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
Not saying he's bad; I think it's easily his best performance as M, which is saying something considering he did a fine job in TLD. In fact I might go as far as to say that his LTK performance was a match for any of Lee's. It's just strikingly different to his previous portrayals — then again, there seemed to be a difference between his interactions with Moore and Dalton.
Yes but the whole plot is centered on a scifi premisse. If Bond was set to find a Horcrux, even if he only showed up in say the Ministry of Magic in the last five minutes of the movie, he'd still be in a fantasy movie, not a spy one. Yes genre movies can have elements of other genres: one can be write a spy thriller with elements of whodunit, of crime fiction, etc. You can have a space spy or a spy in a fantasy setting. But MR is dowmright scifi. FYEO with all its flaws is proper espionage.
Controversial or not - it's just plain wrong!
Q and Dalton Bond seemed to have a much more collegue kind of relationship, they were always very friendly with each other.
I like that aspect very much.
So I, loved his larger role in the film.
While I sympathize with many of your opinions, your enthusiasm for SP is completely lost on me.
For me this film is 50% boredom and 50% raping Fleming. Also, I don't feel coming anything from Craig in it. And no, it has got nothing to do with that infamous interview.
Regarding your last line, I will raise a glass on it at the next opportunity!
Not as long as there are people running around praising SF. Not by a wide margin.
I think after QOS and SF, for me the only way was up. I expected another Skyfall disaster.
But then SPECTRE, for me, felt like another GoldenEye, TSWLM sorts of film.
It's in my Top 10, No 7 for now.
SP has saved this era for me. If it had been another SF I may have even lost interest at all in this era.
So, that was a psychological factor that helped a lot. Having said that, I do feel, that SP is by far the most Bond we got from Craig so far. Even if he is merely copying Brosnan and Moore to some extend it is still way better than the non-Bond we got from him so far.
I view SF as Mendes trial and error film with a lot of error, while in SP he got a lot right.
Also story wise SF is the worst of all films by far. SP has a typical Bond story, I liked that.
Ironically (and perhaps controversially), I find he's regressed somewhat since then and become a bit robotic. He was a richly formed character from the get go in that first film due to the quality of the writing.
To me it's just another proof how BB and MGW lack a coherent vision for their product.
I mean, the least they could have done after Forster had shown them his intended movie, is taking him to the side and say something along the lines of "You know Marc, we have given you $200 million just to travel with your team around the world and make a real Bond movie and we really would like to see an optical equivalent of it on the screen. Go back into the cutting room and insert a few seconds extra per shot. And no, we are not in the mood to discuss it! Go, move and don't look back!"
Having said all of that, it's still a gorgeous and lush looking movie and to me by far the best of the Craig era!
Absolutely. It is beyond me, how BB + MGW could have been ok with the final version of QOS. I almost walked out of the cinema after the first 20 minutes by the way. I didn't but I had already a soaring headache after the first two acts.
On the big screen QOS was a disaster and EVERYBODY felt the same, at least where I watched it.
Switzerland is Bond crazy. Probably the most Bond crazy county in the world. Yes, even more than the UK.
Marc Forster is Swiss, Elvis (Taubman) is Swiss.
There was a huge media coverage for QOS. Huge.
The film made even less ticket sales than Casino Royale that also didn't sell more tickets than DAD or GE did by the way.
Just shows how wrong QOS was on every level.
On the small screen on TV QOS works better. It is at least entertaining if completely devoid of anything Bond-like. Except Tosca and some minor small scenes.
:(
I don't find it risible, just not as entertaining as the other Moore flicks because it's not as committed to any one approach. My criteria for Bond films is rather simple and Moore just hit it better with the other movies. It's not that FYEO is especially bad, just that I found the others more enjoyable.
I do have to say another actor for Bond might have made FYEO more consistent in tone and intrinsically better. But I doubt at this point people were ready for a new Bond. Only Moore could have sold this return to form so to speak.
Moonraker was a huge commercial success (Moore's greatest), and that may well have been because it picked up some Star Wars fans, and retained some fans of TSWLM who were drawn in by the huge production level of the film and larger-than-life take on the franchise. Whatever ranking you have of his movies, it's undeniable that Moore's biggest and most defining impact as Bond came in TSWLM and MR, which is reflected in the fact that they were easily his biggest box office successes.
FYEO was definitely more grounded, but if it went too far the other way (as it probably would have under a different actor), the franchise might've quickly lost its new followers. So I agree that Roger was essential to returning Bond to earth, so to speak. And perhaps that meant FYEO had to retain some of the more outrageous elements, though I still don't think that necessitated either the Blofeld or Thatcher farces.
Well, that's fair enough, but my point was that regardless of your ranking (or even if you had none), there's no denying that Moore's peak pop culture impact was in the late 70's with TSWLM and MR. They were his most over-the-top films, but they also attracted the largest audience.
Which is why deviating too much from that with FYEO might not have been a good idea. Just a thought.
I think we're the only two people who don't rank them.
I rank them. Obsessively.
But to use your method:
Love It: DN to TND, DAD, CR, SP
Like it: QOS
Sort of ok: TWINE, SF
SF though may soon be demoted to Don't bother status.
Favourites: FRWL, OHMSS, LTK, GE
Love it: DN, GF, TB, TMWTGG, TSWLM, OP, TLD, DAD, CR, SP
Like it: YOLT, DAF, LALD, MR, FYEO, AVTAK, TND, TWINE, QOS, SF
Don't get me wrong, there are some zingers in there and his ambivalence does translate into some genuine laughs, but no actor has ended their tenure so far and so poorly from where they started.
You may be right, Brosnan did the same with DAD, but his performances were relatively consistent and considered. When you consider what Connery was, to what he became, it's a momentous slide. I'm not saying he's worse than other actors in specific films, but when you look at the trajectory it's grim.
This is what I'm getting at. Rog gets stick for his later performances, but he's always 'there', he's always giving and he's, pretty much, always Rog. The leap from DN to DAF shows what tailspin Connery suffered.
This is fair comment.