Controversial opinions about Bond films

1469470472474475707

Comments

  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,248
    I can t see anyone surpassing Connery and Moore as quintessential Bond for the foreseeable future.

    That's because you can't look into the future... ;-)


    Craig is of a different cloth then either Connery or Moore. As with Lazenby, it was a different generation, with a different attitude to life. You can see that in their acting and in the case of Lazenby in the way he lived life. He didn't have to act that part at all.

    I think the other incarnations did their best with what they had as a background, but lacking the same era-background it'll be increasingly difficult to get that part into a Bond incarnation.. Funnily enough, I guess the guy who looked the most like Bond was probably the worst actor.

    I like them all in thir own way and think it's comparing apples and oranges considering the time gap between the actors, but Moore sure was a very good one indeed. Carrying the franchise for 7 (!) films, after all, isn't a small feat. The fact that the public still accepted him as Bond whilst he was way past Bond-age in AVTAK says it all.
  • edited October 2018 Posts: 1,596
    I can t see anyone surpassing Connery and Moore as quintessential Bond for the foreseeable future.

    You don’t need to look any further than the very best. :D

    Brosnan was the first to come to mind, with the exception of DAD, as the opposite of what Moore achieved in the role. Not that I dislike Brosnan. I love him, and I do think he gets too much hate, but there is an undeniable level of artifice to his performances; an ingrained pastiche. A knowingness. Difficult to articulate when I'm short on time.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    I can t see anyone surpassing Connery and Moore as quintessential Bond for the foreseeable future.

    You don’t need to look any further than the very best. :D

    Brosnan was the first to come to mind, with the exception of DAD, as the opposite of what Moore achieved in the role. Not that I dislike Brosnan. I love him, and I do think he gets too much hate, but there is an undeniable level of artifice to his performances; an ingrained pastiche. A knowingness. Difficult to articulate when I'm short on time.

    Very interesting thought. Though you haven't yet fully detailed your argument, I suspect I'm in agreement with you. In some moments of Brosnan's films, such as when checking out the Cigar Girl in TWINE, I get this sense of self-awareness from him, as if he allowed us to see that not only Bond the character is amused by the thought of running into all these beautiful women, but Brosnan himself is amused by the thought of stepping into the shoes of this iconic role, with all the different aspects it entails, and which were the playground of people like Connery and Moore before him. I can see how that might not be some people's cup of tea (and I think sometimes he takes it a bit too far, which is why he isn't in first place for me), but I'm thinking when it works successfully (which is most of the time), that is one of the fun qualities of his take on the role (which I happen to love, by the way). It gets us on his side, somehow. And Brosnan is a skillful enough actor to make it work. Incidentally, I also very much enjoy his physical acting in some of the action scenes, where he finds a perfect balance between the physical elegance and gracefulness of Bond and a slightly clumsy demeanor (such as when escaping the newspaper factory or getting kicked on the ankle by Natalya).

    Your words on Brosnan resonated with me since I recently read this online article about how Tom Cruise deserves an Oscar for his acting in Mission: Impossible - Fallout. That is something I don't necessarily feel inclined to agree with at all, but the article does interestingly touch upon the relationship between actor and character and how sometimes, in a particular scene or moment, the actor, and not the character, is most visible to the audience, while other times it is the character that is at the forefront, and sometimes actor and character are fused together.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,287
    Brosnan's best role was Remington Steele, and his Bond owes a lot to that.
  • Posts: 684
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Incidentally, I also very much enjoy his physical acting in some of the action scenes, where he finds a perfect balance between the physical elegance and gracefulness of Bond and a slightly clumsy demeanor (such as when escaping the newspaper factory or getting kicked on the ankle by Natalya).
    I agree about his physical acting, @mattjoes, and not only in the action scenes but really in general. Actually, I'll take it further (since we're in the controversial thread) and say Brosnan is second only to Connery in terms of how he moves on screen. Though I think it's fair to accuse him of pastiche in certain areas of his performances, I think 'movement' might be the element most singularly his own.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    Strog wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Incidentally, I also very much enjoy his physical acting in some of the action scenes, where he finds a perfect balance between the physical elegance and gracefulness of Bond and a slightly clumsy demeanor (such as when escaping the newspaper factory or getting kicked on the ankle by Natalya).
    I agree about his physical acting, @mattjoes, and not only in the action scenes but really in general. Actually, I'll take it further (since we're in the controversial thread) and say Brosnan is second only to Connery in terms of how he moves on screen. Though I think it's fair to accuse him of pastiche in certain areas of his performances, I think 'movement' might be the element most singularly his own.

