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
...then post your illuminating critiques of Dalton's humor in a thread that deals with that topic.
I think so too. If it is dealt with in Bond 24, making a 2 movies arc with Quantum again might seem like overkill.
I liked John Cleese in Monty Python, but he is speaking complete hogwash here.
He should talk, about endless action sequences. As if DAD had no overlong action sequences!
This is coming from the man who starred in DAD, which contains a scene where Bond goes underwater, swims to the diamond mine, dodges lasers, defeats Mr. Kil, and rescues Jinx, goes on to confront Graves, finds out Miranda is a traitor, escapes in Graves' vehicle, avoids Icarus and the resulting avalanche/tsunami via CGI parasailing, takes out a guard, uses a snowmobile to make it all the way back to the ice palace and begin a long shootout/chase sequence with Zao on the ice (and in the ice palace), defeats Zao, finds and rescues Jinx, and resuscitates her.
And Cleese complains of action sequences that are too long in the Craig Bond films?
Only with the irony and humouristic self depreciation DAD lacks...
How true. If only DAD could make me laugh, I would forgive it. Like CR 67.
Absolutely. Dalton is wonderful with the natural humour - Karachi restaurant and section 26 or 36, paragraph 5 as Craig is with this type of humour but the one liners do fall flat and feel out of place as they do with Craig in Skyfall. I hope Mendes has realised this.
You know, it would have been enough just to have Bond drive the DB5 in SF. Having the machine guns and the reference to the ejector seat just wasn't necessary. Mendes handled all the other homages well. They were all subtle and appropriate but the DB5 having gadgets wasn't. Q Branch would have never deemed it financially viable to put gadgets in this car. Maybe Bond paid Q to do this out of his own pocket. I think that's the only thing we can assume because it's really the only thing that makes sense.
Much less action scenes overall but longer ones, are much, much better than a film (DAD) that is choc full of action, as in an action scene about every 3 minutes. Brrr...
Yes, one of my fav. scenes.
This Gleese *** certainly does NOT deserve an own thread. I wished, people would stop making new threads for every tidbit. For that, I opened a tidbit tread. ;)
i agree. I liked M's response "Oh go on then eject me, see if I care".
Made me smile.
If there's a reference to an aquatic vehicle, or a Tarzan yell in B24, I blame you and your kin.
I genuinely believe Mendes might use the Tarzan yell.
Tamahori might have, but I really doubt Mendes would sink that low. I'm not saying he's the Messiah but he's reasonably competent.
The Tarzan yell isn't exactly looked back on fondly by the general public.
I'm clearly joking. Just found it funny that @Ludovico thought I was being genuine.
It's a good scene, but you could have it without ACTUALLY having the ejector seat on the car. They could be bickering and just add one line of dialogue:
"What, have you outfitted the car with an ejector seat or something? Oh go on then, eject me, see if I care".
Flawless and without the actual gimmicky car.