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
I will challenge that statement, @Ludovico, if I may. ;-)
Christopher Lee is a great actor. His work in multiple Hammer films has made me realise that he is perhaps the only one ever to come near or actually match the skills of Peter Cushing. Casting him as a Bond villain makes all the sense in the world. So naturally I praise the producers for not overlooking him the way they have shamefully overlooked Cushing. But... I think TMWTGG is simply too weak a film for Lee. In fact, I believe that TMWTGG owes him a great debt. Were it not for his presence, the film would have been even weaker. Lee deserved a plot and a script much more tailored to his talents.
Ekland is a fine looking girl but also of a fairly limited acting range. A slightly more vigorous and fiery actress, like Jacqueline Bisset perhaps, or even Maud Adams, might have given the part the depth that wasn't on the page.
Adams, however, is one of the few cast members I think was cast well in her part, even if her performance as Octopussy overshadows what she does here IMO. She made Andrea a tragic yet subtly amusing character and given everything else, I honestly doubt the script had those qualities fleshed out enough.
Hervé Villechaize could have been an interesting asset but the film squeezed every midget cliché out of him. In that sense, he was miscast. I'm sure there's a hell of a lot more that they could have done with Hervé. The NicNac from the novel surely didn't play out like the one from the film so again, weird decision making is what shaped this film.
Overall, I think TMWTGG is not perfectly cast. Lee is like the finest steak in the world that gets wasted on the brutal treatment of a BBQ. Ekland is the mustard that makes the hotdog edible but doesn't improve the taste. And Villechaize was the seasoning that they overused and put on the wrong parts of the dish.
Agreed, I would add this, although Sir Roger is a tremendous actor, and contributed hansomely to the role, yes, Tim is the better actor and the better Bond. No offense intented to Sir Roger.
You could add that YOLT is the Bond movie who aged the worst, the special effects are childish, and Connery, well, Connery was only in for the pay.
Your points 6, 8 and 9 I coudn't agree more.
Okay, let´s pretend that you remove all these things. What would be left of the series? If they could have done it better, they would have. For God sake, if you have been watching them since 1962 you should know that they could´nt have done it any other way. ´Cause it was 1962!
Okay, let´s pretend that you remove all these things. What would be left of the series? If they could have done it better, they would have. For God sake, if you have been watching them since 1962 you should know that they could´nt have done it any other way. ´Cause it was 1962!
My criticisms are directed at the series, not confined to 1962, which, incidentally, was not the dawn of film. Which means from the beginning, a lot of the sloppiness in the films could have been addressed.
That so-called sloppiness represents a successful formula, and criticism is easy but 50 years of franchise says that every flaw has only strengthened the show. So what do you know?
How come you are a fan of the films if you find most of them "slopy"?
He's not the best Bond actor by a long shot, but Lazenby was the right actor for his story.
I enjoy Roger's films immensely, but let's be real here. He wasn't a great Bond. He was a great Saint filling in. ;)
I agree
What franchise? You mean Zorin Industries? :P
You amuse me, Mr Jobo.
I actually think QOS improves with multiple viewings.
To be frank, it shouldn't be that I need to watch a film up to ten times before I'm finally beginning to see some structure in the chaos which the aggressive editing was kind enough to leave behind. Perhaps my initial responses to QOS were slightly more negative due to the fact that I felt like entire reels of film were left on the cutting room floor. But I'm beginning to grasp the filmmakers' intentions with this film. CR had left us multiple pauses and moments to absorb the surroundings. QOS, by contrast, plays like a film on steroids but rather than speeding things up like they used to do in the old days, the scissors just went in with fierce audacity. However, after multiple viewings, brief moments of diverted attention can be compensated from memory. Contemplating the story with other people has also proven useful in seeing the big picture so to speak. With SF being a far more relaxed Bond film, I have given QOS a place in the Bond legacy as this one-time-only Bond experience on Red Bull. Its uniqueness, albeit one I used to loath, has gradually become an amusing element. I know when not to watch QOS; I also know when the time is right. On those rare occasions when I feel like watching a film that clears out after 90 minutes, QOS is my go-to Bond film. Also, when it's late and I'm somewhat tired, I can use the lack of pauses to keep going without falling asleep. Though I still think of QOS as the adrenalized coda to CR, and a much weaker film at that, I have grown to appreciate this effort more and more. It now ranks a bit higher than it used to; I'd say somewhere in my top 10 or 12.
Apart from the title song. :))
You're right, I don't know anything.
But you very passionate which is brilliant.
I agree with this. QoS is not my favourite Bond movie, but I like it more than most of Moore's movies.
Too overrated by the younger fans.
No. It's just crap.