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
OK, thanks for playing nicely here. :)>-
The interaction between Valentin and Bond. In GE it seems fair, Bond gave Valentin the limp but he takes it in good humour when he can make money out of it. So, for him the scores are settled.
In TWINE however Bond is quite hostile agianst him 'nothing comes for free from you Zukovski', whilst for me that seems uncalled for. Fleming's Bond had a weak spot for the outlaws with a golden heart and Valentin for me is such a character. Bond however keeps on being hostile, which he clearly wasn't in GE. Is that just me? Or is his tone towards Valentin, let's say ambivalent?
@ElegantCarver (good name, that), the scripts were a problem and I lay most blame there, along with director of TWINE and DAD, and the producers who were calling the shots on the tone of the films. But having said that, I cannot help but wish that Pierce had gone his own way more against that stupid script or direction that seemed not quite right. He may have tried to; we simply do not know. I really like his Bond, and I think he is a good actor, but when you have those problems (script/director/producers) it is difficult. He definitely did not get support from producers to make a grittier film or take a more serious tone. Even with TWINE, it is heavy with melodrama, has some stupid things in the story, and I rather wish he had underplayed the whole entire thing. Others love TWINE; it is hit and miss for me. Overall, I liked Brosnan's Bond a lot, and he did bring his own style and charm to the role. He was swimming upstream for his last two films and was more than competent as Bond. I just feel that given better scripts and directors, he would have done even better. (And do not tell me, Craig fans - I am one, too - that Craig would have definitely done better in the same circumstances; I don't believe it. Nor Connery - look at YOLT and DAF, please). I do like Brosnan's Bond in DAD, let me be clear, better than TWINE. So his era is a mixed bag, but not quite as mixed as Roger's.
so why delete a post that wasn't in any way controversial ...?
Can you wipe out your post? I can't. I can delete it by editing, but I still have to type something (like "deleted"). Hmmm!
Sorry for the confusion.
When I first looked at his comments, I had my suspicions and then things just started getting deleted.
Thanks for taking out the garbage, Benny!
Quite.
Oh, BTW, you can add me in the Samantha Bond fan club. I thought she had good chemistry with Brosnan. In fact I enjoyed the MI6 regulars in the Brosnan era.
For Brosnan's Moneypenny we now have:
Yes- 6
No - 7
Close indeed!
* * * * * * *
And now, this morning (for me anyway), I am moving us ahead into the next Bond era. Yes, I decided not a full week for Brosnan, but please do continue to discuss him as something occurs to you that you'd like to mention. I'd still enjoy reading other's lists and comments about Pierce. So let me be clear: further discussion comments, votes on Brosnan's Moneypenny, all thoughtful comments about Brosnan's era are still very welcome. :) But I am moving us onward ...
Let's now go forth into a brave new world ... a world of James Bond that changed so much about the series - a change that was a big step in a different direction, the first Bond actor that Barbara and Michael handpicked, albeit an actor in the role of Bond that many had not heard of before, or knew little about: Daniel Craig.
Yes, it's time fore the Daniel Craig Era! B-)
I looked back for my original review, and appropriately enough, it was one year ago in April that I gave my thoughts on Daniel Craig as the new James Bond. I'd like to share that with you again:
Daniel Craig in Casino Royale ~
Not every filmgoer was skeptical from the start, but I admit to having doubts. I remember telling my best friend, "He doesn't look like my James Bond!" in a rather hurt tone, like I had been betrayed (yes, picture a pout). Yet I forced myself, before I saw CR, to think it through - because I wanted to go see a Bond movie with an open mind; I wanted to allow myself to enjoy it, or not, on its own merits. I had only seen Craig in the Lara Croft movie, that was it - yet I remembered liking him. I had not yet seen him in any other work. (So who IS this guy?!) So I shifted my anxiety from his looks (which I liked, once I got over him not looking like a traditional Bond) to his acting - of which I knew practically nothing. So I took a deep breath and went to see this film out of sheer love and devotion to the character and the film series, hoping for a good movie (after the huge letdown that was Pierce's swan song). I went to see it, by myself like a clandestine rendezvous, sitting low in my seat.
