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
Exactly. I wouldn’t call it tv by any stretch of the imagination, but I would call it expensive fan fiction. These last three films all feel a bit like that imo, but SF more than the other two.
Looking at Brosnan’s career choices where he had more creative freedom as a producer, no thanks.
I also think music, at times, was too dramatic for some of the action sequences.
Overall the films are still better than most of the old ones, and there are plenty of really good moments in either film.
Agreed. I actually like the idea of Bond in a pared-down Home Alone style finale, to me the ending of Skyfall is the better bit where the plot all comes together without all the Joker-style confusion. Spectre is harder to love.
Which old films are you speaking of?
I don't get it much either, sure it's iconic and introduced a lot of tropes that would become a staple for the franchise.
But the way they treated Bond in this film is beyond me, and wasn't good, he's very much a damsel in this one, him being held captive for the majority of the film's scenes, him almost doing nothing except killing Oddjob, him being almost helpless (I though blame Bond for having Tilly killed), he's at his worst here, he always failed in this film, to the point that I think it's Felix Leiter who had done so much more in this film, and had been given much agency compared to Bond himself.
To be honest, Felix Leiter is the hero in this film, he did saved the day!
For me it’s also Kentucky that kills it, the dullest location of the entire Connery era and bottom 5 of the franchise. Bond sitting in a prison cell, Felix just doing nothing but looking through his binoculars, the whole Solo diversion, that awful barn scene.
I have no problem admitting GF is iconic and it’s that one film that got the franchise going, and probably why it’s still with us today.
That being said, I’m just not that into it.
Wow, it s my Favourite Connery Bond and second only to OHMSS for me, so that goes to show how different people s perception can be. We agree on a lot, but I have to strike you from my will now, or maybe I will wait until my next Bondathon.
I somewhat share @GoldenGun 's objection regarding Bond sitting in a prison cell doing nothing etc. Be that as it may, GF is among my top four (I've given up ranking them individually. The others are FRWL, CR and SF...with NTTD fighting its way up to that heavenly realm.
Thunderball just gives off this comfortable relaxing vibe that Goldfinger doesn't. Locations might play a role, but also something intangible..
When you have Bond going to places like Jamaica, Turkey, and the Bahamas, of course Kentucky and Nevada aren’t going to look as grand and elegant. Fort Knox isn’t much of an attraction, and Las Vegas is as sleazy and American as it gets.
I think he's the second best henchman after Grant.
True, and compared to those other 'blond' henchmen, he's a lot more better, that scene with him in the exploding milk bottles alone, he's great in there.
This is how I would rank them:
1. Ref Grant (FRWL)
2. Necros (TLD)
3. Stamper (TND) not a fan of Stamper, he comes off as a bit cartoonish to me, very unrealistic.
It also has possibly the best villains of the series. Kamal Khan, Gobinda, Orlov and the knife throwing twins.
Despite a few lapses into slapstick, it also has a few Flemingesque scenes, Sotheby's auction (Property Of A Lady), the backgammon scene.
Along with some of the best action scenes in the series, and a great pace, OP is a misjudged film.
Also, Bond being a product of the Cold War era, this one gets extra points for being the only Bond film that actually takes place at the most Cold War-esque location imaginable: the Inner German Border.
As for the cold war aspect, FRWL and TLD did it better.
OP isn't a bad film, it's just that when it comes to the Moore era, I find TSWLM and MR more entertaining, fantastical & visually pleasing. When I want realism there's FYEO and heck even AVTAK.
OP just kind of falls in the middle..
I see how it could be middling for some, but to me it's more a solid celebration of everything I enjoy about the Moore era; it has the entertainment (Bond finale in a clown costume!) of TSWLM and MR _and_ the realism of FYEO, and it balances it fairly well given the spectrum of the Moore era. Again, I could see how that averages it out for some, but it highlights it for me. It's probably the first Moore film I'd recommend to someone who hadn't seen one yet, as I do feel the villains are stronger than TSWLM: it won't scare them off and there's plenty to love.
