Controversial opinions about Bond films

1348349351353354707

Comments

  • Posts: 16,149
    Murdock wrote: »
    The QOS titles are great. I wouldn't mind if MK12 had another go at titles. Their gunbarrel though, bleck.

    Their gunbarrel was hands down the worst. Looked like something you'd see on a Simpsons episode that spoofs Bond.
  • Posts: 4,813
    Here's one of mine- just my opinion. Sorry if it's been mentioned but I haven't been on this topic for about 100 pages worth ;)

    The last two Mission: Impossible movies were better 'Bond movies' than the last two actual Bond movies.

    What I mean is, swap out Ethan with Bond and other minor changes, the M:I had much more of the excitement and fun adventure that the old Bonds had-- they make much better 'contemporary' Bond movies
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    Here's one of mine- just my opinion. Sorry if it's been mentioned but I haven't been on this topic for about 100 pages worth ;)

    The last two Mission: Impossible movies were better 'Bond movies' than the last two actual Bond movies.

    What I mean is, swap out Ethan with Bond and other minor changes, the M:I had much more of the excitement and fun adventure that the old Bonds had-- they make much better 'contemporary' Bond movies

    I agree.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Here's one of mine- just my opinion. Sorry if it's been mentioned but I haven't been on this topic for about 100 pages worth ;)

    The last two Mission: Impossible movies were better 'Bond movies' than the last two actual Bond movies.

    What I mean is, swap out Ethan with Bond and other minor changes, the M:I had much more of the excitement and fun adventure that the old Bonds had-- they make much better 'contemporary' Bond movies

    I agree.
    +2 and in my personal opinion they've been better than the last 3 Bond outings.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited August 2017 Posts: 9,117
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Have to admit i really like MK2 titles for QoS!
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Me too, I never got the criticism. A Top Ten TS for me.
    Minion wrote: »
    Ditto!
    Murdock wrote: »
    The QOS titles are great. I wouldn't mind if MK12 had another go at titles.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I actually like the QoS titles as well.

    Good Lord a veritable avalanche of MK Dons love! This thread really does do what it says on the tin and no mistake.
  • I like Kleinman better than Binder although I haven't been that big on his last two efforts. SF's had too much going on, I think the best titles have a theme to them, and while I liked the nods to the past SP's was just weird with the octopus porn. And I've started to miss the dancing girls.

    Best titles for me are GE, CR and DAD.
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Have to admit i really like MK2 titles for QoS!
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Me too, I never got the criticism. A Top Ten TS for me.
    Minion wrote: »
    Ditto!
    Murdock wrote: »
    The QOS titles are great. I wouldn't mind if MK12 had another go at titles.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I actually like the QoS titles as well.

    Good Lord a veritable avalanche of MK Dons love! This thread really does do what it says on the tin and no mistake.

    Yeah can't say I'm feeling the love for the QoS titles at all.
    Here's one of mine- just my opinion. Sorry if it's been mentioned but I haven't been on this topic for about 100 pages worth ;)

    The last two Mission: Impossible movies were better 'Bond movies' than the last two actual Bond movies.

    What I mean is, swap out Ethan with Bond and other minor changes, the M:I had much more of the excitement and fun adventure that the old Bonds had-- they make much better 'contemporary' Bond movies

    To be honest I've heard that a lot but I don't really get it. Loved the fourth film, thought the fifth one was boring because it was much too similar (one of the great things about Mission Impossible was how unique each film was and they lost that imo). Felt a bit like watching MR after TSWLM for me. Not bad, just more of the same, they seemed to not realise that what made the last one so good was how fresh it felt.

    But anyway I think even at their best the Mission Impossible films don't rival Bond. For one thing they're too similar, which is fine for something like Kingsman because it's an unashamed homage that pays tribute to the old Bond films but with Mission Impossible it just feels like a rip off. Which is fine and enjoyable but it can never compare to the real thing.