Let's just say I have never been so pleasantly surprised, immediately reassured, enthralled, entertained, excited, and persuaded by any actor in any role so quickly.
From the opening scenes of 007's first (told in jarring black and white flashbacks) and second kills, I knew: Bond was back. A different time in Bond's life - the beginnings of him as a 00; raw, learning the ropes, rough-edged and impulsive - but this most assuredly was James Bond. Totally believable. Self assured and able to improvise doesn't even begin to describe this Bond. I stopped seeing Daniel Craig the actor and was watching JAMES BOND for this entire film. As this was Craig's first time stepping into that role, I cannot give him higher accolades than that.
* * * * * * *
And as I have also said in other discussions on here, Daniel Craig had me at "I know where you keep your gun." So do I personally enjoy, appreciate, and find Daniel Craig to be a fine James Bond? Yes, considerably. http://stevenspielblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/casino-royale2.jpg
For me, CR is one of the best Bond films ever, QOS a major hiccough yet I liked Craig in it, and Skyfall is also very highly rated for me and has not lost its luster. I think Skyfall will be staying in my top ten, I enjoy it that much.
Please feel free to start sharing your opinions and remembrances of the Daniel Craig era, one we are still happily in the middle of.
~ What did you think about his casting before you saw Casino Royale, and after?
~ What is your overall impression of his first three films?
~ What specifically does Craig bring to the role that you like/don't like?
~ How has Craig's Bond changed during his three films so far?
~ Bullet points, highlights/lowlights, problem areas, strengths or weaknesses, you can write this up any way you'd like.
As noted with Brosnan, I am restating here: no bashing is allowed. You can disagree, find fault, point out negative things or what bothers you about Craig's era, yet do it in a respectful, thoughtful manner. That is what this thread is about - good discussion without the junk often found on other threads. Thanks, chaps! (and ladies!)
Cheers!
Before Casino Royale, I didn't know what to think. I wasn't a doubter, but I didn't expect Craig to be as great as he was either. I thought his best performance came in his first film, and it's gradually lessened (just very slightly) by the films. Craig is the most rugged, serious, and lethal Bond of them all; I just love how dangerous and serious his Bond portrayal is. He can still quip a few one-liners, but they're almost always in a sense of dry humor, never too silly or cheesy. I think in CR, he was more inexperienced and a different person than the Bond we eventually know. He allows himself to fall in love and is more rough-around-the-edges; it was a unique and inspired performance. In QoS, the rage and revenge drives him the whole way; he is completely humorless and tortured by the loss of Vesper, but he has learned to trust no one and become better at his job. In SF, I feel he has become the Bond we know from the golden age, and his origin comes full circle with the death of Judi Dench's M and the final office scene of the film. All right; on to the film by film analyses:
Casino Royale:
CR has my favorite Bond actor/performance, favorite title song (w/ lyrics), favorite plot, favorite action scenes, and is my all-time favorite Bond film. I've seen it countless times, and it never gets old. The action is always fast-paced and intense, and it never fails to impress me upon every re-watch. The soundtrack is very excellent, always fitting the mood of the scenes. Le Chiffre was a perfect villain for the story; I thought the weeping blood was great! Though he's not one of all-time favorite villains, he is very good and fits into the plot well. Judi Dench as M is fantastic as always, and I also enjoyed the performances by Eva Green as Vesper, Giancarlo Giannini as Mathis, and Jeffrey Wright as Felix. The spotlight is on Craig though, as he gives my personal favorite performance of every Bond actor to date. He's cunning, ruthless, and can still charm the ladies; and most importantly, he's touchable. There are several scenes that stand out to me as some of the best in the series; the epic black-and-white pre-title sequence, the chase between Bond and Mollaka, intense poker scenes, Bond getting poisoned, etc. There's not really any aspect I can think of that I don't like about this movie, at least that hurts its reputation at all. Oh and I forgot to mention the end scene with Bond shooting Mr. White - my favorite ending to any Bond film as well (barely ahead of OHMSS). CR is beautiful, well-made, and likely to remain my favorite Bond film.
