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
The first hour of it is arguably the single best 60 minutes in the series for me.
Tim as Bond is riveting IMO. Yeah, TLD end slows up a bit, but I still savour every moment!
Y'all can get the boot. :))
CR & QOS had the Bond theme in some spots, but it was used a lot more in Skyfall.
The opening shot in the hallway.
Bike chase with Patrice.
When Bond barely climbs on the train.
When Bond is climbing the digger getting ready to jump on the train.
When Bond is cutting the bullet out of his arm.
When Bond meets Q
When Bond is on the boat heading to the dragon casino.
After Bond finishes his talk with Severine & putting it all on red.
When Bond captures Silva on the island.
Bond & M driving the DB5
When Silva destroys the DB5.
The ending office scene with M.
Quite a bit actually.
The fight on the plane is good. And Barry's score is a masterpiece. Last time I watched it though the final act did drag a bit.
But it's only a few bars. Take your first point, The Opening shot in the hallway, a few bars and that's it. I'm not asking for it to be used from the opening second of the film to the last, but when Bond is in an action sequence, don't pussy out, embrace the theme. Off the top of my head, the boat chase from TWINE is a good example of what i'm asking for.
5:00 - more of that, please.
Or this (the funk adds are amazing and still has the LALD sound in it)
Or even this (although dated I loved it when I was young and still do now - the way he incorporates the Bond theme into it at about 1:10 is excellent):
With Brosnan's debut in Goldeneye, they re-introduced balance to the character by having a script tailored more towards Dalton's serious interpretation of the character with addition of Brosnan's suaveness. Even the dialogue with Natalya on the beach where he says the killing is what keeps him alive with a sheer facade only to hear her retort with it is what keeps him alone speaks volumes to the character. How there is this agent capable of doing and getting almost anything he wants, but that life has its pitfalls. Brosnan was able to give that the fresh delivery that was needed to make it believable. It's not that Dalton was not capable of acting in that manner, but he had taken his rendition of the character to a point of no return to make such a performance believable by the audiences. It's easy to criticize the Brosnan films at this point in time because he essentially acted like a superhero with a reliance on CGI over raw performances in script and acting. Those were just selling points to the audience at the time because there was an absence of conflict in the world as a whole. Perhaps that quality of those movies will be more appreciated as time goes on. I still feel just as good and uplifted watching Brosnan's Bond as when he held the role. That's the mark his popularity had on his casting in Goldeneye over Dalton.
To answer the question in the OP, would Goldeneye have been success with Dalton, it depends what benchmark you are using for success. If it's simply the bottom-line, it would have certainly been better at the box office than Licence to Kill on script alone. If it's asking if it would have garnished the same or greater level of success than Brosnan, that's an unequivocal no. The qualities Brosnan was lacking in were not as detrimental as Dalton's to the character in the vacuum of time when the film was being produced. That is in no way to say Brosnan is a better Bond than Dalton, just that his time had passed. It may have been possible to give Dalton a third film without the litigation problems for the studio, but that likely would have faired critically similar to Brosnan's final outing in DAD where that portrayal of the character was no longer relevant.
I think Dalton did appropriately showcase the inner turmoil that Bond feels and lives. I think it was evident in his very moody uncoiled mannerisms and reactions, particularly in LTK. The man acted as if he could snap if pushed. So does Craig.
I had a problem with the somewhat sappy (to my eyes) personality introspections that Brosnan brought to the character, starting with the aforementioned beach scene in GE, moving forward to the alcohol binge in TND's hotel and finally ending with the near tearful outburst in Electra's bedroom in TWINE. I personally don't want my James Bond to wear his emotions on his sleeves with nearly every woman he beds - it's unworthy of a cold blooded assassin & spy, even if the primary purpose ostensibly is to provide exposition into his character. I'd prefer to see it unfold in his actions - something I think Dalton did brilliantly, as does Craig imho - something which requires some serious acting skills.
Regarding the public's perception of the quality of the Brosnan films going forward - I don't believe they will receive a more positive outlook with time, unlike what has happened with Dalton's two. I think outside of GE they will be looked at for what they in fact were - a completely missed creative opportunity riddled with cliches and near pastiche, They will also however be looked back on as great popcorn entertainment that sufficed at the box office for a short while. That's all they were intended to be I think, although Brosnan probably did not realize that at the time. DAD was, sadly, the inevitable denoument of the path they were on with Brosnan. Great box office, but also with a critical drubbing of the first order
I agree with you that Dalton probably could not have made the same kind of commercial success out of GE as Brosnan did. Brosnan was the Bond in waiting for 8 yrs, and he had his moment in the sun with GE. Pity it did not really develop critically from there imho.