    Plus there's just something about Bond for me that puts them above the average blockbuster. I can't really explain it, maybe it is just childhood nostalgia, but whatever it is MI doesn't have it for me and just feels a bit soulless in comparison. I think they're definitely trying to capture the spirit of the old Bond films, but it's a very American Hollywood take on recapturing that magic (maybe it's because Bond usually has British or at least European directors/crew members? I don't know). It's how I imagine the Bond movies would be if Marvel/Disney got the rights to them. Not bad movies but just lacking the heart and unashamedly old school vibe that Bond has.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @thelivingroyale, I can understand where you're coming from about 'Bond' as an entity being 'above' the average blockbuster. No doubt that's true, due to the rich enduring heritage of the franchise and the groundbreaking and legendary work of the past. Indeed, an MI film can never capture that history or 'soul' if you will. I don't think that's what we're referring to.

    What the last two films have captured (for me) is that spirit and playful energy of the 60s and 70s films. That casual joie de vivre combined with wit, insouciance and a little style/glamour. It's there in spades. This is not XXX or FF style low end stuff. It's of a much higher quality. The action sequences and stunts also recall classic Bond (in the sense that there's real innovation here). It's not predictable or trite. I felt it both times but I didn't realize it was a conscious direction until recently when McQuarrie mentioned it in an interview. It was deliberate. They saw an opening given the direction that the Bond films had taken, and decided to exploit it. From that interview, it appears that MI6 will be quite different in tone and flavour, and I'm curious to see what they come up with. Perhaps something 'grittier'.

    Cruise probably realized he could effectively play in the space vacated by Brosnan, since Craig was doing something different. He saw that there was a demand for that kind of character and nobody was doing it. He does it well too. I'm especially grateful that he did what he did, because those last two films are my favourite action thrillers from the last 10 years.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    I tried to make it through MI:2 and I just couldn't. I gave up on the series there. It doesn't help that I dislike Cruz as a person.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I tried to make it through MI:2 and I just couldn't. I gave up on the series there. It doesn't help that I dislike Cruz as a person.
    I'm only referring to the last two which chart a new course. I don't like MI2 all that much either. 5, 4 & 1 are my favourites in that order.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    bondjames wrote: »
    I tried to make it through MI:2 and I just couldn't. I gave up on the series there. It doesn't help that I dislike Cruz as a person.
    I'm only referring to the last two which chart a new course. I don't like MI2 all that much either. 5, 4 & 1 are my favourites in that order.

    It's my favorite, but I'd definitely agree that it tends to be seen as the weakest of the series. The last two are different beasts entirely, just like the last several 'Fast & Furious' installments compared to the first three.
  • Posts: 4,813
    Ohhh BMW I wish you'd give the rest a chance. Part 2 is widely considered the worst one!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I tried to make it through MI:2 and I just couldn't. I gave up on the series there. It doesn't help that I dislike Cruz as a person.
    I'm only referring to the last two which chart a new course. I don't like MI2 all that much either. 5, 4 & 1 are my favourites in that order.

    It's my favorite, but I'd definitely agree that it tends to be seen as the weakest of the series. The last two are different beasts entirely, just like the last several 'Fast & Furious' installments compared to the first three.
    The 2nd one is definitely a 'love it or hate it' affair. It's very distinctive, in that 'Face Off' Woo kind of way.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited August 2017 Posts: 6,277
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    An opinion that may cause controversy. Daniel Craig's era has been the worst of any Bond's.

    Definitely have to disagree myself and say Brosnan's era was objectively and subjectively the worst. GE is the only one of his films that is generally well-liked, and for me personally, the only above-average Bond film he did. His era lacked originality and felt like the most generic of the bunch. TND and TWINE are both mostly okay but not really exceptional in many ways. DAD is a disaster after the first 30-ish minutes.

    IMO, both CR and SF are Bond masterpieces and get the praise they deserve. QoS and SP both have some big flaws, and depending on personal preference one may or may not like them more than Brosnan's films - or some of them anyway. I think Craig's era, while not perfect, has far more memorable moments and far better intensity while not losing the humor like some people suggest. On that note, I should also add the humor in the Brosnan era is the weakest IMO.

