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 tend to agree. He has Flemingesque moments for sure, but so did the others.
The reason why he is less Fleming's Bond than the others is his total lack of manners and sophistication.
This Bond is a PC, 21st Century Everyman character who appears to be spending more of his spare time at the gym than at the golf club.
Not very Fleming, sorry folks.
The negative press before CR for sure helped him to motivate himself and deliver the best performance he can (and he did - CR became an instant 007 classic). Not sure if this "one last time"-pressure helps him to push himself over that line once more. I felt (and it may be because of the tension on the set, the partially bad script etc.) he was not "fully there" in SP the way he was in his first 3 entries (say what you want about QoS but he never looked better and he gave us an awesome performance in every action- or non-action scene).
I am sure he has one more "classic" in him and I hope he'll get a script that allows him to deliver it.
I tend to agree, even though I would say that this has changed a little bit since Mendes. Not sure yet whether this has really worked but I consider Craig is now more recognisable as the cinematic Bond I used to know. Craig was probably more intense in his first two films and he certainly did a fine Job but I still have problems identifying him as the James Bond I used to know.
To be fair, I can't really see Dalton's Bond enjoying a round of Golf in his spare time either. He'd get angry at every shot that went even a bit off target and would probably swing like how he yanked the leaver in TLD ;)
Connery (obviously!) and Laz are the only two I could see strolling around the golf course.
Still, Dalton's Bond just seemed too intense to appreciate a sport like golf.
Nevertheless, it's not the only sophisticated aspect about Bond. Bond is a connaisseur of the finer things in life. Dalton showed that sophisticated side of Bond on several occasions. Craig's Bond seems to be more of a brute.
To be fair, for all it's faults that aspect got slightly better in SF with his DB5 and the whiskey scene. Still, not enough for my tastes.
Very true
True, but neither would Flemings Bond, who was far cry from the sophisticated know all 007 from the movies.
You are right, that's something he does very well.
Alas, due to sponsorship deals with Heineken they force him to drink low quality beer, which makes this part of his Bond only half decent as well.
Well Connery together with Young invented the cinematic Bond who was a sophisticated person and Flemming at the very beginning having his problems with Connery's performance as James Bond, later really appreciated this direction.
Agreed. FYEO is a welcome classic.
+1.
As for Craig, he may not be physically close to Fleming's Bond but I love his performance in Casino Royale. In the books, Bond was not as smooth with the ladies, he's reckless and as M described in Casino Royale, a blunt instrument.
The amount of similarities between Casino Royale and its film adaptation are striking–especially considering that the film version was made 53 years after the book was published. Still, there are differences.
In essentially rebooting the Bond films with Daniel Craig, producers were wise to go back to Fleming’s original novel–and lucky for them its title and plotline hadn’t already been cannibalized for previous movies. It was wise of them to recognize that Fleming’s narrative was perfectly suspenseful despite a lack of doomsday devices. Beyond updating some of the more dated nuances, there was little that needed to be changed.
Yes, the movie bungles the twist about Vesper’s betrayal a little bit by making it so sudden that it doesn’t make sense anymore, but the rest of the film makes up for the book’s more nonsensical ploys to kill 007. I mean, two of Le Chiffre’s goons blow themselves up in an overly elaborate scheme to toss a bomb at 007 when literally all they had to do was shoot him. And is there really any way a henchman could have shot 007 in the base of his spine with a walking cane and not have anyone notice? So in the end the book improves the movie’s shortcoming, and vice versa.
After the lighter, funnier 007s we got for so many years with Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan, it was nice to see him portrayed more in the manner Ian Fleming originally intended. But anyone who plunges into the book will be equally pleased by its perfectly pulp, almost noir style of storytelling.
Actually I could. QOS notwithstanding I could certainly see him going to the opera. Don Giovanni especially.
In TLD I was never convinced by Dalton's snobbery. I could have seen Moore in those scenes.
I'm sure he can give us something decent. For his sake, I hope he does, because I have not been impressed with anything he has delivered on the silver screen since SF (LL was mediocre at best). He seemed to be a much more formidable actor when younger, based on the evidence I have seen.
As I remember it took them three movies to start this trait. Goldfinger to me is the first in which he displays superior knowledge about things ( in this case the cognac, or rather the wine it was distilled from ). Correct me if I'm wrong.
I knew, that would come up, but as you say it's actually very common knowledge. For adults at least. No need for children to know what wine to have with the fish, if you ask me. Of course, I tend to be a bit conservative
People always make out that the 'red wine with fish' line is an example of Bond's sophistication and superior knowledge of etiquette exposing the villain but never mention that Bond just raises an eyebrow at the time and it's not until he's on his knees with SPECTRE's top assassin pointing a gun at him that he realises its significant.
'You may know the right wines but you're the one on your knees. How does it feel old man?'
But for Grant's greed his ignorance of wine would have been irrelevant.