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
Connery said he'd come back for only one, no matter what happened. It's just a shame that after OHMSS, the series suffered from a steep quality decline because the likes of David Picker had failed to see the potential of OHMSS and instead seemed pleased enough to go for silliness, fat buffoons in the American police and nonsensical plots. So, did Connery give a bad performance in DAF? Not in my book. The film is what it is and Connery wasn't going to be told how to play Bond any more so everything just sort of happened under Hamilton's pathetic motto, "let's just have some fun."
Moore was brilliant in AVTAK! AVTAK was not brilliant despite Moore.
Dalton was great in LTK. LTK was great too. And LTK made money... overseas. And since our money isn't good enough for the UA hotshots, they pulled the plug. Dumbest decision ever.
DAD is the Batman & Robin of the Bond franchise but I don't think Brosnan is necessarily bad in it. In fact, I must say I rather like what he does in the film, despite his own objections to all this nonsense. Brosnan really wanted a Casino Royale. And so did the producers. Only they had a younger Bond in mind if they were going back to the roots. I agree with that. But I wouldn't have minded seeing a fifth Brosnan film.
DAF - one of the most fun films I can think of.
AVTAK - brillant (I'm probably alone in thinking this), truly the end of an era (the final Bond film with a mission that has no personal ties to MI6 or Bond).
DAD - extremely loud and dumb, but a big load of fun if you switch your mind off.
[Pause]
[More pause for absolutely no reason]
"By the way..."
[Another pause]
"the preview is already in progress at the main stables."
[Insert easy-going acting from Rog]
[Looking at Bond's crotch]
"No, no, those are the servants' quarters."
[Making clumsy gesture with hands, high school level acting]
"The stables are over here."
[Looking at Bond's crotch again]
"Let me escort you there."
And people complain about John Terry. This is even worse! Also, the character's name is 'Scarpine". And he has a facial scar. Clever. Following the GF tradition perhaps? :)
AVTAK worked for me. I came to the cinema for two hours of entertainment and that's what I got. I mean, I can tell that most of the film is recycled from older ones, but it's fun nonetheless.
Patrick Bauchau happens to be a countryman of ours ;)
I thought he did ok, didn't get a lot of stuff to do actually.
Or Walken's sudden outburst, "You jeopardise mine!"
Or even worse, that KGB guy with the funny way to say "biological freak". And then there's Dolph...
Oh my no, this is one of worst and most redundant scenes in the entire film.
As for the other "last" movies, the only one I truly have a low opinion of is "DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER". But at least it's funny.
Why is this one little line such a big deal to people, when DAD had plenty of bad dialogue? I didn't realize that an African-American slang word could make fans feel so uncomfortable. One word. Yet, they didn't mind all of the slang being thrown around in "LIVE AND LET DIE".
As for now SP is Craig's last, but that's not official.
You are correct of course that SP is above the dreary SF in any department but SF sadly blinded people (50th Anniversary) through unbelievable hype and ridiculously good reviews.
As for DAD's dialogue, I'll never get what people (here) have a problem with it. Jinx might not be the best Bond girl ever but as you said "yo mama" was ok in the context, and maybe it really does make some people uncomfortable for the wrong reasons.
A view to kill was like another Moonraker and well these more outlandish feel gives a very polarizng results which some of the fans love and some others hate them.
Fine in theory.
Except at the time DAD got reasonable reviews. At least no worse than other Bond films. It's only the fans who were disgusted and then with the coming of the Craig era that the critics put the boot in. I'm pretty sure Empire gave it 4* at the time but now it's down to 3 (still shockingly high for such a respected time). And Brosnan was then sacked and was gutted so to say he decided to move on is nowhere near the mark at all.
I'm not sure about the original reviews for DAF (probably along the lines of 'Connery is back. Thank Christ. This is way better than the dreary last entry.') but they are irrelevant as Sean came back on a strict one picture deal and was never coming back even if the film had swept the Oscars.
True. But not the case with LTK and SP is not yet the end of an era.
Yes, I'd say it's generally true. They of course did pull back from Moonraker to For Your Eyes Only. To be fair Dalton's era never got the chance to run it's course. Spectre is near the end of an era - can't see Craig doing more than one more.
Also, I don't think SF and SP got more ridiculous than CR and QOS. I think the Craig films do a good job sticking by their initial mission statement which, in shorthand, means to deliver the anti-DAD. Budgets have been going through the roof lately but in SP for example, I don't think that money is used to buy us silly popcorn eye candy. I think the money is well spent. We tend to nit-pick here and call out "major plot issues" and such, but compared to almost everything we ever got before, I'd say these last four movies have been the most consistent in tone, "seriousness", "realism" and a bunch of other dangerous words the Craig bashers are no-doubt going to hate me for. ;-) My point is, the quality differences between the four individual Craig films are like the difference between a slightly overcooked and a slightly undercooked steak - they are still steaks though. The quality differences between the individual Brosnan films are like the difference between a delicious steak, some corned beef and the leftovers of last week's kebab. The quality differences between the individual Moore films are like the difference between steak, nachos and a used condom.
I agree, I said generally.
Anyway, I think AVTAK isn't Moore's worst, that's Moonraker by a space shot. That was over the top, had little to do with a spy story, the acting was bad, the villain too obvious etc. etc. It's more Austin Powers then Goldmember.
DAf wasn't good, but that has more to do with the setting in which it was made, it was a hotchpotch safe the day film. And all in all it wasn't even his last film, that's NSNA.
Is LTK worse then TLD? I don't know. I prefer the latter, but LTK is certainly not bad and I don't think it's worse. I just prefer the TLD story. LTK wasn't made like it was his last, that only came with the lawsuits.
DAD is the only obvious one imo. ANd that is largely due to bad script writing and a director who lost his mind and was making the new CR '67. Lee Tamahori just misiterpreted Brosnan's wish.
I also don't understand the hatred for SF and SP. I think they're both very good films. They can't all be as refreshing as CR was. It's just not possible. Saw both again on recent long haul flights, and they take you to a different world, as films should.
However, only 2 of the 5 mentioned in the original question were known to be last outings at the moment they were released. So the following question also pops up:
Were those mixed feelings present at the time of release as well?
And were they different for LTK and DAD, than for DAF and AVTAK?