    Yes, @Strog, Brosnan's movement has a style that is entirely his own; there is a real "smoothness" to it that balances elegance, vitality, and roughness when appropriate. Also, from what I've seen of Remington Steele, which echo brought up, this was a quality that was already present to some degree in Brosnan's acting even then.

    For me, another aspect of Brosnan's Bond that differentiates him from the other actors is a certain state of edginess and intensity that in my opinion, he could go into and out of quite easily. No other Bond actor did it quite like him. Dalton and Craig also brought that to the role but since their general approach to the part was different from Brosnan's, the overall effect was different. Brosnan moved much more nimbly between the different possible facets of the part --whether dark or lighthearted-- than they ever did.

    And as described earlier, there is also this self-awareness he brought to the part, whether intentionally or not. Kind of a tip of the hat to the history and importance of the role of Bond. Pastiche, if you will, but I'd rather call it "knowingness" (if ThighsOfXenia doesn't mind my borrowing the term, and hopefully I'm not misusing it) as the word seems to have less of a negative connotation, which I think would be undeserved anyway. I don't think I'd go as far as to say this quality was omnipresent, but rather only visible in certain moments, often but not always lighthearted.

    Currently, for me, Brosnan is tied for second place alongside Dalton, with Connery and Moore sharing the first place. I admit it's not much of a ranking with two ties but they are there for a reason! My hope is that Brosnan's take on the role will be positively reappraised among the Bond fans once Craig has left the building.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Strog wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Incidentally, I also very much enjoy his physical acting in some of the action scenes, where he finds a perfect balance between the physical elegance and gracefulness of Bond and a slightly clumsy demeanor (such as when escaping the newspaper factory or getting kicked on the ankle by Natalya).
    I agree about his physical acting, @mattjoes, and not only in the action scenes but really in general. Actually, I'll take it further (since we're in the controversial thread) and say Brosnan is second only to Connery in terms of how he moves on screen. Though I think it's fair to accuse him of pastiche in certain areas of his performances, I think 'movement' might be the element most singularly his own.

    Yes, @Strog, Brosnan's movement has a style that is entirely his own; there is a real "smoothness" to it that balances elegance, vitality, and roughness when appropriate. Also, from what I've seen of Remington Steele, which echo brought up, this was a quality that was already present to some degree in Brosnan's acting even then.

    For me, another aspect of Brosnan's Bond that differentiates him from the other actors is a certain state of edginess and intensity that in my opinion, he could go into and out of quite easily. No other Bond actor did it quite like him. Dalton and Craig also brought that to the role but since their general approach to the part was different from Brosnan's, the overall effect was different. Brosnan moved much more nimbly between the different possible facets of the part --whether dark or lighthearted-- than they ever did.

    And as described earlier, there is also this self-awareness he brought to the part, whether intentionally or not. Kind of a tip of the hat to the history and importance of the role of Bond. Pastiche, if you will, but I'd rather call it "knowingness" (if ThighsOfXenia doesn't mind my borrowing the term, and hopefully I'm not misusing it) as the word seems to have less of a negative connotation, which I think would be undeserved anyway. I don't think I'd go as far as to say this quality was omnipresent, but rather only visible in certain moments, often but not always lighthearted.

    Currently, for me, Brosnan is tied for second place alongside Dalton, with Connery and Moore sharing the first place. I admit it's not much of a ranking with two ties but they are there for a reason! My hope is that Brosnan's take on the role will be positively reappraised among the Bond fans once Craig has left the building.

    Completely agree with everything you said, and your rankings for that matter.

    It is so difficult to separate Connery and Moore for me. Moore was 'my' Bond when I was a youngster, and the one I enjoy rewatching the most.

    That being said, Connery is objectively the best. The template for all to follow. Which is why I tie them at number one.

