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
Bourne was a killing machine, not expected to think. He had failed his mission and thus became a liability. Part of the Bourne story is the unreasonableness of th CIA.
Now obviously Bond isn't a trained killing machine but an agent supposed to judge by himself (see CR for that). In TMWTGG (novel) Bond comes up with a very strange story about how lovely the Russians are. Wouldn't you mistrust one of your best friends returning from beeing presumed dead only to say things that are completely contradictory to the things he/she used to say? You do start to wonder what happened, right? Bond no doubt would've been debriefed after returning from Turkey, but would that add to the story? The film is long enough as it is.
<font color=blue size=7><b>LALD could have benefited from a more action driven climax.</b></font>
Agree for this! It is the same principle with Q, Moneypenny, and ofcourse 007 himself!
Disagree. Love the film as it is as it was my first!
Overall, I think it is a good movie, though.
I suppose I therefore must abstain.
But whatever it lacks, it make up for it via the astonishingly beautiful Solitaire...
Yeah, the fight on the train at the end saves the movie from having a really disappointing climax, in terms of action and intensity.
Kananga's death scene is ludicrous but I can forgive it, at least partly, by writing it off as a victim of the available FX technology at the time.
The biggest disappointment for me is the deus ex machina of the previously unheard of buzz-saw on Bond's rolex - a real "sonic screwdriver" moment (a shame - particularly as the uselessness of the magnet on the Alligator island is the best gadget gag in any Bond film and used to great effect. Bond has to rely on his wits rather than Q Branch)
The train fight is good and the final shot of Baron Samedi laughing at the audience is awesome. One of the best endings to any Bond film.
<font color=blue size=7><b>Connery was a better Bond when directed by Young, whereas Moore was a better Bond when not directed at all.</b></font>
Young helped Connery invent cinematic Bond and although Young's films aren't my favourite Connery flicks I think it's hard to argue that he wasn't at his best in them.
I think Moore was at his best when he was completely at ease. When he got to have fun with it and could play Bond like himself. When they tried to force moments of anger and darkness out of him I didn't think he was as good.
I think Connery's best performance is GF. But great point (nicely phrased) about Moore.
I agree with both of these statements. However, since we never would have got to GF without the first two movies I will agree with the first part of the thesis.
As far as the second part goes I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Is this a compliment or a criticism of Moore? I agree that sometimes he was at his best by just doing his own thing but he didn't want to kick the car off the cliff in FYEO. After being talked into it he handled it very well and Glen gave us one of the most powerful scenes in the Moore era. I'm sure there are other instances where the director helped Moore to give a better performance so I have to disagree with the second part.
Agreed with the thesis.
Agreed after all they set the benchmark for the series.
Connery is almost perfect in DN and FRWL where it was Terence who moulded him. With GF he started playing himself and once the genie was out of the bottle there was no going back for TB even with Young returning.
Rog in LALD and TMWTGG does seem a bit stilted and uncomfortable and although most people (and the man himself) think he nailed it in TSWLM I find him to be at his effortless best in MR and OP. With FYEO there was a conscious 'back to basics' approach from everyone and Rog was presumably directed to rein it in a bit which, although still gave us a very solid performance, it did take away from the Rog-ness of it all.
You dont really sit down with a Rog Bond to watch a gritty slice of Fleming - for that you go to DN, FRWL, OHMSS, Dalton or Craig. With a Rog film you want to be entertained and hes at his most entertaining when hes just effortlessly being Rog and for me that comes across best in MR and OP.
Of course you could always look at it another way and say 'Bond is best when directed by Terence Young'.
Certainly Hamilton's efforts (although he did cement the series longevity with the GF blueprint so we have to cut him a bit of slack) get more mediocre each time and take us down un-Flemingian paths such as elephants winning slot machines, JW Pepper and stunt ruining sound effects. But despite this light approach hes unable to coax the classic Rog performances from his leading man that Gilbert and Glen were able to. I just get the impression with Hamilton that GF aside he never really put that much effort in. Everyone knew the films would make money so why bother. Its only when TMWTGG didnt that Cubby was prompted to have a rethink.
<font color=blue size=7><b>Glen was more a director of story and action than of actors.</b></font>
I would say he was pretty workmanlike across the board. He had a lot of very good actors (Glover, Bouquet, Jourdan, Berkoff, Walken, Krabbe) and to a greater or lesser extent they all give fine performances but you have to wonder what else a director like Mendes might have got out of them.
However when I think of the 80s I think of the high water mark for action in the series. 2CV chase, ski chase, Acrostar, train fight, hanging on the outside of the plane, taxi chase, Golden Gate fight, TLD PTS, cargo net fight, waterskiing, tanker chase - inventive sequences packed with phenomenal stunt work so I think the thesis probably stands.
a job So I don't agree.
I remember an interview with Carey Lowell talking about how if she had any questions about her character, like her motivation, etc, then she had to go to Dalton because Glen was too busy planning an explosion.
He is still my favourite Bond director though because he consistently delivered (excluding AVTAK) films ranging from good to brilliant for 8 years non stop, including my favourites.
Shame they can't get a director with that kind of dedication and work rate nowadays.
It's not a horrible thing though. He got enough out of his actors to keep the story moving.
From what I have seen I would agree too with thesis 216.
Personally, I wouldn't swap Glen for Mendes. Mendes might be a fine director, but a but he's too artsy for Bond. That said, I would have been all for another director for Dalton's 3rd Bond, had it happened.
Thesis 216: Agree
As for the alleged comments raised from Dalton and Lowell, if as a director untested in any environment other than the Bond films and action film second unit work, you had an actor so talented, focussed and passionate about his craft as Dalton, wouldn't you just step back and let him use his experience to guide and motivate the other actors.
Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to say Glen was in anyway an actors director, but I think he was no more or less competent than in the story and action departments.
<font color=blue size=7><b>The gun barrel shot makes more sense where it's positioned in CR than where it's positioned in QOS and SF.</b></font>