Quantum of Solace:
I consider the darkest Bond films to be LTK, CR, and QoS. Though I agree it's the weakest of Craig's films thus far, I have to say that many unfairly malign QoS. For one thing, the strong point is again Craig, giving another well above-average performance as Bond (not quite as great as CR, but still very good). Like CR, the soundtrack is a job well-done by David Arnold, again always very fitting for the appropriate times. The supporting cast of characters in Judi Dench's M, Felix, and Mathis are welcome returns. I think Dominic Greene is an underrated villain (not great, but still solid), as is the Quantum organization in general. I liked how it was a modern, more realistic take on SPECTRE; though many dislike them, I'd love to seem them return. QoS is a pretty serious film; lighter on humor than any other Bond film, and always to the point - it's also the shortest Bond film of all. There are some great scenes to be had, particularly the pre-title sequence car chase, opera scene, Mathis's death, fiery finale at the hotel, and final scenes between Bond and Yusef and Bond and M. Overall, a usually-underrated film that I still enjoy a lot.
Skyfall:
Like I said before, I'd love to see Quantum come back soon, but it was a good idea to give them a rest and give Craig a stand-alone Bond film with SF - my second favorite Bond film! Craig is reliable again as Bond, but not necessarily better than his first two performances (first signs of aging too). I didn't enjoy the soundtrack as much as the first two Craig films, seeing as Arnold didn't compose it, but Thomas Newman still provided a solid score for us. There was more humor in this one, but far from over-the-top like some of the Moore movies. Javier Bardem as Raoul Silva made for one of the greatest villains in the Bond series; every time he was on the screen things were even more interesting. Again, there are plenty of memorable scenes to go around: the action-packed pre-title sequence, fight between Bond and Patrice, Silva's introduction, and the entire final stretch of the film. Speaking of which, though I know some call it the weakest part, the final 40 minutes of the film are my favorite parts. Judi Dench gives her best and final performance as M, and it really shows through in her scenes with Craig waiting for Silva at the Skyfall estate. I love the isolation, build-up, and finally explosive finale the last part of the film delivers. It was also nice to hear a little more of Bond's early background and parents for a rare treat (last done in GE with a brief reference I believe). The last scene in the office sets up the next film perfectly, bringing us full circle with the epic golden age we all remember. Many call it overrated, but I don't care; I love SF almost as much as CR, and will always hold it with high regard.
So ranking the Craig films for me goes:
1) Casino Royale
2) Skyfall
3) Quantum of Solace
I'm quite excited to see what Bond 24 and 25 holds; I'm guessing Craig will likely quit after his fifth film. So far I have highly enjoyed his performances as Bond and the films themselves, IMO the best era since the golden age (Connery through Lazenby, 1962-1969). Though I can't really expect CR and SF to be topped, I look forward to the next Bond film with great anticipation.
Craig's Bond has taken us on a journey, from his beginnings ~
I like the arc that Craig's Bond has taken, because it was deliberately showing him as a new 00 in Casino Royale, not much more than a blunt instrument and without the complete self control. By the end of it, you see him changed a good deal. Trusting no one now, still dedicated but with a grim reality pushing him onward.
In QOS, I like Craig's Bond even though I find the film quite flawed in some ways. QOS finds Bond struggling with Vesper's betrayal and her death; his love for her still mixed with despising her betrayal. And he is driven with revenge. Mathis helps Bond a lot. I love Mathis and Bond together in QOS. And at the end - which is a truly great ending (all the way from Bond and Camille walking through the desert to the final scene with M in the snow), and for me lifts the whole film. Bond comes to terms with Vesper, all of it, at least enough to get on with his life - their love and their time together, her betrayal, and he can finally move on from that. He comes to a better understanding with M, and is able to move on professionally, too. He is a more controlled agent now- he didn't kill Yusef quickly at all, did he? - he's thinking more moves ahead, like in chess. He is a more seasoned, much more valuable agent - though that came with a heavy personal cost.
I will write about Skyfall a bit later. I must get ready to leave for work.
Looking forward to everyone's comments! Carry on, all ~
Remember, you don't have to write about each film, just if you want to.
Give us your thoughts on the entire Craig era - anything about it or how Craig's portrayal is different (good, bad, so-so; what do you think?). For older fans who have now come to Craig as the 6th Bond we have enjoyed, for many of us in the theatres as the first showing, how open can we be about a new Bond? Because I was open to someone different from Connery, that helped me to welcome the different looking, or different acting, Bond actors as they came to the role. But everyone has their favorites. I'd like your honest thoughts about Craig and his era.