    I also agree with Broz and Dalton being tied at number two. Dalton is a better actor, and the world around him in his films is more interesting than Pierce's. Broz is more 'Bondian', though, and, able to change his tone to match the material.

    I wished I liked Craig more. As I have stated on this thread previously, I don't know whether it's his look, voice or just the 'cut of his jib' but I just don't find him very engaging to watch. Even after four films I can't warm to him as I have the others, even Lazenby.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree about Moore's levels of nuance and subtlety being underrated.
    I think he was an exceptional James Bond. He always delivered an internally consistent version of his interpretation. It never seemed fake or like acting to me. I feel the same about Connery too. No matter what was thrown at them, their characterization (like it or not) was internally consistent and tonally appropriate in all cases. That's saying something.

    This is absolutely on the mark. Well said. Regardless of the assessment of his "acting skills," I think one that is oft-overlooked is how lived-in he made the role feel. That is far more difficult to convey than, say, Craig's burning blue eyes of a thousand stars. Craig is a fantastic actor, and I'm not even saying that Moore is a better actor than Craig, but to dismiss the subtle tics here and there to Moore's performances as well as what you call "internal consistency," is unfair to Moore's acting skills.

    That is truly saying something. He and Connery both did that. It never, ever felt like acting, which would be more understandable for Connery, given that he set the template, but certainly Moore was working uphill to establish that same internal consistency so the fact that he was able to do that -- to make the character feel lived-in and real -- is impressive. It's why I'll always consider him second best, or tied for second best.
    I like your term 'lived in'. That's precisely what I meant to say. It is very difficult to convey that credibly, especially over several films, and both Connery and Moore were masters at it. They may not be the most critically acclaimed actors to play the coveted part, but for me they were the best at making the characterizations feel inherently natural and authentic.
    I can t see anyone surpassing Connery and Moore as quintessential Bond for the foreseeable future.

    You don’t need to look any further than the very best. :D

    Brosnan was the first to come to mind, with the exception of DAD, as the opposite of what Moore achieved in the role. Not that I dislike Brosnan. I love him, and I do think he gets too much hate, but there is an undeniable level of artifice to his performances; an ingrained pastiche. A knowingness. Difficult to articulate when I'm short on time.
    I can relate and agree. Again, I like your description. I think he made it work as best he could, but for me the era always seemed like a deliberate callback rather than something authentic and of the moment.
    Strog wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Incidentally, I also very much enjoy his physical acting in some of the action scenes, where he finds a perfect balance between the physical elegance and gracefulness of Bond and a slightly clumsy demeanor (such as when escaping the newspaper factory or getting kicked on the ankle by Natalya).
    I agree about his physical acting, @mattjoes, and not only in the action scenes but really in general. Actually, I'll take it further (since we're in the controversial thread) and say Brosnan is second only to Connery in terms of how he moves on screen. Though I think it's fair to accuse him of pastiche in certain areas of his performances, I think 'movement' might be the element most singularly his own.
    I agree that Brosnan brought a nice balance between elegance and clumsiness, but for me the best 'mover' on screen after the incomparable Connery was Lazenby. That guy had a certain physicality, natural style and swagger to him which belied his limited acting experience, and made me realize that a lot of being a good Bond is how one projects and moves.
    Roadphill wrote: »
    It is so difficult to separate Connery and Moore for me. Moore was 'my' Bond when I was a youngster, and the one I enjoy rewatching the most.

    That being said, Connery is objectively the best. The template for all to follow. Which is why I tie them at number one.

    I also agree with Broz and Dalton being tied at number two. Dalton is a better actor, and the world around him in his films is more interesting than Pierce's. Broz is more 'Bondian', though, and, able to change his tone to match the material.

    I wished I liked Craig more. As I have stated on this thread previously, I don't know whether it's his look, voice or just the 'cut of his jib' but I just don't find him very engaging to watch. Even after four films I can't warm to him as I have the others, even Lazenby.
    I have Connery at one, Moore a close second & Dalton at third (he was last at one point so I've really taken a liking to him and his interpretation recently).

    The other three alternate for me. Right now Craig is fourth, but I have to admit that I'm enjoying Brosnan more and more these days. I recognize that I have been too harsh on him in the past. Lazenby was absolutely fantastic in OHMSS, but I wish he had a few more under his belt so I could formulate a more informed opinion about him.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    This will be very controversial to some, as always, not to others, as always.

