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
The Kleinman GoldenEye gunbarrel design, IMO was an excellent tribute to Binder's work. To me it's not so different as to be unrecognizable. It's essentially the same image, but with a slick 3-dimensional movement. Beautiful. Occasionally Binder would tweak the image: OHMSS and DAF for instance, and I imagine he might have loved the Kleinman/Brosnan era gunbarrel. The only minor complaint I might have was that the blood flowed fast enough there wasn't time for the complete Bond theme melody post gunshot. Compared to what would appear in the Craig films that's only a MINOR issue.
The Craig gunbarrels, IMO, are a disgrace. The QoS and SF designs look exactly like one might see in a cheap video parody. An insult to Maurice Binder, Bond and fans who anxiously await each new film and get that bit of excitement that the sequence should traditionally bring. How dare they?
I think Dalton is fantastic @bondjames , agree.
I find SPECTRE to be a very capable substitute to SMERSH in FRWL. In GF Goldfinger comes off more as a gifted amateur criminal. His connection with China is slim at best. But in any case Bond remains a bystander in the movie.
He looked great, best Bond face there is...
I thought the very best, the most relaxed, the most cunning, the most Bond he was, was after Sanchez saved him ("you were just in time, things were about to turn nasty"-- and, yes, I even liked that lilt to his voice)... from this point on in LTK, I warm to him for the first time since his pre-title sequence in TLD, and think he was quite wonderful in most scenes from that point on.
His is not my favourite portrayal because I like my Bond a little more in control (which is why Connery/Moore are my favourites, followed by Craig), but his version is the most 'flesh and blood', as it were. The most mortal.
TD did feel uncomfortable with the one liners, but I will NEVER blame him for that-- I cringe at all one liners not spoken by Connery or Moore. I hate the one-liners and, unless delivered now, by dry humour (we're teachers on sabbatical...), I have no use for them...
I know logically Tim delivered something I should love, I just need to get over the other negatives: where DC's Bond seems patriotic, for example, and as Ian Fleming's was, Dalton seems, to me, the most anti-authority. He was always pissed, angry, hating his job (Fleming-Bond never hated his job; he questioned it and his role in it, always finding a motive for righteousness for the Queen and country).
For the above, I reject that TD was most like Fleming, since TD seemed so anti-establishment, it took away my sails to back the man. Yes he was "doing good" but, it always seemed, regrettabley! On top of the OTT SHAKESPEARIAN ACTORRRR (roll the "R"s...), he wrestles with Brosnan for lowest...
I agree that they work well as a substitute, and FRWL is probably SPECTRE at their best (although I loved SP's take as well), it's really just my personal preference. I find SMERSH more menacing because of them being a government organisation I think. SPECTRE are good supervillains, but SMERSH are backed by this cold dark police state and that was my favourite part of the book. The contrast between them and the British.
With Goldfinger, I just really like that he isn't tied to any organisation in the film. I love the "crime de la crime" idea of him wanting to pull off the criminal equivalent of the moonlanding. The SMERSH connection in the book undermines that a bit imo. It's the same as in the film but there's the afterthought of "oh and he's working for the Russians as well", which felt a bit played out at that point. They could have easily done the same in the film and tied him to SPECTRE but I'm so glad they didn't because I think his whole overambitious crook gimmick works a lot better with him acting solo.
I agree on Bond being a bystander though. That's one of the things that stops it being my favourite Connery film.
To be honest, this is something I've had difficulties with for a while and why I've felt a little uneasy regarding Dalton. You get the impression he is consciously conveying rather than being if that makes sense. The scenes that most demonstrates this are when he finds Della in LTK and again later on when he's in the casino with Lupe. Craig has his faults, but he seems better (to me) at displaying more intricate, subtle emotions.
Curious to see so many people ranking Lazenby above Dalton and Brosnan though. He was much more wooden and inexperienced (though I admit he did well for his circumstances and isn't terrible per se).
1. he only did one, and it was a cracker of a script.
2. he was surrounded by exceptionalism (cast, score, cinematography, locations, etc).
3. he was given an opportunity to showcase vulnerability due to the script and did well enough. His inexperience, woodenness & lack of acting skills paradoxically resulted in a subtlety.
4. he nailed the swagger and confidence, which is a huge part of the Bond cinematic experience.
I think he does do well with the emotional vulnerability and physical confidence, but in terms of "cinematic experience" I think every Bond actor save for Dalton easily captured that better than him. And Dalton was the superior thespian in turn.
He's not teeth-gratingly bad or anything, just noticeably more wooden and less experienced than the others. And I think that's a valid mark against him, especially if we're already being generous towards him on account of his acting inexperience.
