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
His hair is so coiffed in GE that you wonder how the hell he’s able to keep it that way without taking the time to look in a mirror and comb it.
I prefer Broz with the shorter haircuts in TWINE/DAD.
It wouldn’t be the first time EON hired a rookie director.
It definitely took a film in to get the hair correct.
I feel that Brosnan improved in the role with each film, with the films almost descending in quality (I prefer DAD to TWINE and, usually, TND).
I also thought he looked his healthiest in this film (whereas he was way too thin in GE, and seemed a little rounder in the face, and softer in the body in his final two).
And I did like his hair as well...
The funny thing is that if Brosnan’s bangs were swept across his forehead, he’d most certainly be rocking a bowl cut. His haircuts in TWINE and DAD are a vast improvement.
With regards to where the franchise SHOULD go after Craig I think the answer fairly simple. I don't know where the Bond movies will end up in the future, but I think in the immediate short term they should focus on making the "anti-craig" bond film. Craig take in the character was to add depth and make each story personal and a means examine the character in more detail. While this worked very well for Casino Royale, where they were working with a clean slate and had the benefit of Flemings novel to draw inspiration from, repeating this formula over the course of multiple films quickly presented problems. Firstly, when everything has personal stakes it means having to make the previously expansive and exciting world of international espionage suddenly very tied with james bond himself. So for instance, bond falls in love on his first mission, but it turns out his love is working for an evil organisation. in trying to track down this evil org, he comes across an assassin who tells him about another evil organisation, who happens to be run by bonds long lost step brother. Bond then falls in love with the assassins daughter, who has a secret that she was rescued from a frozen lake as a young girl. Its turns out her rescuer also went on to become a evil leader, who kills bonds evil stepbrother and for some reason wants to raise bonds secret daughter as his own, and... yeah. All these timelines overlap too neatly, and it becomes a little too coincidental. Also, when bonds mission is personal each time, it means that each film follows a similar pattern, of bond quitting and going into hiding, drinking himself to death before being coaxed out of the shadows, getting back into shape, and being mocked for being past his prime and an "old dog" etc. Following a formula is fine when it's a standalone story each time, but when it'd supposed to be an ongoing story of someone's life you have to wonder how many times a person can find themselves in the same situation and respond in exactly the same way? How many times the same guy become cynical and washed up, only to clean himself up again and find his mojo, and then a few years later be back where he started? And that's my point about the Craig era as a whole - what started out as brave and exciting (and very necessary) departure from the standard bond adventure we were used to seeing has gradually become stale and tired over time. For me Bond 25 represented the ne plus ultra of this style of film. How can you get a more personal stakes, pull at your heart strings bond than, not only all the usual Craig tropes, but bond finding out he has a family, and then sacrificing himself to save them?
And this, for me is why the next Bond should be the anti-craig bond film. Just like Craigs bond was designed from the ground up as the perfect antidote to what the brosnan films became (bright and flashy, but hollow), so must the next Bond act as a countersignal the Craig tropes, and develop a whole new way to tell engrossing stories without tying it to Bonds struggle to find his identity, or overcome some personal baggage from his past. EON should cast the Craig tropes out and start with writing an actually engaging plot, with real stakes that have an impact for the real world. Have the drama come from the unique and bizarre situations that only bond could find himself in. Bring back the irreverence, and allow the absurdity of Bonds way of life to be seen for what it is. Make the films faster more kinetic and vibrant. I always think the first film in a new era should always feel a little rebellious, and if the personal side of Bond is the new status quo, then Bond 26 should be doing as much as it can to rage against the machine, just like how CR intentionally threw out Moneypenny and Q back in 2006, to establish itself on its own terms. Ofcourse I'm not saying that bond films should, never go back to telling serious or personal stories again, everything ebbs and flows with bond, and I'm sure what formula they do for the next Bond will eventually get tired and dull, and then serious bond will be exciting again, but I am saying that after Craigs 15 year tenure, they need to completely change tack and do something completely different, but also original in its own right that includes some of the old-school humour and wit.
The latter is what I'm hoping for. Currently, I'm a few beers deep watching TLD right now and that's the perfect film to draw a template on how to reboot/refresh the franchise. I don't think we're getting another MR or DAD the same way we're not getting another Craig-type anthology.