    After the last line of TWINE, P&W, Brosnan, and Apted should all have been taken outside and unceremoniously shot. Worst. Bond. Line. Ever.

    Ten minutes of any one of Craig's movies have more genuine character moments than the entirety of Moore's and Brosnan's combined. Craig wins this one.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 684
    Bond and MI are so different to me. They're both "about spies," I suppose, but MI has always come across as a variation on heist movies, where the Bond films are more crime pictures. Or at least Bond started out somewhere around adventure-crime in tone, became action-adventure and finally, in the Brosnan era, pure Hollywood action. As MI also popped back up in the 90s at the same time, and as a name 'spy' franchise nonetheless, I suppose it was only natural to compare them. But I think it really begins and ends with the action stuff.
    bondjames wrote: »
    While you're correct in stating that M, MI6 and even Bond were partially responsible for a lot of what happened in the film, they were also responsible for ultimately eradicating the threat. They did this by coalescing around values of trust, core loyalty and in Bond's case, his own ancestral home. Silva initially mocked Bond's loyalty to country but eventually he ended up the loser. I took it to mean that even though Britain is older and weaker, it can still rebuild and resurrect (like Bond, and mirroring Tennyson). Nothing is written in stone.
    @bondjames This is a good point, especially regarding the part about retreating to the 'ancestral home,' which I mostly agree with. However, at the risk of straying somewhat far from where I started—which I'm fine with if you are; SF is perhaps unique among Bond films in that it actually has some subtextual merit, and I'm enjoying this—at the risk of straying, and if I were playing devil's advocate, I might suggest that Silva did not end up an outright loser, as despite his own death he got exactly what he wanted in M's death, which owing to her depiction throughout the film is essentially the death of a monarch. Rebuilding/resurrection is most definitely a recurrent theme in the film, but I'm not sure how the theme resolves itself. Are we to take the 'ancestral' house getting destroyed, and M and Silva dying, as Britain being able to rebuild/resurrect by going 'back in time?' Or more as a power struggle renewing itself, which has gone on since Britain's beginnings? I have to wonder how differently we might read it if Fiennes, as originally planned, had been revealed to be the mole in SP. Despite how we could take Silva's death, in this case the threat would most definitely not have been eradicated but empowered.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Interestingly, Richard Donner had pointed out when making Superman: The Movie, that when he did put "truth, justice and the American way" in the film, it was ironic just coming from Watergate, Nixon and the Vietnam War. I suppose the irony was that Superman actually meant it.
    Yeah, and IIRC wasn't Lois's response to laugh outright? I can only imagine the what the theater sounded like!
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,247
    bondjames wrote: »
    @thelivingroyale, I can understand where you're coming from about 'Bond' as an entity being 'above' the average blockbuster. No doubt that's true, due to the rich enduring heritage of the franchise and the groundbreaking and legendary work of the past. Indeed, an MI film can never capture that history or 'soul' if you will. I don't think that's what we're referring to.

    What the last two films have captured (for me) is that spirit and playful energy of the 60s and 70s films. That casual joie de vivre combined with wit, insouciance and a little style/glamour. It's there in spades. This is not XXX or FF style low end stuff. It's of a much higher quality. The action sequences and stunts also recall classic Bond (in the sense that there's real innovation here). It's not predictable or trite. I felt it both times but I didn't realize it was a conscious direction until recently when McQuarrie mentioned it in an interview. It was deliberate. They saw an opening given the direction that the Bond films had taken, and decided to exploit it. From that interview, it appears that MI6 will be quite different in tone and flavour, and I'm curious to see what they come up with. Perhaps something 'grittier'.

    Cruise probably realized he could effectively play in the space vacated by Brosnan, since Craig was doing something different. He saw that there was a demand for that kind of character and nobody was doing it. He does it well too. I'm especially grateful that he did what he did, because those last two films are my favourite action thrillers from the last 10 years.

