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
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How are they not action films?
Bond films are listed as Action/Adventure films in the video store rows back then and on Amazon now.
There's nothing wrong with saying some films are better than some of the Bond films, or that some Bond films are better than others. It's just reality.
NOW you're talking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We were discussing Bond, not Stamper!
LOLOLOL!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!
:)
"I'd say he's developed an edifice complex."
OUCH.
Great dialogue from DE:
"Your watch was there, frozen by the Goldeneye blast."
More diabolical TND Dialogue:
"I thought we might link up."
Actually, it's GE. But, what the hell!
I really dig Carver's speech to the media moguls near the beginning of TND. Some great dialogue there.
Eeesh, ok.
Indeed.
I think Elliot Carver has some great dialogue throughout the film, and that's why he is one of my favourite villains. His performance is also very reminiscent of Max Zorin, which is perhaps why his character appeals to me. I think I do prefer Alec Trevelyan, however (who also has excellent dialogue).
"What's the matter? No glib remark? No pity comeback?"
Let's remember, Bond films started out as spy thrillers. YOLT raised the action bar historically, and since then, action has been associated with Bond, but the best Bond movies are never action films on the level of Die Hard or even Lethal Weapon. Brosnan's movies fell into the trap of needing action with a big "A" to compete in the marketplace. IMO it was an artistic mistake but a financial success. I've never watched Bond for the action first, and in Brosnan's first two, I was entertained enormously by all aspects of the films, not just the action. AND, if the action had been toned down a bit, they might have even been all the better for it- you can't say that about Die Hard or Predator.... ;)
What are they, then? Drama? Some of them are sure comedies, of course. The bad ones.
Bond films aren't action films…gimme a break. Just afraid to concede that the 80's or 90's films could not hold their end of the action against the action heavyweights.
And even then, Bond movies have a big plus going for them - stunts. Stuff like the tank chase in GE, parkour chase in CR, ski jump in TSWLM and even the car jump in TMWTGG (on mute) are more epic than most of the fist fight/fire fight in Taken, Die Hard and Expendables. DH's got the upper hand on the 'traditional action scenes', but for stunts you don't need to look anywhere else than the Bond franchise.
Did you just quote Morpheus ;) Bond films are more than just action, when action top heavy its easy to lose interest.
I thought I made exactly that point about eight pages back!?
Anyway, obviously Bond is not straight action. Really Bond is in a genre of its own, called 'Bond movies'. Those who like Bond movies understand exactly what this means.
Which is not to denigrate action films. Die Hard and Predator are absolutely brilliant at what they do. Perhaps the best of their particular genre. Both made before CGI but the SFX are perfect. Inspired casting. Both Willis and Arnie are absolutely perfect for their roles. The people making both movies knew exactly what they were doing and executed it perfectly.
Pure action is where the narrative drive is the action itself. This is actually rarely done very well. Another very good example of the genre IMO is Mel Gibson's Apocalypto.
Anyway, Bond films are different. Yes, they perhaps contributed to the evolution of the action genre, but they were never 100% in that category. Just as the novels are not just about action. In an interview while making LTK Dalton described the Bond movies as a mixture of thriller, adventure and romance. They are rooted in a much older tradition. Bond has echoes of the Edwardian imperialist swashbuckling adventurer, blended with the 20th century modern man of technology, guilt free sex and ennui. He straddles two eras - neither of which are particularly close to our own. He's a relic, as SF was so clumsily intent on pointing out. And he's not an action hero.
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2014/nov/14/alan-cumming-i-never-felt-achieved-enough-always-told-was-nothing
Not an action hero? Seriously?
That's just a response to avoid saying that the significant 80's action films were not better than the '80's Bond films.
The Brosnan films don't compare to the Bourne films, is this where someone writes in that Bond is not a spy?
Have you watched the early Bond films? Don't you see that they come from a totally different place from 80s action movies? That is the tradition that the 80s Bonds were following in. Plot and narrative were still important.