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
Yes! Brand was spot on. The frenetic cutting isn't clever at all and nor is it even artistic. It's cheap, lazy and infuriatingly disconnecting.
Less of a foolish sentiment, more of a family motto. ;)
- the plot goes neither here nor there; it tries to be a Greek tragedy but brings in soap opera conveniences to achieve at least a modest form of cohesion;
- the action works better in concept than it does in execution; the parahawk sequence is edited in rather a dull fashion and whatever happens aboard the sub, not even the film's novelist has a clue;
- the music isn't terribly bad but at times it squeezes in too many electronics and 'noisy' effects that distract me from the viewing experience;
And I'm not even going to comment on X-mas Jones because I don't even mind her all that much...
The strong points:
- Great PTS.
- Decent theme song.
I think TWINE needed to be more outrageous. That may in fact be why I *like* DAD better. If nothing else, at least it provides some over-the-top material that provokes a response from me.
I agree with most of that apart from the bit in bold, I think it's more along the lines of
Goldeneye- Excellent
Tomorrow Never Dies- Fun (if a bit generic)
The World Is Not Enough- Great
Die Another Day- Crap
TND - Bland.
TWINE - Bland.
DAD - Awful. Just awful.
Not too controversial. Most people will put GoldenEye in the top ten, the middle two in the middle, and Die Another Day in the cellar. The only real controversy is whether Tomorrow Never Dies or The World is Not Enough is better.
I was. And I wouldn't call either TND or TWINE as "middle" Bond films. I'd have both in the bottom half dozen with DAD propping up the lot of them.
Brosnan era - Vanilla Bond.
I like vanilla.
GoldenEye: Brosnan's You Only Live Twice.
Tomorrow Never Dies: Brosnan's The Spy Who Loved Me.
The World is not Enough: Brosnan's OHMSS.
Die Another Day: Brosnan's DAF.
Where do you see the similarity between GoldenEye and You Only Live Twice? HaphazardStuff, in his series, described GoldenEye as like a Dalton movie (unsurprising, given the circumstances), Tomorrow Never Dies as an update of the classic Connery thriller, The World is Not Enough as like Lazenby's sole effort, with a greater focus on relationships, and Die Another Day reminiscent of all the over-the-top excess of Roger Moore's era.
Well instead of "You Only Live Twice" being applied to Bond, apply it to 006. He "died" once at the chemical plant and was reborn as he put it. And his plot is using a space based weapon to create chaos. Also his lair is very similar to Blofeld's volcano. A large underground base.
TND was Brosnan's TMWTGG (lost potential, big actor playing the villain, annoying female - I would rank TND a few places higher than GG though)
TWINE was Brosnan's...I don't know to be honest
DAD was Brosnan's Casino Royale (1967)
#1 The Sixties Movies. Mainly serious, sometimes OTT, but within some sort of control.
#2 The Tongue-In-Cheeky Bond. Starting with DAF & ending with AVTAK. Some serious moments, but this was NOT your Grandfather's Bond.
#3 The New 007. TLD to TWINE. Reworked for a more serious take, then again for the end of the Cold War.
#4 Bond In The 21st. Started with a thud (DAD), but continues with a BANG!
My favourite era so far is #3.
Is this controversial?
2) I think GoldenEye is overrated.
I saw an interview with him where he essentially said that, it's a role an actor can't really make his own so he took a bit from Sean and some from Roger. Such a statement is quite worrying because he's inadvertently saying that the role in terms of character is not only largely limited but there really isn't any point in continuing with the character because it's generic and we're plodding along with box-ticking tropes we've seen countless times before. It also conveyed a message of him not being a strong enough actor to deliver on what all other 5 actors have managed to achieve.