Never understood the criticism. The fast editing makes it more visceral, you're supposed to be confused as to what's happening, real fights are messy and over before you know it.
If QOS was more of a stand-alone film I think I’d have less issue with those stylistic choices. It’s that it tried to be a continuation of CR but at the same time feels like a radically different film in style and aesthetic. When defenders of the film try to say it plays best if you watch it right after CR, I really don’t get that. For me it doesn’t compliment CR at all.
As for the style itself, I don’t even think it’s executed well. With the Bourne films there’s more elegance and purpose to the action by Greengrass that I don’t think Marc Forster manages to achieve. I get an adrenaline rush watching Bourne, whereas with QOS I’m just more perplexed.
And now that Craig’s run is finished, QOS looks even more like an outlier because it’s the only film not to use Alexander Witt’s second unit direction for the action. CR, SF, SP, and NTTD all have this raw yet classical vibe to the action sequences that I now wish was retained in QOS for consistency.
Welcome to the forums @LicenceToPost good to have you here.
I agree these are some of the best lines from the villains.
Not really controversial, is it? At least I kind of concur as well.
QoS has always suffered for me when watched immediately after Casino Royale, and my best experiences with it have been uniformly those times where I've just randomly thrown it on.
I generally don't mind the fisticuffs in QoS but I think every bit of action set in vehicles is abysmally cut together, none moreso than the boat chase.
It just doesn't make sense that the person responsible for the entirety of the UK's foreign intelligence agency is so intimately involved in the doings of one officer. It used to be semi-plausible in the 50s and 60s, when the Service was much smaller and M basically just gave out orders and that was that. In the 21st century, MI6 has over 2.500 employees and at the same time M seems to personally have mission oversight over Bond in the field. There is no kind of hierarchy between Bond and M. They are his direct superior it seems. Bond of course is a very special officer, but still. Wouldn't there be at least someone to report to before going to the Head of the SIS? You know, in case they are occupied with one of the other hundreds of things they have to do to run the place. And Tanner and Moneypenny are Chief of Staff and (I guess) Executive Assistant. That is off to the side from the reporting structure. And the Chief of Staff to a Chief of a government agency has probably an even more packed calendar and can't just romp around London, standing off the shoulder of his boss having conspiratorial meetings. Same with Moneypenny. She goes from Field Agent to Executive Assistant of the Chief of an Agency with 2.500 people?! Those people have multiple assistants with decades of experience. Nothing against Eve, but it makes way more sense if the staff M oversees is more like 100 people, most of whom she has previously worked with.
Further evidence:
2.500 people don't fit into those bunkers in SF. That's only 00 and support staff. The boring rest of MI6 is probably in a temporary office park in Slough or something.
At the end of SP, M says "Mallory, 00 section" not "Mallory, SIS/MI6/whatever" (we'll ignore how that policeman would know what the 00 section even is). And it can't be because Denbigh joined MI5 and MI6, because he also shut down the 00 section. So that is probably more dead than MI6.
Speaking of that, Denbigh and Mallory only really ever talk about him shutting down the 00s and that's the deathblow for Mallory. If he were the Chief of MI6, he would be much more involved in merging the services and porbably would stay in the structure somehow. It seems it's mainly: 00s are gone -> You're gone.
M is in Russia at the end of QoS? It's still unreasonable if she's just the head of a black ops section, but for the Chief of MI6 that's a highly diplomatically sensible trip.
And less evidence and more a strange reversal: In reality, the Head of MI6 is the only person who is officially acknowledged as wokring there. We know, it's currently Richard Moore. In the Bond-verse, it seems once you become M, your personality vanishes. I might have that wrong, but isn't M adressed as "M" in the hearing in SF? That, again, makes much more sense, if she was leading some kind of offshoot field operation rather than the entire thing. Just as her reaction to having to testify in a hearing is completely unreasonable if she's the Chief of MI6. She would have done that dozens of times.
Jeffery Deaver had it figured out in Carte Blanche. The outfit Bond works for has to be a smaller, secretive offshoot of MI6 and M has to be it's shadowy puppetmaster head. They can't be Head of the entire Secret Intelligence Service.