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
Personally, while I like and respect Dalts, I think Craig does "darker Bond" better than him.
I'm with @NicNac in that you can see that Dalton has thought about a lot of the expression's he's going to make before he make them at times. He is very visual (I'm angry so I'm going to move my eyes, scowl and breathe heavily). With Craig it feels a bit more spontaneous.
I really enjoyed what Mr. Craig was doing in that film. He didn't have to necessarily be doing much of anything to keep a viewer's attention. He was just interesting to look at while sitting quietly at the bar.
Mr. Connery is an interesting cat, I think. He can be very loyal and caring -- and he can be quite a ******sometimes, from all accounts.
EDITED
Fair enough if you like it, personally I hate it but people have different tastes. I'm just honestly not sure why anybody would put it above the 60s films.
I am a QoS defender but it's clearly daft to claim it's any where near as good as the 60s films.
Certainly different tastes and all that, but I don't have trouble seeing why some people think Roger Moore was terrific in the role while I don't particularly enjoy his take.
Well, it's better than Dr. No anyway. The rest though, yeah. Probably.
QoS is an entertaining but fairly lightweight action adventure romp.
I've always liked Dr. No, but it's getting worse and worse for me. It's just so painfully slow sometimes. Bond himself is probably at his coolest though.
Well, that's in keeping with his role in the book, too. He was actually given more screen time in the movie than he was given page concentration in the book.
And I think that worked. There's something to be said for the villain of the piece being in the shadows. Certainly Stoker used that sort of approach to great effect in Dracula, for example.
Oh yeah, the villain in GP was so disappointing. I was really excited as well, since it's a Swedish actor playing him. The hype over here was pretty crazy.
I used to really like GF but I've lost some appreciation for that recently. DN I've always respected more than I enjoyed, I just think it's too boring and slow paced for it's own good until towards the end.
DAF I think is just bad. Lazenby should've done it. Or if they kept the film the way it was, Moore should've done it. Connery was just bad in it I thought.
People rightfully claim Connery as "defining" the role; however, those who take umbrage with this praise fail to understand that Connery defines the role with a great screen presence, a sense of cool you can cut with a knife, unexpected comedic precision, a unique swagger and voice and a very unappreciated penchant for piercing subtle acting. I think some of Connery's films are the best and find Connery to be not just a great Bond but one that remains near the top of the list, getting there first had nothing to do with it.
First of all, NSNA is NOT a Bond Movie so please do not address it as such. Secondly, I am a huge fan of Sean, and profess that he is indeed the best Bond without question because for me, he is what I think of when I think of James Bond, there is no other way to put it, he just fits the part. As for his films, I think that the first four are excellent, each one getting better than the previous placing TB at the pinnacle of his career as Bond, then YOLT falls off the mark a bit, and DAF a bit more.
Not in my world. Ever.
Does your world include Moonraker? It's infinitely better than at least that one!
B-)
Yes it does, and that also includes DAD. WHY you ask? Because MR and DAD for all their flaws are original adventures. NSNA fails to improve on TB on any conceivable level that I can see. Brandauer and Carrera are fun and the only exceptions but do they improve on Celi and Paluzzi? No. In DAF you could say Sean was there only for the money, in NSNA it was that plus sticking it to Cubby. In worse shape than ever and like Moore cavorting with women way too young for Gramps. Watching my hero reduced to an utter joke is even harder to take than MR and DAD, therefore I'll watch those or any of the 22 before NSNA.
Suffice it to say I find any opinion such as this to be severely lacking in good taste and judgment to the point of being ludicrous, nothing personal, just how I feel.