    I can see that you're missing the playfullness, and I'll admit that I did like the last installment. But Bond is so much more then MI:. The last film had, just like the 'transporter' frenchise, ott action that was clearly impossible. Bond should always remain in that 'possible but highly unlikely' quadrant. The films I lke the least are the ones taking that too far (DAD on too many occations, MR, TND helicopter scene).

    Bond has more style too. Ethan Hunt is just a bit of a cowboy. Bond is far more than that. He's a gentleman, spy, assassin. MI: films are just pure popcorn, Bond is a quality dinner. Now I admit that the recent entries, especially SP, have been missing some of the joye de vivre indeed, moreso thne MI:. Still, I rate them as more engaging and memorable then the Mission films.

  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited August 2017 Posts: 7,108
    I don't really mind any of Binder's work. It gives the pre-1990 Bond as much of that old school Bond feel as the gunbarrel scene. Also one has to respect the tremendous expertise that was demanded here before mouseclicks came into play.

    Kleinman is good but I think his work in the 90's is much better than later efforts with the exception of CR. Bring back some lady silhouettes, Danny.

    Not a fan of QOS either. Now that I think of it, the last three might be my bottom three as well.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Strog wrote: »
    Bond and MI are so different to me. They're both "about spies," I suppose, but MI has always come across as a variation on heist movies, where the Bond films are more crime pictures. Or at least Bond started out somewhere around adventure-crime in tone, became action-adventure and finally, in the Brosnan era, pure Hollywood action. As MI also popped back up in the 90s at the same time, and as a name 'spy' franchise nonetheless, I suppose it was only natural to compare them. But I think it really begins and ends with the action stuff.
    Very much so, but MI has also infringed of late on the visual style/class element previously 'owned' by Bond, and done it better (imho). As an example, the sublime Vienna Opera sequence (evoking The Man Who Knew Too Much) in MI-RN or the India party sequence in MI-GP. Both really elegant and sophisticated in a way that they didn't attempt previously, but still very MI.
    Strog wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    While you're correct in stating that M, MI6 and even Bond were partially responsible for a lot of what happened in the film, they were also responsible for ultimately eradicating the threat. They did this by coalescing around values of trust, core loyalty and in Bond's case, his own ancestral home. Silva initially mocked Bond's loyalty to country but eventually he ended up the loser. I took it to mean that even though Britain is older and weaker, it can still rebuild and resurrect (like Bond, and mirroring Tennyson). Nothing is written in stone.
    @bondjames This is a good point, especially regarding the part about retreating to the 'ancestral home,' which I mostly agree with. However, at the risk of straying somewhat far from where I started—which I'm fine with if you are; SF is perhaps unique among Bond films in that it actually has some subtextual merit, and I'm enjoying this—at the risk of straying, and if I were playing devil's advocate, I might suggest that Silva did not end up an outright loser, as despite his own death he got exactly what he wanted in M's death, which owing to her depiction throughout the film is essentially the death of a monarch. Rebuilding/resurrection is most definitely a recurrent theme in the film, but I'm not sure how the theme resolves itself. Are we to take the 'ancestral' house getting destroyed, and M and Silva dying, as Britain being able to rebuild/resurrect by going 'back in time?' Or more as a power struggle renewing itself, which has gone on since Britain's beginnings? I have to wonder how differently we might read it if Fiennes, as originally planned, had been revealed to be the mole in SP. Despite how we could take Silva's death, in this case the threat would most definitely not have been eradicated but empowered.
    @Strog, to answer your question, I think it's a bit of both. There is definitely a recurring theme that 'the old ways are best', which suggests looking to one's own history, heritage and experiences for strength. As you correctly note, there is also destruction as a result, out of which something new and stronger is born. A renewed Bond with a new clarity of purpose. "With pleasure M, with pleasure". The 'calm after the storm' as it were. You raise a good point about how we would have viewed the film in retrospect had Fiennes been revealed as the mole in SP as was originally intended. Perhaps the theme then would be that one cannot take anything for granted, including one's own family or history. Vigilance is always required to maintain one's reputation. It's not so much a 'right' but rather a hard won 'privilege'.