Film, just like any art, is intended to move the senses. When the greatest emotionality coming from the character is to allow their surroundings to push them deeper into darkness is not incredibly impactful. Dalton's most noticeable release is with the girls, but in those situation, I find his performance all over the map. I thought he was great in TLD because you see hesitation from him before he jumps in, especially in the beginning. In LTK, he lost the feel of the character ranging from throwing his girl on the bed and questioning her at gunpoint to going from tense moments and immediately diffusing them with intimacy. Craig maintains a level of balance with his love interests to highlight the impermanence of their relationships.
Brosnan displayed more overt emotionality in the character, that I agree was completely mishandled after his first film. That doesn't make him any less the part as different people react to same situations differently all the time. While it may be more out of line with Fleming's creation of Bond, it doesn't make it any less genuine. Brosnan's biggest fault critically is that he was trying to emulate everything that people liked about Bond that he passed up the opportunity to set himself apart from anyone else who played it. For a lot of people my age, Brosnan is the definitive portrayal of Bond; not because of his greatness in performing the role, but because he introduced a generation of movie-goers to borrowed qualities of his predecessors while modernizing them for the times. Even though his films are not critically impressive, there are countless moments in each feel that give the vibe of Connery or Moore in a brand new setting.
I can look at a film like FRWL, which is such a mesmerizing story and one of my personal favorites, but there are moments in it that don't hold up to time. It can be appreciated in the historical perspective, but it's difficult to connect with for a new audience. Connery's Bond was more of a forceful womanizer, something that just isn't relatable in today's society. Brosnan's Bond was a lot more like Moore's Bond in that department where when he walked into a room, you knew he would get the girl with a smooth approach and a double entendre. It's the same thing with the gadgets and special effects.
That's a big reason why I prefaced my first response with each actor being captive to the times. I don't think many people expect Craig to physically throw himself at a woman or get into a single-seated, open helicopter with a flamethrower and missiles when SP comes out later this year. One of my greatest admirations of Fleming is that he was a visionary. The books were ahead of their time. But we live in a time where aspects of the character are outdated, whether it be through new social norms or what have you. Fleming's novels were basically a fantasy he dreamt during the era in which he lived and that is something that gets more difficult to translate as time goes on.
Well put.
My dad recently watched SF again and I asked him what he thought of Craig (he's read all the books unlike me). Coincidentally, he said that Craig, at least in his mannerisms and behaviour, does echo the Bond he remembers from the book. As you noted, Craig is absolutely brilliant at the non-verbal cues. Interestingly though, my dad never thought that highly of Dalton. I should ask him to watch the films again and comment.
I can also appreciate that Brosnan introduced a lot of people to Bond - and that may in fact be his greatest contribution. I personally just did not find him very credible as a killer or a womanizer for that matter - it seemed forced to me and just not that threatening. I always felt like he was doing a weak impression of Moore (who indeed could come across like he could put a bullet in you without blinking - particularly in LALD with Carver & TMWTGG with Lazar and with Anders - and who certainly had natural womanizer written all over him). Brosnan contemporarized Bond for a lot of fans and amalgamated Connery/Moore in his delivery, thereby keeping Bond successful for a time, which he should be credited for. However, as I said above, that approach could not last, as it had no real substance and nothing new was brought to the table except the trademark emotionality.
Regarding Craig, I do think they are trying, within the confines of the times we live in, to inject that old fashioned sexism/machismo that I love about Bond. It was apparent in his first meeting with Vesper and in their car ride to the hotel, as well as his behaviour with her in the casino ("Well then you're an idiot. Look in my eyes etc...."). It was also apparent in SF in his put downs to MP (which were quite risque imho and could have been taken the wrong way). I like that they are bringing that back slowly personally, and I think Craig has the acting chops to pull it off without being overly aggressive in delivery. It's a fine line.
Well done, old man. I still love Brozz, but you made your points fabulously.
Here here. The chase sequence with the DB5 and Ferrari is a score low point! Serra was so bad that a third party had to restore the tank sequence too. He is a joke.
I remember seeing it in the cinema. I already thought the PTS was awful and then that dreadful sequence with the mousy secratary - not the kind woman any previous Bond would have batted an eyelid at. The whole film is just iredeemibly naff from start to finish. And that score.... :(
I remember seeing it in the cinema. I already thought the PTS was awful and then that dreadful sequence with the mousy secratary - not the kind woman any previous Bond would have batted an eyelid at. The whole film is just iredeemibly naff from start to finish. And that score.... :(
Well said, sir!
Indeed! With or without the music, that "chase sequence" (included only to promote Ferrari I reckon) is simply embarassing! And that smug, playboy face Brosnan puts up. Uch!