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
Ah ! The magic of the movies.
Well, he went to Cuba, which could count (?), but he never went to the US. Ironic since his Bond movies were in some ways very Americanized: fairly high number of American Bond girls (highest ratio?), and... British actors as villains.
Maybe that was to compensate that GE was very much a British centered movie: London is the villain's target, it's all about MI6, the one American character is a caricature, the action in exotic places, the Bond girls Eastern beauties, etc.
You get all that in Casino Royale.
"It's a fine line between executing on the formula well and being overly predictable."
CR did the former well by turning it on its head:
-"Do I look like I give a damn?"
-"Bond, James Bond" at the end only and to suggest completion of the formation story
-Bond theme at the end only for the same reason (loved the sparing use of it)
-A babe making fun of the Omega rather than Bond flaunting it with a gadget
-Similarly, the Aston flips and makes a mess of its occupant, rather than gadgets galore
-funny name was laughed at, e.g. "Miss Stephanie Broadchest"
On top of all of that, CR was based on Fleming for a decent portion of the film, and had some very impressive and memorable action and fisticuffs (both the stairwell fight and parkour score very highly here in votes).
So yes, you're correct, CR probably is formula done well, because it turns it on its head. Sadly, there's no going back after that imho.
In turn, though, isn't it just as obvious how a film may end if Blofeld is the main villain? As soon as Waltz was cast and we knew the title of SP, I knew the finale would wrap up with him either being captured or escaping.
That would be the case of any nemesis though. Except, ironically enough, Moriarty, who became Holmes' nemesis posthumously.
Therefore I put in on No 24 in my ranking. I'll still watch it regularly, it's a solid 6/10 movie and there has to be a Bond movie yet that is total crap. Which probably never will happen.
Agreed. They're both great. As I posted earlier, to criticize Brosnan while defending Moore is illogical. They're so similar; both camp and fun to the extreme.
Kananga blowing up, slide whistle stunt, Jaws dropping a stone on his food, Moonraker as a whole, the Thatcher scene, the Tarzan yell and being hit in the crotch while hanging on a blimp.
Every Moore film has at least a few ridiculous scenes. And sure DAD is laughable beyond belief but then again I can't imagine Moore pulling of 'tortured Bond'.
Absolutely! They both have movies I like and a lot of the criticism has more to do with the elements around the actor than the actor himself too. There's only so much control you have over the project once you sign a contract I'd imagine.
Not really controversial. Debatable but not controversial. And I agree.
Quite. The only real argument is do you prefer FRWL Blofeld or TB Blofeld. Both are far better than any of the ones whose faces we see.
He should never have been brought back.