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
I agree that there is an underline generic style of filmmaking to 3 of the 4 Brosnan Bond films (GE Withstanding; also love TWINE but that’s just me), but that’s not Brosnan’s fault, that’s the fault of the producers and the script writers. I also wouldn’t take Joe Rogan’s words as gospel, seeing as how he think Craig’s Bond is so good that every other Bond actor can, in his precise words, “F themselves”
I love the Craig era (minus the last film), and I put the richness of these films second only to the Connery era.
They’re my two favourite Bonds. Just my tiny opinion.
Unfortunately I’ve always found Brosnan to be a lightweight actor with a tendency to overact. He just doesn’t have the chops, in my eyes. And as far as physicality goes, apart from being a decent runner, he was built like a pencil in his first one, that progressively got thicker around the waist; he doesn’t throw a believable punch, and it was Bean who sold that climactic fight in Goldeneye. I found many of his love scenes cringy... nothing to do with the writing, it’s in his execution.
My opinions only, not trying to change any here. But I just found that Rogan quote quite a chuckle that I agreed with.
I can respect that, I just found Rogan’s quote to be so disrespectful to the other actors, especially to Connery, who is my personal favorite Bond (with Brosnan coming in second), though if I can elaborate on why I love Brosnan, it’s that easy going nature to him that’s why I find him so endearing. I don’t think he overacts at all, I mainly chalk that up to the scripts asking him to do some pretty ludicrous stuff because he makes it work in my eyes. Films like Thomas Crown Affair, Tailor of Panama, and Dante’s Peak allow him to show off the real chops he has as an actor. I’ve also never found issue with his size as an actor. It’s not Timothy Dalton was muscular, but you could believe he could kick your arse in a fight because of his intensity. Whereas with Brosnan, I could believe he could go into a room guns blazing and walk out alive. I suppose I’m just a sucker for those generic 90’s shootouts. As far as the Craig era, I love Casino Royale, like Skyfall, but haven’t been a big fan of the other films he’s done. I don’t really think any Bond actors era has been able to be as rich as Connery’s, but then again, I find Connery’s first 3 to be his best, the rest are just fine. But I find films like OHMSS, TSWLM, FYEO, TLD, GE, and CR to be up there with the likes of Connery’s first 3. Buts just my personal views. Are you a Dalton fan by any chance?
I'm not quite sure what Rogan means by that analogy? Is that a criticism?
I do love what Dalton did, @007ClassicBondFan. TLD is inside of my top five or six. OHMSS is number one with CR and SF battling the second spot. FRWL is right behind them where my no.2 could potentially be a log jam of CR/SF/FRWL, then TB, GF, TLD...
Hm, I am not sure about that. I don't think there is anything in any of Brosnan's performances that indicates he was truly capable of doing anything interesting with the character. His attempt at showing an emotional side in TWINE was definitely not convincing, and I think he looked a bit out of place when attempting to give Bond a harder edge. If there is any phrase I would use to describe his performance in GE it's exactly that: "By the numbers". And at the time, that was what the general public wanted to see.
Big kudos for having OHMSS as number one. Really love that film. It fluctuates for me with FRWL a lot, I genuinely have an incredibly tough time picking between the both of them, I think I prefer FRWL because it was one of the very first Bond films I ever saw, and it’s the film that kicked my love of Bond into high gear. It’s also might be my favorite film of all time (but that’s just me.) TLD is another film that creeps into my top 5 as well, it may have even been Number 3 at one point if I recall correctly. That’s another one that I have loads of nostalgia for, at one brief moment I preferred LTK, but upon a recent viewing, I came away just remembering how much I love Daylights.
I disagree. There are plenty of examples of Brosnan being able to show off his skills within the Bond films. The scene on the beach in Goldeneye where he quietly reflects on the mission. The scene in Tomorrow Never Dies where he mourns the loss of Paris Carver, then ruthlessly executes Dr. Kauffman (probably the best scene in TND), the way he changes the subject when Elektra brings up the question of if he ever lost someone he loved (Tracy reference), the scene of him shooting Elektra point blank, then regretting the fact he did that immediately, the scene where he unwinds in the hotel following the Carver news party in TND, heck even the torture scenes in DAD. All those show off Pierce’s acting abilities to the max, and he does them splendidly. I just think people undercut Brosnan’s ability to portray Bond’s emotional/ruthless sides just because he was stuck in some weak films, and it doesn’t help that the films themselves undercut the importance of said moments by immediately having him do some crazy, ridiculous thing the next minute. It’s like the same way people undercut Moore’s ability to appear ruthless as Bond.