Got to run - ciao for now, folks!
It’s been exciting to see so much passion on this forum over the past week. Obviously, Brosnan’s tenure as Bond is a controversial one! Personally, I rank Pierce as a mid-level Bond. I rate Connery and Craig at the top of the list, followed by Dalton and then Brosnan, with Moore and Lazenby ranked lowest of the Bonds in terms of my own appreciation of their efforts. Paradoxically, if asked to name the GREATEST of the Bonds, I would place Connery as #1, followed by Moore as #2! Dalton and the Brozzer I consider to be good (but not great) Bonds, and Lazenby I’d judge to be a disappointing Bond. Craig? Still being evaluated. Ask me again once his tenure is over. Why do I find Moore to be a great Bond despite my own personal disapproval of many of his efforts? Because of the overall effect he has had on the character of James Bond. Connery defined the role, Lazenby never fully grasped the role, and Moore redefined the role to fit his own personal style. Dalton reset -- but never fully settled into -- the role of Bond. And Pierce? Pierce played it safe. Pierce wanted the role so badly that once it was his, he took no chances with it. Every script that he was given received an adequate -- but not outstanding -- performance by Brosnan. And for Bond, “adequate” isn’t quite good enough.
I never saw Pierce as Remington Steele. Just never watched the show. Wasn’t watching much in the way of mediocre television in those days. I saw Pierce in a few print ads, always dressed and holding himself as if auditioning for the role of Bond -- and always seeming a trifle immature for the role. When GE was first released, I was just so happy to finally have another Bond film that I was (nearly) ready to accept a reprise of Roger Moore’s version of the character, just so long as we could have another round of vodka martinis, shaken & not stirred. From that perspective, Brosnan’s Bond was a welcome entry: a combo of Connery and Moore, with a hint of Dalton and just a dash of Brosnan’s own “boyish charm.” Those who claim Brosnan brought nothing of himself to the role are mistaken in that regard: Q may have constantly been chiding Moore, “Oh, grow up, 007!” but Moore’s Bond never really seemed immature, just cavalier in his approach to the world. Under Brosnan, the remark finally seemed an appropriate response from the obviously older gentleman gadget master to the impertinent young agent with a license to damage Q's work.
One thing that I don’t think we’ve discussed adequately yet in considering the Brosnan era is his new M. Dame Judi Dench’s disapproving mother of an M was the perfect foil for Brosnan’s boyish approach to Bond. Their initial meeting early in GE was one of that film’s highlights; it is in fact one of the defining moments of Brosnan’s Bond. It is an acknowledgement that times have changed and Bond’s world would be changing as a result. Brosnan’s Bond lives in a post-Cold War world. He has “no problems with female authority.” He may still drink, but we seldom see him smoke. And he may be issued a Walther PPK, but his favorite weapon now seems to be a machine gun.
Still, Brosnan’s Bond does have a somber, human side: he shows it briefly to Natalya in GE and again as Paris Carver is entering his hotel room in TND. Some people have a problem with Brosnan’s glee in the parking garage scene “driving” his remote controlled BMW so soon after his grief at Paris’ death but it seems perfectly reasonable to me. Bond has learned to compartmentalize his emotions. It’s the only way he’d be able to stay sane given his sometimes brutal, sometimes elegant lifestyle.
Let’s take it film-by-film, briefly. My full reviews of Brosnan’s tenure as Bond can be found in earlier pages of this thread, but capsule summaries should suffice here:
GE: One of my favorites, easily a Top 10 entry. Tons of great characters like Xenia Onatopp, Alec Trevelyan, and Valentin Zukovsky. A moderately amusing ally in Jack Wade. One of the most fully-developed Bond girls in Natalya. Some great action sequences, notably the tank chase through the streets of Moscow. An entirely enjoyable outing, fully suitable for the return of our favorite super spy.
