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
Really enjoyed it on my most recent watch. Connery is definitely in his prime during this film, more so than FRWL. He nails the physicality and elegance of the role, which is impressive for his first attempt. I think the violence they showed was just enough to take the film seriously, without ever going too far. We witness characters get strangled, burnt, executed point blank, drown and also bite into suicide pills, which luckily didn't feel stupid. So it's a very dark film. Although the "dragon" was a stupid concept if I'm honest.
The Bond girl ensemble are all fantastic in this film: Honey Ryder is probably in the top 5 girls of all time solely because of that beach scene. Sadly, many people forget about Miss Taro who does a great job next to Connery (who is so intimidatingly commanding in the few scenes they are together). Finally there is Sylvia Trench who doesn't get much screen time but I still enjoy her scenes at the casino of course.
I'd now say that this is an under-appreciated Bond film because it never makes everyone's top half of their rankings. It's way toned down relative to the later films (you might get a heart attack watching Dr. No and MR in a double-bill) but it makes up for it with it's sheer brutality and violence. Just amazing.
If I had done a ranking that long ago, I'd say it would've hit my Top 5, as well. Not too many films in the series I've loved this strongly since my first viewing without having them flip-flop or drop in rank.
GF
I've never really been a fan of this hugely loved entry among both the hardcore and general public. However, I was in some serious need of Bondage, and this is one of the films I have seen the least. Therefore, I thought I'd give it a try.
It went much better than previous viewings this time around. I found Connery to be super smooth in the earlier half of the film. He wears everything so well too, especially that white dinner jacket in the PTS, the tweed hacking jacket post-golf game and the famous grey three piece glen check number (which I've always found a bit too formal for a man of action like Bond), all probably by Anthony Sinclair. His interactions with Jill and Tilly in particular are effortlessly cool, and the golf & card games with Goldfinger are legendary. The scenery too is outstanding, particularly in the Lepontine Alps in Switzerland. The infamous DB5 isn't annoying at all in its now iconic debut either.
Normally when Bond hits Kentucky I get bored stiff until the ending credits. The latter half didn't go all that well this time either, but I plodded through and found things to enjoy, like the chemistry between Connery and Blackman, the conversation between Bond and Goldfinger regarding his master plan over mint julep, and of course the fight with Oddjob at Fort Knox.
This will never be among my favourite Bond films (I'm among the minority who prefer TB by a large margin), but there's nothing really wrong with it either. I've just always felt that what it introduced and did so well has been surpassed in more recent entries, but nevertheless I had a bit of fun with it this time out.
Just finished it. One of the best experiences I've had with this film. It had declined a bit in my rankings recently because I've enjoyed some of the other older films so much of late. However, I must move this back up to where it was before. There's not much wrong with this entry. It's tight, visceral and energetic throughout. Nothing's wasted here. Everything is essential to moving the story forward. Most importantly, despite the fast edits and cuts, it feels like a Bond film through and through. The money is up there on the screen to see. There's some nice humour sprinkled about as well.
The best thing about this film is Daniel Craig. He owns it, and it was refreshing to see him at the top of his game. His delivery of some of the humour is on form as well (e.g. "Excuse me. Thank you. She's seasick"). Olga Kurylenko is also excellent as the revenge seeking Camille, and the two have very good chemistry and some great scenes together. The other thing that always impressed me about this movie is how incredible everything looks. The colours really pop in that old school Bond style. I sincerely hope that the producers, directors and everyone else on the team ensure that the next film has this sort of rich palette, rather than the washed up dull & monotone CGI style of the latest entry.
Brosnan's debut as Bond is one that will always hold a special place in my heart. My first memory of Bond was watching Brosnan say the immortal introduction, and thus began my love of the character. Goldeneye has always been in my top 5 favorite Bond films, and after this recent viewing, it shot itself up to number 3 in my overall ranking, beating the likes of Goldfinger, and Dr. No, but managing to keep below FRWL and OHMSS. Goldeneye has all the elements of the perfect Bond film cranked up to 10. The villains are some of the best in the entire series, Nataylia makes for an interesting Bond girl, one of my favorites in fact, and the introduction of Judi Dench as M is one of my favorites scenes in the entire series. Goldeneye is near perfect for me, the only thing holding it down is the score, but minor quibbles aside, Goldeneye is an amazing film, and one of the best Bond films in my opinion.