The PTS would start with M in a cemetery, it's autumn, he's standing, (but he's slightly covered by an orange leaf tree (because of an autumn perhaps?) And there's also a very old, grey facade as his background), but all of a sudden, he talked (I don't remember what did he said though), like he started talking to himself in a right timing.
Then someone appeared at his back, walking, and it's the new Bond actor, I don't know who he is, but he's not one of the actors who's in the running, he's likely to be unknown, so here's the description (lean and a bit too skinny, clean shaven, he have dimples, dark haired, and he's a bit pale, he's not tall, just an average height).
When he's appeared, M handed him his gun.
There's also a scene (it looks like it's in the trailer), he kissed a girl in a public bathroom (they're both fully dressed anyway), the Bond actor in that scene wore a suit without a jacket, and then shifted to another scene where he pressed a key on a laptop and it showed that it's like he detonated something, it turned off the nuclear bombs around the world, as it showed different countries (don't remember those countries).
It's just a dream from me though, I don't know.
I can confirm that haircut is an absolute b*tch to keep in place.
Past one random viewing I had really early one morning some years back that was actually very entertaining, this is the same hope I have every time I watch it and it never pays off. It's too generic in a lot of respects, especially in the gunfights and fisticuffs. It has a TV movie quality to it.
Me too. Although I like Jonathan Pryce as Elliot Carver, I still wish we could have gotten Sir Anthony Hopkins to play him. Hopkins as a Bond villain is a missed opportunity.
I would say that as much as Anthony Hopkins not playing a Bond villain is a shame, I don't think he would have been suited to Carver. I think part of the character's appeal is that on the surface he's this mild mannered, even trust worthy looking figure, and yet beneath that he's this manipulative madman. I find Pryce sells it well. Hopkins, great as he is, would have overplayed the sinister aspects of the character and I don't think it would have had quite the same menace or resonance with the main ideas of the story.
This is the film where I liked some parts of it, but it couldn't make up for the whole.
It tried to be an action heavy oriented film, but at the same time, tried to be a bit dramatic (that Bond and Paris Carver sequence), and yet at the same time tried to be a bit camp (the jokes, one liners, and some funny bits like the Elliot Carver doing Martial Arts or that whole Parking Lot Car Chase), And in my view, all of these didn't came together well. And it's pretty odd too, because that latter scene in particular, after Bond grieved Paris' death, just a minutes later, he's happy again in that Car Chase playing his remote controlled car, it's the most evident of how much inconsistent is this film.
I liked it better than the others, but the inconsistency of it is the main flaw for me.
I think in general, the inconsistency of tone is what plagued the Brosnan Era Bond films (post-GE).
And again, it did happened again with Craig in his last two entries (SP & NTTD).
… and Monica Bellucci as Paris Carver.
Agree. It's a bit of a reliable gem. Plus, looking back, I realize now it had a greater impact on me than I originally recognized. I work in media now and find myself quoting Carver all the time.
It’s just a first impression I have never been able to shake off. TND was my very first Bond film, and I found it incredibly underwhelming at the time, enough that it put me off wanting to see more Bond films. Sometime later I saw GE (after enjoying playing the N64 game) and was surprised by how much better it was in all aspects that it made me want to see the other films.
You’re right that other films can be as generic. TWINE is one of them. For all of the strengths of John Glen’s films, they still lack a certain flair that other films have and I think that’s part of what caused the decline in box office attendance the 80s.
Bond and Stamper should have fought in that booth with Bond barely escaping by the skin of his teeth. That would make their fight at the end just as satisfying.
I forgot about the sound effects (especially of the punches) in that film, haha. Very distracting in hindsight.
As for the henchmen, I'm actually a huge fan of Dr. Kauffman (somewhat cliched and silly as he is). Stamper's a bit of a budget Red Grant though, but then again that's actually a rather common thing in the series (off the top of my head YOLT, TLD and FYEO all had similar looking blonde, muscled henchmen).
Agreed. Stamper is sadly underutilized throughout (love him as a henchman) but certainly makes up for it during the finale.