Sean and Roger both did their own thing but even Lazenby with all his inexperience managed to make the role his own, in fact, Lazenby probably had a much harder job than most if not all the actors due to not only his inexperience as an actor but he was playing a more "humanised" Bond which audiences got to see for the first time and he also assumed the role of Sir Hillary. Then, we have Dalton who is famously or infamously known for his portrayal that is conspicuously different to not only his successor but to the 3 actors that came before him.....and then there's Craig who like everyone else before Brosnan has made the character and the role definitively his own in the most thunderously approved way.
I understand people wanted a 5th movie from Brizzer, a sort if redemption movie to make up for DAD but after 4 movies and still with that mentality, the creative credibility with Brosnan to continue in the role was unequivocally compromised. What makes it worse was, at the sane time Brosnan made those comments, Dalton talked about his experience in the role and what he had to say was so interesting, said with authority and a conviction of understanding who the character if Bond was/is that I wouldn't be surprised if that moment was the conception of EoN needing to go for something better and something with more credible and creative class that had been lacking for the better part of 7 years.
Ha ha, this is seriously amusing. It's so trendy to hate on Brosnan, so easy. It makes one feel marvellous to be with the in-crowd.
C'mon folks! Join in!
All of the other 5 actors to portray Bond were better! They were all more handsome, more athletic, more worldly, more tall, more Moore...
ONLY Pierce sucked, poor chap! Only the movies HE appeared in were badly written, box-ticking, nonsense. If ONLY even one of his films were even as good as DAF that'd be SOMETHING!
All right, I'll stop now.
:P
It's just that I remember a time when Lazenby was dumped on for being the 'wooden Bond', when Moore was dumped on for being the 'comical Bond', and when Dalton was dumped on for being the 'waaaaay too Intense Bond'. Well I guess it's Pierce's turn. Much later Daniel will surely get his.
@Chrisisall, did you read the whole of my post? I'm not hating on Brozzer. In fact I regard him to be one of the most if not the most charismatic of all 6 actors but as I mentioned, I think he put too much pressure on himself for a character he loved and coveted more than than the other actors that it hindered his ability to really get to grips with the role in the way that he largely would have liked and everything Brozzer said was backed up in all the 4 movies he did which serves the point I'm making. However, as I also mentioned, I did/do find Brosnan entertaining in the role and I also said he definitely had the capacity to do a better job but in the end it's my personal opinion that in addition to factors outside of his control, he allowed himself to be dwarfed by the magnitude of the role. It's unfortunate but sometimes these things do happen in any creative medium but still, Brisnan has carved out a legacy and contributed a lot to the series.
He took his Remington Steele character and gave him more seriousness and a harder edge and that was basically his Bond. For what was written for him (and some of it was very good) he did perfectly fine. No, he's no Dalton, but neither is he a Lazenby. He was not dwarfed by the magnitude of the role, but neither did the writers challenge him in more than a handful of moments during his tenure. I could use intricate language & concepts to dissect all the other actors faults in the most scathing manner possible if I chose to do so, but what's the point?
Now, let's discuss why Roger Moore secretly played Bond as closet homosexual...
:-O
:)) Funnily enough I have a friend who hates Moore as Bond and thinks he's "too gay"
@doubleoego. That's not a very contriversial around here and, as much as I hate to say it, you have a point. In fairness I have heard an interview with Broz (made around the time of TND and TWINE) saying that he wanted to explore Bond's "more fallible" side, but you get the sense that the likes of Dalton and Craig dug deeper into the character and made a more focused effort to portray the troubled side of Bond. With Brosnan it was kind of like "I'll just do my best and hope it works".
He was fun though - watching him with Desmond (in TND and TWINE) I can't help but smile.
Are you talking about that Bond tribute show with Michael Parkinson in 2002 by any chance?
And what did Lazenby hope to explore besides maybe a paycheck, fame & a bunch of Sixties hippy chick's panties? Was Moore in it for Fleming's character, or his own 'Saint-ly' interpretation?
:)) \m/
I didn't either, until I read an interview when Michael Apted said Elektra was the first credible female Bond villain... and then I saw TWINE in a very different light, and pretty much as a labour of arrogance.