TND: Still very good, with a unique villain and a very original plot based firmly in the realities of modern corporate media positioning. Wai Lin is a great “Bond girl who is also Bond’s equal,” something that’s been tried before but never really achieved until now. Stamper, Kaufman, and Gupta are all memorable henchmen, the remote-controlled car is one of my favorites (after the original Aston Martin DB-5,) and the motorcycle chase is thrilling enough to make up for the curiously suspenseless climax with machine guns blazing away on the stealth boat. Not a Top 10 entry but not far short of the mark, somehow this film does “check all the boxes” but is in the end, slightly less than the sum of its parts.
TWINE: A mixed bag; some very good ideas less well realized than one would have hoped. Reynard was advertised as being impervious to pain, and yet he’s obviously feeling Bond’s punches during their fight at the film’s climax. The relationship between Reynard and Elektra is clearly at the emotional center of this film, yet in the end that relationship still feels ambiguous to the audience. Bond fans remain divided on the question of “Who is this film’s lead villain?” and while that ambiguity may be considered “realistic” on an artistic level, it doesn’t really make for a satisfying storytelling experience. Judi Dench’s M seems to be sticking her nose out into the field where she really doesn’t belong, a habit that will become far TOO pronounced in the future. And Christmas Jones is one of the least believable Bond heroines since Mary Goodnight…and until the very next film. Unfortunately, Brosnan’s Bond seems to fizzle out around the end of his tenure…
DAD: One of the few points where most Bond fans seem to be in agreement. This is one of the least satisfying films in the Bond series. Started out well enough, with Bond captured and held prisoner in North Korea…his torture is handled quite effectively during the theme song, with the audience feeling his pain via the tender mercies of Madonna. M doesn’t trust him once he’s released, yes, very good so far; the Cuba sequence seems entirely solid…and then we meet Jinx and it’s downhill all the way. Not a satisfying note for the end of Brosnan’s tenure. What went wrong?
This point had never occurred to me before we started the current round of evaluations…but I don’t think Brosnan ever really enjoyed the full support of Eon Productions the way Dalton did. I suspect that at some level, Broccoli and Wilson felt that Brosnan had been forced on them by MGM, and that he was never given the power to shape 007 to his own vision. Brosnan was the play-it-safe, get the series (and the studio!) back on its’ feet financially, middle-of-the-road choice to play Bond. He performed according to the script he had been given, but he never really worked outside the box the way a true 00 agent occasionally must. He was the adequate Bond -- but for James Bond, adequate is never really good enough. I'll give Brosnan three bullets out of five for his performance as James Bond. But if the world is not enough, then 3 out of 5 just doesn't do the job justice, now does it?
I obviously do not agree with everything you wrote, but very eloquent and interesting as always.
As for the Craig ears, damn typo, I mean era, this is the biggest quality leap in the history of the franchise for me. DAD was a joke at best and not a funny one. CR is up there with the best of the best(60s classics). I wanted to stand up and cheer, have never been so smitten by Bond since I saw my first films at the age of 14. QOS may have failed at being an instant classic like its predecessor, but still a very decent entry. SF is another classic not least due to its visual flare. I have high hopes for the next installment. Not gonna ramble here being a guest and all, but looking forwards to more reviews. Especially from you originals.
I agree with you and especially the final paragraph. Yes, this is a fitting end to the Brosnan era. I also felt that Babs and Wilson might have believed that Brosnan was forced on them. To use a sports analogy, a new head coach comes in and replaces the QB. He wants his own hand picked man.
I feel that with Craig, Babs and Wilson have their "hand picked Bond". They seem very pleased with him and are willing to break new ground that they had not done during Brozza's run.
This is just my intro to the Craig years, I will go deeper into the present Bond later this weekend.
As for MGM, Barbara, and Michael's support of Brosnan - I would love to really know the whole truth there, but we will never know it. I do suspect that you what say is probably true; just my gut feeling. Brosnan was not their choice, although I see no signs of them hating each other (that news would have gotten out, I think), I can easily believe he was not allowed to do more with the role. So where I differ from others who do not like Brosnan's Bond is that I believe Pierce could have done more with the role - he had the talent, and I think he was told to just "do it as we say; we know what the people want" by management. The box office numbers of his films were fine (impressive, actually) and that kept the powers that be locked into the formula of the time. I hate that at times, about any series. But this was the first set of Bond films without Cubby, so after the wonderful two films that began the series, I feel that all the "upper management" probably did not want to veer off track. That did not serve the series well overall, but they were still finding their way.
