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
My controversial opinion: he's one of the movies' problems. I also thinks he shows a bad trend, started with AVTAK, of Americanizing the casting. I don't know who said it here, but I agree that overall Bond does not do America very well.
@Roadphill Robin Hood POT is most definitely NOT well made. Even taking into account that it is a Hollywood movie, it is rigged with historical inaccuracies and very sloppy. Costner is a joke.
I caught POT, the directors cut last month. I agree that Costner is miscast, but he was a hot commodity at the time. However, I loved Alan Rickman in the role of Sheriff Nottingham.
Rickman is certainly one of the highlights of the movie that cast Kevin Costner, but for me the movie is sum of a lot of elements done wel. And of course Robin Hood is full of historical inaccuracies, the fellow has most certainly not existed. It was a well made actioner that did not take itself too seriously. All Robin Hood movies and what not since then have been less.
And they had The UberBond once more in a Robin Hood movie, his Robin & Marian was certainly better.
I respect your opinion. That's why I wish that Bond would give America another chance in a more serious film.
That's why I'd rather not take the risk.
Sorry wrong person. I was too quick typing.
LALD probably "gets" the US best, but yes, it's been a misused location in so many Bond films.
I feel that way about John Glen. Although I don't think Hamilton ever really came close to the success of Goldfinger again, I do think he had a strong sense of visual panache and style, and his penchant for the bizarre was sorely missed once he left the series.
So I suppose we disagree in some ways, but I do agree that as a whole his entries aren't as strong as Young's or Campbell's or Gilbert's. So we're on the same page there.
I'm a fan of almost all of Glen's entries, with Licence to Kill perhaps being the exception, however I feel he was far more of a pedestrian director than Hamilton. Sequence to sequence, standing on visual strength, Hamilton's films for the series are more aesthetically/formally interesting. As a whole, Glen's output may be stronger. I have an appreciation for his workmanlike approach, even if I don't always see a lot of intentional artistry in his pictures. It's also worth noting that he came to the series at a different time, when they were at their most formulaic (and his five film stretch is also a perpetuation of that).
Sorry for rambling. Just found your comment interesting and wanted to weigh in.
I'll agree on the fact that it's a controversial opinion. I find Walken excellent in that film, far more believeable than many other villains. I agree however on the problem with the States as setting. I think it's part of the tradition of Bond films showing parts of the local culture. The States are just not very interesting in that way, showing off in so many other Hollywood films, and often beeing a bit 'shallow'. LALD still works well because of the destinct (sub)culture. Kentucky, however....
True, many of the more interesting parts of the US have been covered already. Let's see, we've seen: San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, New Orleans, Kentucky, Miami, Key West, New York.
I think a couple American locations Bond has visited in the continuation novels that might be interesting to see on film would be Texas and Washington, D.C. Maybe Chicago or Seattle as well. I wouldn't mind revisiting SF, NY or New Orleans either.
I agree 100%.
My controversial opinion : I find ranking Bond movies pretty pointless.
Thunderball has the most attractive group of 'Bond girls' on aggregate. The combo of Fiona, Domino and Paula is just . . . outstanding. (I'm not counting Patricia Fearing - I have problems with the way that character is handled.)
Hear hear !!
+1
Perhaps it's just a matter of lazy screenwriting - why not have Bond be so charming that Fearing actually wants to get with him?
I was watching FRWL with my girlfriend yesterday and that scene was on. She was still clearly rooting for Bond in that situation, whereas the Lazenby slap didn't get nearly as much leeway. She felt Lazenby's variation of that type of scene made him instantly unlikable. The Roger version of that type of scene in TMWTGG just barely got by with her. Probably because Roger himself, no matter what the situation was always lovable.
Tom Mankiewicz once said in an interview that when writing for Connery, one could either have him kiss a femme fatale or stab her under the dinner table. The audience would cheer regardless. With Roger, it was more difficult, and he would look nasty killing off a female opponent.
In today's wimpy, whining world there probably wouldn't be an intense Tania interrogation type scene in a Bond film, unless it were Judi Dench doing the questioning. I can't picture Craig or Brosnan in that scenario.
I agree. I also see the Patricia Fearing scene as played lightly. He's jokingly blackmailing her. He isn't really going to get her fired over the rack machine or if she turns him down. He's playfully using his mishap with the rack as a cue to continue flirting with her. He's been directly massing passes at her his whole stay at Shrublands. She's into him anyway.
The Bellucci seduction on the other hand I don't think works because there wasn't any flirtatious foreplay to lead up to that moment. I find the way that scene is played to be more sleazy and out out of nowhere.
Good points, particularly with respect to the prior flirting. It's an important element, even in terms of guiding a viewer's expectations. I felt the same way about the later train encounter with Swann, which came out of the blue. In a similar scene in TSWLM, there is that slow buildup which occurs as Bond and Anya both contemplate opening that shared door prior to Jaws arrival, even though she shut him down earlier (her hard to get act lasted a bit longer than Goodnight's). It helped me to more readily accept them getting it on after he's kicked out of the window.
Sean Connery was a brutal assassin.
I find Craig to be just as brutal.
@bondjames expressed his discomfort with his seduction of Lucia.
I agree, it is uncomfortable. But, to me, effective. He exposed the widow for what she was ("loyal to a man (she) hated"), and seduced her into giving him more info. In return, he gave her what her "fool" of a husband could not: protection.
Because James Bond is a gentleman spy, he made sure his friend, Felix Leiter of the CIA, would grant her amnesty and protection. The trade-off was mutual and benefited both parties.
A third, controversial, opinion:
I am watching Connery films in backwards order (NSNA, DAF, and now YOLT); what I notice is that the storm of Blofeld's volcano is so much more unique, original and more visually exciting than TSWLM's very long and plodding attack on Stromberg.
I agree on TSWLM, it does have pacing issues in the third act.
Oh my - controversial indeed. What do you mean by 'sophisticated?' To me, SP looks far better on screen.
Fully agree, not in the least as TB is by far my favorite film: Connery at his best, the most seductive and beautiful women (I also agree on the playful 'blackmail' of Fearing's character; there's nothing wrong there), the best locations, best villain in an almost-compsed and efficient Largo who has just al ittle bit too much pride, and best locations. Oh, and I didn't even mention the music!
SP on the other hand is all over the place tonally, the story is inconsistent with the wrong parts assumed and the wrong ones explained. Yes, cinematographically it's beautifully made, but it's more like a collection of beautiful clips then a full movie.