    If EON are smart, they will attempt to tap into patriotism once more for B25. I think it's a winning ticket in a post-Brexit environment. I'm not saying that they must remake SF. Rather that the film must connect with something essentially British and proud. Like TSWLM did.
    --
    bondjames wrote: »
    @thelivingroyale, I can understand where you're coming from about 'Bond' as an entity being 'above' the average blockbuster. No doubt that's true, due to the rich enduring heritage of the franchise and the groundbreaking and legendary work of the past. Indeed, an MI film can never capture that history or 'soul' if you will. I don't think that's what we're referring to.

    What the last two films have captured (for me) is that spirit and playful energy of the 60s and 70s films. That casual joie de vivre combined with wit, insouciance and a little style/glamour. It's there in spades. This is not XXX or FF style low end stuff. It's of a much higher quality. The action sequences and stunts also recall classic Bond (in the sense that there's real innovation here). It's not predictable or trite. I felt it both times but I didn't realize it was a conscious direction until recently when McQuarrie mentioned it in an interview. It was deliberate. They saw an opening given the direction that the Bond films had taken, and decided to exploit it. From that interview, it appears that MI6 will be quite different in tone and flavour, and I'm curious to see what they come up with. Perhaps something 'grittier'.

    Cruise probably realized he could effectively play in the space vacated by Brosnan, since Craig was doing something different. He saw that there was a demand for that kind of character and nobody was doing it. He does it well too. I'm especially grateful that he did what he did, because those last two films are my favourite action thrillers from the last 10 years.

    I can see that you're missing the playfullness, and I'll admit that I did like the last installment. But Bond is so much more then MI:. The last film had, just like the 'transporter' frenchise, ott action that was clearly impossible. Bond should always remain in that 'possible but highly unlikely' quadrant. The films I lke the least are the ones taking that too far (DAD on too many occations, MR, TND helicopter scene).

    Bond has more style too. Ethan Hunt is just a bit of a cowboy. Bond is far more than that. He's a gentleman, spy, assassin. MI: films are just pure popcorn, Bond is a quality dinner. Now I admit that the recent entries, especially SP, have been missing some of the joye de vivre indeed, moreso thne MI:. Still, I rate them as more engaging and memorable then the Mission films.
    @CommanderRoss, if you're talking about 'Bond' as an entity as encapsulated by 6 actors over 50 years, then I completely agree with you. There is absolutely no contest whatsoever. Bond wins any day. MI is just an American action franchise. That's not my point though.

    I mentioned on another thread that I don't afford actors, people or countries respect based on heritage and their past. Rather, I do it based on what they've done lately. On that score, the last two Cruise MI films have delivered. I disagree that the action is OTT. On the contrary actually. I feel that the action beautifully straddles the possible and 'impossible' (pun intended) just like 'classic' Bond, and does it with real class and innovation. They have had the best action sequences since CR's parkour imho. The 'car to bike' chase in the last film is as good as it gets. I feel that the innovative 'parking garage' sequence in MI-GP is exactly the kind of thing that EON would have given us under Cubby. Please don't compare that to the lazy Aston/Jag 'postcard' chase or 'CGI PTS Copter' sequence in the last Bond outing. Transporter in contrast is far more OTT, CGI infested and extreme.

    Cruise does 'Connery/Moore' style panache & nonchalance far better than Craig (again imho). There is a genuine organic playful light hearted humour in MI-RN which rivals and evokes those classics while still being very much 'Cruise'. Furthermore, the man looks damn good in a dinner jacket. More 'Grant suave' than 'McQueen tough' perhaps, but that's perfectly fine with me while Craig is off brooding on the other end of the spectrum trying to be the latter in his ill fitting suits.

