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 think he was excellent and had a good screen presence. The biggest problem he faced was getting boxed in by the decidedly average Purvis and Wade scripts. I also thing this is true of Craig in a way, but he has almost been boxed out rather than in, if you follow my meaning.
I think if Brosnan had Dick Maibum writing for him he would have been viewed far more favourably.
Interestingly, I did notice Craig's double quite a bit in CR during my latest watch. You can make him out on the crane and in the stairwell fight.
However, one film before, they executed the stunt doubles seamlessly. Perhaps it was a different second unit in AVTAK?
I find none of the argument rings true; searching for a rationale to justify undoing one of the great set pieces in the series. The action drives the narrative, something of an anomaly but a welcome one.
It's the first time we see Bond 'proper' and the set up is woven in a way that creates the image of a rogue, a blunt instrument (you could say a wrecking ball), a Bond with edges destined to be smoothed out, but he still embodies the tenacity of the character we're familiar with. If you counter it with the final scene at White's place you see the transition. I understand if people don't like that aspect of the narrative, those who want to see Bond constantly drinking martini's and quipping, but you have to judge to scene in context and in context it's outstanding.
One other point is regard The whole 'a trained spy/assassin wouldn't do that' argument, which is tired and lazy and used too much on here. When one talks about grounding the films they mean emotional/narrative weight, which CR has in spades.
Great post RC7. Agreed.
Well yes I have the impression that Bond is more like a wrecking ball in the parkour chase and personally don't like this so very much. And I don't think that his behaviour is proper. M precisely mentions that it is not proper but stupid and she is actually right. (However, I wonder why her assessment does not lead to any consequences for Bond ... )
I can understand that Bond is doing such crazy stuff if it is personal and he is driven by rage or revenge or whatever. But this is not the case here. It is a simple mission in the beginning of his career and his behaviour is completely unreasonable.
I also don't get why the early Bond needs to have edges that have to be smoothed out. Bond is not a 16 year old teenager but is a 35 year old professional killer. He was trained to behave in a professional way.
I don't need to watch Bond drinking all the time but from time to time Bond could do spy work in a little more subtle - let's say less explosive - way as well.
I have never really understood nor liked the Bond becoming Bond story. Bond earns the 00 status in the PTS which is great but why does he need to transform in order to become Bond afterwards. After the PTS, he is 007, the James Bond we know. Why should he be an edgy character who needs to transform into a witty, cool and sophisticated agent? I would rather understand it the other way around. Bond becomes edgy and brutal because of his job or Vesper's death...
I agree. I absolutely love the parkour chase and consider it a high point of the series.
It's a way of telling the audience this guy is a loose canon, but she believes him; she trusts him. He's worth it. Bond is an exceptional character, he's always been able to get away with things others simply couldn't. In the eyes of his employer/s nobody does it better.
Look, I think this discussion is largely redundant and I can't be bothered to explain why I think you miss the point on nearly every count as as you clearly dislike the entire concept, which is your prerogative.
Bond drowning people in a public washroom, bursting through walls, breaking into M's flat, is showing that this is indeed a rookie... M knows that he, at this point, is unrefined, but is "more special" than the others, and that's why she wants him to find himself through experience.
And dammit, doesn't he find himself by the end of CR as he climbs those steps, in that suit, with that gun. He is Bond. James Bond. It's absolutely a terrific origin story and rivals BATMAN BEGINS.
I didn't even know they were casino Royale haters
DR NO: sorry, I know the budget was tiny, but the external shots of the lair are CRAP.
FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE: the shot where Red Grant is reflected in the train window, watching Bond on the platform - best shot of the franchise hands down
GOLDFINGER: riddled with narrative redundancy, including the Aston Martin chase through the Swiss base only to get caught
THUNDERBALL: the underwater battle is tremendously exciting
YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE: the second half is possibly the most boring half of the franchise
DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER: the nastiest, cheapest and tawdriest Bond film by a mile, and yes I'm including LTK in this analysis (which I love)
Those are good words to describe Hamilton's '70s Bond films in general.
Ah. I didn't say Brozza hasn't got screen presence, he has. What I said was that he lacks the screen presence of Roger and Sean.
DCinB called. They want their rookie agent back. Training is not yet complete.
Very little wrong with those controversial opinions. I would disagree with you on YOLT and DAF. Two films that in the past I would've somewhat agreed with you on, but in my old age, I've grown to like these two entries immensely. DAF is such a mixed bag, its as if all involved had a good session on some illegal substances before cameras rolled. It's a unique film of the series. But I wouldn't have it any other way.
GF can go either way for me. Sometimes I notice the problems and they bother me. Sometimes I'm just going along for the ride. I prefer the latter. The older I get, the more I can appreciate the films as a product of their time. When making one of these films, I doubt Guy Hamilton or Lewis Gilbert thought, I wonder how this film will compare in 2017. I better make sure it's relevant. The Bond films are sometimes like little time capsules. Don't take them too seriously, and enjoy the ride. Even the lesser films are mostly fun to watch, and all of them have some good points. Even QOS. ;)
Now, now. We don't want to entice members to join a different forum. That would just be mean.
Though when someone becomes a broken record concerning their obsession towards one actor, it does get long in the tooth quickly.
I guess this is the controversial opinion thread, so....
Worst Bond films from actors that made four or more. Lazenby and Dalton are safe.
Connery - Diamonds Are Forever. Noticeably bigger. Tubby Connery easily moves around from set piece to set piece, cracking wise and doing little actual work. Love Wint and Kidd, but Charles Gray Blofeld is so soft I'm surprised he's not in a cone with a flake on top.
Moore - A View To A Kill. Grandpa Bond running (stunt double) around in a film that is an unsuccessful update of GF. Some decent action (stunt double) along with some bad action (fire truck chase / Paris taxi chase) cannot save this past it by one film too many for Sir Rog.
Brosnan - The World Is Not Enough. Very quickly becoming, if not the worst film in the series for me. An overly long PTS, with Bond endangering more people than the villains. A main villain who's not the main villain, and a woman villain who nobody can resist. A big breasted and highly improbable nuclear physicist as the lead Bond girl. None of the characters is very well written. The story is all over the place. Zero chemistry between Bond and Dr.Jones. Good potential in Renards inability to feel pain is completely wasted. And I didn't even mention Bonds shoulder injury that appears and disappears at random. Depending on how emotional the scene is, or how theatrical Pierce and Michael Apted are feeling.
Craig - Quantum Of Solace. Artsy fartsy sh*t! Super fast editing and a story concerning the Bolivian water supply. Pity I don't have a pillow for this snooze fest. After the brilliant CR, Bond takes a big step backwards, with a make it up as we go along story. Bond loses all his refinement and gentleman like qualities. Dumping his ally in a skip when he has no further use. (Although he is dead) Action set pieces for the sake of them, and more poor CGI. (I would've thought DAD would've taught EON something)
A let down after such a good debut.
Now some of those aren't very controversial to some. But there are too a few I think.
As I often say, all the Bond films have some great scenes, lines, characters or something that makes them all worth watching. And if we all agreed on which films are great, and which aren't then this would be a boring character to be interested in. Over the years, I have seen films that I wasn't so keen on rise in my opinon - DAD, GE, YOLT and DAF. And films that were once higher in my ranking slip down, LTK, SF, TND. The great thing about being a Bond fan is this very bizarre situation. Where films change, where things evolve, and nobody is wrong. Only a matter of opinion.
I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly about QoS.
... and SF and SP. Cool.
Still waiting on the actual argument. Calling CR moronic doesn't really fly.
This is a good way to see Las Vegas as it was in 1971.