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
Their gunbarrel was hands down the worst. Looked like something you'd see on a Simpsons episode that spoofs Bond.
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.
Good Lord a veritable avalanche of MK Dons love! This thread really does do what it says on the tin and no mistake.
Best titles for me are GE, CR and DAD.
Yeah can't say I'm feeling the love for the QoS titles at all.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
Yeah, and IIRC wasn't Lois's response to laugh outright? I can only imagine the what the theater sounded like!
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.
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.
@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.
-- @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.
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.
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?
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.
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."
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.
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.. ;-)
Something I feel the current Bond movies fail to achieve.