It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
No, they didn't.
Good point!
Im putting a spoiler in case anyone finds me sensurable again... Warning: Im making an ever so slightly negative remark regarding TND... but (!) also other films. Please don't kill me [-O<
Good luck to him with that one.
At the heart of it all is dear old Pierce. I really really don't understand what people see in him as Bond. He's a lovely guy, probably one of the best of the lot. But his performances as Bond are just awful. Frowning, groaning, and pain facing his way through every scene. It's embarrassing to watch. His capacity to misjudge a scene is almost mind boggling.
I have to say that I find the Teri Hatcher cameo slightly less awful than I remembered. It's a nice little relatively quiet subplot in the bigger story. Still think it's a shame that Monica Bellucci didn't get the part. And of course Dr Kaufmann is quite amusing.
After Hamburg the film really begins to flag though. The Halo jump is nice enough, but the bike chase and stealth boat are dire.
However on balance I think TND is still less awful than GE, the latter being one of the most inexplicably overrated films in the history of the series.
While I don't agree with a lot of that, that's a well thought out assessment. I thought Pierce was at his best in TND. Don't quite think your judgement on him in the film is right - I actually thought he handled himself pretty well. It's the most physical of all of his entries and arguably one of the most physical of all Bond flicks and I thought Brosnan was more than capable in that regard. Certainly more convincing than Moore was, in similar circumstances.
Yes, I'd agree here. The only one I'd agree with would be the happy demeanour after Paris' death. The rest didn't bother me all that much - no more than a raised eyebrow does, or pouting lips.
:-?
You could also blame the screenplay and directing I suppose. A bit like jovial Felix at the end of LTK.
While I don't have any problem with his acting in TND I also find this scene appalling. It is full of the recklessness the Brosnan era introduced to the franchise, from that moment on Bond felt like having a race against Onatop down that winding road,just taking it for granted, that no one else is on the street.
Yup,that's more like it.
Don't think I need luck on that one. The original Die Hard and Predator are two of the most impressive action films ever made, and honestly the 80's Bonds were not.
Agree with you on Die Hard and Predator. Two of best action flicks ever. Wonderfully enjoyable popcorn of the highest order.
Bond films are not action movies in the same sense at all though. I actually rate the 80s Bond movies pretty highly. They are not necessarily trying to be the 'biggest'. Is Die Hard 2 and Predator 2 anywhere near as good as the originals? No. Bond films in the 80s were coming out every 2 years. You can't just take the approach of making each one bigger and more action packed than the last. Down that road lies MR and DAD. I think Glen actually did a really good job in delivering a consistently high quality level of enjoyable mix of action thriller romance. Stories, pacing and plot were all consistently pretty good. These are underrated achievements.
I've often wondered this as well. TND was my first Bond ever and I saw it in the cinema. Being here on this forum after 17 years makes it clear that back then TND blew my mind. It will always be a special one for me and I refused to downgrade it from my "all-time-favourite" for a very long time. Come to think of it, probably I'd say TND is.
In light of the new direction the franchise has taken, the main difference I can determine between the two is in terms of storytelling. While TND follows the Bond-formula on auto-pilot, GE has a very interesting plot-twist: one of the few friends Bond has turning into the main villain. Personally, I think 006 is one the best villains in the series. His background story of being a "00" and being a match for 007 in almost every aspect makes it perhaps the ultimate confrontation. It's also what makes GE a much darker film than TND. I reckon it's actually up there with entries like LTK and CR(Martin Campbell, coincidence?).
Then again, if you'd fancy the straightforward Bond-formula, TND is probably one of the best in the series to pull it off. And there is nothing wrong with that. I even recall some chap called Fleming who preferred working with a formula.
In short: GE deviates slightly from the formula through storytelling and has a darker tone so probably has a slightly better appeal because of its originality. TND executes the Bond-formula perfectly and beautifully and has arguably the best stunts in the series.
One more thing. Could folks here please quit the Brozza-bashing and leave the topic? Can't see what your relevance is around here.
1) GE dealt with the end of the Cold War and made that a big deal. Fine, but then it flags up the problem of, what is Bond for now? How do we move on. IMO, TND fails a bit cos it doesn't address the issue, though it was never an issue with films like GF, TB, and so on actually most of them come to think of it! But 80s Bond made the Cold War a big deal and once that was over, it implied Bond was too. A media baron is nothing much imo and it doesn't help that we all know he doesn't exist in real life, something you couldn't really say about No, Klebb, GF, Largo, Blofeld and so on. So it fails in addressing that issue, an issue of the producers' own making (and Campbell's).
2) Production problems, it was made on the hoof and so we get action scenes that just don't do it for me, a lame motorbike chase, could be AVTAK and the firetruck really. Cack ending. Bluughh.
Oh, and it being in the same year as Face/Off - now that's a Bond film imo - and The Truman Show - now that's a Bond villain in a sinister media mode - and Titanic - now that's a big f- off spectacle with a mega song thrown in, and TND just came off as weak.
Wasn't denying that in the slightest. They're both excellent films and have proud place among my favourites. But neither have ever provided direct competition to Bond, and they're totally different kinds of films.
And raised the bar on Christmas movies. :))
Maybe in your opinion. Either way, public opinion along with box office would show that neither embarrassed Bond, never mind "kill off the franchise".
AS well!
! ?
Die hard is one of the greatest action movies ever made, and the 80's Bonds, though of some quality, are pretty much forgotten by the general public.
As for TND and GE.. I love both these films, and while TND has the better Brosnan performance, I think GE is the better film. I can watch GE endlessly. Every characters were awesome in GE, even Boris, while TND had some annoying ones like Paris.
Yeah, I don't know how your response became Die Hard 5 vs. DAD, two honestly terrible pictures, but my position was that DieHard was and is one of the best action films of all time and blows away, literally and figuratively, any of the Bond films of the '80's. And the '90's, for that matter.
And I disagree that in TND is a better Bros performance. He was a gentle, kind man in TND, and a sharp-as-a-knife secret agent in GE.
"You forgot the first rule of mass media, Elliot: Give the people what they want!"
Yes, very gentle!
:)
"Me too" ;)