I think Brosnan surely must have really felt restricted at times and maybe he got tired of fighting them about it. He knew going in that being Bond would be quite a ride for a while, hopefully an enjoyable one, but one with inevitable bumps. Should he have tried harder to bring a more serious tone to the role, to play it edgier or differently? Pierce did have his own style and charm. I feel there is a lack of consistency in his performance in TWINE, but I do completely appreciate his Bond in his other three films, including DAD. His Bond in DAD is mature, more weary; he was very good in the first half of the film and even with the ensuing mess during the rest of that movie, he at least was good in it. Everything about DAD - the hype before, the feeling on set (from what I can gather) was so huge, blown out of proportion, like a mad villain's pipe dream. The reality of what ended up on the screen, how it turned out once all put together, must have been a letdown for Pierce, too. That is why I firmly believe he wanted one more film, something better to finish with, and by then I think he wanted something far different from DAD, too. That is why I wanted one more film from him. I liked his Bond, just not several things about TWINE or much of DAD. Brosnan was not an "adequate" Bond for me, no. He was a really good James Bond, one I still enjoy.
Thanks for mentioning Judi's M, too, Beatles. :) That is something that the Brosnan era gave us that was really new, and plenty of members on this forum have written pros and cons about this M. For me, I loved Judi's M right from the start. Goldeneye gave her and M and great introduction to each other and they found exactly the right actress to play her. She was given a stronger, longer role because a) she deserved it, she nailed that part right from the start, b) it gave the writers fresh ideas for Bond films, to have M be part of the story more, and c) it ending up bringing a lovely consistency and arc to the films. Those who feel she was too mothering, found her guidance, lack of trust, telling him what to do were annoying to them, I just say okay, that is your feeling about her M. I did not mind her at all and never felt there was strong "mothering" going on. No. I got annoyed at M getting kidnapped out of her own stupidity/stubbornness/misguidedness in TWINE, but that's about it. I'm so happy with had the glorious Judi Dench as M for all those films, about 17 years wasn't it? And Skyfall was the perfect finish to her story. Very happy with Judi's M.
So much I enjoy about the Brosnan era: Pierce's Bond with Desmond's wonderful Q, some great cast along the way (Sean Bean, Robbie Coltrane, Isabella Scorupco, Michele Yeoh first come to mind), and the pure Bondian world of Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies.
I'll be posting more about Craig as Bond much later today. Carry on, everyone!
:-bd
Goldeneye - It is a great film, isn't it? Martin Campbell did an amazing job directing this film (as he would do again later). Let me count the things I love about it. It has a great title song! I know some people dislike it but I think it's fab. The locations are amazing: Russia, Cuba, Monaco... who could ask for more? It's got an amazing cast. The Bond girls are top notch, beautiful great actresses that brought a gravitas to their characters. New M became an instant success. The supporting cast is outstanding, one of the best ensembles ever. The story is interesting, although it left me truly flabbergasted once I searched for the Cossacks in a history book at that time @-) but hey, I have a theory that you can't have a great Bond film without at least one outstanding plot hole ;) Brosnan is still a bit insecure but I think that actually worked for him instead of against him. Sean Bean is outstanding and I have to confess I often wondered how good a Bond he would have made. What a cool villain. The bad? The soundtrack wasn't exactly Bond worthy, let's face it. Overall, a great entry. Not my favourite (not any more) but a solid Bond.
