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
Each to their own. To me Bond is Fleming, and Fleming is Bond. The two are inseperable. The Cubby incarnation gradually transformed Fleming's introvert character into the know-it-all, one-line spouting, rather smug, cinematic version as the movies went on.
But yes, the franchise probably would never had survived if all 23 films focused purely on the Fleming Bond. Audiences were not prepared for such a Bond in 1989, and I doubt they would have been in the 70's either.
I agree, although when Moore ocassionally played Bond serious (FYEO, the centrifuge scene in MR) he was far more convincing than Brozza was. You never got the impression Moore was acting, like Brozza appeared to be doing. When Moore wanted to play Bond straight, he could suddenly hit the note perfectly, subtle and understated, like Fleming's character.
I prefer TSWLM, OP and LALD.
Connery embodied quite a lot of Fleming's character in his first 2 movies. From GF onwards the cinematic version was born.
I'm not sure if I like TMWTGG more or not, I haven't seen it in a while and I can't remember my ranking.
Thinking about it now though TMWTGG might have more going for it. Better villian, cooler action and just more exicting and memorable.
I agree with both of you. I fnd FYEO extremely overrated, and actually find TMWTGG one of Moore's best films.
:)>-
Disagree with the comment on Craig, i think he gives Bond a modern spin maybe not to you're taste.
I agree with Broz comment. When you walk out of the Cinema you want to be Bond but seen Brosnan's Bond i ended up hating Bond rather wanting to be him. He just came across like a sleazy drunken uncle at a wedding (Moore was the same but he had a touch of class about it) rather then a ice cool secret agent like Connery or Craig did. Plus his films stink and digressed Bond rather then the make him leader of the pack (Mission impossible films and Bourne movies were making Brosnan films look old hat) plus he's not much cop as a actor.
@-)
Ah i'm back on board thank Mr. Craig ;)
Weren't you the one who said Craig made Bond cool again because the critics like him?
Anyway the Bourne films weren't even out while Brosnan was Bond and Mission Impossible is just as OTT as any of the Brosnan films.
I think his best performance as Bond overall is FYEO.
TWINE is an uneven mess of a film, the opening sequence with the Banker is Pierce's finest moment as 007 but all that hard work is undone by that over long ludicrous boat chase that goes on forever. It can't decide what tone it wants to be, it wants to be the modern successor to OHMSS but can't shake off the ludicrous model that was well and truly established in the Moore years but with a great deal more panache.
I can appreciate your comments about how the film may be perceived as uneven, but I wouldn't describe it that way. The film does rely on formula that is undeniable, it would appear that CR was the first film to really throw that out of the window and go forth as if no Bond film ever existed beforehand. Here instead we are greeted with all the familiar trappings of the Bond formula, but the depth added to the characterisation of Bond blended in with his odd macabre relationship with the girl really elevate the material above the simple trappings of a Bond film.
But they are better films you don't agree?
They kept it ticking over more like.
Looks fine to me. And major glamour magazines still don't mind putting her on the front cover.
Shardlake brings up an interesting point. It's not just what the film - ANY film - is trying to do, but how well it's doing it.
When I was a kid, I loved YOLT. The volcano base, the exoticness of Japan (I was raised in a very whitebread place), the action. But then when I got older it rapidly fell down my rankings. But why?
When I was younger the IDEA of a film - or story, or character, or relationship - was what was most important to me. There were certain things that I wanted to see in a film and if I did then I was happy. But as I got older and saw a LOT more films then I had seen every type of location, character, etc. So it wasn't just seeing a certain thing, it had to be done well. And that's where YOLT fell down for me. Because the execution - the pacing, the performances, the action - weren't as well done as they could be. I mean, just compare it to OHMSS which followed just a short time later.
So when I think of TWINE I think of an interesting, failed experiment. There are a lot of good ideas there but they weren't executed very well (especially Brosnan's performance and the pacing). But based on what the film was TRYING to do I certainly understand why people have a soft spot for it and really appreciate it.
But Fleming had a keen sense of style and the ridiculous, in my opinion the films through DR No - LTK all had a bit of Fleming about them, GE onwards have missed that feel.
The scene with Brosnan waiting in the hotel in TND definitley feels like it could have come from one of the novels though!
I have not seen Marceau in a while. Honestly, I think that she looks more attractive now than back in 1999. And I know there's little to no chance of it happening, but I wouldn't be against seeing Marceau in another Bond film.
As for Brosnan, his performances were like a bowl of spaghetti in the hands of a 2 year old, all over the place.