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
Regarding the reviews and Rotten Tomatoes: Casino Royale and Skyfall excepted, Bond films have been a perennial target of critics from the start. Over the years I've read so many negative reviews with the same old complaints early on I started to wonder if the critics even saw the films they were commenting on. Mad Magazine artfully expressed that ethos applied to each new mission, very funny. I do enjoy reading reviews and viewer ratings, but they have to be taken in context and with a grain of salt and then some.
Regretfully, I must agree with you.
Agreed, well said. I think it a shame that more fans can't admit Bond has lost a step on the competition, so it can work on regaining that step in the future. Right now we're in a period of mass denial.
Well said. I suppose seeing Cruise doing the big stunt action gives the critics more reason to praise the film. Imagine if Roger Moore was hanging from the airship over San Francisco! I'm sure the critics would have have given AVTAK a much higher score (not that RT existed back then, but I hope you see my point!).
Basically, give the next Bond actor an excuse to do some of the big stunt work and the critics should go "wow, Bond is back with style!" That should inflate the score.
Re the stunts - is there anything in MI Fallout as cool as the helicopter roll from SPECTRE? In all my life I'd never seen a helicopter do that prior to seeing SPECTRE! That seemed to push the action envelope. All credit to Cruise for hanging from a copter but that's been done before. A copter doing a 360 degree roll - now that is insane! SPECTRE's pre-credit scene is up there with the very best action I've ever seen in an action film but just my opinion.
Bond hopefully isn't all about stunts and action. Intrigue, spy craft, drama, wit, fantasy, tropes are just some of the other aspects I'd want them to turn to ahead of just ramping up action.
Not that I'm saying MI doesn't have a share of that too, but it certainly has more action than Bond, and I wouldn't want to see one copying the other.
The MBB BO 105 helicopter was introduced in 1970 and has always been able to roll due to it's unusual fixed head rotor system. It was a cool stunt but has been cool since 1970. No way it "pushed the envelope". Perhaps they should have used it in Live and Let Die?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBB_Bo_105#Design
And what exactly does that prove or mean?
That Spectre was a flop. That Daniel Craig needs replacing.
Separately, is the idea M:I action is superior (in part or in whole) because it's the actor doing stunts versus Bond films using stuntmen?
Lastly, I get the joke on the box office and still want to say Bond films shouldn't automatically cater to the American audience as they pursue success.
Not really. It's got a lot to do with McQuarrie's approach towards directing action. It's got a lot of stylistic roots in silent era movie-making and is especially evident in the Paris scenes and the finale helicopter stuff. The fact that Cruise is doing this stuff is a bonus, but overall the action in MI is superior because it's got an almost poetic flow to it - it's extremely well put together; escalating always, building always, and very much feeling like a film in itself. It's a valid criticism that the MI films manipulate their plot mechanics to get the most from their action, but the reason why is because nobody is better at it than they are at the moment and they know that's what people want.
The Skyfall PTS came pretty close to the feeling that a lot of Fallout gave me, but honestly the last Bond action scene that really took my breath away was the parkour sequence in CR.
But ultimately, I don't think it's a major insult to Bond that they're not the best at the action stuff anymore. With the shift towards a more "prestige" picture in the Craig era, they left a gap for that kind of action-oriented storytelling. No reason why it won't shift back again after Bond 25.
If you watch some of the interviews with the MI cast members for Fallout, they regularly comment on how Cruise and McQuarrie agonize over various action scenes and always consider how the audience would react to something. They really went out of their way to ensure that we would be engaged and rivetted, and it shows.
I had to do a double take on this question. I'm sure it's difficult to roll a helicopter, but the scene did nothing for me. I'm not sure why. Perhaps because I lost interest in the PTS as soon as the couch incident occurred along with the CGI building collapse, and once Newman's crap score started playing.
Leading from that, it's a shame to read from other forum members that they wont see the movie as they are not Cruise fans. There is so much more to enjoy within the film.
PS MI 2 had Cruise (obviously) and it was pretty poor.
Bond has never really been a consistent team effort compared to th
No, it's only been out for a little over a week. I'm guessing late October/early November.
Regarding action in MI, arguably they overtook Bond in this department back in 2000 when MI2 was released. That film had some audacious sequences in it. Yet nobody commented on MI overtaking and surpassing Bond back then, at least not as I recall. This is even though MI2 is still the highest MI grosser of all time, inflation adjusted.