Tomorrow Never Dies - Two years after the success of GE Bond fanatics got their (our) fix. Brosnan is definitely better in this one, more secure, looking physically more fit (as he should), a mature Bond. This is actually my favourite Brosnan Bond work. The scene with Dr. Kaufman is amazing! I could watch it over and over. I also love the scene when Bond is drinking vodka by himself in the hotel room, I think it's the most Fleminguesque Brosnan ever had. The story is unexpectedly relevant even today. The power of media, the way they can manipulate the masses, it's all there. The film had some very good action sequences such as the motorcycle one in the streets of Hanoi. Michelle Yeoh was great and did her job splendidly. I know that Carver is not very popular but I think he's actually great, he's supposed to be a sleazy bastard and delivers it. Some of the rest of the cast is not so great, unfortunately (more of that later). The soundtrack is also very nice courtesy of Mr. David Arnold. The end credits song was a-ma-zing! I had no idea who Kd Lang was at that time but the song was instantly imprinted in my memory and I went searching for it right afterwards. Bad points? Teri Hatcher was a less than inspired choice. The clothes and hair styles are ridiculously bad! Some one liners were, well, not that great. Too much machine gun for my taste. The security of Brosnan came with what would be his greatest flaw: lack of consistency. This is less apparent in this film than it would be in later ones but it always bothered me that after such an emotional scene where Bond mourned the death of Paris he is giggling like a child playing with his new toy. There is no trace of sorrow or sadness in him! Another thing that I didn't like is the slow motion that plagues the final scenes of the film, as if the director thought 'Let's make this more dramatic!'. Still it's a good entry and I do enjoy watching it every now and then. In a word: solid.
The World is Not Enough - I really, really liked this film when it came out! I thought it was deep, more serious, more grounded. However after close inspection it just doesn't hold the claims. I call it the Bond of missed opportunities. But first let me tell you the things I do like in this film, and they are quite a few. The title song is, in my opinion, great. I was (and am) a Garbage fan and was very happy with their entry. The PTS is really exciting, albeit a tad too long. Sophie Marceau is mesmerizing and classic Bond girl. The idea was a really good one! The idea of oil monopoly and a villain who feels no pain but... I can't buy the idea that Bond falls in love with Elektra like that, it feels melodramatic in the worst kind of way. The "drama" involving M feels odd and inconsistent. Renard doesn't feel pain but if you pay attention he feels pain. Then it looks like he doesn't get hurt but he does. Again inconsistent. Dr. Jones is just a catastrophe, as a female scientist I feel disgusted. I also think this is where Brosnan's work truly started slipping. He was so comfortable that I always feel like he was just going with the flow, enjoying the ride, and not really paying a lot of attention to the details.
Die Another Day - What a disaster! The less I talk about this one the better. I was so traumatized by this film it put me off watching Bond films for a long time. Yes, it was that bad. I have forced myself to watch it several times but I can't say it improved. I know a lot of people really like Brosnan in this one but I think he was just rolling along, so glad with being Bond as if it was automatic to him. I really like Brosnan, don't get me wrong, and I'm really sorry his era went downhill like that. What I said before of not being consistent and not paying attention to details is so evident here, especially after Bond escapes to HK. What kind of torture did he suffer in NK, force feeding? Is there anything I like in this film? Yes. The soundtrack is not bad except that abomination of a title song and I do like the fencing sequence (except the Madonna part). Also the ally in Cuba (sorry, don't remember the name) was really well acted. I read frequently that the first half of the film is actually very good but I simply can't agree. I think this film is a mess and deserves it's bad reputation. Thankfully the producers knew something had to be done and did they do something ;)
Much as I like Brosnan in DAD (and I do), the change from his being tortured then traded (and Brosnan was quite good throughout that) ... and then walking into the hotel dripping wet and everything ricochets to silly humor - that was awful, and unfortunately it showed the direction the film was going in, which was then completely doomed when Halle showed up. Ugh! Terrible script, should be kept as a guide for screenwriters on what NOT to do. Especially in a Bond film.
I have a friend who loves TWINE to this day, mostly because of Elektra and Brosnan. I just didn't care for Brosnan falling for Elektra; it did not fit Bond at that time or work in any measurably good way for me. Loved the PTS and title song, yes!
Nice to read about your memories of seeing Goldeneye with your whole family. :) I really enjoy reading about personal things like that from our members.
OK, folks - I will be out of action for many hours now. Carry on with our Brosnan wrap up and intro to the Daniel Craig era!
Cheers!
:)>-
Personally I was sad to see Brosnan go as he'd been the Bond I'd grown up with, but didn't get the hate Craig had when he was cast. True he wasn't an obvious choice for the part but I couldn't really comment on his ability as an actor as, at that point, I hadn't seen his films.
