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
good choices. planning to watch DN this coming week.
This. I agree 100%, only I do enjoy the occasional rewatch of DAD, for what it's worth. It's so bad, it's good! I'm entertained enough by it.
I didn't like SF upon first viewing either, but now that I am well past 10 plus viewings, I have come to accept and enjoy it. In fact I can't imagine it being any other way.
SF just didn't resonate tonally at first viewing. I could care less about the so-called plot holes. I've solved them all anyway.
Basically, with the 007 films, I have the first 7 films on a pedestal. Flawless iconic gems, all of them. Each blew me away upon first viewing.
LALD was quite good too on first viewing. Really liked it. Rog was adequate, as I did have doubts going in.
However, TMWTGG, was on first viewing a fail. My young self was quite crabby at the time, as it was the first Bond film IMO to be made, that was less then sheer perfection, and something to be raved about.
Main problem was that Rog did not convince as a tough guy. Smooth yes, but tough no. This had never happened before. He was passable in LALD, but it didn't quite work in Gun. Problem is, Rog moves like an ox. Nothing to be done about it.
However, I am long past. In fact, I had minor misgivings about the next 6 films too, right through to TLD, but have easily got past all minor quibbles.
LTK, although it didn't wow me, presented no meaningful complaints. Dalts was no longer puppy doggish over the lead Bond girl.
I never fully embraced Broz either, but I do very much like all 4 films. Great Bondian escapist fare.
My only serious misgivings with new Bond films post LALD, is how the character is portrayed.
Rog, Dalts and Broz are all lacking to some degree IMO, and my only serious beef with Craig, is the character drama, which doesn't interest me in the slightest.
I like Bond on mission with full mojo.......which is why I am real excited for SP.
Everything suggests this next Craig offering is going to be ultimate Bond.
There is absolutely nothing about this film, that I don't like so far.
I'd say itspretty much perfect and that Craig, with this film will emerge as a truly great Bond.
In fact, SP might push out all the post DAF Bonds, and grab the coveted 8th place ranking, behind the 7 untouchables. I think SP will be that good
In fact, I have already elevated Craig from last in my ranking to 3rd!!!!! vaulting ahead of Rog Broz and Dalts.
Sean and Laz are untouchable. Their work was 10/10 across the board. They both looked the part, they moved the part. Had the advantage of youth and in Sean's case, growing into mature Bond in DAF.
But with SP I think I will be elevating Craig into their grouping at least, and out of the lesser Bond category.
I have already elevated Seydoux to #1 on lead Bond girl rankings as well, and Bellucci to #2 in secondary Bond Girl rankings, behind only Maud Adams as Andrea Anders
(Maud is on untouchable pedestal there) based on the glimpses that we have, of their look and performance potential so far.
Waltz, we don't know. Not enough to work with yet.
So for me, SF has improved with endless viewings. These movies grow on me. We get beyond the initial misgivings, which I find are born of expectations, by a bar set so high initially, that alas it seems impossible to reach again.
I can though rank all 23 films at this point as 10/10 , even QoS, with the first 7 being super 10's I guess.
SP is going to be a turning point in the canon. The first real great Bond since maybe OHMSS.
No wonder the Craig era has been problem.
Seydoux number one? Before the film is even out?
I have high hopes for SP as well, but I think we need to see it first.
RE: the Craig era and the character drama, I hear you, but I personally don't mind it because it does add a certain depth, and is almost a requirement now in a post-Bourne/Bat world (even Marvel is doing it). The actor chosen for Bond is critical for this to work however, and I think because DC has the required alpha male machismo, he can carry off the drama better than most while still retaining his mojo (something I personally felt the good Brozz was woefully inadequate at due to his, from my perspective at least, somewhat effiminate presentation).
As you know, I am purposely engaging pre-release hyperbole.
Thus Seydoux is presently occupying #1.
I will confess to having somewhat of a Seydoux fixation. I was quite taken by her, when I first took note of her in Farewell My Queen, before she was announced for Bond.
Since the SP confirmation, I have been diligently watching as many of her films as I can get my paws on, including many of her French cinema works. Even watched one without subtitles.
@Bondjames No problem, I realize many do like the character depth being explored in the Craig era.
For me though, doesn't interest in the slightest. I am good with Bond on mission. Always have been. What makes Bond both interesting and exciting in my book, is how he executes the mission via his smooth deadly unflappable persona.
I like him in his prime age, at top of game, methodically being Bond and going about mission, basically just like Fleming wrote him. Sure Fleming gave us a lot of internal monologue stuff, but basically Bond was blunt intrument from adventure to adventure.
Lost his mojo after Tracy was killed. Understandable, but got it back real quick after hanging with reprobates Dikko and Tiger in Japan, and was back in a big way when he figured out who was living in that castle.
So what I like about SP, and what's causing new interest in the Craig portrayal, is that this film, is setting up to be a real good Bond adventure, with Bond mojo fully intact.
Craig can play Bond, better than three of his predecessors IMO.
