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’d absolutely agree with the fact the film has aged well. Bondjames has an astute observation on the 70s cynicism. I’d take that a little further and say that late 60s and early 70s cynicism melded with a contemporary cynicism in ‘08 (markets were crashing and wars were really being picked on...
First film: Both have a villain that isn't obvious at first, both heavily feature the Carribbean. Both feature a measure of local folklore(admittedly Dr.No's 'Dragon' was far less overt than the voodoo in LALD)
Second film: Both feature Bond trying to wrest an 'artifact' of internationa importance from a communist nation. Both feature him going head to head with an assassin.
Third film: Both, for better or worse, define Moore and Connery's era. Both where they really refined their respective portrayals. Both stepped slightly more in to the realms of male fantasy. Both feature a villain that wants to use Nuclear Bombs, not to destroy as such, but to achieve their 'vision'.
Admittedly after that the trajectory's change slightly until their final (in Connery's case final EON) film.
Last film: Both feature a somewhat tired, World weary Bond. Both heavily feature US concerns and locale's. Both feature Villains who are (in Blofeld's case simply posing as) industrialist's.
It flirts with the cynicism you're referring to. It's more in the corners of the film, and isn't overtly addressed too much, likely due in part to my paragraph above, and in part to the Bond franchise's obligations to a certain status quo.
I agree, they prove that James Bond needs a action director, not an artsy drama one.
While there is no TB equivalent as the fourth film in Rog's tenure, I'd argue that elements of TB make their way into film 5 (namely FYEO), particularly the water and revenge element.
Connery's fifth and Moore's fourth have a lot of similarities however.
Ironically, FYEO was supposed to be film 4 for Rog, but SW's success caused them to insert MR instead. If it had been as initially planned, then the trajectories would have been even more similar.
One thing that TND did not fail in was action...whatever one thinks of the remainder. I'm a relative fan, if only for personal/local reasons. So no, I don't think another director would have improved on it in that regard. TND is a solid and enjoyable follow-up to the solid (though nowhere excellent) GE...which I think has dated far more badly than TND.
TWINE is quite a different thing for me. But then, the script is so lousy, no director could have saved it without major re-writings, I suppose. TWINE was so bad, I was actually happy during the first half of DAD that they had learned their lesson...and was immediately disappointed after that. Jury's still out whether TWINE or DAD is really worse, but either way they end up at the very bottom of my list.
Indeed. I consider MR to be Moore's TB. Both were the most lavish and spectacular films up to their respective points in the series. Both actors were at their most superconfident in the roles in their 4th turns at bat. Manuela is MR's Paula Kaplan. The Rio Carnival scene is MR's Junkanoo sequence. And the final laser battle between Drax's men and Colonel Scott's astronauts is like an outerspace version of the final SPECTRE vs. U.S. Navy frogmen battle from TB but transported into outerspace.
The first half of DAD is far more entertaining than all of TWINE IMHO so I definitely rank Brosnan's 4th higher than his 3rd.
Storywise none of these films are great but the Hamilton films at least aren’t copies of one another, they have better dialogue and more memorable characters. Each of them have a distinct personality, while the Gilbert films feel a bit ‘more if the same’.
I agree that the Hamilton films have more of a distinct personality. However, the quirkiness in some of them is hard to ignore. It´s a tough call I think.
I agree. The first half of DAD is really quite excellent in many aspects, if one can look beyond some shoddy CGI in places (hovercraft and Hong Kong).
I'm a huge fan of both the Gilbert and later Hamilton (strangely, it's his earliest and most famous that I find the most ponderous) entries, but can see where you're coming from. The 70's Hamilton films are idiosyncratic but quite charismatic at the same time, without breaking the bank or being beholden to, or over-reliant on, spectacle.
When it's a bad song, it's cringeworthy and grinds the film to a halt.
To me DAD will always be the worst, considering the fact that Lee Tamahori became famous with 'Once Were Worriors' which is as hard-edged a film as 'American History X'. I was quite impressed by the start of DAD in that regard, only to see it fall in shatters as this 5y/o suddenly takes over the direction.
Sam Mendes says, "hi" after making probably the most critically acclaimed Bond film ever. Unless you don't mean critical/commercial success and are speaking from a purely subjective standpoint.
edit: I've rarely, if ever, had someone complain about TND's action. It certainly didn't fail there, I don't think. TWINE's script is abysmally bad, TND's is middling I'd say. Not sure if Apted is to blame for the former's failure or not, but I certainly don't think Spottiswoode struggled or failed re: the action sequences.
Agreed. The action in TWINE especially is very forgettable. The boat chase has a decent gadget, but it is not really utilized very creatively. (Driving through a restaurant endagering civilians, might be a little creative I admit, but it is not something I want Bond to be doing.) And the action scenes just decline steadily from then. The ski chase is ludicrously bad. The villains defeat themselves! And the ending climax is maybe the weakest and most bland in the series.
In TND as well the action gets increasingly worse after a decent PTS. And it all just feels like a very generic 90s action flick. It doesn´t feel bondian to me. Going crazy with a machine gun is for Rambo, not Bond.
Agree on TWINE but GE? No way. The final battle across the dish and the fist fight with Trevelyan is one of the best in the series, imo.
Couldn't disagree more. GF aside, I think Hamilton's films looked a bit cheap and tawdry. Gilbert's, while certainly not breaking any new ground, have a David Lean-esque quality to them. And they are visual feasts for the eye's.
100% in agreement
+1
I agree they are visually stunning but I find them lacking in personality. Also, LALD, TMWTGG and DAF to a lesser extend might not look like Lawrence of Arabia but they do have an atmosphere closer to the Mario Bava films of the time. That can feel a bit cheap to some, but for fans of those films such as myself, that’s a big plus.
It kind of made sense that Bond needed a machine gun to escape Russian headquarters in GE, but by the other three Brosnan films, the machine gunning got ridiculous. (And Fleming would have figured out a more creative way for Bond to escape Russian capture.)