Well, it's obviously a matter of subjective opinion. Of the examples you list there is only one of them I would agree Brosnan does really well: The scene with Kaufmann in TND. The fact that you mention the scene on the beach i GE as something to be proud of illustrates how much we disagree on this. I think it's more or less a total failure and comes of with a low budget TV soap opera feel to it...
I don’t see how you think the GE beach scene is a total failure, because I think it demonstrates the underline state of his thoughts incredibly well. He’s quiet and subtle, the way I’d imagine Bond to be when confronted with doubts and emotions. But as Connery states in Thunderball; “You can’t win them all.” You’re allowed to have your views, and I’m allowed to have mine. Different stroke, different folks.
Oh, I don't think the problem is it's understated. On the contrary I think he overplayes it. The timing is off as well. Craig especially, and even Moore and Lazenby handled those moments much better. But, as stated, it's obviously a matter of taste.
I’m sorry, but I can’t say I agree with that. I don’t see how he overplays it, he’s just sitting there, staring out into the ocean. It’s not as if he’s delivering some monologue about how betrayed he feels. If he was, then I’d agree with you, but he isn’t. He’s silent, and distant.
The delivery of the line "it's what keeps me alive" is not understated, that's for sure ;))
It's not, really. ;))
Now, there are a couple of examples that spring to mind from TWINE, that's for sure...
I think it’s a cool line, if I had to nitpick something that scene, its Brosnan hair flowing in the wind like they have a fan pointed at him from behind, it unintentionally makes me laugh, like they’re trying their damn hardest to make him appear Sexy 😂😂😂. It least it’s better than Dalton’s Dracula haircut in LTK.
To be honest, this is my least favorite of the Terence Young directed Bond films, and my least favorite of the 60’s Bond era. I think the issue comes from the crew feeling jaded after filming Dr. No, FRWL, and GF back to back. I’m sure the team-up with Kevin McClory didn’t help matters either. But upon this last viewing, I’ve had more fun with this one than I have some of my previous viewings. I think the film is incredibly stylish, probably the most stylish Bond of the series, and the film has a decent array of characters at its disposal, even if some of them feel a bit underwhelming at times. I don’t find Largo to be an intimidating villian. His back and forth banter with Connery is great, but other than that, he seems like a generic supervillain, even going so far as to include the eye patch confirms that for me. Fiona Volpe is an amazing character, she’s so sinister, but yet so beautiful. I even like how she calls out (in a 4th wall breaking reference), how easily Bond turned Pussy Galore to the side of good in the previous film. She’s only to be rivaled by Xenia Onnatop when it comes to Femme Fatales in the series. Connery himself is great, probably the last great performance he gives in the series. Domino is a rather bland, forgettable Bond girl, she’s beautiful, but after coming after 3 of the greatest Bond girls in the series, she falls flat in comparison. I love Blofeld in the film, but then again I love the Dawson/Pohlmann Blofeld in FRWL. The underwater scenes are a weak part of the film, but I didn’t mind them so much this time around. My whole feeling on the film is that so much behind the scenes partying went on, that little attention was payed to the quality of the film itself, and it seems that was the case. The filmmakers knew this was going to be a hit, but that assurance in the film cost them the drive to make this the best that they could make it. Overall it’s entertaining, but a far cry from the best entries of the series.
7/10 for me.
Almost all of them rank TB in the bottom 3-5 handful of films. Regardless of what we all think on this board, I find that such a strange trend/pattern. "Boring" is of course the word often thrown around about it. Obviously I disagree, but it's still really strange to me that a lot of the higher profile accounts (larger follower base, etc) seem to have some sort of unanimous "consensus" about a film otherwise held in fairly high regard by fans/public.