I've been having a good time revisiting the Bond films of late and so thought I'd take another chance with SP. This is one of my most watched Bond films, which is perhaps surprising given it's the latest entry. These plentiful viewings haven't been due to ecstatic joy, but rather have been more salvage attempts. Could I finally see the film in a more positive light, I wondered? Sadly, it was not to be, at least not this time around.
Having just finished with QoS a few days back, the differences are quite clear. While the earlier film is vivid, vibrant, lively, visceral and very briskly paced, SP in contrast is dreary, dull, cold, empty & lethargic- so much so that it can be considered tedious. This is an adjective I hardly use for Bond films, but I think it's fair to say it applies here. Even the characters are lacking spark.
--
Some say that the finale should have been at Blofeld HQ rather than London, & I absolutely agree. I don't see the purpose of the MI6 climax as it stands except to highlight two points:
1) to visually hammer home that this film ties all of the prior Craig entries together (with the unnecessary overt use of photographs and what not).
2) to showcase Madeline's demands, and Bond's apparent succumbing to them (gun in the Thames, walking away, coming back to get the Aston etc.).
So the London sequence (whether tacked on or not) primarily serves the purpose of strongly hinting that Craig is finished with Bond (which is what many surmised at the time). Now, he may have had a change of heart since as has been reported, but I'm quite sure he was done with the role in 2015 based on this viewing.
--
The other thing which I noticed on this and other recent viewings is that the 'death' theme & subtext is pervasive here. "The Dead Are Alive" as Mendes announced at the opening. It's somewhat creepy, especially with unfinished remnants from Bond's past (including dead friends) almost haunting him. Dench M, Vesper tape, the Sciarra funeral, Hans, Mr. White etc. The dreary monotone visuals serve to accentuate this aspect. Furthermore, I don't think it's a coincidence that Madeline is dressed in light (white?) outfits a lot of the time, in contrast to others. On the bridge, she is the 'guiding angelic light' which Bond gravitates towards, leaving his previous life of death behind.
Moreover, I noticed that the final lambasted scene when he drives off with her in the Aston is one of the few which is not bathed in the ubiquitous monotone filter which infects nearly every other scene. It's actually quite a crisp post-rainfall London day. This suggests new fresh beginnings.
Ultimately, I'll never truly enjoy this film. It lacks sparkle. However, I can appreciate the thematic elements which Mendes brought to it, which are quite unique for a Bond film.
This certainly is THE most clearly defined aspect of the film and that which sets it the most apart from being "just another entry" filling time until the next one. But I wish the approach had been: a) couched within a stronger story; b) more clearly defined than it is; and c) not at such stark odds with the lighter, Moore-esque attempt at escapism which some have argued is supposed to make SP the brightest and most plainly fun of all of Craig's films (see: the entire thread that was devoted to the topic, wherever it is now).
The reality is the film is a gloomy, sombre, and really quite spectral affair, which could have been a really neat approach with the subject matter if they hadn't simultaneously insisted on making it a 21st century Roger Moore flick. The film needed the story and performances to match the approach, but mood and story/characters were at complete odds here. (Add lackluster action sequences, the trapped-in-development-hell-then-rushed-to-screen finale you mentioned, little sense of urgency or consequence in SPECTRE's scheme, and "Stepbrothergate" to boot, and the positives grow dim indeed.)
It even impacts specific scenes, in addition to the overall tone. As an example, that torture sequence suggests Bond is experiencing some serious physical damage, and yet a few moments later he's up and about as if nothing happened (in direct contrast to the consequences he suffers in both CR & SF which require recuperation).
The Madeline/Bond relationship is another one. Underdeveloped and unconvincing. Is he just using her to get out as some have suggested (with she being the one in love)? If so, then why does Smith's high pitched whining suggest true love?
There are some good ideas & themes here, but they are so poorly (almost amateurishly) bolted together that the final result is quite underwhelming and half baked. I almost feel like this story needed to be spread out over two back-to-back films, which was apparently the original intention.
I'm afraid that my perceptions will always remain analytical and clinical however, as there's something about it which just rubs me the wrong way.
As I said on another post, it was a jinxed production, from start to finish. The Logan-script fiasco, the race into production to get the film out by a certain date; DC blowing out his knee, shutting filming down for two weeks; Mendes editing the film just days before it's premiere...