    Ultimately what I'm saying is that Cruise has captured the 'essence' of the Bond classic formula in the last two films, without imitating it. He's done it in a way that feels distinctly MI rather than Bond but still evokes the Bond greats. That's very impressive, especially at a time when EON seem to have completely forgotten how to deliver classic formula without it coming across as overly predictable, trite and derivative.

    This discussion always gets confused into Bond vs MI heritage. That's not my point. If that were the discussion, Bond would win every time. Hands down.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 1,162
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I was forced to watch the first one on a plane; awful. I walked out of the theatre on the second one.

    Then you missed the best part. Its last 30 minutes are John Woo composed action at its finest. Actually it was the reason why I went to the cinema since I wasn't too much enamoured with the first one. But I see where you're coming from since I find lots in it quite annoying myself. The villain is just much too neurotic and jealous on Hunt. "Ooh, The girls dig him more than me. Wheep, Cry. " and so on . At its prime Woo was simply the greatest when it came to over the top all in gunfight movies. I still happen to think that face off was the last really great and groundbreaking action movie.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The villain is just much too neurotic and jealous on Hunt. "Ooh, The girls dig him more than me. Wheep, Cry. " and so on .
    Then it was perhaps a film 'ahead' given what's been going on with recent outings from our favourite franchise. ;)
  • Posts: 1,162
    When you talk about Blofeld you're really on to something. This neurotic approach,combined with jealousy automatically lessens the villain.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 684
    bondjames wrote: »
    Very much so, but MI has also infringed of late on the visual style/class element previously 'owned' by Bond, and done it better (imho). As an example, the sublime Vienna Opera sequence (evoking The Man Who Knew Too Much) in MI-RN or the India party sequence in MI-GP. Both really elegant and sophisticated in a way that they didn't attempt previously, but still very MI.
    @bondjames Ah, I see how you're coming at it. And I agree the Craig era has been noticeably lacking in that regard, even when they attempt it as with SP. The best it has done is the opera sequence in QOS (there must be something about an opera ;) ).

    Now, since you say 'in a way they [meaning MI] didn't attempt previously,' I'm curious as to how you feel about the Prague embassy scene in the original MI and the Vatican sequence in MI3. You mean the scale of each their elegance/sophistication is less than the Vienna/India sequences in MI4 and MI5?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Strog wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Very much so, but MI has also infringed of late on the visual style/class element previously 'owned' by Bond, and done it better (imho). As an example, the sublime Vienna Opera sequence (evoking The Man Who Knew Too Much) in MI-RN or the India party sequence in MI-GP. Both really elegant and sophisticated in a way that they didn't attempt previously, but still very MI.
    @bondjames Ah, I see how you're coming at it. And I agree the Craig era has been noticeably lacking in that regard, even when they attempt it as with SP. The best it has done is the opera sequence in QOS (there must be something about an opera ;) ).

    Now, since you say 'in a way they [meaning MI] didn't attempt previously,' I'm curious as to how you feel about the Prague embassy scene in the original MI and the Vatican sequence in MI3. You mean the scale of each their elegance/sophistication is less than the Vienna/India sequences in MI4 and MI5?
    Good point about those sequences in the earlier films @Strog . I thought about that when making my last post. Somehow those films and those sequences didn't do it for me. Those indeed came across like generic American action fare, despite the setting (Prague in general was quite beautiful in the original MI though, and inspired me to visit - as an aside I think they were one of the first to do an action blockbuster there post-Communism). I think it's because the earlier scenes seemed to be more focused on the action rather than the 'atmosphere', if that makes any sense. They were more 'rushed'. In the last two films they've taken more effort to allow us to experience the settings. As an example, we were allowed to 'soak in' Puccini's Nessun Dorma in MI-RN. The sequence was allowed to 'breathe'.

