was being a wimp for dispatching the enemies by shooting the tiers on their jeep during the opening sequence. "Brosnan is a much tougher Bond, he would have just shot those guys!" Needless to say, Brosnan's Bond, once upon a time, was considered to be the best and most bada$$ since Sean Connery. Critics praised him for showing a more human side to Bond, and his style, along with popular Bond video games like GoldenEye, helped bring in a new generation of fans. But after his swan song, as well as God's supposedly latest and greatest answer to James Bond coming down from the heavens, Brosnan has now become the "Roger Moore lite" of the series. Along with Moore, Brosnan is now the one of the most bashed Bonds on the Internet, and shares the Moore Bond characteristics of being wimpy, pretty boy, campy, etc. But that's the James Bond Cycle for you.

I honestly have no idea why Craig is considered to be so special. Sure, he has more muscle compared to the other Bonds, but that's about it. He doesn't have the looks or charisma, in my opinion, and when you remove all that artsy fartsy fluff from the films, they're really not as sophisticated as most people make them out to be. And why a sloppy abomination like Quantum Of Solace gets a pass while other films in the series get constantly bashed and down rated for the most ridiculous little things I'll never know. I'm not sure if Sean Connery would even get away with something like that.

[Blowfeld]

Rant #8Jesus Craig savior of Bond, or the second coming of Connery

The exact same thing was said of Brosnan back in the 1990's. And if Craig's successor if successful, then the same will be said of him.


As for what is so special about Craig's Bond, I don't have a clue. Nothing...?

Whenever we talk about this I always conclude Daniel's movies are targeted to those who never liked the 007 series. It seems the simplest explanation to the comparisons along with the bashing.
Timothy got slammed by seemingly everyone and Pierce was hailed as a saviour ( not surprisingly since the series was on hiatus for so long).

As was said here I'm not sure how Connery would fair in today's fickle world.

'Sean Connery in nowhere near as good as Sean Connery', 'this new Connery wear a toupee while speaking with a funny accent' ' the best Connery since Connery.'

In a strange way the Bondmania of the 60s help sustain the films, each time a new actor is cast the fans want to believe it marks a return to the truest form of 007. Which probably never existed. It's an ideal existing in the ethereal plane similar to Camelot.

[commander0077again]

I did a Google search to see if Craig had been mentioned for a Dirty Harry remake. He had - along with several other actors - in an article on the AMC website. The article repeated the myth that "Craig saved Bond", which should be a topic for a rant.

Craig should play the thug Dirty Harry plugs into San Francisco bay with a .50 Coast Guard bowgun! I might even pay to see that.

[commander0077again]

I remember a time when I was watching Octopussy years ago, my father started razzing me about how Moore's Bond was being a wimp for dispatching the enemies by shooting the tiers on their jeep during the opening sequence. "Brosnan is a much tougher Bond, he would have just shot those guys!" Needless to say, Brosnan's Bond, once upon a time, was considered to be the best and most bada$$ since Sean Connery. Critics praised him for showing a more human side to Bond, and his style, along with popular Bond video games like GoldenEye, helped bring in a new generation of fans. But after his swan song, as well as God's supposedly latest and greatest answer to James Bond coming down from the heavens, Brosnan has now become the "Roger Moore lite" of the series. Along with Moore, Brosnan is now the one of the most bashed Bonds on the Internet, and shares the Moore Bond characteristics of being wimpy, pretty boy, campy, etc. But that's the James Bond Cycle for you.

I honestly have no idea why Craig is considered to be so special. Sure, he has more muscle compared to the other Bonds, but that's about it. He doesn't have the looks or charisma, in my opinion, and when you remove all that artsy fartsy fluff from the films, they're really not as sophisticated as most people make them out to be. And why a sloppy abomination like Quantum Of Solace gets a pass while other films in the series get constantly bashed and down rated for the most ridiculous little things I'll never know. I'm not sure if Sean Connery would even get away with something like that.

Producers can just go down to the gym and hire big muscles to play thugs. But it's a lot harder to find someone to play Bond, someone who's super intelligent and capable yet able to wink at himself but keeping a perfect razors edge balance between winking and being 'heroic' .... ie a hero that is heroic.

[commander0077again]

Dirty Benny, I was ranting to myself earlier today, and just remembered:
On the political correctness of a female M. Hm hm hm. Judy Densch is a fine actress, and funny. But looking back, I really don't want M to be a girl (ha ha, there's more Un PC).... when she scenes with the Brosnan, this is Bond at his worse. The book Bond would never have much to do with a female M; and in the films, the M scenes would have been much better if Bond could react against a male admiral, with cold damnably clear eyes. Shorry, a female M can't pull this off. I would have liked to have seen Brosnan giving a sardonic 007ish over his nose look at 'this M' with his clear thought: Where's Miles Messerby?! This skirt who's talking about balls and not bezants! Plus plus, the real M would never field manager Bond while she's sitting pretty in her office. Ha, they should have had a portrait on the wall of the Babs as the Queen.
Thanx for the rant time!

[Kristatos]

I only half agree with this. Yes, the "sexist, misogynist dinosaur" speech was a horrible portent of things to come. But the Bond films have always incorporated real-life events into their narrative. One of the paintings in Dr No's lair had recently been stolen in the real world, and was added by Ken Adam as a then-topical joke, for example. So when Stella Rimington became the first female "M" in real life, it seemed logical to reflect this in the Bondverse.

Sent from my GT-S7500 using Tapatalk 2

[carl stromberg]

It was a good idea to have a woman end in Goldeneye to reflect the changing times. But the series was rebooted with Craig and Dench stayed just because she is the perfect cast member for Babs - a respected serious actress. And then Dench's M then took over the whole series spouting badly written dialogue with her lemon face.