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 just scanned this sentence and read it as 'I see a lot of similarities between myself, Roberts and Richards'.
I'm not seeing this as improper grammar, but I can change it to "I myself" or drop "myself" if you'd prefer. Perhaps you've had a tough day on the eyes?
I'm still waiting for someone to say how crazy I am for finding Max more entertaining than Richards and Roberts. Maybe I'm not so crazy after all?
Ah no, it was my malfunctioning brain. The thought of you drawing parallels between yourself, Roberts and Richards amused me.
Ah no, it was my malfunctioning brain. The thought of you drawing parallels between yourself, Roberts and Richards amused me.
No, you are. :) For all Richard's alleged monotone performance, she has a far greater range of vocabulary than Max (even if you include his TLD cameo) and looks far, far greater sweating in hot pants and a tank top than Max ever would and surely that in itself is the pinnacle of entertainment!
Heh! Now that's the craziest post I've seen in this thread.
Me neither. Ekland's character was a silly ditz and that's exactly how Ekland portrayed her. Richards' character should have been a genius, yet she portrayed her as a doe-eyed Midwestern cheerleader. And to be honest, I don't think Richards was capable of playing her any other way. Quite possibly the worst casting decision in the history of Bond cinema.
It's heart-warming to find that despite our great differences regarding Denise Richard's acting abilities we can still find such a wealth of common ground. :)
Quite.
Yes. She, along with Babs Bach and Halle Berry are the Troika of Terror among Bond girls.
Roberts is no Ingrid Bergman, unless compared to Denise Richards.
That's exactly my point about Ekland. I think Britt played the ditz quite well while providing some very nice scenery for the eyes and senses. Richards managed to be a ditz while trying her best not to be.
Indeed. A glowing tribute to our respective libidos, Mr. Saunders.
I'm starting to think you're full of whimsy today.
I liked her in TWINE, I had no real problem with her. Easy on the eyes, as all female scientists should be in Bond's 'verse.
Both pretty and yet the most breathtakingly stupid scientist ever. Yes, I concur :P
No, but Jones is better written than ditzy Goodnight.
Well, I think she probably gave as much thought to how to approach the character as Lazzer did but hey we all know why she was cast, Brozzer was a lucky boy that particular year!
I think Max was a parrot man, not a woman?
And Denise in a t-shirt and pair of shorts was the best thing about that movie.
I believe this is the best post ever made on MI6. Kudos, Sir Henry.
Hard to say why all this went so terribly wrong. Yes, I know Moore has his fans and the series was very profitable during his tenure, but sitting though each installment was a nail in the coffin. The books and Connery and OHMSS were the only things keeping me going in the hopes that a new actor would turn things around. Dalton and Craig filled that gap for me, but not Brosnan, although he did the camp and light comedy much better than Moore.
I am glad to see the series return to a grittier feel. Craig can lighten up a bit, but Connery style, not Moore style.
Hopefully the series can move forward by recapturing the feel of the early films, and yet create original storylines. Too often the series has been influenced by other films.
In the early days, the influence was the novels, not the latest blockbuster.
Very well said. I concur.
I actually really like how Brad Whitaker is written. I love the idea of him being obsessed with military tactics and having this high opinion of himself, even though he was kicked out of West Point and really has zero credibility as anything military. It's a great Bond villain gimmick IMO. The problem with Whitaker is that Baker is a terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE actor.
I agree - I like Brad Whitaker and his hubris too. I intend to write something on this at some point as again he's very underappreciated as a villain.
I've never had a problem with Brad Whitaker, I found him a refreshing change from previous villains and his limited screen time offset any limitations Baker may of had as an actor. I liked the idea of his character pulling the strings in the background while letting everyone else, from his own associates to the British Secret Service, carry out his dirty work. The fact that he hid his criminal activities behind a wealthy, patron of the arts façade seems very believable, and if he wasn't in much of the film did that really matter when he was so ably served by Koscov and Necros. His lair while amazingly beautiful and well equipped with pools, exotic food, gorgeous girls and machine pistols seems far more realistic than the vast 'hollowed out volcano' pinewood sets of old. The final battle in his personnel military warfare museum was well realised and a fitting end for a global arms dealer, it's a shame such a great character had to die and be reincarnated as the appalling Jack Wade.