    I think a lot of it has to do with Cruise also. As he's aged, he's developed a kind of detachment which lends itself to the sophisticated settings. An almost Moore'esque (but still very American) mature charm & easy going nonchalance which was missing when he was younger. Earlier he always seemed like a hyperkinetic whippersnapper (it's very apparent in the Kittridge scene at the restaurant or even at the Phelps scene at the Liverpool Street Station in the first film). Too much 'on edge'. Now he's more refined with a sense of irony, and I think for me that makes a lot of the difference. He really has deftly moved straight into the 'suave & debonair' void left by Brosnan. It's also about context. Everything seems to 'click' in the last two. the scenes are not shoehorned, but rather organic to the narrative.
  • Posts: 463
    I believe Craig's best performance as Bond was in QOS. His performance is CR is great but QOS gives him a lot of subtle character moments that I absolutely love.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    CrzChris4 wrote: »
    I believe Craig's best performance as Bond was in QOS. His performance is CR is great but QOS gives him a lot of subtle character moments that I absolutely love.

    Agreed. Love watching him gulp down his drink after the title sequence as he silently pockets the photo of Vesper.

    "You don't have to worry about me."
  • Posts: 16,149
    I love the appreciation for Craig's performance in QoS. I really thought his Bond origin arc had come full circle, and in QoS he's pretty much the suave 007 we know and love.
    Honestly I feel each of the Bond actors have been so well cast in their respective eras, that all 6 bury most current action actors playing an iconic role so far this century.
    For instance, Moore in AVTAK is far more James Bond to me in that outing than Cavil ever was as Superman. Lazenby in OHMSS embodies 007 far more than say, Robert Downey Jr did as Holmes.
    Even so, as fans it's difficult not to nitpick the little details: the fitting of Craig's suit's, Dalton's slicked back look in LTK. The physical aspects really can enhance or take away from a performance. In QoS, Craig looks spot in in his suits and casual clothes. His hair is an acceptable length as well. Had he been given a "Bond, James Bond" scene, a Moneypenny or Q scene, or a well designed and placed gunbarrel it would have been bad ass.
  • Posts: 12,462
    CR is still my favorite Craig film and his performance in it is his best IMO. QoS is another really good performance though - maybe my second favorite of his. Craig's Bond generally is right next to Sean Connery as my favorites.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    I think Craigs performances are great and his best one may be skyfall. However I really didn't enjoy him in Spectre so I can only wonder what a B25 performance will be from him
  • Posts: 7,507
    I personaly think all four of Craig's outings have been ecxellent. I think be did the most out of what he was given in Spectre.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,247
    bondjames wrote: »
    --
    bondjames wrote: »
    @thelivingroyale, I can understand where you're coming from about 'Bond' as an entity being 'above' the average blockbuster. No doubt that's true, due to the rich enduring heritage of the franchise and the groundbreaking and legendary work of the past. Indeed, an MI film can never capture that history or 'soul' if you will. I don't think that's what we're referring to.

    What the last two films have captured (for me) is that spirit and playful energy of the 60s and 70s films. That casual joie de vivre combined with wit, insouciance and a little style/glamour. It's there in spades. This is not XXX or FF style low end stuff. It's of a much higher quality. The action sequences and stunts also recall classic Bond (in the sense that there's real innovation here). It's not predictable or trite. I felt it both times but I didn't realize it was a conscious direction until recently when McQuarrie mentioned it in an interview. It was deliberate. They saw an opening given the direction that the Bond films had taken, and decided to exploit it. From that interview, it appears that MI6 will be quite different in tone and flavour, and I'm curious to see what they come up with. Perhaps something 'grittier'.

    Cruise probably realized he could effectively play in the space vacated by Brosnan, since Craig was doing something different. He saw that there was a demand for that kind of character and nobody was doing it. He does it well too. I'm especially grateful that he did what he did, because those last two films are my favourite action thrillers from the last 10 years.

