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
Certainly Dr No, Goldfinger and Scaramanga blow any of his cinematic iterations out of the water and Drax, Dr No and Goldfinger do the same in the books.
All he's really got on his CV of any substance is killing Tracy.
This week, having time off, I re-watched TWINE and LALD, and was surprised to see that LALD has aged better than TWINE. It's certainly the much more entertaining film.
On the contrary Blofeld is an amazing character and one of Fleming's greatest villains.
He is a great Fleming creation, just been brought poorly to the screen.
Let me use an analogy. The Aston Martin DB5 is a stereotypical British car; it has electrical problems, leaks fluids, and it is unreliable. Not to mention the expense of repairs and difficulty finding parts. It is functionally a bad car. The Toyota Camery, on the other hand, checks all the boxes for being a good car; it's cheap, it's reliable, it's easy and affordable to maintain, and it will always get you where you need to go. It meets all the requirements of a good car...but which one would give you more fun?
Great post!
That's exactly why I can put SPECTRE on No 1 and why GoldenEye has been my No 1 for 20 years.
TND features some very silly stuff, also some bad acting, but still it never has left my Top 10.
But a movie like TB which is my No 19 I would rank into the Top 10 if judged objectively.
GoldenEye would still make the Top 10 in such a ranking, TND certainly not.
I get your point about entertainment value though. That's why I'm beginning to look at MR in a new light after a recent viewing.
This all sounds very good but doesn't stand up to scrutiny given the Brosnan films are Ladas and still break down all the time: shit to start with and functionally bad.
The Aston analogy works better for SP - it looks like it's got it all but then when you fire it up it conks out after 100 yards.
Wot? The "Merry Christmas, 007" scene and the "So poetic a pleasure" scene surely rank high.
Same thing as Dalton running down the Rock of Gibraltar. A breath of fresh air.
Now that is controversial and I disagree. Dench is so much better. I think Brown's best scene is in OP.
Exactly right.
I don't find any entertainment in GF, SF or SP despite what the popular opinion is so they rank quite low for me
The score is a big one. The main one really.
Some have issues with the model work. The dialogue is too self referencing, taking the piss out of Bond.
Personally these factors don't bother me much, but it has fallen to 6th in my ranking
Point taken there (although I think there is only one 'bad' track).
Oh, I liked quite a few of Serra's pieces. "Two-Faced" "We Share the Same Passions" "That's What Keeps You Alone" "Boris and the Lethal Pen" "Run, Shoot and Jump"
@Murdock Well that was exactly my point. The Brosnan films weren't made to be excellent pieces of cinematic art, they were made to be something better; fun. The point I'm trying to get across is that people need to get past thinking of films, especially Bond, as "art". They need to stop expecting emotion or anything deep or artful from an action movie series, and just have some fun. Everyone seems to act too grown up for that these days, though. We could watch a film that is "good" on paper, like Citizen Kane, and be bored to death, or we could go to the cinema to have some fun with a film that, on paper, is "bad" (i.e. Die Another Day). I will remind everyone; The Brosnan Bond films are my favorite Bond films, and my favorite films period. I haven't gone over to the dark side. :))
I see where you are coming from but being fans, we expect something different and more than the general audience. And this being a discussion forum for Bond fans you can bet that every scene will be dissected within an inch of its life.
The good thing is that Bond films are so varied so every film will have some fans
Yes these are certainly his highlight on film. I never said he was poor in OHMSS the film just that he never delivered on the menacing figure we saw in FRWL and TB.
Because I'm such an affable chap I've helpfully bolded the key words below to try and assist you in differentiating between the two different media which you missed first time round:
and that is why they should have never revealed him.... I still don't really know what distinguishes Blofeld from any other larger than life villain in the franchise. If you renamed Blofeld in YOLT or OHMSS it would even be better since there would not be such a big continuity problem. It is just not possible that the Blofeld in YOLT is the same Blofeld in OHMSS (not even taking the DAF Blofeld into account). And if you regard the films as standalone adventures then you just don't need a returning character such as Blofeld.
The music of Barry, the sets of Ken Adam, the amazing done-for-real stunts, the various designs of the opening gun barrel, unique opening title designs, the suits Bond and his colleagues and enemies wear, the time capsule nature of the films that capture culture and customs to freeze time for those who forgot or missed those days.
The Bond movies are a visual and auditory treat in every way, and EON and their teams throughout the years have indeed been quite artful in creating each of them as part of one gigantic, epic franchise. Because the Bond series is so on its own amongst the rest of the herd in cinema makes, it makes them even more like art. Not even the likes of Star Wars has retained such a sense of relevancy as Bond or kept to such a fundamental formula beyond maybe the opening crawl that begins each movie. In the Bond franchise we have tropes and boxes to tick that only exist for these films, items you expect to see in every Bond movie that've been formed in our minds over time, and those ideas of how to make a great spy film have influenced everyone else in the business since Dr. No arrived in 1962. Like all great art, Bond aspired to be in a league of its own and now inspires every other franchise that follows in his footsteps.
When you comprehend the massive range of special talents that have lent themselves to every aspect of these films behind and before the camera since 1962, aiding in its ever-lasting appeal, I don't know how you don't immediately think of these films as the highest forms of art in our popular culture.
Just sit back now and wait for the inevitable 'OK, explain how DAD is art' post.
You are right though, taking this franchise as a whole it's hard to argue that it isn't an artistic triumph.
Sorry to walk so obviously into your trap @NicNac but 'How is DAD art?'
art
ɑːt/
noun
1. The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
Does the above apply to DAD? There again it does have emotional power in that it stirs up feeling of rage and loathing so perhaps you are right?