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
@Gustav_Graves, not if I have anything to do about it. I don't care what the law or any law enforcement officer or the damned US constitution says. If anybody, and I mean anybody so much as calls FRWL "boring" or has the audacity to say "nothing happens in it," I am not to be held responsible for my actions. Some people just need to get their arses kicked, you see?
I feel that with Casino Royale as well, under Campbell's direction. There's lots of small and brief directorial touches that give us a lot of information. An obvious one is showing the audience the security cameras when Bond enters the embassy. He also shows us the defib early on, before Bond uses it, so that we are not blindsided.
Goldeneye shares this touch, but to a lesser extent. The way Campbell brings the best out of his cast makes his films great to watch
Both GE and CR are equally good, one shouldn't forget that the film industry in 1995 was very different from 2006, so CR looking "better" is natural.
I still feel, personally, GE was better overall, especially in the story and ensemble cast department. Also concerning action.
I agree with your explanation above as well, particularly 2).
Regarding films like FRWL & OHMSS losing classic status with time - I don't think that will be the case, purely based on my own experience. I used to dislike both films immensely when younger. Now they are firm top 10 entries for me. I still appreciate larger than life quality entries like TB & TSWLM (more than ever), but also have a new found appreciation for the sublimely refined quality of both FRWL/OHMSS, even though they aren't so OTT. I'd like to think that the younger generation will also feel this way as they get older and revisit these films.
Yes that's true, we also have to take into account the time period they are set in. While I love Goldeneye I feel it suffers from:
- Badly dated
- Poor score (CR isn't leaps and bounds better but at least it has great integration of the theme song which is essential for me)
- Dialogue is pretty good but goes into self-parody. Not necessarily a bad thing but can't compare to the excellent dialogue of Maibaum
I agree the cast and action is excellent. Add in Campbell's direction and you have an excellent film
It's modern in some ways and quaintly dated in others (especially in use of model work). It is one of the few Bond films of the past 20+ years that continues to improve with each viewing for me (and my first viewing was an incredible experience as well).
It's wonderfully light hearted and breezy in a manner that calls to mind earlier entries.
@w2bond, you'll get no arguments from me about Campbell. He and Young are my two favorites for a reason. Both men knew the films they were making and just got on with it, during times of great uncertainty. Young had to birth Bond to the cinema screen without fail, and Campbell had to bring a new Bond into the world during two times of existential crisis for Bond. Both produced masterpieces in their own way. Their films represent the perfect balance between all the necessary elements a Bond film needs sans any silliness or over the top antics. They represent straight-up, no frills spy movies.
My biggest what-if dreams when it comes to the direction of Bond films would be to have Young direct all Connery's films, and Campbell to have all of Craig's. If we can't have that, though, at least we've got the solid five films they gave us when put together.
Well, Goldeneye's characters are quite over the top, and the film is all the better for it.
And on the second point, a big missed opportunity for the franchise. I understand Campbell was asked to return for TND and QOS
I personally saw the first Bond movies when most of them were about 20+ years old and my father recorded them on VHS when they aired the first time on german TV. But since he was and is a film buff himself, it's something I grew into due to him. And as quoted above: Good filmmaking remains good filmmaking and what made Bond so special still works with younger audiences as well ... IF they are interested in movies at all and not just consume it to fill their free time. Nothing against modern blockbusters - as we can see new classics are still produced ... naming CR (and to many: SF and QoS), only. Most movies will vanish ... some will remain as classics and enjoyed by future audiences.
I watched DN and GF recentl with my 10-year old son and he just loved them - GF even more than DN. Next will be TB and YOLT. Curious myself to see which one will become his favourite ☺️
Glad you said this. The model work is obvious, yet I wouldn't want it any other way. It's just so much better than what was possible with CGI back then.
Also like I, insanely enough?, like the back projection in the older films, it's part of the charm for me, I do like model work in films a great lot.
@SeanCraig
It will be interesting if you document his ranking and thoughts, and compare to to his rankings as he grows older.
And I understand the helicopter sequence in SP was done for real, but looks horribly fake to the point of ruining the scene (in the same vein as the TB finale), I suppose I should include that too.
The CGI face in Skyfall @w2bond mentions. As much as I try I can never see it myself, and never had anyone comment on it to me. Where and when do I look to see it?
It's nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.
The SF CGI face is as visible as the collapsing house in SP, you can't tell it's CGI, as simple as that. The only clearly visible CGI in SF is Patrice's fall.
It's indeed called....'nitpicking'. I mean, did people 'nitpick' in the old days when a moving backscreen was projected during the bobsleigh sequence in OHMSS? And did we 'nitpick' when we saw Roger's real face in a fake backlit environment ;-)? I don't think so. I love SF. And all the CGI-criticism I started noticing when I came in here :-). Not when I saw it in cinema during my first viewing.
I watched GE last night (after at least 15 years) out of curiosity and discovered it's still a terrible movie. Not DAD bad, but mediocre terrible where literally ever sequence has something in it to ruin it.
This is not what overrated means. In reference to movies, it's not that too few people find a movie great, it's that too many do without, to some others, seeming good reason. Usually, when a movie is considered overrated, the admiration of the movie can be explained by other factors affecting folks' perception of the movie, factors other than its actual quality.
For example, in the case of SF, which I personally consider to be the most overrated of any Bond movie (I'm not saying it's the worst Bond movie, just the most overrated), there are several factors that could have contributed to this overrating. As one example, the beautiful cinematography does much to hide the monster plot holes. One could say that it being a 50 year anniversary flick for a much beloved cinematic icon, caused critics to be lenient. I could go on with other factors.
A better example of overrating might be the ski chase in OHMSS. It was indeed a great ski chase for its time. However, since then, that chase has been bettered numerous times in other Bond movie chases, yet folks consistently label it as one of the best chases in the series even today. I would thus say that the chase is "overrated" since it is no longer one of the best chases, but the perception that it is still one of the best chases in the series is based upon nostalgia rather than the actual quality of the chase in comparison to later chases, which doesn't mean that it wasn't still great for its time (or that, indeed, there are people who still truly consider it to be great).
This same nostalgia, for many of us, I believe, affects our perception of some older Bond movies (especially some of the Connery flicks), ranking them higher than they deserve to be ranked. For example, as a child I considered TSWLM to be the best cinematic experience I'd ever received. I've long considered the movie to be one of the best, while, as an adult, when a couple of the Brosnan movies came out, I didn't like them. Are they really worse than TSWLM though? The Brosnan movies are considered over-the-top by many people who rank TSWLM in their top ten (including myself) -- a movie that features a car that turns into a submarine! I must admit to myself that I've been overrating TSWLM, my admiration of the movie based upon nostalgia rather than the movie's actual quality.
Of course, with all that said, "overrated" itself is still a subjective term. For example, while many people, including myself, consider SF to be highly overrated (that is, factors other than the actual quality of the movie are affecting folks' perceptions), that doesn't mean that there aren't folks who really do believe it to be a great movie. It's all opinion when it comes right down to it.
Of course though, if you believe SF is a great movie, your opinion is wrong. ;-)
SP in 2012 would have been praised to Heavens.
SF got lucky coming after the disappointment of QOS and getting a perfect marketing storm because of the 50th Anniversary and Olympics.