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
Agree! It's something about the films I really enjoy, and shows Bond in his element. It's these little things that lifts the films for me.
I don't much care for the run times of the Craig films. I liked OHMSS having the distinction of being the longest running Bond film. Excellently paced film at that. I think CR and SF could have benefited from some tighter editing. SPECTRE seems to feel like it drags to three hours or more. One of the reasons why I rarely pop in the Craig Bonds compared to the others.
I'd also take Bond in LALD tossing the flaming rags over any action sequence in SPECTRE.
It's slick,pacy,great dialogue in places,and short and to the point .
Very rewatchable.
I find the same thing with DAF, the Brosnan flicks and some of the Moore films.The rest I have to be in the mood for and have the spare time.
Not heavy going,just enjoyable romps.
The 80's Bond films were the best for action. TLD, FYEO and OP being some of my favourites. The action was often inventive and exciting.
It doesn't matter if it's a stuntman performing these action scenes. Credit to Tom Cruise for being so invested in the making of a film, to put himself front and centre. But many films have great action without risking the stars life.
It's hard to come up with original action nowadays as pretty much everything has been thought of and done. (Of course there are always new action scenes to come up with) Skiing off a mountain and opening a parachute, skydiving without a parachute.
It needs to be exciting and relevant. Not just added too have an action scene. I'm looking at you TWINE, and your parahawk scene.
And please, I don't need to believe the actor is performing these stunts if they're not.
The CGIing of Craig's face during the motorcycle chase on the rooftops in SF or the rear projection work are just bad. Along with getting his face into the pts helicopter antics of SP. Keep it like they used too. Longshot or keep the stuntman's face out of view. It's a lot more effective.
The phone would also send and receive calls too! :P
Alexa, are there any bugs in this room?
Yes, on the phone, chandelier and behind the bed.
End scene
But he could still check into a hotel, relax, etc. - have his Plenty O'Toole moment!
I agree, over 2 hours for a Spy franchise is a little too much. Also, I think they sometimes put in too much action, and not enough suspense and intrigue, and well story. I felt in SPECTRE there was very little genuine intrigue and what story was there was signposted. I knew C was a baddie pretty much from the first scene. And there was no prizes for guessing who Waltz was playing. The whole film was very predictable, which makes it seem longer than it was.
Imagine e how easy it would be to watch Skyfall and Spectre if they were only 2 hours long.
The action in modern Bond seems slightly tempered in comparison.
The action in the films directed by John Glen (either his first-unit or second-unit work) was more spectacular. There are single great images in those films that define great action filmmaking. For example:
There’s been a ton of stuff recently that has been terrific. I love the parkour chase and crane fight (even though calling that sequence ‘recent’ seems fraudulent as CR is nearly 12 years old) and there are certainly moments in SF and SP (though Mendes was no Glen when it came to shooting and editing action).
I guess what I’m trying to say, is that Bond needs to return to the stunt. The single brilliant display of physical ability in action.
Even in the most fussy and overly complicated Marvel movies where a thousand action beats are happening at once, there is something raw and genuinely frightening about seeing something happening in camera. I think it has something to do with the way our eye is conditioned. When we see something that is CGI we can be impressed but nothing will beat the genuine sense of jeopardy when we see it’s been done for real.
You’ll never truly have your heart in your mouth when Thanos fights Spider-Man but when you watch Mission Impossible you’ll constantly be in awe.
vs
A lot of us (including myself) cite the parkour sequence as the best of the Craig era. There are many who advocate for Martin Campbell to return as well, despite his age. Why? Well, because he understands this genre. He is the one director of the past 20+ years who has been able to straddle the past and the future, contemporarizing Bond while still having one foot in the action driven spectacle of the past. None of the others have truly gotten that balance right, even though some (Mendes most notably) have delivered decent (or even excellent) films.
Ms. Broccoli (and let's not kid ourselves, it was her and not Wilson) cast Craig for a directional change. What we've received since then reflects that change and it also reflects her attitudes. While she is in charge I doubt we will go back to action driven spectacle. It doesn't seem to be her cup of tea (and it's certainly not Mr. Craig's), and she (along with him) calls the shots.
That's why I'm grateful to Cruise (and McQ) for filling that void while Bond contemplates his navel. Eventually they will switch back, but only once organizational changes take place or once she has a change of heart. Not sure when that will occur, but it will, one day.
Today he would probably put his phone in the micro or fridge.
I think Bond will struggle in future.
Of course it won't be perfect, but I don't think most of us will mind. CR parkour is a stuntman (a bit bulkier than Craig). It's all about how the 2nd unit team and director set it up and shoot it. It's a skill.
Exactly...in Roger's day the stuntmen didn't even look like him and they were face-on many times,but it didn't stop the enjoyment of the film.
It was appreciated for the great stunts and the effort put in,the marvel of it,that made going to a Bond film so exciting,the magical stuntwork.
Firstly, you have to appreciate that the Mission films are an anomaly.
Tom Cruise is both terrific and idiotic. He’s unique. The Mission films are his mid-life crisis. If he wasn’t hanging off planes in the movies, I suspect he’d find time in his daily life. He’s an adrenaline junkie who gets studios to pay him millions to do stupid shit. He’s brilliant and totally insurmountable in that respect. Tom Cruise is the king of action cinema.
However….he doesn’t need to do what he does. He can use a stuntman but the sell of those film is that he doesn’t.
Secondly, Bond doesn’t need an adrenaline-fuelled moron in the lead. There are stuntmen who can pull off the big sequences.
I think the days of the TSWLM jump are over as safety concerns, insurance issues and budget restrictions stop them from doing things quite as reckless. Plus CGI will always rear its head these days (even to tidy up shots). You never had that in the older movies which always made those earlier stunts look that bit more breathtaking.
MI proves those days are not over. Not quite.
Thank goodness.
As for the stuntwork, my only stipulation is that it be grounded in reality. Some have brought up the parkour scene in CR. Much of the chase scene through the construction site is terrific work; but the climb to the top of the construction crane is pure stupidity. As Bond ran perilously up a two-feet wide (at best) conveyer belt, I remember thinking, "Yeah. Right." I don't like thinking "Yeah, right," during the action sequences in a modern Bond film. Thankfully, that's the only one. (The sky jump in QoS was close.)
I love the stunts from the RM era but thats what I was brought up with. MI has changed the expectations of a whole generation of young movie fans. For example, there is just no way they could shoot the Moonraker parachute stunt the way they did back then. It would be laughed at , sadly.
But that is a terrific stunt.
I don't think it's all about the stunts. There are other films with great stunts that people hardly watch (like that Point Break remake from a few years back). MI is successful not only because of its stunts (even if that might be a big marketing draw to pull crowds in), but also because Cruise has been able to create a framework which resonates with people. He's built up the Brand IP slowly and surely with a series of top notch entries.
As an example of how stunts can be done today without necessarily putting the actor in harm's way, we need only look no further than the Nolan Bat trilogy. I'm sure Hardy wasn't up there in that plane, but that PTS scene in TDKR is one of the best of the last 20 years. Same goes for the truck flip in TDK. It's all about how it's done. Tension, suspense, etc. etc.
And more or less copied in Point Break (directed by none other than Kathryn Bigelow)
Bond stunts have always generally set the standard. Even the MI films aren't as original as many would think. Most of those stunts/action sequences are rooted in Bond.
Notice here that JT Holmes doesn't say he wants to be Ethan Hunt: