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 couldn't agree more. Honestly, I feel it was one of the worst decisions in the franchise. Although it seemed to open new doors at the time, I think it has limited the series. Hence, writing the films into a story arc like every other franchise out there.
The Bond origin was following a 21st century trend, which I can imagine will seem astonishingly dated down the line. I actually would have far preferred CR to have played out as a regular Bond assignment. Of course, in a sense it was a solid publicity gimmick which drove audiences to theaters. Now the origin re-boot shtick has been so played I can't bear to look at another.
I enjoy the first half because of the action but I completely agree. It feels really pointless and it's one of the reasons I've never loved CR. You can tell how tacked on it is once the film gets to the train journey because that's when the film gets to the novel, and because of that the brash reckless rookie is gone and we just get normal Bond. Nothing in the film from that point on screams origin story. People say it was necessary but I don't think it was. He could still fall for Vesper as an experienced agent, letting his guard down because after all the killing he's done he sees a chance at happiness. And the Goldfinger esque contemplating killing scenes (cleaning himself up and staring into the mirror, comforting Vesper in the shower) would imo be even more profound if this was the same guy from 1962-2002 (I know it makes no sense, the point is though that the audience would know Bond is experienced not that they know all those other films happened), with all he's done finally starting to get to him. Make the parkour the PTS, remove any reference to Bond being a rookie or a new agent and you instantly have a better film imo. They could have easily got rid of the gadgets and excess without doing an origin story. Q's had films off before and could have easily filled the role of the guy in the defib scene, and did removing Moneypenny really accomplish anything since she barely ever has any screen time anyway? She could have easily filled Villier's role. But again, even if they were determined not to include those characters it didn't have to mean origin story.
My other problem with CR is how bloated it is so I'd cut down on the Miami scenes and get rid of the sinking house finale altogether. The film feels like it ends when Le Chiffre dies imo. What happens afterwards should be more of a quiet epilogue, as it is in the book, but instead they tried to turn it into a big finale and whenever it gets to that point I just feel really bored. The film is what, two and a half hours long? They could have easily cut it down to two hours imo.
CR is a film I've always admired but never really loved. It's really well made, written, acted, etc, but I just don't enjoy it that much for all those reasons. Middle of the pack for me. One of those films that has a lot going for it and is on the verge of being a classic but doesn't quite get there.
This is the reason why I don't really get why CR is still hailed as the best Bond film ever. It is an excellent film, but it definitely jumped the shark with the origin story. At least in my opinion.
I can remember some of my friends at the time thinking it was excellent as a thriller, and Craig was solid, but complained that the film felt nothing like a James Bond movie. By QoS, there was a genuine regret that the series had moved away too much from the formula. With the departure of formula and spaces between films there is now an entire generation that doesn't know the excitement of seeing a new "Bond" film in the cinemas- in the classic sense. Sad.
You've hit the nail on the head @ToTheRight
Although quality varied in the pre-Craig films, there was still that warmth of seeing a new Bond movie in the cinema. You knew what you were going to get.
Roger's analogy that the Bonds should have a sameness of a comforting bedtime story fits that sentiment. Yet each film feels vastly different. TB, LALD and GE all adhere to the formula but have their individuality. They're all pure Bond, though.
SF seemed to be an attempt to balance elements of the formula with the approach the Craig films had been taking. SP went even further towards classic Bond, yet the the personal Craig era elements seem really forced.
Showing the first two kills and OO7's first mission is a great way to finally present Fleming's first Bond novel that establishes the character. Glad it worked out the way if did, but with Dalton that would have been stellar.
I'm with you. There are certain Bond novels--CR is one, MR another--where, if you want to be faithful to them, you need to have a younger, less worldly Bond. In both, Bond makes assumptions that aren't correct about the women around him.
I always got the sense that Brosnan was more Cubby's choice than Barbara's, but I didn't realise Bean was so close to getting the role. I'd read that Paul Mcgann was their second choice. Not sure if I'd want to sacrifice Brosnan but Bean would have been a great Bond. Very similar actor to Craig in a lot of ways imo, so you can see that BB had a certain type in mind from day one if that's true.
And I agree with your mother in law @Ludovico. He's brilliant in everything he's in. I also love how he seems to have cherished being in a Bond film. Read an interview not that long ago where he was asked about it and he was full of praise and apparently still has the Omega they gave him for the film.
@ToTheRight Exactly. That's because those personal elements stand in stark contrast to what classic screen Bond historically was; escapist fantasy starring an untouchable hero with relatively flat character-a bit of jovial fun. Save for a few deviations like OHMSS, which were special because they were brief, momentary deviations, we didn't know or give a toss about Bond's personal issues. The two styles don't mix, and the current emotional style is not Bondian IMO.
Honestly I think he did much wrong as Trevelyan. He never really felt natural and genuin in the part for me.
If you give the Bond character some depth once in a while that's fine but just don't overdo it.
It worked in OHMSS and LTK because it came unexpectedly. There is a 20 year gap between these films as well which makes a more emotional Bond feel fresh.
Do it four films in a row and it becomes tiresome to the point that the film loses its energy.
Precisely.
I think maybe we can all put a bow on the myth of Sam Mendes being one if the best directors around now too.
He doesnt seem to be able to direct action particularly well, and by the way Spectre turned out, plus some of Waltz's allusions, he doesn't seem to be able to coax performances from actors either.
The vehicular action scenes in his movies particularly, where wonderfully shot.
Exactly, Gilbert gave his films some epic scope but he did have three excellent DOP's to work with as well.
Freddie Young, Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago.
Claude Renoir, La grande vadrouille and grandson of the famous Jean Renoir.
Jean Tournier, The Day of the Jackal.
Storywise however, all three films recycle the same preposterous premise.
DAF and TMWTGG were steaming hot messes that felt like they didn't know what they were doing, plus they just seemed more low-budget. LALD had a seedier setting and stronger elements so it's a bit more excusable but all three movies just felt lesser to the preceding ones in my opinion. With TSWLM they captured the Bond magic again, if only briefly.
In your opinion,of course. ;)
I think people give TMWTGG not enough credit. The film looks a lot better than the previous two. Maybe Ted Moore was getting a bit long in the teeth and was the inclusion of Oswald Morris TMWTGG's blessing. It had a lot more colour and a more exotic feel.
Also, the excellent production design by Peter Murton is regretfully forgotten by many. The MI6 offices in the stranded ship is the forerunner of Adam's improvised MI6 HQ's abroad in the following episodes.
Furthermore, I absolutely love Scaramanga's funhouse. It's one-third German Expressionism, one third Italian giallo and one third House of Wax. As a horror fan, it is obviously one of my favourite villain lairs.
*humble opinion in fact ;)
Of course !
I forgot the 'humble' part.
Gilbert had the budgets in contrast and I agree was a spectacular visual director. His three have some of the most iconic imagery from the series.
I thought he was great in it, although too young for the role. The character had some flaws but this was no fault of Bean. And of all the villains of the Brosnan era he is by far the most menacing and it's mainly due to Bean's presence.