    I saw Casino Royal in Concert at the Sony Performing Arts Centre here in Toronto this past Friday evening-- and yes I enjoyed a Vesper before the show, and a few afterwards.

    Firstly, the music (since that's what this evening was about):

    Anyone doubting how complex the David Arnold compositions are should really get to one of these shows. The orchestra, the players, the tiny little sounds that may be dull to our ears after years of watching/listening through speakers and ear-phones... were alive and vibrant and part of the film's fabric and themes.

    To live this film, the score, with all of it's collective sounds, was a huge part of what made this story a success. David Arnold's music kept the film vibrant through a very challenging story with some very unique and interesting pacing (the first time pace was apparent to me)...

    To hear YKMN live (with Cornell's voice) was outstanding and the orchestra received a HUGEEEEE OVATION.... It got the audience going... I was very moved myself to hear it live.

    But I was ever more moved to hear the Bond theme at the end-- I was in heaven.

    To welcome DA back into the fold for B25 would be a gift. He loves Bond and he gets Bond.

    Onto the performances. Here is what I told a couple of friends of mine on this site:

    "I made sure that, as soon as I found out this was coming to town, I did not watch the film, nor listen to the soundtrack beforehand (which was hard since, when in a pinch, and I need a boost, both are a couple of my go-to standards).

    "I said it the first time I saw CR, and I will say it again: Daniel Craig should have been (Academy Award) nominated. It's the first film since, perhaps, OHMSS, where Bond goes through an identifiable arc-- and while he goes on this hero's journey, he really does go to Hell and back.

    "The torture sequence was stronger than ever-- the audience was really into this film, and they got the very dark humour which unfolded during this scene.

    "And finally Bond ends up with two resurrections: the first being false (where he quits the service to "sail around the world until one of us has to find an honest job"), the second, him coming out of tragedy to embrace who he really is (with the high collar): half monk/half hitman."

    and...

    "As far as the sinking house goes: I've always, ALWAYS, loved this scene. In fact, I love the entire "fourth Act" of it all. Love everything about it. It was unique to show Bond and Vesper's blossoming love. Shows that Bond was ready to quit the service and be with this woman. On the beach when he tells her he loves her-- soooo Fleming in flavour. And then the betrayal and how he goes after her at the end to save her, and find out WTF is going on. I love it so much. I honestly say people have the right to like or not like a piece of art. In this case, I will arrogantly say these guys who don't like this "fourth Act" are not sophisticated/mature enough to see how great this last bit is-- and in my opinion, the best of Martin Campbell and the the writers, and the two actors, is seen in this climax."

    Comedy: I've been hearing how some on this site find the Craig era very dour... The audience I was with during CR was laughing throughout. Bucketsful including the torture sequence and "that's because you know what I can do with my little finger"...

    During the pre-show and intermission I was happy to see that all demographics showed up: there were the late teens and early 20s, mid-age and old.

    Of both sexes.

    It was a full house to watch a film that is now, I'd safely call, after 12 years, a classic.



  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    @peter everything that you have written I totally agree with. Especially that bit about the film being a classic. Also the part when you said DC should have been academy nominated, BECAUSE HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN. His performance is legitimately fantastic and is really highlighted in that torture scene. If we get David Arnold back it will be a miracle and I will be first in line to preorder the soundtrack, even before I’ve heard any of it.
  • Posts: 7,653
    I found the sinking house in CR the same fault as DAD had, too much were perhaps a smaller ending might be more effective with actors like Craig and Eva Green aboard. They went bombastic instead of acting and I am quite sure that it did DC no good when talking academy awards, even if I consider the 007 movie void of an acting awards, they are not meant for that.

    I prefer Zimmer easily over Arnold for the next 007 movie simply because in two movies were Arnold was no Barry-light he could not create a soundtrack with any cohesion or soundbites that were really worth remembering. While he can mimic a decent John Barry I found his own skills lacking and the soundtracks were not filled with any tunes you'd remember easily.
    The same applies to Newman, whose second outing was even worst than the first. I would rather have a new composer who is willing to put some work in and create a new sound and recognition for the 007 movie fans in years to follow.

