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
Wouldn't they be in the best shape and condition?
Wouldn't they be in the gym every day to insure longevity in their business?
If Fleming were still here, my belief is Bond would resemble more of these physical attributes since that's what it would take to be a spy in today's world.
I think we would still have the hard drinker, and obsessive womanizer, but gone would be the smokes and more time would be spent in the gym (sparring, weight training).
Ultimately I go to the movies to be entertained, and to experience a little escapism. The whole premise of Bond is somewhat fantasy anyway, & the film legend has a certain legacy of refinement to it, which differentiates it from other franchises.
So I'd prefer a Bond actor who plays up to the suave aspects, more so than the looks in fact. It's just a personal preference. That doesn't mean I want a poseur in a suit either however.
Craig may be more subtle than his debonair counter parts, but he does maintain a certain class that still seperates him from his contemporaries.
I find Craig most convincing when he's being that raw, intense thug in a suit. When he's beating the hell out of someone or giving someone an icy stare. Not when he's playing Mr. Suave.
I watched CR last night and to me there's no doubt that he was actually best in this respect in that earliest film (as he is in every other way). That is a testament to the performance he gave there, but also a credit to the entire team (writers, directors etc.) who made him extremely credible in that film in nearly every aspect. They didn't give him one liners that he would feel embarrassed to deliver, but rather put him in organically humorous situations where he could shine.
Simple really. In CR, giving Bond something personal to grapple with, whilst now overused and stale now, at the time felt extremely fresh. It is based on one of the best Fleming novels, it has a superb cast, great pacing and a lot of layers. And Craigs Bond is at his most playful. At least for the first hour so of the film, he actually looks as though he is enjoying himself a bit, like his predecessors.
QOS on the other hand, Bond was almost portrayed as a grim Terminator-type. The pacing was awful, the editing abysmal. The villain had about 3 or 4 scenes in the whole thing. The film felt unfinished. And this is where the dreaded 'navel gazing' truly began.
Well I have no problem that Craig is a more physical Bond, however, I wished that his strengths were a bit more diverse. He hardly ever has to use a clever trick to get out of an unconveniant situation but is rather simply kicking the villains' asses. It is of course not bad but I wish that not everything would depend on physicality. Remember Connery who was physically strong to some degree but also clever by using his wits to succeed.
I also find that Bond is not only the paid assassin but also a spy. And Craig's Bond is not doing so very much spy work. I would like to see him investigating more often, snooping around, working undercover, interrogating people, etc.
But seriously, it improves on the book to show Bond's first two kills and him at the very start of his career as a Double-oh. There should be NOTHING that sets up an individual, even Bond, to just step into a OO-spot and knock off assignments like pre-set dominoes. It's to be earned, and it should have hard lessons along the way.
That's why CASINO ROYALE is so well done.
Different than serving up the well-known formula completely to tick off every single box. So there's sense made to the vodka martini. The sacrificial lamb. Bond getting captured and tortured by the villain. Bond absolutely committing to save his lover and failing completely. The gunbarrel.
I found CR to be refreshing, respectful and relishing the history that came before it (the three Rs!). I didn't find Bond to be a petulant child, but I did find him someone who bucks authority, a la Connery (he's still using that "damn Beretta"...), and also the Bond of Fleming, who curses the old man behind the desk (but with lots of respect);
I don't think M was holding his hand in CR. You must understand, and perhaps @RC7 can chime in with his thoughts: films need an arc in the lead character. He must start at a point and change by the end. In this, CR succeeds tremendously. When we meet him, he's a rookie double-O. By the end, he is Bond, James Bond.
M's role in CR was to see that Bond faced the challenges, defeated obstacles that presented themselves, to find out who he was by the end credits. It's the archetype of story-telling.
And breaking into a superior's home is just simple movie-making/story-telling/pushing the hero forward... not real life...
I don't go for the Bourne comparisons, that's not what's going on. Rather than handholding, Bond does things his way in spite of the bureaucrats and many times M herself. He's got my respect, and it builds up all the other Bonds from 1962 - 2002 by finally telling the CASINO ROYALE story so well. It establishes the character, cannot be separated from any Bond in any medium.
What?
Beyond that, the 60s style as the sort of opposite to that is timeless, classy, irresistible. Agree. But still.
True fact. Connery Bond didn't wear bells. Even so.
But that was part of the story, not his style!!
@JamesBondKenya, I'm not clear why you would be calling me a hypocrite? I do like SF, but I don't remember 007 wearing bell bottoms, which is a problem I have with Moore, as I mentioned... So...?
