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
You are off my Christmas Card list, man.
:-\"
Nope, I don't love every film, I even abhor one of them. I don't think it makes me less of a fan to want a quality film for one of my favorite franchises. That's the place where my criticism, and the criticism of many fans, comes from.
Totally agree with you. I am always reassured when I hear someone say they hate one of the films.
I loved it, but I think I understand many of the criticisms: it's going back to the original formula, with both its virtues and faults.
What I don't understand is why this has taken so many people by surprise: I remember reading that during pre-production Sam Mendes stated he was taking the film to a more formulaic and funny-ha-ha approach.
SP is a step up from SF definitely.
I actually like them all for one reason or another, but I'm still guessing what makes a person think that abhorring even four or five films in such a huge franchise makes them less of a fan. I think it goes to show that Lalala has his/her standards, and this is great.
Same for me. If it works in terms of the plot (like if Bond goes to a club with M or plays golf with Tanner), then fine. Otherwise keep them inside MI6 - this isn't Mission Impossible.
TLD was the last classic Bond movie
I've also never been of the mind set that CR broke the mold for a Bond film - just that it did things well that we hadn't seen in so long - or did things that fit Fleming's version of the character that we hadn't seen on screen before. People seem to look at CR as if it's totally devoid of all humor and fun and I don't think anything could be farther from the truth.
And with GE, I think every film that tries to go over the top with it's plot should look at GE as a reference point. The plot involves shooting an EMP from a satellite and sending England back to the stone age. Yet it all works because they're able to humanize the conflict between the characters in the film (similar to how I feel like a larger than life plot in TB works so well). Bond and the Bond girl have legitimate chemistry, there's a true distaste between Bond & the villain, and no one really feels totally superfluous to the plot.
Then there's TLD & LTK which are the two most underrated films of the entire series. A shame Dalton didn't get at least one (or 3) more films.
No Bond (or any other movie he's been in) has ever seen him been more engaging or entertaining.
Curious. Like Getafix, I find that LTK was the first great departure from the Bond formula; however, reducing the movie to its bare bones, it still respects it! Maybe that's why it's my favorite movie OF ALL TIME, not counting the main reason: IMHO it's a glorified and very inspired Cannon Films-like flick.
I dunno if you guys made it here, but I have a personal... Let's call it... "Bond Cycle": The trendy Bond, formed by the movies that tried to cash in the current cinema trends:
LALD: Blaxplotation
TMWTTG: Martial arts films
MR: Star Wars Craze
LTK: Cannon Films-type super-macho action flicks
QOS: Bourne series
Many times I think on adding OHMSS and its faux experimental feel and the lysergic orgy that is DAF.
But in a good way.
All Bond eras have their positives.
But of course they do!
I certainly have a very strong dislike (hate is perhaps too strong a term) for one or two of the films and would switch the channel if they are being shown on tv. ‘Love’ is reserved for the likes for FRWL, FYEO, TLD and CR. Doesn’t mean they are the best in my mind, but it does mean I am most fond of these ones, for sometimes unquantifiable reasons.
I don't quite love SP - it does too many stupid things like M, Q and MP fannying about in the subplot too much & it‘s too sparsely directed - but I did enjoy it very much and would put it far above the dour, plodding melodrama that is SF in any ranking.
@imranbecks you are in Singapore right? Just curious how enthusiastic the Bond fans are in SG.
TMWTTG: Martial arts films
MR: Star Wars Craze
OCTOPUSSY: Indiana Jones
LTK: Cannon Films-type super-macho action flicks
GE: Post Die Hard style
TND: Trying to top True Lies mixed with HK action mania (10 years too late)
QOS: Bourne 3 (film that happens within, or a few mn after the one before)
SF : TDK
SP: DKR
I don't get this comparison.
More of a Star Trek into darkness kind of vibe, methinks...
Yes, it's one of the reasons I sometimes feel a bit ambiguous about LTK. With hindsight it's the first film to have the 'Bond goes rogue' storyline that now seems to be the basis of almost every film. It made me feel uncomfortable when I first saw it. It's like they've forgotten he's supposed to be an MI6 agent and not a superhero/action figure.
EoN really need to buck this trend for the next one. It's growing tiresome.
There was plenty of humour in CR pre-Vesper death (I'm not sure why people tend to forget this) but it was early Connery (DN/FRWL) style humour and it worked for DC's portrayal. Moreover, his seduction of Solange suited his characterisation - it felt natural. In SF, he didn't channel anything, but rather, gave us DC's own brand of sarcastic wit (museum Q intro).
In SP, I find he is attempting to channel later era (TSWLM+) Roger Moore humour in particular in some places, and as Pierce Brosnan found out (to his detriment) this is not a place you should really go. Nobody does that like Moore (it's natural to him). That's why I found the Lucia seduction a little creepy....and not smooth. I think a lot of folks are feeling this way, hence the negative comparisons to Moore's era in some of the reviews (if you don't do this well then it doesn't come off well).
When he's doing the DC thing (which he does with the Q interactions) in SP, it works perfectly though.
This is why I think Mendes just doesn't quite get how to do this properly (there is an 'inserted' rather than an 'organic' appearance to some of his tropes and callbacks.....both in this film and in SF, which remind me uncomfortably of Apted/Tamahori). I realize it's tricky, but he's not up to it. Even Forster did the callbacks better in QoS (including the oil drenched Fields, which was just a quick cut anyway). Campbell knows how to do it best though.
My 2nd viewing is today, and let's see how I feel about it after this.
I really find it odd that they still think Bond going rogue constitutes an original plot. In LTK and even QOS it had some credibility because you could see the genuinely personal dimension, but it's become a lazy cliche now. You wonder if they're capable of doing a straight Bond on a regular mission movie anymore, just working for and with HMSS, like a professional.
It's not a country club, after all.
To any logical person, it's completely reasonable for M to want to know
Bond may have had an emotional loyalty to Dench's M, but I find it impossible to believe that someone with this much problem with authority could have made it beyond the first few weeks in the Navy, let alone become a trusted 00 agent.
As has been said before, Bond going rogue and falling out of trust with MI6 has now become the default plot.
Is it that difficult to write a story where he is trusted to take on a challenging standalone mission with a clear, pressing threat and accomplishes it, working largely on his own and without the supporting cast of Spooks?
Desk