I am expecting ultimate Craig Bond and ultimate 007 adventure with this new film.
And I don't think I will be disappointed, as I know what Craig can do when he is given the material ie Macau casino interlude in SF, and plenty of other examples in all three of his films.
And yes DAF is of course my favourite Bond film. We all have our favourites. I won't say its the best Bond, but is my favourite. If only one movie is allowed on the desert island, I'm bringing DAF, slam dunk.
"Best" film, which is of course subjective opinion, would be either FRWL or OHMSS.
DAF is first in my favourite rankings though, followed by TB, YOLT, GF, DN, FRWL and OHMSS.
The Sean portrayal trumps all, so OHMSS as brilliant as it is, can place no higher than 7th. I like dangerous deadly unflappableBond combined with escapist, even outlandish , adventure.
And this is what I think will be served up in SP. Should be epic. And maybe some character drama, but not so much that it gets in the way of the 00 agent on mission.
For the record, i think the last two Mission Impossible films have been excellent and far better spy/action films than any of the Craig Bonds and i am looking more forward to MI:5 than SP.Incidentally, both upcoming films have their roots in the sixties and deal with the return of a criminal organisation from that era ( Syndicate in Mission Impossibles case ).
^:)^
I also want to see Bond on a full mojo mission - no messing around this time please. No mummy issues, feeling a bit miserable etc. It feels like the Craig era has been teasing us up until now. And that's 9 years of teasing. I've been saying for a long time that I don't actually feel that Craig has been given the chance to give us the classic Bond that I think he's capable of. None of his films fully achieves the same level of enjoyment as the best of the Sean and Roger eras. We had rooky Bond, angry Bond and then immediately after that we had over the hill Bond. I like Craig - always have done - but I don't feel he's been allowed to just let rip as Bond yet. CR was good, but Bond was deliberately portrayed as still a work in progress. I really enjoyed QoS, but it's a shame that Bond clearly doesn't - I want to see Craig's Bond really enjoying the finer things in life. And SF was just a bit depressing. It's well beyond the point now where we should have got a full on proper Craig Bond movie and I am hopeful (once again!) that this is what SP is going to give us.
Oh no - don't spoil it for me! I need to be able to hope.
Hope, my friend. Hope. Give it an hour, and who knows! We could be whistling a different tune after that first teaser.
Another thing the article said was that by making every film a personal story for bond, everything becomes very convenient and it makes the world of the films feel very small. Also, after three films of broken bond, the character itself starts to look kind of weak.
I hope we get a proper bond on a proper mission with SP, and also I hope the Gunbarrel returns as that would seem to indicate that we are back to classic bond formula!!
:)>-
Link by any chance?
Many on here have penning variations of those same concerns for lo, 3 years.
They all end on the same note basically but we never get the next instalment.
I'm so much more happy with this as opposed to years of remaking the next film with a different villain and scheme. Tick the box efforts, from SWLM onwards all the Moore Bond aren't much different, yes there are some subtle changes but they all tread a similar path. CR, QOS & SF are distinctly different and no I don't want to go back to those scenes where the villain tells Bond his scheme leaves him to die rather than shooting him and then Bond foils everything and saves the day.
We've had countless films like that but it seem some just want the same over and over again just because it's cosy. I think that is the point Bond films were reliable from GF onwards, OHMSS definitely stands out from the bunch because it feels dangerous. Even the Dalton's have a familiar feel and the Brosnan's were just rip offs of previous entries.
I'd much rather have new rather than tried and tested although some of you just want man on a mission with no depth, I seriously hope we don't get that type of Bond for a long time and they continue to emotionally invest these entries and never have Bond utter casual racist remarks like "that will keep you in curry for weeks" no it's not funny it's offensive.
If you want that kind of thing then re-watch the previous 20 films, we've only had 3 films and a fourth on the way and some people just want cosy and familiar, I personally hope we never return to such unimaginative films for a long time.
Fleming a hack? How offensive!
Exactly.
Fair point and totally respectable position to take but slightly unfair summary of what others have been saying. My point was actually that there's a danger the Craig era just repeats itself over and over by rehashing some emotional background story (which is arguably not very well conceived in the first place ) and then seeming to reintroduce the character at the end of every movie. It feels like the tape is stuck in a bit of a loop.
I think the tonal difference in the earlier Bonds was arguably greater - the change from MR to FYEO for instance. OHMSS to DAF. Or even TLD and LTK. The Craig era feels relatively monotone by comparison.
To think it got by then, sorry if casual racism offends me, you'll excuse anything when it's Bond. I also find it offensive in Temple of Doom as well.
Just because Fleming wrote something doesn't make it acceptable, is that your default excuse for everything offensive within the Bond cannon?
You like Britt Eckland. I find her offensive to women, Bond characters and low brow comedy in general.
You're quite right. Let's see how SP pans out, but beyond this I'd like to see Bond reacting to the world around him, dealing with the present, as happened in CR. Adding depth to a character doesn't always have to involve looking backwards, or fleshing out history.