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
That whole section, where Bond confronts Orlov on train and the mayhem that follows, and the chase to the circus, to the bomb diffusing, is among John Glens finest work.
After my disappointing view of GF, was a bit anxious about viewing this. I needn't have worried. Wonderful showing. Fantastic cast, stylish, good story and great action, (that train fight sequence still thrills!)
Connery and Shaw are great opponents, Lotte Lenya creepy villain, Bianchi alluring, love Robert Brownjohns titles, and strong direction by Terence Young. My favourite Fleming novel, and an excellent film!
I do find his era to be the weakest of the long-running Bonds, but that doesn’t mean I dislike it. GE has always been a favorite, and TND has aged very well and grown on me a lot. TWINE is a really up and down experience usually for me, with some really nice stuff but also big weaknesses. DAD is my biggest struggle, though I do find enjoyment in the first half. I think I’ll probably revisit TWINE first.
Hm. Heavy on action, certainly. Beautiful cinematography? I am not so sure about that. There are some questionable and dated special effects in both Goldeneye and Die Another Day. And I would say TND and TWINE took some potentialy beautiful locations like Ha Long Bay and Istanbul and made them look bleak and colorless. The films will not stand out for their cinematography. If that is one of your main selling points, I feel worried for your prediction.
I also wouldn't say I'm trying to sell anything, it's just that history is usually not kind to the "ex-husband" Bond, so once we're past Craig's era, general opinion of Brosnan's films will likely ease a bit.
I am by no means trying to say that his era is the best.
I wouldn’t be surprised for the series to take a more campy, or at least lighthearted, approach again like Moore’s / Brosnan’s eras once a new actor steps in. SP already was tilting in that direction (though I don’t believe it suited Craig very well). Some aspects haven’t aged well, but overall I’ve found at least 3/4 of Brosnan’s entries to be pretty fun, despite the warts!
What is your odd one out?
Yes I think they might do that. With a new Bond they can either (1) stick with the same approach as Craig, but that then gives rise to “the new one is just the same as Craig but not as good, so what’s the point” sort of reviews, or (2) be even grimmer and more serious, or (3) reintroduce a lighter element, make it all a bit more fun. I think they might well go down the (3) route.
I prefer DAD to TWINE for reasons well-documented on here, and I don't want to rag on the movie anymore than I already have unless in a specific thread. The gap between the two did narrow a bit on my recent viewing of the latter, though, which was nice, albeit it wasn't a large narrowing, haha.
edit: I'll have to go find a thread where I've posted my reasons before, because unfortunately I feel like anytime someone defends DAD against anything, even if it is against the bottom of the pile, you really need to provide supporting evidence. Haha.
I'm not a big DAD fan myself, but to each their own! Maybe I'll like it a little more my next try, seeing as I've been in such a Brosnan mood lately.
A bit of an odd one for me, I like it but I would rank it fairly mid table. I suppose I prefer the more down to early, smaller espionage centred movies over the bigger, larger scale and more bombastic Bond movies (similiarly, I am not overly keen on the "larger scale" Bond movies like Thunderball, Moonraker, Die Another Day).
There are certainly a lot of elements I like - the whole pre-titles sequence, the title song, the Lotus chase and having a more Navy-centric plot with plenty of Bond in naval gear (I do wish the DC era would've included his naval background more). But then there are elements that don't really do anything for me - Stromberg as a villain, the huge Liparus set piece, Atlantis. Hamlish's score is very inconsistent - for every "Bond 77" there's an equally dire piece. Its ok I guess, just about even on the "hits" and "misses". Bach is just awful, nice to look at but no acting and her line delivery is just terrible.
I appreciate what Spy did in terms of revitalising the series and ensuring its continued success, but it is decidedly mid-tier for me.
I'm not sure that I'd qualify as a big fan, necessarily, but I suppose any person with positive things to say about that movie would at least qualify as a defender.
I will say this: I do not defend the third act. Or even a decent chunk of the second. Most of my praises of that film come from less... tangible elements let's say.
1) Tamahori's direction, despite the absolutely ludicrous and unforgivable nonsense (which I sort of doubt he was responsible for including? If he was, well, bad decision obviously) is really strong and has a lot better understanding of what the series was going for (at that time) than Apted did on TWINE. DAD knows what it is, it knows what it wants to be, and it is really, despite all of its flaws, a very lively film, and not just in terms of action. TWINE gets caught between wanting to take itself so painfully seriously and still acquiescing to the camp demands of formula that it just ends up being so snoozy, particularly the action. DAD just feels more alive to me, and overall has stronger action scenes (sword fight alone is better than anything in TWINE)
2) Brosnan's best performance in the role. He is so at ease here. It really is a shame he didn't get at least one more in 2004. He's really, really good. And might I add that he aged into the role really well. Much better than Connery did. He looks great here.
