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
Quite right. I'd also add the scene in Talamone where Bond re-approaches Mathis. Love Mathis's girlfriend's wine remark in Italian.
11 bond films over CR is a lot.
Which ones ?
FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS, TSWLM, OP, TLD, LTK, GE and QOS.
That's actually ten X_X
QOS better than CR, very controversial.
I have QOS last in my list ;))
Both actors have, at least in my opinion, had one classic (CR, GE) both had one good, but not great, (TND, SF) and both have had two bottom dweller efforts (QOS, SP, TWINE, DAD).
The symmetry goes further. Both of their first films are reboots(admittedly GE's is much softer) and both are widely considered to be their best films.
Both of their second films suffered script problems, are plot lite, crash bang heavy, and both had very contemporary styled action (Bourne-esq in QOS. John Woo- esque in TND climax).
Both of there third films go heavier on plot, and both feature a personal grudge against M.
Finally, both their fourth films have huge identity crisis's. Both have a villain with two names, also who are both believed by Bond to be deceased. Both have largely soulless, but big scale action.
Rather a lot of similarity there, I'm sure you will agree.
Plus they have a video game that’s better than most of their movies: Everything or Nothing for PB, Bloodstone for DC.
I’m going to disagree with you on this one. TND isn’t good. It’s a bottom dweller for me, tight down there with DAF. And SF is better than good, it’s great.
Still, it’s an interesting comparison you’ve got between Brosnan and Craig. I’d add that in both cases their 4th film tried to go a bit ‘old school’ and bring in some the the classic elements form the film series (OTT villain scheme in DAD; OTT henchman in SP)
I love the first half of SF but it really loses something for me at Silva's island, which probably should have been the site of the climax of the film.
All of Brosnan's films now feel dated to me; it's the scripts, the acting, everything.
Aside from the PTS, and the parkour/crane bit, the first half doesn't get me too excited. Once we meet Vesper, I'm hooked. From then on, we're more or less into the novel.
Still, an excellent Bond film, but I'd champion OHMSS over CR any day.
SF didnt do it for me, and though i find it a bit more watcable these days, it will never crack my top ten!
Yes!
And here is the controversial statement: While the love story and the death of Vesper really touches me, I feel nothing when the end credits of OHMSS start rolling. (This sounds like I wouldn't love OHMSS, but it is in my top3.)
I think CR is a classic too.
And i also think Pierce's films don't stand the test of time i'm afraid.
They’re all “dated,” and not in a bad way. A lot of people like to throw that adjective around in a negative connotation, but with movies - particularly Bond - it can add an extra lot of charm to the experiences. You KNOW when you’re watching a 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s or 10s Bond, and I think it’s great!
Precisely!
That’s part of the charm, for the series. Too see how much the series (and the world) has changed over the years.
Brosnan's films have aged particularly badly. The '90s was not a great era for blockbuster cinema in general, not like the '60s-'80s.
I don't find her annoying. She's one of my favorite Craig era Bond girls. That said, I'm not in the least bit moved by her death. After an action packed exciting finale her death scene now comes off as unintentionally funny to me.
I'm more moved by Aki's death in YOLT and especially Vijay's in OP.
It is kind of hard to be moved as moved by Vesper's death. She's being set up, sure, but there's that whole betrayal thing hanging over her.
For me as well. In fact, the little character moments have always been a factor for me in my love of the series. I think back to the moments in the Connery and Moore films where he'd merely check into a hotel suite as part of the charm. It hit home whenever I'd go to a hotel I'd think back to those moments (nope, never did find any bugs in the lamp or behind a picture). Then there were the admiring glances from the hotel desk clerks and Connery grabbing a grape from Angelo's room in TB and things like that that make these more fun and stand out apart from the imitators.
I didn’t pity M in SF in the same way. She knew the risks of her career. She causally tossed people aside, and she deserved what she got.
The Problem for me is that the dated elements of the Brosnan films don’t add charm, quite the opposite. They remind me of things I didn’t like about the 90s , particularly the Loaded lads culture style humour evident in scenes such as the ‘pump her for information’ banter in TND and the X-ray glasses in TWINE and the Moneypenny VR abomination of a scene in DAD
Youre joking right? The 90s was an AWESOME decade for action cinema!
Total Recall.
Terminator 2:Judgement Day.
Hard Boiled.
Jurassic Park.
Cliffhanger.
Speed.
True Lies.
The Rock.
Face-Off.
Con Air.
Independance Day.
The Matrix.
And many many more...
Yeah, I keep seeing this said. But I don't see how they've aged any worse than any other decade, really. Why have they aged badly? What makes them less timeless than an 80s/70s blockbuster? Blockbuster cinema as we know it didn't exist in the 60s.
I've been feeling that way about the Craig era in general.
I tend to think of CR as THE GODFATHER of Bond films: a masterpiece that's epic in length, but one I'm rarely in the mood for.
Actually that's a weak analogy as I'd watch CR over THE GODFATHER any day of the week.