Well, those influencers are not renown for their taste but for the way they provide entertaining content.
I agree with Calvin for some of his opinions, but there are times where I just think to myself “Really?”
I think ranking Dr. No, and FRWL below the likes of AVTAK and MR for example...I mean it’s his opinion but it’s one I heavily disagree with.
But yeah, all in all, it's a bummer (for me, as a big lover of the film) to see so many people consider TB boring just because when things are underwater they are necessarily, realistically, going to literally move "slower." For me, that always heightened the tension, but I suppose everyone has different tastes.
I don’t think Thunderball is 100% completely boring, but it’s a bit slow in some parts. Like I mentioned in my review post, I think the issue was so much energy was spent filming the first three essentially back to back, that things feel a bit jaded by the time Thunderball rolled around. But I’m glad you love the film! I personally love the style and sophistication that comes across in the filmmaking. It’s beautiful to look it.
Octopussy
I’m doing my yearly series rewatch and using the opportunity to do my usual detailed video examination of the Japanese letterboxed laserdisc series which were all released in 1993.
He’s never been big on the Terence Young Bond films. He even called Young “2nd Rate Hitchcock” in one of his videos, which made me feel a bit infuriated. Still enjoy his content though.
The second rate Hitchcock notion has appeared before in places but is completely without merit. I think it comes from the helicopter chase being a riff on North by Northwest, the general Hitchcock influence over the series and the first two films in particular being suspense thrillers at their core. Those who do this go on without mentioning that Hitch’s influence on the spy and thriller genres is inescapable and that not one but several of his films are the Bond template-not to mention certain team members had worked on them.
My own feeling is that FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT is in many ways the Bond precedent onscreen before even the Warwick films and The Red Beret. When I eventually discovered that Maibaum had worked on it that became the clincher.
If the Bond films were taken seriously as art stuff like this wouldn’t happen. If Red Grant stalking behind Bond on the Orient Express were in a Hitchcock film it would be lauded by every critic but as it’s in FRWL no dice. The whole film is a ever coiling spring of suspense that builds to the train sequence but never gets the credit for doing so.
And while the helicopter sequence is a lift-the difference is that it is staged completely different and ALL FOR REAL.
Hitchcock was offered and strongly favored to start the series originally during the Thunderball process but it never came to be. Ironically Hitch found himself being forced to compete later with a series heavily inspired by his earlier works-but he did screen every one. Hamilton recounting that Hitchcock admitted he wished he had thought of machine gun granny is still amazing.
It’s rather sad that Hitchcock had tried desperately to top the Bond films later on in his career. Both Torn Curtain and Topaz unfortunately rank low when compared to his other films. I know he saw both Dr. No and From Russia With Love when making the decision to cast Connery in Marnie, but I didn’t know he saw the others afterwards. I also didn’t know he said that about Goldfinger, where did you find that? If you don’t mind me asking
I would add that several conventions of the spy genre that feel Hitchcockian also pre-date Hitchcock. A lot of the popular cloak-and-dagger fiction of the early 20th century (Le Queux, Oppenheim, Wallace, etc) is now forgotten and unread, but Hitchcock grew up it. Foreign Correspondent is certainly a good candidate for a Bond precedent, but an even earlier and just as valid forerunner would be Fritz Lang's Spies (1928). That might be why critics like Andrew Sarris accused the Bond films of being derivative not just of Hitchcock but Lang as well.
It's either in the commentary track or the documentary for Goldfinger where Hamilton tells the story of when he met Hitchcock after a screening of Goldfinger.
