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
Yes. The 60s films, though dated, have a grandness to them which is lost during most of the subsequent eras. They can't be accused of being TV movies.
However, I did notice that the early 70s films (particularly LALD and DAF) still had a certain "character" to them - be it the witty dialogue or the often dark humour. Perhaps its for those reasons that they stand out more than the films in the 80s.
I agree. After the 60s the 70s is my favorite decade of Bond.
You must give me the name of your Occulist
I find all six perfect really.
Each has put his own style on Bond.
I couldn't pick favorites. Sure, Lazenby will always hold a special place in my heart because it's OHMSS and he is simply perfect for the film too, I love seeing him, he is an athlete, tall and strong and he's a womanizer, he has the looks for the winter Bond.
Craig is the nearest thing to Connery. I'm amazed how much potential was actually wasted there. And even so, he's still elevating Quantum Of Solace and SPECTRE quite a bit.
Moore and Brosnan are the suave, tons of charm, good-looking Bonds with gallons of humor. Brosnan is especially easy to watch, he just looks so damn good in every single scene.
Dalton is what I would imagine the Bond out of the books. He's kind of the most "boring" of the lot but I can see how this is the version that Fleming described. I could be very wrong, I'm just guessing here.
Then again George had youth in his favour unlike Brosnan (and Roger in all fairness).
I've tended to view George as a stuntman trying to be an actor. Yes his line delivery is a problem at times, but he convinces as a "man of action", which is what Bond was meant to be. In fact I'd say he's more convincing as a "man of action" than Dalton too.
Considering Brosnan was in his early to late 40s when he did Bond I thought he was reasonably athletic, but he didn't have that "trained commando" vibe that Lazenby did.
Perfectly said.
Hmm...I'm not sure he convinces me as a man of the world. He's too young. @RC7 once described Laz as having "a aura of simple-mindedness" and I kind of get what he means.
OHMSS obviously is the other way around, Bond is going after Blofeld. The pacing thus is different and with a plot set in time, the pace has to be faster then FRWL.
Tanya is the worm. Bond is the fish.
From SPECTRE's point of view yes, but from MI6's point of view that's debateable. Anyway, couldn't resist putting the line in. Was watching (parts of )TWINE the other day...
As well as the hook and sinker?
My view is just the opposite. I find Dalton fascinating to watch because he's not the male model type Brosnan is. The best part of watching Dalton is imagining what the man is thinking and his various expressions that portray it.
Brosnan doesn't give off that vibe for me at all and that's why I've never taken to his Bond the way I have the others. He was the natural successor because he was everybody's idea of what film Bond should be at the time and others ate it up at the time. I didn't share that view then nor do I now.
Nothing against him, but when people described him as a composite of all the previous actors' strengths, then it's kind of a greatest hits package and nothing original.
And can you honestly say he looks so damn good in the over exaggerated pain face scenes or in the running scenes?
Yes, he does capture the nerves and insecurity so often prominent in the books quite well.
But now you are coming around to Woody?
That's a very dangerous guy.
I'm overdue for a rewatch, but my current (controversial) impression is that it's lacking a bit of the cinematic Bondian touch, mostly in terms of a sense of spectacle, and especially in the last part of the film-- the climactic scenes. I'm perfectly fine with down-to-earth Bond --I love For Your Eyes Only, The Living Daylights, Licence to Kill, Casino Royale-- but FRWL has a rather anti-climactic ending: the boat scene is not very interesting and the final hotel room fight is something that belongs in your average thriller of the era, not in a Bond film which just demands more. True, Klebb, Kronsteen and Grant aren't your average larger-than-life Bond villains, but I think that's not the point-- Kristatos isn't your average Bond villain either, but he fits FYEO very well and the film feels Bondian because there is a sense of spectacle and high stakes. FRWL has good villains and high stakes, but not enough spectacle. It reminds me of North by Northwest, and Bond films should probably be North by Northwest on steroids. That's my preference, anyway.
Having said that, FRWL definitely a well-made film, and Kronsteen and Grant make for damn good villains. Klebb is fine too but there's a hint of perverseness to her that I wish had been brought out some more to put her in the same league as her colleagues in crime.
He runs a good deal in GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies and is in a few quite speedy scenes in TWINE and Die Another Day too and in my opinion he always looks perfect.
Dalton, Brosnan and Craig are the ones that were doing the most physical demanding stuff.
Not sure what a pain face means other than the actors have to act. You try to jump and roll from the Millennium Dome (TWINE) or do a free fall on a ladder and then stop abruptly in mid air. It hurts.
In my book Brosnan looks like he's in pain and I buy it.
Not sure I buy some of the superhuman efforts that Craig does in CR and especially QoS, may be acted well also, but so very unrealistic it makes me cringe (CR Madagascar, QoS parachute fall, to name two examples.)
Overall I have no beef with any of the actor's skills. They are all perfect. Cubby and Harry and later Michael and Barbara always chose wisely. And I think the incredible success of the films prove it.
And of course it's one of the great Bond films, amongst circa 18, 19 others. Yes I regard at least 18 films as GREAT. And the rest as VERY GOOD (sans QoS).
To provide context: All six Connery Bonds are in my Top 13, that's almost 50% of it!
I have them at:
2. DN
4. GF
5. YOLT
8. DAF
12. TB
13. FRWL
and I even think TB and FRWL could go up in my ranking once I've seen all of the films again. Doing a Bondathon currently.
I think what bugs me the most about the dubbing is how obvious it is - I could eventually forgive it if it was something like the words not matching the lips, but the janky audio distortion just screams "What you're hearing was recorded elsewhere!"
We need to talk young man! QoS is one of the best Bond films made! The atmosphere, Bond's devotion to his duty, the misleading by the villain's organisation and most importantly the fact that the villain is just a puppet of a darker force is all classic Fleming!
Mhmm, that’s one of the few films that just gets better and better every time I see it. It feels like an epic when you watch it, the film is just riveting.
I love old-school directing and editing.
QoS is a mess, beautifully shot perhaps but butchered through shaky camera work and stupid editing that really no one can find a joy to watch?? It's beyond me.
There is a lot to QoS I like, but the worst action scenes in Bond really tamper with my enjoyment to watch it. Not even the engaging brilliant score of David Arnold saves the bad CGI loaded, badly done action in QoS.
At least there is a good middle section when the editor obviously was on his day off.
I may warm up to the film once I have learned to ignore the bad job done. Mathis and Camille are so great and I love Felix Leiter in this, totally.
Daniel Craig is completely wasted, he has such talent and he shined in CR. Shame because Craig was at his prime physically and looks wise in QoS.
I just wish the first 20 or so minutes were not so badly done. Same for the bloody parachute sequence, I want to throw up rather than watching this scene again.
How's that for controversy ha ha...