    I can see that you're missing the playfullness, and I'll admit that I did like the last installment. But Bond is so much more then MI:. The last film had, just like the 'transporter' frenchise, ott action that was clearly impossible. Bond should always remain in that 'possible but highly unlikely' quadrant. The films I lke the least are the ones taking that too far (DAD on too many occations, MR, TND helicopter scene).

    Bond has more style too. Ethan Hunt is just a bit of a cowboy. Bond is far more than that. He's a gentleman, spy, assassin. MI: films are just pure popcorn, Bond is a quality dinner. Now I admit that the recent entries, especially SP, have been missing some of the joye de vivre indeed, moreso thne MI:. Still, I rate them as more engaging and memorable then the Mission films.
    @CommanderRoss, if you're talking about 'Bond' as an entity as encapsulated by 6 actors over 50 years, then I completely agree with you. There is absolutely no contest whatsoever. Bond wins any day. MI is just an American action franchise. That's not my point though.

    I mentioned on another thread that I don't afford actors, people or countries respect based on heritage and their past. Rather, I do it based on what they've done lately. On that score, the last two Cruise MI films have delivered. I disagree that the action is OTT. On the contrary actually. I feel that the action beautifully straddles the possible and 'impossible' (pun intended) just like 'classic' Bond, and does it with real class and innovation. They have had the best action sequences since CR's parkour imho. The 'car to bike' chase in the last film is as good as it gets. I feel that the innovative 'parking garage' sequence in MI-GP is exactly the kind of thing that EON would have given us under Cubby. Please don't compare that to the lazy Aston/Jag 'postcard' chase or 'CGI PTS Copter' sequence in the last Bond outing. Transporter in contrast is far more OTT, CGI infested and extreme.

    Cruise does 'Connery/Moore' style panache & nonchalance far better than Craig (again imho). There is a genuine organic playful light hearted humour in MI-RN which rivals and evokes those classics while still being very much 'Cruise'. Furthermore, the man looks damn good in a dinner jacket. More 'Grant suave' than 'McQueen tough' perhaps, but that's perfectly fine with me while Craig is off brooding on the other end of the spectrum trying to be the latter in his ill fitting suits.

    Ultimately what I'm saying is that Cruise has captured the 'essence' of the Bond classic formula in the last two films, without imitating it. He's done it in a way that feels distinctly MI rather than Bond but still evokes the Bond greats. That's very impressive, especially at a time when EON seem to have completely forgotten how to deliver classic formula without it coming across as overly predictable, trite and derivative.

    This discussion always gets confused into Bond vs MI heritage. That's not my point. If that were the discussion, Bond would win every time. Hands down.

    I stand corrected when it comes to the latest MI: films and their stunts, I remember them more ott, but perhaps that's bacause of the earlier films. I'm sure no fan of Tom Cruise (I loved him for Top Gun, hate him for Sientology) but his stunts in the last films are impecceable.

    On the other hand: your claim that the helicopter stunts were CGI, they're not. And personally I think that's one of the best aerial stunt flying I've ever seen on film!



    When I look at the bike chase it's basically the QoS PTS on bikes, which helps, it makes it more spectacular. And the editing is better so you can see what's going on. SP for me was hit and miss when it comes to the action, and what I was saying about MI is certainly partly true for that film. Agian, I love the PTS, and I also love the Hinx fight. But the Rome chase lacks excitement (traffic!) and the plane-loses-wings-still-gives-chase scene is terrible. There's no danger anymore.

    But i digress, I understand what you mean when it comes to MI: getting more sophisticated, and I applaude it. And yes, Bond's been missing 'something' lately. But I still share @Birdleson's impression the films are made for teenagers, and Bond is supposed to be more 'mature'.

    For me that means less action from now on, but in bursts when needed, good dialogue, a good story where you're eager to find out what's actually going on, style and panache. A new Thunderball, all in all.. ;-)
  • Posts: 1,162
    I rather think the Mission impossible films are made for people who like to get entertained at the movies in general and yet still manage to stay relevant and interesting for the young people.
    Something I feel the current Bond movies fail to achieve.
Sign In or Register to comment.