What has changed since then, and particularly after MI:GP (at least for me) is that Cruise has, against the odds, injected a level of 'suave cool' and 'insouciance' into the films as well. A certain elegance. That really wasn't there in the past, or even when it arguably was (Thandie Newton intro scene in MI2 for instance), it seemed fake and tacked on - perhaps because Cruise himself had a certain youthful smugness to him back then which put me off and which didn't fit in with the fancy scenery. It's kind of like the FF guys these days, dressing up and trying to be all 'spy' and what not. It falls flat and just doesn't work. Punks playing above their pay grade. Like rappers.
That's now how I feel about things now. Cruise has the 'cool'. This has happened while Bond has, at least in my opinion, lost some of that. Sure, it's still 'James Bond' in name, but it doesn't lead as far in front in that department as it once did for me. This is what I find unforgiveable. Bond should always be the most stylish cat. As an example, in SF, it was the supporting characters (Silva, Severine), who I found Bondian cool. I won't even mention SP, where everyone was an embarrassment as far as I'm concerned. I'll admit that I felt that way during the late 90's/early 00's as well, when I felt that Bond was being overtaken by other franchises in this dept.
I'll never forget 2006. I was anxiously awaiting both MI:3 and CR, and was especially curious about how Craig would perform. MI came out in the summer, and while I enjoyed it, I was a bit disappointed. It lacked that style, despite scenes at the Vatican and what not. Cruise was a bit manic in it, understandably perhaps because the film was more personal. It was intense, but it wasn't quite my cup of tea. Then CR came out and I was blown away. Bond was back, and cool as ever. Green stole the show, and Craig showed he could be stylish and cool, under Campbell's knowledgeable direction. Bond had class.
Ironically, as the years have progressed, Bond has lost that 'elegance' for me, despite the films costing more money and being in more extravagant and lavish locations. As I noted earlier, SF certainly had it, but that was more due to Deakins, Marlohe and Bardem rather than Bond or Craig imho. Cruise in contrast has really upped the 'style' quotient for me, in addition to the crazy stuff he does. I was quite worried that he would forego that coolness in MI6, particularly when I read that McQuarrie and he were going to make it more personal. I'm so glad that they didn't.
I know which series I'd like to be inserted into as a participant these days. The MI guys are just more fun.
As for the films, I’d define the more recent entries as ‘slick’, rather than ‘elegant’, where SF and SP are exceptionally elegant pictures. They are two different beasts, both of which have their positives and negatives I feel.
This never happened in MI2 despite Cruise giving it his best shot.
We have seen this in other series (Star Trek the obvious example, Star wars also) when the actors are the same but it takes a good/great script and director to make everything work. If Bond had a director that understood it's "DNA" the same way that McQ understands MI, there would be nothing to stop it.
He's called Martin Campbell.
You underestimste how much of the editorial and production is also down to Cruise. Remove him from the equation and you have a very different beast.
You're not the only one. I believe Paramount will want him to return.
I just hope Rebecca Ferguson returns. I love her character and her, as well.
When M:I-3 didn't perform to expectation (it's still the lowest grossing film of the series) because of his off-screen antics, I think he took a big hit personally and really struggled to get back to the trajectory that he was aiming for. The three films he did between M:I-3 and Ghost Protocol - Lions For Lambs, Valkyrie and Knight and Day - all performed relatively low, too.
So, while Tom Cruise the actor was always a big part of the production process, it wasn't til around this time that Tom Cruise the movie star producer was born. Cruise had to grow up pretty quickly following all the backlash against him, and it ultimately did him a world of good. As noted above by @DaltonCraig007, he didn't necessarily become a better actor but his style and attitude certainly changed. It's only in the last five/six years that he seems to have settled back in and embraced the "lets just make a good movie" attitude. Letting the work do the talking. Tom Cruise of ten years ago, right up to his Steven Spielberg era was a very opinionated person by comparison.
He's involved with every level of his films now. He has a strong say on casting, on the directors, on the locations, everything. It was Cruise who wanted to cast Rebecca Ferguson, because she reminded him of his childhood crush Ingrid Bergman. He very much enjoys the work that goes into his films and it's very refreshing to see someone so optimistic about everything related to film - that is one of the reasons why the "one of the last great movie stars" title he has been designated seems entirely justified. He just gets on with it.