I too watched Layer Cake soon after the announcement and sort of understood why he was chosen, His character had an arrogance that fits well with Bond.
And @Birdleson, what a great, detailed post! Thanks for letting us see more clearly your journey with Bond over the years. Your list of what you view for your Bondathon is quite interesting; you really go full out and include other interesting tidbits. I applaud that. I also want to say I agree that it is almost necessary to view CR and QOS together; it really helps me appreciate QOS more, it ties it all together. The 2nd half of QOS was very well done and I loved the ending ... which puts me right in the mood for Skyfall. I am glad your full enthusiasm for Bond is back, Birdleson, and we are happy you are part of our group here.
Comments on Brosnan still welcome, and let's fully dive into the Craig era this week (it's Monday a.m. as I type this). However, due to personal commitments, I may be a little absent from this forum for a few days. I'll try to be back to participate fully on Wednesday.
So carry on without me, ladies and gentlemen. Have fun, give us your thoughts on Craig - his era so far, his portrayal of Bond, your personal reminiscences of when you saw his films, etc. And -ahem! - do play nicely on this thread. ;)
Cheers! :)>-
Like Birdleson, I had a feeling of disconnect during the Brosnan years 1995-2002. I was happy to hear that EON had shitcanned Brosnan and were rebooting the franchise and going with a younger Bond.
The first picture I saw of him his hair was darker and he was wearing a tux pointing a gun. I thought okay. The the public unloaded on this new Bond.
A site was set up "craignotbond.com" where disgruntled fans could vent their anger on the choice of new actor. The site was calling for fans to boycott the next film, Casino Royale. Even though I never cared for him, Brosnan had been such a beloved Bond and not since Lazenby had to step into Connery's shoes more than 30 years prior was a Bond actor treated with such disdain and hatred.
Stories abounded about Craig's unacceptability: he was blond, he was too short, he had gotten his teeth knocked out filming (a bold ass lie). Craig at 5'11 would be the shortest actor to play Bond. He did not have the classic screen idol looks of his predecessors but none of this bothered me. I was giddy to hear that the rights to CR had been obtained and Bond would be on his first mission. For the first time since 1989, I was excited to go see the latest Bond film on the big screen.
CR is a pretty good movie. The cast is top notch. It was good to see Judi Dench back in the saddle as M (one of the few bright spots from Brosnan's era) I fell in love with Eva Green's Vesper, I liked Jeffrey Wright's take on Leiter, LeChiffe and his cronies are outstanding and of course the mysterious Mr. White.
I felt that Craig brought a toughness, a grittiness, a realism to the role that had been lacking. He also brings a soft side to the role and shows us that Bond is human and has a lot of humanity in his complex character.
The QoS hit the theaters two years later. I was happy to hear that for the first time the film would be a straight sequel to the previous film. then I saw it. I was quite disappointed. I found the plot overly complicated, the villains weak, the girl very annoying. It has it's exciting chases, fights, CGI but it just did little for me. Perhaps if I watch if following CR I will have a new appreciation of it. I will certainly give it a try.
The Rule of Three comes into play and it seems that they pulled out all the stops for Craig's third film, SF. Rather than do the two year thing, four years have passed between QoS and SF. Not quite as good as CR, I find that SF connects on all levels. The plot may be farfetched at times and viewers may be asked to suspend belief on more that one occasion (namely Craig's invincibility) but the film ties loose ends up very nicely and bring us full circle as they continue the reboot. Bond has established himself as a top 00 and field agent; we have a Q, Bond and Moneypenny have an history and one to set the stage for the flirtatious office banter, and of course Garret Mallory as the new M.
All the hate and slamming that some fans dumped on Craig in 2005 has been silenced. Babs and Wilson made the right choice in selecting him. He has firmly established himself as the new Bond. He is signed for two more pictures and should be approaching his 50th birthday when his era comes to a close.
That day will come of course and now I cannot envision anyone else playing Bond. But I am a realist and yes, EON will change actors every decade or so.
I liked him immediately upon seeing the PTS of CR. I did not remember him in Road to Perdition and I never saw Layer Cake. DC strikes me as a combination of Dalton and Lazenby. He has the physicality, the tender side and a tough and gritty realism that cannot be denied.
btw: forgive the double post