On reconsideration, though, I've got Dalton and Brosnan on a par with one another. They're basically the two sides of the coin — Brosnan nailed the cinematic Bond while Dalton channeled Fleming's Bond adeptly; they each struggled with the opposite component.
Possibly what you say is correct but I certainly wouldnt have wanted to see Sean in OHMSS (certainly not the disillusioned Sean of 1967) as George pulled off the 'ordinary bloke' vibe in the scenes on the mountain and at the ice rink in a way that you simply wouldnt buy if it was Sean simply because hes Sean Connery. Similarly I dont really think any of the others would have been as good as George except maybe Dan (although could he pull off 'Hmm Royal Beluga, north of the Caspian' and ' He had lots of guts' with such aplomb?).
I do think there is a 'James Dean' effect about George in that the fact the film is so good it makes it seem like his brief star burned brighter than possibly it did. If we had seen him continue, having to slog through the lacklustre scripts of DAF, LALD and TMWTGG, then perhaps his shortcomings would have become a lot more apparent?
In short OHMSS was made for George and George was made for OHMSS.
It's telling that @Birdleson's thread which asked forum members to rank actors independent of the film has hardly been utilized. It's not easy to do.
https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/11780/ranking-bond-performances-by-film/p1
100%. You've hit the nail on the head.
Oh no, I wouldn't have wanted Connery sleepwalking through any emotionally charged movie. In fact, I agree with the popular sentiment that Lazenby was better equipped for handling this type of film than the dispirited Sean.
What I'm saying is that George didn't need to be a particularly good Bond, especially compared to the others on average, in order to make OHMSS a fine film.
I wasn't too big on George's delivery of the former line, but he was definitely surprisingly good at the one-liners on the whole. Something not often mentioned about him since he's mostly just given credit for the action scenes and the final moment with Tracy's murder.
May have to visit Birdleson's thread at some point. But that aside, you're definitely right. Which is why I don't think Lazenby, based purely on his own merits in OHMSS, can be ranked above Dalton or Brosnan.
Speaking of controversial opinions and Bond performances though, I consider Moore's Moonraker performance excellent, which I think most people disagree with since most people seem to believe he was just phoning it in. I think he was just playing along with the movie.
I personally think both Connery and Moore were the only two who tailored their performances perfectly to their films. I'm not a fan of YOLT because it slows down a lot in the 2nd half, but I don't think Connery is half bad in it. It was stupid to try and disguise him as a Japanese man (he couldn't be more different looking) in the film but apart from that I liked his performance (particularly in the earlier half). He was pitch perfect in DAF imho (such a different performance from FRWL but just as well suited to the film).
I don't think any Bond actor has ever been bad so to say, even Connery in YOLT. Bond performances are pretty much always good; I think that's part of the franchise's appeal. The highs and lows come from things like script-writing and editing, and rarely a matter of the Bond being terrible (I know you might disagree with Brosnan in TWINE; for me it's nothing worse than Connery in YOLT).
As for the Japanese disguise, I can see how that's aged badly but that's actually straight from the book. An interesting plot point considering YOLT was the first to drop most of Fleming's premise.
Yes, I realize the disguise is from the book, but it was a bad move which didn't translate well on film and just looks ridiculous now. Honestly, I think Connery is very smooth in YOLT, which fits the larger than life tone of the film.
I think every actor conceivably tries to fit into the tone of the film, but as with everything, it's a question of execution. Brosnan seemed a bit affected to me in certain parts of TWINE, as did Craig in SP. My concerns aren't to do with the script there, but more to do with the actor. Quite frankly, I think if Craig had delivered a slightly different performance in SP I would have liked the film a lot more, brothergate and all. I may actually rank his performance in that film lower than Brosnan's in TWINE. I just can't buy his attempts at nonchalance and see them as contrived as Dalton's attempts at one liners.
Whether we have Craig at Moore's level of performance, though, doesn't quite matter since Moore made more movies and was able to keep it up every time at 2-year intervals. Whereas Craig gets considerably more prep time before each movie. So Sir Roger Moore probably still reigns supreme in that regard for me. I always enjoy watching him, no matter what mood I'm in.
With Connery, Moore, Lazenby and Brosnan we could see what they did was perhaps not unhuman, but they'd never be able to pull off all those stunts consecutively. With Criag you've got the feeling he can pull it off. So a lighter remark by the others makes it a bit cartoonesk, whilst with Craig it makes him arrogant.
For the record GF is not my favourite novel. But at least Bond does something. And Goldfinger is introduced with Fleming's prose, which makes for the rather mundane surroundings and circumstances. And here's my other controversial opinions: Goldfinger is one of the weakest villain's introductions of the movies.