To celebrate 51 years of Majesty’s, I decided to watch the 4K restoration on Amazon Prime. There are only 4 Bond films that I consider to be 10/10 films, FRWL, GE, CR, and this one. Watching this movie is always a good way to spend time, but to watch the film, 51 years after it’s debut in 1969, makes me appreciate all of the hard work, style, and sophistication that makes this film what it is. Peter Hunt’s first, and only directorial effort in the series yields a film that many argue to be the greatest of all the James Bond films. If it wasn’t for the experiment Majesty’s had undergone, then we as Bond fans wouldn’t have been blessed with other great entries from the series (FYEO, LTK, CR to name a few), in fact the legacy of this film can be seen in both the Timothy Dalton, and Daniel Craig Bond films. Both actors have expanded on the humane, endearing, and physical qualities that George Lazenby brought to the role 51 years ago. Lazenby himself is quite superb; it’s true that he isn’t the strongest actor to have played the role, but that really doesn’t matter (at least to me), what Lazenby brings is a strong sense of vulnerability (perhaps one that other Bond actors lack). Lazenby’s Bond has the cocky, swaggering bravado that Sean Connery had in his tenure, but also had a sense of uncertainty, and at times, a sense of unease in the circumstances that he goes up against. While I unfortunately have to rank him below the other actors, that is certainly not due to his performance, but rather the lack of other great performances that we could’ve gotten from him in the series. As Peter Hunt stayed in the BTS documentary, George Lazenby IS James Bond. Diana Rigg remains the best Bond girl of the entire series; Tracy (for my money), stands head and shoulders above all of the other Bond girls in this franchise, and while there are many worthy successors to that title (Honey, Tatiana, Pussy, Solitare, Anya, Melina, Natalya, and Vesper), none of those girls have the class and sophistication that Tracy has. She is the only Bond girl that is every bit as equal as Bond, and they didn’t have to make her some super spy/ass kicking character. After all, she is THE only Bond girl to get him to the alter. Diana Rigg was an incredibly talented actress, and her legacy in the series will always remain a highlight. Telly Savalas is perhaps the best Blofeld (of those whose faces we actually see). He’s the only Blofeld to partake in the action scenes, whereas the unseen Blofeld of FRWL and TB seemed to have operated far away from the action, and Donald Pleasance, Charles Grey, and Christoph Waltz all seemed to have kept themselves distant from any physical confrontations. Savalas as Blofeld is willing to throw himself into the action; willing to partake in the chase for Bond, and later Bond and Tracy; and the only Blofeld who’s gone fisticuffs with Bond, and arguably kicked his arse. He’s also the only Blofeld (aside from Dawson/Pohlmann), who I could buy as a serious threat to society. While Donald Pleasance may be more iconic, Savalas is superior in many ways. Gabrielle Ferzetti as Draco is one of the best supporting characters in any Bond film. He has the warmth of Kerim Bay, even if his morals are a bit clouded by his own criminal activities. He has a charming quality to his character, that would later be replicated with characters like Columbo, and Mathis. He’s another standout performance, in a film filled to the brim with them. Isle Steppat as Irma Bunt is also a memorable character. When an actress/actor plays such a spiteful and hateful character, I myself always preface this by saying “Don’t hate the actor/actress, hate the character”. Irma Bunt IS such a hateful occurrence within the Bond universe. She is uptight, crude, and her underline devil-like quality is what makes her so memorable. It’s a huge shame that Steppat’s unfortunate passing prevented the further inclusion of Bunt in the next film, however one can simply chalk up her disappearance to Bond killing her in his quest to find Blofeld at the start of the next movie. In many ways, it’s a shame that it took many years for OHMSS to get the respect that it currently has. While some critics praised the film upon its initial release in 1969, others were less kind to it, perhaps it had more to do with the lack of Sean Connery more than the actual quality of the film itself. Whatever the case is, Majesty’s reputation, influence, and legacy will far outlive the films naysayers. It is, in my opinion, the best James Bond film to date, and a perfect way to send off the 60’s era of Bond. It stands at the very top of my rankings (sorry FRWL), and could quite possibly be my favorite film of all time (again, sorry FRWL). Majesty’s stands to be one of the very best films that I’ve ever seen, and contributes to my love of Bond, and cinema in ways that no other film inside, or outside the series has.
10/10 for me.
Great review! Completely agree with you.
My annual Christmas watch. I can't compete with the wonderful review above. Suffice to say, this is magnificent. I fell in love all over again with the amazing Diana Rigg. Is it a coincidence my own wife's name is Tracy...?
Seriously though, what an amazing film. A Bond film I never tire of. A 007 Christmas classic enjoyed with a few whiskys 👍😁