    Currently it seems like EON is coasting a bit instead of putting some effort in the soundtracks something that did deliver in the past but seems past glory.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,024
    SaintMark wrote: »
    I prefer Zimmer easily over Arnold for the next 007 movie simply because in two movies were Arnold was no Barry-light he could not create a soundtrack with any cohesion or soundbites that were really worth remembering. While he can mimic a decent John Barry I found his own skills lacking and the soundtracks were not filled with any tunes you'd remember easily.
    The same applies to Newman, whose second outing was even worst than the first. I would rather have a new composer who is willing to put some work in and create a new sound and recognition for the 007 movie fans in years to follow.
    I'm not really happy with Newman and find much of Arnold's scores rather unimpressive as well...but before they hire Zimmer they should seriously consider omitting a score entirely. For me, Zimmer is the epitome of soulless, generic, industrial, boring and forgettable sound carpets, which he (worst of all) keeps plagiarising and re-using himself. Discovering that a new movie has a Zimmer score is always a liability in my book and likely to keep me from viewing it.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    I prefer Zimmer easily over Arnold for the next 007 movie simply because in two movies were Arnold was no Barry-light he could not create a soundtrack with any cohesion or soundbites that were really worth remembering. While he can mimic a decent John Barry I found his own skills lacking and the soundtracks were not filled with any tunes you'd remember easily.
    The same applies to Newman, whose second outing was even worst than the first. I would rather have a new composer who is willing to put some work in and create a new sound and recognition for the 007 movie fans in years to follow.
    I'm not really happy with Newman and find much of Arnold's scores rather unimpressive as well...but before they hire Zimmer they should seriously consider omitting a score entirely. For me, Zimmer is the epitome of soulless, generic, industrial, boring and forgettable sound carpets, which he (worst of all) keeps plagiarising and re-using himself. Discovering that a new movie has a Zimmer score is always a liability in my book and likely to keep me from viewing it.

    I remember from the IMDB Bond boards, you where never one to mince your words @j_w_pepper Hard to disagree, though. Zimmer has become utterly generic. Slightly off topic question, do you miss The Bap?
  • Posts: 19,339
    @peter I went to the original showing and live score when it was at the Albert Hall and I agree with everything you say re CR,Daniel Craig and especially DA.

    Until people see his undiluted,pure passion for Bond at one of these incredible events,then they wont understand DA.

    That afternoon was a 'never to forget' experience,and,as you say once again,shows why CR is a modern classic Bond film.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    edited October 2018 Posts: 9,024
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Slightly off topic question, do you miss The Bap?
    Verily.
  • @bondjames Yes, perhaps I should have allowed a little room to suggest that Brosnan's performances, ironically, did not rest entirely on Brosnan's shoulders. The entire era certainly leaned into winking call-backs, and so Brosnan's performance mimicked that. I still stand behind what I said about his time in the role, but I certainly agree that there existed a lot in the filmmaking around him to emphasize that.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited October 2018 Posts: 9,509
    barryt007 wrote: »
    @peter I went to the original showing and live score when it was at the Albert Hall and I agree with everything you say re CR,Daniel Craig and especially DA.

    Until people see his undiluted,pure passion for Bond at one of these incredible events,then they wont understand DA.

    That afternoon was a 'never to forget' experience,and,as you say once again,shows why CR is a modern classic Bond film.

    Absolute @barryt007 , and very accurate description of this being undiluted. The passion can be heard in every note and it was indeed, unforgettable!
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Slightly off topic question, do you miss The Bap?
    Verily.

    Excellent reply.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,024
    Roadphill wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Slightly off topic question, do you miss The Bap?
    Verily.

    Excellent reply.

    Thank you.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @bondjames Yes, perhaps I should have allowed a little room to suggest that Brosnan's performances, ironically, did not rest entirely on Brosnan's shoulders. The entire era certainly leaned into winking call-backs, and so Brosnan's performance mimicked that. I still stand behind what I said about his time in the role, but I certainly agree that there existed a lot in the filmmaking around him to emphasize that.
    Fair assessment @ThighsOfXenia. I perhaps cut him a bit more slack these days in retrospect than I used to, but I'm overall in agreement with you.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    edited October 2018 Posts: 984
    Perhaps a controversial opinion, perhaps not.

