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
Amongst fans it's definitely more warmly received now than it used to be. I actually get it from that perspective. Now that the entire Craig era is finally done a lot of the creative choices in that film stand out a lot more (stylistically it can be a mixed bag, especially the editing, but from a story stand point there are a lot of great ideas in there). Amongst general audiences I think it's still seen as a weaker Bond film, but isn't by any means the most disliked.
It's kinda the opposite case with SF. I've noticed most people my age I've talked to outside of the Bond fandom would say it's probably the best Bond film. Like, not just the best Craig Bond film, the best Bond film. Here, I get the sense there's a lot of fatigue towards it. I suspect a chunk of it has to do with the fact that it's a film with tropes that were repeated throughout the next two Craig films - the villain with a somewhat sympathetic revenge motive, the more fatalistic tone, breaking with the traditional formula, the constant self-references to the series, Bond's past being a more prominent element of the film etc.
Other interesting comments he had were that Dalton was a decent actor but didn't have the charisma to carry a franchise, Moore was his favourite, and he forgot who George Lazenby was.
You and I both! If anything, my love for the film has only grown over the past decade-plus.
It's also a good film for me, well that's also coming from someone who likes SPECTRE too.
From my first viewing, I really liked it, while the editing leaves a lot to be desired, it's still good, especially the performance of the cast were great, Mathieu Amalric's performance was good despite of his character not being well written.
No Time To Die is the only Craig Bond film I can't really stand, the film focused too much on Madeleine and her love story with Bond which wasn't interesting, for a such a boring character like Madeleine, she don't deserve an arc like this.
Haha, all not uncommon opinions. Especially in regards to Lazenby and Dalton.
I wonder what's his opinions on Brosnan.
And quite a bit surprising because it's Moore who's his favorite, while millions of people telling their favorite was Sean Connery, especially those older ones.
His most controversial opinion was that he was pretty positive on NSNA. For the sake of our relationship I'll put it down to nostalgia...
Man that is pretty controversial, I don’t know how anyone could have any shread of nostalgia for that turd of a movie.
I don’t think Connery was bad in it, but I don’t think he was particularly good either. He seemed to be sleep walking in the role, only occasionally bringing back some of that twinkle of the early days.
People tend to forget how popular Moore was as Bond, going from what my own Father tells me on this subject. There's also an element that if you grow up with a certain Bond, especially those who had the role for a relatively long time, you're likely going to be more favourable towards them.
And OHMSS.
DAD would be another one that comes to mind.
TND took heat for many years, and gets nods in recents times I see.
Well, I’m not sure about general impressions, but when we did that board ranking of the Craig era (and there were a good number who voted, nearly 175 members), a majority ranked SF in the upper half and a majority ranked QOS in the lower half. Maybe QOS is a bit more loved than it used to be and maybe there are a few fewer fans of SF, but this board at least generally feels the same about those two films as when they first came out. CR of course has always been loved on here, and SP perhaps experienced the strangest reversal possible, going from almost board-wide praise when it first came out to sudden widespread lack of enthusiasm after its release on home video. I suppose anything is possible, but as far as trying to project what the general sentiments of NTTD will be 10 years from now, we can only really look at how feelings in general have changed towards Craig’s first four films, which is not very much.
In terms of raw numbers I can imagine SF will broadly continue to be ranked in the upper half, while QOS will be middling/lower. I suppose it's more in the substance of what posters say about these two films that I got those impressions from.
That's interesting about SP. I always assumed it was divisive among in part because of the Blofeld/Bond knowing each other as children subplot (much like NTTD with its ending), but also because it has a lot of character problems in that regard.
In the poll, SF was of course not as highly rated as CR and QOS was not rated as low as SP, so you very well may be right that there has been some cooling on one and some warming on the other. I've seen my own opinions on Bond films change over time. I was initially disappointed in QOS but fell in love with it on Blu-ray, and it took me a bit of time to come around to really enjoying SF. SF was actually probably the greatest personal turnabout I've experienced with any Bond film. I've gradually warmed on parts of SP though I'm not sure it's a movie I'm ever going to completely love. It's been kind a long while since I've watched NTTD now. I'm hoping I might be able to see it and appreciate it in a new light eventually. There are quite a few different issues I have with the film, but with time and a fresh perspective anything is possible.
With SF it's very much a fan thing. Again, I suspect that much of it has to do with a sense of fatigue towards the Craig era and the tonal/plot elements that were repeated from that film into the last two. I'm not saying it's a perfect film (no film is) but it's my second favourite Bond film, and certainly one of those Bond movies that I suspect the series will want to emulate for years to come in one form or another. It's certainly their most successful and proves that something more character based and thought out, heck even more low key in many aspects, can be financially and critically rewarding.
I always got the sense that SP was received much more lukewarmly among general audiences after SF. It actually surprised me when you wrote fans liked it more when it first came out. NTTD seems to have more positive reactions, although certainly not to the extent I saw with SF (honestly, I remember in 2012 being constantly invited by friends to see that film in the cinema, with people going back 2-3 times. Most weren't even Bond fans. Never seen anything like it with a Bond film released in my lifetime).
What still amazes me is how quick this film moves. It never feels like it's actual run time.
Beautifully paced. And very well directed.
Has certainly moved up my rankings.
I predict a bit of a QOS effect, with more and more members seeking out second, third, ... viewings of the film and finding it giving more each time.
Am looking forward to seeing it again on the big screen Tuesday week! I havent watched it since having the 4k disc, a much more positive viewing than my first in the cinema ( where I wasnt sure what to make of it!)
Agree mate that its pacing is spot on, and its beautifully made!
Enjoy mate. Personally I'm happy watching it on Bluray at home. My local cinema is crap!
You're totally right about the pace of it mate. It does fly by, I thought that on first viewing and every subsequent viewing
I love thrilling the fight sequences, I just wish they were a little longer
I’d say OHMSS is held in higher regard than LTK/QOS combined, to the point there have been prolific filmmakers over the years like Nolan and Soderbergh giving it high praise.
I haven’t seen that happen for LTK/QOS, at least not yet. So far their dedicated fans seem to be largely those that prefer gritty Bond compared to the more pop culture oriented Bonds like GF/SF.
The more faithful early Bond scripts are underrated in how they adapted the novels effectively. GF obviously took a rather nonsensical plot and made it convincing, FRWL added an extra layer of deception to the whole thing, and yes, even OHMSS streamlined much of the narrative (I doubt a film at the time would have effectively been able to start in media res, and it certainly works at building up Bond/Tracy's relationship. Also Tracy in the film is much better suited to being less overtly mentally ill and a part of the narrative by the end).
I'll always say that OHMSS suffers from the fact that Lazenby's Bond isn't a bit older/more cynical as he is in the novel (it definitely makes his weird resignation scene in the film make more sense) but I agree, they did a great job.
It helps that OHMSS includes pretty 'modern' cinematography for its time, and is obviously a very early example of a Bond story being more 'personal' thanks to its more faithful adaptation of the novel. QOS and LTK by contrast are very much stories (and are certainly cinematography wise) of their times. It's not a bad thing, and I like all of them but I can see why OHMSS gets praise more immediately by such directors.
It might just be me, but it's not a scene I could ever take seriously. I think when you remove that jaded quality to Bond's character the decision to quit comes off as petty and a bit random. It'd be different if, say, Dalton's Bond in TLD had made such a decision because he'd pretty much said point blank early on that he doesn't care about being fired.
I also feel those moments in the film contain some of Lazenby's worst acting.