Agreed. QoS was unnecessary. But I suppose they wanted to tell the tale of Vesper's boyfriend.
Nah dude I was talking about mr kiss kiss bang bang because he hates CR and qos for his very detailed reasons and I think that he would be a hypocrite if he liked skyfall because skyfall makes absolutely no sense story wise
Hmm... I'm failing to see what is "formally clever" about that one-liner quoted from Skyfall. It doesn't seem all that sophisticated or clever to me, in fact it seems rather laboured. Do lines like "That last hand nearly killed me" or "I won't consider myself in trouble until I start weeping blood" in CR not count?
Pretty much.
Agreed.
I don't care if CR is missing the surface-level trappings of a typical Bond film - gun barrel, Moneypenny, Q, "quips." To me, it is the most pure cinematic Bond since the '60s. It brings back Bond's famous "sex, snobbery and sadism" in full force (although I do recognize the origin of that phrase was in criticism of Fleming's Dr. No, I still think it sums up the world of Bond better than a focus on gadgets, puns, and other trappings).
For the first time since Connery, Bond is a hard, cruel man, with a veneer of charm and class. A tough customer, a brawler in a tuxedo. The idea of danger lying right below the surface is even extended to the casino scenes - you've got this high class situation, this card game, but there’s this animosity, the stakes are really high, there’s an undercurrent of violence that rears its head every once in a while. The best example is the stairwell fight, where we see Bond’s tuxedo covered in blood, his body bruised, and he has to get cleaned up and go back to the casino.
So there's your snobbery and sadism. What about sex? Solange gets a great old-school introduction, riding on the beach in a bikini, Bond eyeing her up from afar - reminiscent of Ursula Andress (Bond gets an even more similar treatment). And then her dress in the Ocean Club! The shower scene with Vesper is also one of the most sexually charged in the series. I also like Bond charming the Ocean Club receptionist - sort of harkens back to the old ‘60s Connery films where every woman is a beauty, even if she’s just a hotel receptionist. A world with beautiful women around every corner, for no good reason other than a bit of eye candy. And Craig has an intense, magnetic energy in his scenes with women.
Some other things that make CR feel like a '60s film:
- Bond enjoying food and drink (ordering a Vesper, dinner on the train, caviar in the restaurant)... a sense of decadence and luxury here.
- Bond's dirty, rough fighting style (PTS and stairwell fight recall OHMSS and FRWL).
- The Bahamas recalls the Caribbean locales in DN and TB.
- The main titles song melody reappears throughout the score - a hallmark of Barry's '60s sound (I believe this last occurred in Barry's TLD... I guess Arnold attempted it with "Surrender" as well, but that song got pushed to the end credits of TND).
- The film has a defining visual motif (casino/poker) like the old ones (e.g. GF is full of golden blondes, sets, Goldfinger's car and clothing, etc; TB constantly returns to an underwater setting; OHMSS has a motif of regality - lots of purples, lots of references to nobility and heritage). Even when we're not at the Casino Royale, there's the titles sequence, Le Chiffre playing poker on his yacht, Bond vs. Dimitrios poker game, skeletons playing poker at Bodyworlds, characters trying to read each others' "poker faces" in conversation, etc.
- Ending the film with "Bond, James Bond" and a classic, straightforward rendition of the James Bond Theme. When I saw this in '06, I thought - this was cinematic Bond, he was the epitome of cool, and I felt cooler after spending a couple hours in that world.
So yeah. Moneypenny, Q and one-liners do not a Bond film make. Anyway, I've babbled on long enough. Where's the CR appreciation thread when you need it?
Jesus why are you so butthurt I thought I was the teenager
MrKissKissBangBang. You came across as a complete cock in that post. Trolling 15 year olds isn't cool. Don't bother abusing me in return, I'm 42 and couldn't give a shit.
[quote="Milovy;709148"
Hmm... I'm failing to see what is "formally clever" about that one-liner quoted from Skyfall. It doesn't seem all that sophisticated or clever to me, in fact it seems rather laboured. Do lines like "That last hand nearly killed me" or "I won't consider myself in trouble until I start weeping blood" in CR not count?[/quote]
What's there not to understand, @Milovy? That was pure Connery era quip with sophisticated structure in being jocular rather than throw an average joe civilian word or two, or a third grader English if you will. "That last hand... it nearly killed me." was actually a good one, but other than that, up until the ending of Quantum of Solace could you feel that Terence Young/Richard Maibaum style of quip cleverness, or maybe akin to Roger Moore type of one-liners Craig ever uttered? I don't seem to recall. If you do, please be my guest. I'll stand corrected.