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
Well said. I intend to do an alternative-take write-up on Brad Whitaker and TLD in the near future as I think that a lot of things have been missed about the hidden qualities of the film and they now deserve to be illuminated.
I think Roger Moore as Bond was a poor Man's Cary Grant portrayal of Bond.
The classic cinematic look and style of Bond used Cary Grant as a prototype.
The Bond series, particularly the early movies owe a lot to Hitchcock's influences.
No, I think that most of that is fair game, although I do like Roger Moore and feel he is unfairly very underrated.
I just wish he'd toned down the comedy a bit and upped the serious acting. He certainly had the ability to do that. There's that wonderful moment in TSWLM where Anya mentions Tracy and he suddenly goes all dark. It only last a few seconds, but in those moments he really nails it.
I love Moore as Bond; TSWLM and FYEO being my favorites of his.
Yes, I agree. We could certainly have done with more of those from Roger Moore. See his film The Man Who Haunted Himself (1970) for proof of his skills as an actor. Don't for a minute believe Moore's self-deprecating remarks about his ability as an actor.
Definitely agree with Berenice but not sure about Gemma Arteton. She's fit but from what I've seen her in she's not that good an actress, I wouldn't say she was wasted.
That's what I meant. She was brilliant in the scenes she was in but she was barely in the film. Meanwhile Naomi Harris had a much bigger role and I thought she was really wooden.
I see this as the direct result of Craig playing a darker Bond. He's going to have more sacrificial lambs (including Mathis and M).
Severine had a nice scene in the Casino and you think she is going to be the Bond girl until they end but wham next scene she is dead which is quite jarring and probably a better option than having her tagging along for the rest of the film pulling at Bond's gun arm.
Yes, the Fleming Bond of the 1953 Vintage always had an aversion to women hanging on his gun arm.
Actually these kind of things are the result of scripts and not of an actor playing whatever. Just thought I mention it
Grant would have played Grant (just as always) but Mason and his Henchmen would have died just the same,even if Dean Martin had been starring. As I mentioned,this is not about an actors take on its role, but about screenplay. You know,there's a reason why they are paying people for writing them (even if Most of them seem to lack any talent for it these days!)
That's all well and good and I have no problem with sacrificial lambs but do we need so many of them, especially given the track record of Bond girls in the last 3 films? I don't want Bond girls to act as surrogate tag team partners but the element of their butts needing to be saved and surviving their ordeal and getting it on under the proverbial sheets at the end would be a welcome return, especially as Craig has never had that iconic victory in a manner of speaking.
Vesper and Camille filled the traditional role you speak of in terms of damsel in distress. Ok DC does seem to be a bit unlucky with the birds (Vesper - dead, Camille - didn't shag him, SF - no main Bond girl) and I agree we are probably due a 'traditional' Bond-with-the-girl ending although in Fleming it only happens in LALD, DN, GF, FAVTAK, FYEO, Risico, TB and TMWTGG so its hardly set in stone except by the films.
And personally I find the last 3 endings far more enjoyable than the tedious repetition of the rest of the series.
Well said, Ice. I have to agree on this. Just like the new Titles Sequences that are more symbolic and less about nipple fests and naked silhouetted ladies the change in Bond's fortunes with women is refreshing to say the least and of course much less samey than what went before in virtually all of the other films bar OHMSS.
This is a tradition though that goes back to Goldfinger with Tilly Masterson and on to the next movies. One of the biggest issues I have with Thunderball is that Fiona Volpe, a great character, is called off too soon. This trend continued to YOLT with Helga Brandt, with Roald Dahl even admitting that he was held to the formula of having the villainess being killed off. It's nothing new. Gemma and Berenice were the side women actresses, not the lead, and were killed off in the same tradition of Bond women past.
But the irony is that EON now professes that Bond has moved on from the old attitudes of the past, but still has these sacrificial lamb characters. I agree there is an ambivalence.
Perhaps the reform ushered in by the reboot in 2006 was not as wide as it would seem, much like that of the earlier and comparable Dalton era.
I think it's the fineline @Perdogg mentions. EON is trying to keep Bond up to date with the times, but not lose elements of the character and series that are familiar. I once read a critique of SF's inclusion of Moneypenny back in the fold as "relegating women back to the secretary role because they are not as competent and capable as men in the field." You could even extend this argument to Mallory, the man taking over Dench's M's role, because the woman (M) is no longer fit for the job -- it's a very Mad Men type of evnironment. I'm not sure I agree completely with that assessment, but I think the case can be made.
Umm, yeah...that's why Dench's M survived Skyfall.