    Brosnan's and Craig's era's essentially follow the same pattern.

    First film: Excellent debut's, perfect 'modern' Bond films

    Second film: Fairly straightforward action films.

    Third film: Attempt (and both fail imo) to be more cerebral. Both heavily feature someone with a grudge against M.

    Fourth film: Both an expensive and overblown mess, with forgettable action scenes. Both have a duplicitous villain who turn out to be figures from Bond's past. Both believed to be dead.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Perhaps a controversial opinion, perhaps not.

    Brosnan's and Craig's era's essentially follow the same pattern.

    First film: Excellent debut's, perfect 'modern' Bond films

    Second film: Fairly straightforward action films.

    Third film: Attempt (and both fail imo) to be more cerebral. Both heavily feature someone with a grudge against M.

    Fourth film: Both an expensive and overblown mess, with forgettable action scenes. Both have a duplicitous villain who turn out to be figures from Bond's past. Both believed to be dead.

    Good post !

    So this means Craig's fifth should be a mix of FYEO and YOLT.
  • Posts: 7,653
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Perhaps a controversial opinion, perhaps not.

    Brosnan's and Craig's era's essentially follow the same pattern.

    First film: Excellent debut's, perfect 'modern' Bond films

    Second film: Fairly straightforward action films.

    Third film: Attempt (and both fail imo) to be more cerebral. Both heavily feature someone with a grudge against M.

    Fourth film: Both an expensive and overblown mess, with forgettable action scenes. Both have a duplicitous villain who turn out to be figures from Bond's past. Both believed to be dead.

    Good post !

    So this means Craig's fifth should be a mix of FYEO and YOLT.

    Or he gets fired and they start with a new 007.
  • Posts: 19,339
    SaintMark wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Perhaps a controversial opinion, perhaps not.

    Brosnan's and Craig's era's essentially follow the same pattern.

    First film: Excellent debut's, perfect 'modern' Bond films

    Second film: Fairly straightforward action films.

    Third film: Attempt (and both fail imo) to be more cerebral. Both heavily feature someone with a grudge against M.

    Fourth film: Both an expensive and overblown mess, with forgettable action scenes. Both have a duplicitous villain who turn out to be figures from Bond's past. Both believed to be dead.

    Good post !

    So this means Craig's fifth should be a mix of FYEO and YOLT.

    Or he gets fired and they start with a new 007.

    True...either way is fine with me tbh.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Perhaps a controversial opinion, perhaps not.

    Brosnan's and Craig's era's essentially follow the same pattern.

    First film: Excellent debut's, perfect 'modern' Bond films

    Second film: Fairly straightforward action films.

    Third film: Attempt (and both fail imo) to be more cerebral. Both heavily feature someone with a grudge against M.

    Fourth film: Both an expensive and overblown mess, with forgettable action scenes. Both have a duplicitous villain who turn out to be figures from Bond's past. Both believed to be dead.

    Good post !

    So this means Craig's fifth should be a mix of FYEO and YOLT.

    Thanks.

    I suspect it will mean Purvis and Wade digging out the script they wrote for Brosnan's potential 5th film, if they did one!
  • @Roadphill I think QoS attempts to be more cerebral than SF, particularly in its use of location to evoke Bond's psyche. The latter just leans more heavily into traditional drama elements, and in that way differs from standard Bond fare.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    @ThighsOfXenia Maybe...it certainly wasn't clubbing us over the head in QOS like SF.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,248
    I'd agree except for QoS, which to me is far more then a generic action film. It was cut too short, but what's in there is far more drama, thriller AND action then many of the other films.
  • I think it may just be my personal interpretation of what constitutes "cerebral." I'm devolving into silly semantics argument. Carry on.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I think to the average movie goer, QoS is indeed seen as far more action oriented than the other Craig entries, just as TND is probably viewed as the most action oriented of the Brosnan films.

    Irrespective of what us aficionados may think, that is most likely the prevailing opinion out there.

    So overall I agree with the initial post about similarities in the trajectory (although there are obvious differences as well). I believe there was a thread created on this a while back too.
Sign In or Register to comment.