3) I kind of like the supporting cast, sans-Halle Berry, especially a young Rosamund Pike. She is absolutely phenomenal. Toby Stephens' sneering villain is more fun than he's given credit for as well (the less said about the plot behind that sneer the better, mind you).
There are a lot of unforgivable things in DAD, so it'll never ever be considered an upper-level Bond film, but I do like to make time to appreciate its (fairly numerous?) strengths which I do think get overlooked in favor of the lower-hanging fruit that are its atrocities. TWINE was just made at the wrong time, when the producers and so forth didn't have the conviction to actually commit to what the script wanted to be, and so the result is something that fails as a more serious exploration of 007 as a character and his relationship with Elektra (because of Apted's soap opera direction and the overwrought script as well as the lack of screentime devoted to that exploration) because it wants to tick the boxes of a campier, formulaic Bond film that does what it says on the tin, but because it wants to do that, it doesn't give the attention to Bond/Elektra/the serious elements as it should have. But, hilariously, because it does try to take itself seriously, the more "tick-the-boxes" TWINE doesn't really work all that well either (the action in this film, except for the PTS, is extremely subpar for the series, especially considering the two that came before).
tl;dr -- It is two movies in one. Rather than choose, the producers tried to fit them both into the same one. Neither movie works. This is best illustrated by what I call the "Christmas Jones Cop Out." (Yes, I'm cheeky). The story of the film is attempting to get us to fall in love with Elektra (the "Bond girl") and give us something truly new for the series (in making the "main girl" of the film the villain). This would be very ambitious and excellent. And in the middle of this serious "character driven" affair a busty Denise Richards, portraying a nuclear physicist, waltzes up to Brosnan. Basically, rather than commit to that incredibly compelling premise of having the Bond girl turn out to be the villain, they cop-out and throw in a traditional Bond girl. It just reeks of bad faith and half-baked ideas and attempting to play things safe. (Btw, this is nothing against Richards. Yes, she's terrible. Anyone that says otherwise is blind and deaf, but if she had appeared in, say, Moonraker or Goldfinger or Diamonds are Forever or several other movies in a similar lane, it wouldn't disrupt as much as it does here).
(Remember when I said I wouldn't get into it here because I don't like to be negative? Whoops). My bad. Even the tl'dr got rambly. I gotta work on that.
Have to agree on this. Have always this opinion about TSWLM! I dont hate it, but I dont love it either, though recent viewings i found more pleasant! It has a poor villain and leading lady, and the action is only average, and i probably should put in the controversial thread, but I really dislike Jaws as a character!
Have you read Christopher Wood's excellent novelization yet mate..?
Jesus, have been so busy, afraid i havent!
I get the impression though that I may dislike the film even more after reading it, going by the consensus here!!
Its definetly stood the test of time.Its one of the most complex Bond films in terms of plot and themes.And yes,the largely CGI free action scenes have dated very well also and David Arnolds score kicks ass.
I love almost all the opening (until the underwhelming title song), and the train fight is another fantastic action moment. The Rome car chase and snow plane stuff are not so great, on the other hand. Despite a decent entrance and great fight scene, Hinx felt like he could have been done better. Though I don't think the classic formula always meshed well with Craig's 007 - particularly the often awkward humor moments - it was nice in some ways to see some classic Bond material resurface, such as the formidable henchman, gadgetry, and gunbarrel.
Blofeld was a wasted opportunity. I've said before I wish they had just waited to use SPECTRE until after Craig was gone. Even using them with him in, it could have been done a lot better. The emotional punch they tried to achieve with all that fell very flat. Madeleine Swann seems to get better for me every time I watch, though of course she's still not Tracy or Vesper level. Overall I do mostly like the film up through the train fight, besides the weird tonal change with Craig's Bond (trying to make him too light compared to how his take should be, IMO). It gets pretty bad in the final act though, with a very dull finale. Two of the themes I did like were the surveillance angle (always timely now and not too badly done here IMO), and Madeleine challenging Bond about his lifestyle (I wouldn't want Bond to quit, of course for good, but it was an interesting thing they touched on here).
I also tried watching SP to my best ability pretending it was a standalone film, which would have worked a lot better if not for the awkward, half-baked retconning and stuff. I'm hopeful NTTD, despite being a direct sequel again, will be able to stand on its own a little better, and also maybe even make SP a little better in hindsight. Improving Blofeld would be a great bonus for sure.
Well, given that a giant squid appeared in more than one movie before DN, not that impossible. Expensive, maybe, but not impossible :
True, very true. A shame, then ;)
Just finished GE, ending my run of Brosnan rewatches. It never disappoints me, and it’s still easily my favorite of his outings as Bond. Lots of great action, great Bond girls, great villains, and a really fun and underrated score. It’s a classic, and one of my go-to Bond films (and just films in general!). One random note: I LOVE A Pleasant Drive in St. Petersburg and wish it could have made the final cut in the movie!