All in all, I feel it's almost like Mendes shrugged and said we gave it our best shot. And it shows in the final cut: a bloated film where individual scenes, on their own, are amazing, but as a whole, so remarkably different than what came before or after. They didn't flow and push the story forward effortlessly. It's like some scenes were individual stories that concluded when those scenes ended; like they were short films that were then cobbled together to make a feature length script, if that makes sense?
SP committed the greatest sin: boring the audience. That's where Menedes and his editors lost the plot: they strung together a film that failed to excite, that failed to entertain.
And that's why I also think that Mendes will never get close to another Bond film again. These are very smart people on set-- they know what happened, and they know their final product was not a healthy one. I have a feeling the next film will charge out of the gates.
No one is going to mistake this film for a cinematic masterpiece, but I had great fun re-watching it. For the sheer amount of ridiculous things this film throws at the audience, the lighter tone sits just right with me. I never been too keen on Pierce Brosnan as Bond (wooden in GE, too serious in TWINE, too slimy in DAD) but I think this is the one film he nails. It's certainly a cocksure performance (half-similar to how Connery played it in TB), but it fits with the rest of the film. In my opinion, his strongest performance by quite a bit.
Jonathan Pryce is literally coming out of the screen and chewing on your sofa, and I adore it. I liked Wai Lin a little more than I remembered, too. I don't think she's among the top tier of Bond girls, but she holds her own, and is actually quite believable as Bond's equal. Teri Hatcher got the short end of the stick - she is probably the weakest cast member of the film, but I don't think she's as awful as some have suggested. The script does her no favors and makes her kind of generic indeed; perhaps a better actress would have given that material more? At least she's not unwatchable a la Halle Berry.
The movie moves along due to one too many coincidences, yes, but I think the breezy tone masks a little bit of that. Compare to the far more dour The World Is Not Enough - a film with script issues of its own, made much worse in how seriously the movie takes itself (throw Spectre in there too).
This might just be a top 10 entry for me. I can understand why it isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I think Tomorrow Never Dies is a breezy, fun adventure done mostly right.
I can agree with most of that. I have a few issues with TND. I dislike Bond's over hostile first meeting with Carver - he should be investigating Carver and Bond pretty much accuses him there and then, having first met him.
I also dislike how in Goldeneye M berates Bond for being a "sexist misogynist dinosaur" then tells Bond in TND to "pump her for information" (Paris).
Also the car chase is dull and should have been through the streets of Hamburg rather than a crappy car park. Also I don't like Bond driving the car off the side and nearly killing a load of innocent people.
Otherwise, yeah is a breezy flick as you have said. Pryce hamming it up to incredible levels is always entertaining.
I find Brosnan to be at his smarmiest in this film. Sure, there's more confidence in his 2nd outing than in GE where he is still uncertain, but I see less 'Bond' and more 'trying to be Bond'. Watch his Q interaction at the Avis rental location here in comparison to how he plays it in DAD. In the latter film, there is a confident know it all arrogance which reeks of Bond. Here, he just seems slick. His best scene is the one with Kaufmann.
Having said that, the pace is superb. Probably one of the most action packed entries (along with QoS) in the entire series. The action is also off the charts (apart from the hand to hand combat which is a big step down from GE). I'm not too keen on the parking lot chase either, but the bike chase is one of the best.
A decent motorbike chase in the next movie would be good.
Skyfall had a little bit of a motorbike chase which was pretty cool as well. Especially them driving over the rooftops.
I've actually never really considered this, but I always felt M was the type of person who'd have her agents do just about anything to get the job done. The whole "misogynist dinosaur" thing in GoldenEye is naff anyway.
The streets of Hamburg chase would have also been a good alternative, but I find the car park chase quite exciting as it is. I somewhat agree with your point on Bond endangering people, but this is the type of movie that clearly doesn't care or dwell on that very much.
The bike chase is a quite a good sequence, if perhaps a little lengthy. Bond and Wai Lin fighting to get on the bike at the start is a quick little moment, but really funny stuff.
I can't really defend TND against a lot of the criticisms (box-ticking, imitation of other films etc), but I suppose that all gets swept under the rug for me.
"Hope you enjoyed the show...goodnight"