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
TWINE is even worse; it's a drama that just happens and Bond isn't invited. QOS runs this one into the ground in terms of good Bond drama.
I like TWINE okay, but it's my least favourite Brosnan Bond because at the end of the day it's so full of missed opportunities and M is pretty dopey in it.
Mine too. DAD is the better film for me when it comes to these two.
Connery:
Goldfinger
Moore:
TSWLM
Craig:
SF
TWINE was going for something multi layered and fell very short. Perhaps it was a case of trying too hard?… To me it’s flat and ugly to look at, felt cheap, dragged in too many places, and the action set pieces were long, loud and lousy.
I can see a very good script in here that starts and finishes with Elektra King.
I'd agree with this except I think the Craig-era nailed its execution right out the gate with CR and performance-wise, I don't think Craig ever bettered it.
Definitely don’t disagree… But…
My opinion on Craig’s performances after watching his five films back to back (one/evening with one of my daughters), was he seemingly evolved from film to film… Craig the actor was going through radical changes and, instead of playing Bond in one consistent manner, I felt he embraced his personal evolution and layered it on top of his James Bond characterization… I could see a clear thread from the arrogant, novice agent straight through to the aged/wounded lion driven to do one last thing for his country, but more so for his family, himself and his existential legacy.
Watching these films back to back was like watching an acquaintance slowly evolving to maturity over a fifteen year period; to me this is an amazing body of work from one actor who made a character of fiction seem like a flesh and blood individual that grew older and wiser over the years… And embraced it.
(And of course I saw him perform live, two weeks ago (front row), where the man delivered something so bloody unique and wonderful and nothing I had ever seen him do before, which was wonderfully shocking to have been witness to; no matter what one may think of him, Daniel Craig takes his art/craft absolutely seriously).
Yes, @mattjoes lots of nice little moments scattered throughout, one of my favourites being in Skyfall (I know when a woman is afraid and trying not to be— just the matter of fact way in which he says this…)
I'll agree that Craig tried to take the role seriously, and adapted a character that he thought was fitting to the role, with depth, and yes, the character evolved throughout the films as a flesh and blood human being that did grow older and wiser.
But I will also say to me it never really felt like Craig was looking at the Fleming characterisation for his portrayal, or that he looked towards the books for inspiration on how to play the character. He took it on as his own, in the same way all previous actors had done.
However, for a true portrayal of the literary Fleming character, I feel Dalton nailed this far better than Craig or anyone else. From the off it was obvious to anyone who had read the books that Dalton was playing the character Fleming wrote about. No one has come closer.
That I agree with. Let me first say that I don't think that the cinematic Bond has to be the Fleming Bond. Moore and Brosnan were pretty far removed from the literary character, yet both were excellent Bonds for the movies.
Dalton had clearly studied the character on the pages of the books and went for just the right amount of heart, cynicism, anger, and heroism. Fleming never allowed a rogue Bond but might have gotten there had he lived a bit longer--we don't know.
Craig took his fuel from the books too, at least so far as I can tell, but shifted a few gears to make his Bond somewhat more aggressive, self-confident, and playfully nonchalant via-à-vis the "rules". I think that's good; his Bond impressed me and a lot of people around the globe. I'm just a little sad we only got Dalton's two. That should've been three or four at the very least.
That I disagree with. He made it look perfectly effortless to be his Bond. I can't see the inconsistencies in his tenure some have mentioned before. Was his a "traditional Bond"? No, but I doubt that was ever the intention in the first place.
I think that was the point- he wanted the 'effort' to show.
A few years ago, I would agreed with this. But in the early months of COVID, I watched Broz's films several times. My opinion on TWINE has changed a lot: I now consider it his best, and by a wide margin.
I agree. And though the five films are supposed to follow a character arc, they all feel very different, even SF and SP.
Moore famously said that Fleming's Bond doesn't like killing, and he went with that. It's not a lot to inform a performance, but really, his Bond never really gets as silly as parts of his films do. He's not as unflappable as Connery and shows a fair amount of emotional engagement with his mission and with other characters. While I picture Dalton when I read the books, I'd really have no problem picturing Moore most of the time. If you've read Christopher Wood's (somewhat bizarre) novelizations of TSWLM and MR, it's very much in a Fleming mold, and it's hard not to picture Rog in the literary part.
The others, to me, don't seem to making any special effort at all to act like Fleming's character, which to be clear, is absolutely fine. The plots of Connery's early films are from Fleming, as are about 15 minutes of Casino Royale, but the characters in those films aren't really Fleming's Bond.
LALD and TMWTGG are my favourite Moore films, but I never really had them nailed on as Flemingesque performances, but now you mention it - yes I can see that.
Lazenby was fortunate that he starred in the one Fleming adapted novel which really showed his humanity, so he couldn't do much wrong there. I think any actor could have slotted into that role and it would be a Fleming Bond. Lazenby didn't really have to show off too many thespian skills in this one. The script did it for him.
Whereas I still think LTK and Dalton's performance is the one where I really see Fleming's Bond jump off the pages.
Which, to be honest, is absolutely fine. I personally think the filmmakers/actor should read the novels, understand how they work as stories, and keep that influence there creatively, but film and books are always going to be different. There's no guarantee that simply adapting Fleming or injecting random elements of his books into the films will result in a great film.
I mean, I'd argue that Craig's Bond in SF is written and acted in a more 'Fleming-esque' manner than Lazenby's in OHMSS (Lazenby's Bond certainly never convincingly had any of the cynicism, any of the jadedness that Fleming's Bond did in that story). Dalton's Bond was pretty close to the literary character in TLD, and even in LTK (although to a certain extent - I'm not sure if Fleming's Bond was quite as prone to going 'rogue' as the film version of the character has been).