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
I think Jason Bourne was much more of an answer to Bond than Ethan Hunt is. I remember a lot of interviews with both Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass where they publicly trashed the character of Bond, and his world, which I always found a bit distasteful. Greengrass kind of walked back on some of those remarks in recent years due to how successful the Craig era was, but at least with Mission Impossible, Tom Cruise is willing to admit the Bond influence. I remember seeing a red carpet interview where he mentioned that he is a fan like everyone else. I think MI is Cruise’s way of making an action spectacle like Bond, not riffing the character per say.
Indeed. Bond has an adaptability to it. It has an ability to take what is popular or at least in the zeitgeist in contemporary films/culture and mould it to their character. It's a unique series in that sense, and it outlives any single actor or even filmmaker. Closest thing I can think that does this is Dr. Who.
They are wonderful films to watch whilst drunk with friends (perhaps because one doesn't always remember much of them, at least in great detail) but I highly suspect not to watch to bond with your son on a weekend. But yes, they are terrible, and the lead actors do not have the charisma or screen presence that Bond/Wick does.
And you’re right: he, like other Hollywood-lifers, are never “normal”, 😂!
I would eventually watch the Top Gun movies only because I like the work of both directors (Tony Scott and Joseph Kosinski) in general. Also, I'm a fan of composer Harold Faltermeyer's work.
I like the second (looks like I'm the only one 😂) because I really like John Woo movies, even though I must admit his earlier work was much better.
I'm not a fan of the films of Cruise in general, but I really like his performance in "Collateral", one of my favorite movies.
Liman productions are famously nightmares that have to be saved by editors/second units/etc...
You're right about this @M_Blaise ..are you in the film industry?
I know a second unit director who was the uncredited director of one of Liman's flicks after the two stars on that project wanted nothing to do with him!
@Venutius , I didn’t know Penn felt that way too.
I’m actually talking about one specific actor that you mentioned; another actor you mentioned also has a history in the story I was told, and the third actor you didn’t reference. So we have conflicting tales, 😂. All I know is that the second unit director of a Liman flick, a friend of mine, was the one who told me, and, …. It sounded like one helluva shoot.
Peter, we are about the same age, and I couldn't agree with you more about Cruise. I remember seeing him emerge in the '80s.
To me, he's a hollow, untalented, creepy actor. I've never understood the hype: he's like a shiny object that begs for attention. I guess he's attractive in kind of a doll-like way but there's no there there. I'm sure it has to do with Scientology indoctrination because they have chosen him and boosted his career.
I've tried to engage so many times with Cruise over the decades, over so many films. He just seems like an eager boy who is play-acting, aiming to please, every single time. Whatever people want to see in him they can: ambition, blackmail, closetedness. Who knows what drives him? He's a robot.
Incidentally, the one film where I thought I saw a glimpse behind the Oz-like-curtain that is CruiseCo was Eyes Wide Shut. I think Kubrick's famously punishing multiple takes and whatever was going on with his much more talented then-wife wore him down despite all of his Scientology indoctrination.
Oh brother… I hope you’re taking the mickey and you’re not actually offended? Two people went off course, in a thread where many people have lost the plot and gone on tangents… There was a grand total of two posts about Tom Cruise this morning. Two.
And vitriol? No, two guys don’t like Cruise because, in their opinion he’s an empty suit. That’s it.
However, prior to these two comments, I was asked about my feelings about the actor, as you can well see. I politely answered with a caveat that my view is tainted… And then @echo gave his opinion. Two posts (plus others asking my opinion).
Instead of this approach that you took (what was your intent with your post? Embarrassing others? Shaming? What?), you could have simply DM’d the offending parties if you were truly that offended, 😂
For me, one of the most memorable scenes in CR is right after Bond beats Le Chiffre, when he's having a late dinner with Vesper. You can see Craig's Bond enjoying himself and the food and letting his guard down with her.
*That's* what I want in the next Bond actor.
I would be fine with that… he’s very talented. It’s just that Spectre wasn’t one of his better projects. That being said, Rome, Austria, and especially Morocco look great in SP.
It’s a matter of “does it fit the franchise?” rather than “does it fit the film?” The former is more concerned of keeping the franchise in a uniform fashion. That’s why we get so many arguments over the gun barrel because these filmmakers have been tinkering with it rather than just having it be the same exact gun barrel used across multiple films.
For one, I'm not really a fan of his movies (with a few exceptions). Also, and this worries me even more, his style is too close to what we already have seen during the Craig era. Sometimes I think SF does even feel a bit like a Nolan movie.
It's time for a new and fresh direction, and I just can't see this with Nolan at the helm.
I've never had an issue with it. I think it looks good and there's some stylish shots in there. It doesn't look quite as stunning as its predecessor, but that's okay because that was an uncommonly good-looking film, probably the best-shot Bond film.
Sure, it's better than QoS (still the least in terms of cinematography).
I may not be also a fan of NTTD cinematography, for me, I felt the majority of the film's scenes are dark, the London scenes, the Cuba scenes and the finale at Safin's lair, I felt it's too dark, same for the Norway Chase, I felt that there's this dark blue-ish green (or is it torquoise color?) filter all around it.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by the London scenes being dull. Hopefully you can expand on that.
But I do wish the Bond films would show London and the U.K. more love. I would like to see Bond out and about in London more. Sometimes in a series or film a city almost becomes an extra character.
The Hildebrand Safehouse scene, those shots in the old abandoned MI6 building, the death of C, yes, I think the cinematography in those are a bit dull, those are shot at night the same as the ones in the Italian scenes before, but here in the London scenes, they've failed to pulled it.
That whole London third act scenes.
I think they've nailed the beauty of London and UK in Skyfall though.