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
Yep. One of my most watched Bond films :D
Oh yes! I love those quick opening shots and then we're straight into a brutal car chase! Damn i love this film!
Yeah. I love how the build-up intensifies, as the shot gets closer the Bond's eye.
I agree. It's either people love it or absolutely hate it. I'm in the former
It's just about in my top ten, but i do think it's overrated. Too many inconsistencies IMO.
I have a lot of problems with the middle section of the film.
That's also my sentiment. I appreciate several elements in it, but overall I'm not a fan. It's my least favourite of them all, including NSNA.
However, rest assured gentlemen, it is very well-regarded generally. You can go to pretty much any ranking online and it will always be somewhere in the top 10, more in than outside the top 5's, and even several top spots.
Yep, a bit baffling to me, it will never crack my top 10, I just don't enjoy it as a Bond movie!
I believe there's a really quick shot as Bond flicks the safety off of his machine gun..
Yeah.
Oh, and I meant "Closer to Bond's eye"...slight typo from me.
Nice to know I'm not alone in my lack of enthusiasm for SF. It's especially frustrating because it has some of the best cinematography and direction in the series and Silva was the best villain in years. It just feels too much like a Bond film starring M with Bond in the supporting role, almost a TWINE redux.
This is another big reason SF doesn't work for me is there are no real standout action pieces. The MI series was raising the bar on such scenes and Bond began lagging. The opening bike chase and train fight didn't come close to the series' best takes on such scenes and the Macau casino with the Komodo dragon felt more like it was from the Moore era, almost played for laughs.
That said, I am a fan of the underrated QoS. The consistent criticisms of it seem to be Greene and the plot being underwhelming. Otherwise, I find it a nice combination of story, spying, action and Bond's journey.
I like QoS well enough, but if a movie's editing fails to communicate basics of what is going on--conventions established over a hundred years of filmmaking--upon a first viewing (I don't think anyone understood the boat chase on his/her first viewing), QoS has failed on some level.
No one goes into Bond expecting an experimental film. It's not Warhol or Anger. So I think Forster failed on that level.
The Bourne films don't quite push the editing to the point of incomprehension the way QoS does, but Bourne comes close to that line too.
This is partly why SF was so well-received, by comparison. Its editing is classical and easily understood on the very first viewing.
Yes, but SF is deathly dull! What little action there is, is poor and not on the grander scale of other Bonds. And QOS has great action scenes, but it has very strong dramatic scenes too. I would also take issue with SF being better photographed, it has a few very striking scenes, but a lot of the interior sequences I find flat! I think QoS has a richer look throughout and I prefer Schaefers work here!
Apart from that, I always found TMWTGG to be the most Flemingesque Moore entry, with the dramatic scenes (Lazar, Bond and Scaramanga meeting at the arena) being just as engaging as the stunts and chases. There's a good deal of pathos in the movie that balances out the humor. It's not as sterile as TSWLM and MR. Bond actually seems like a killer, and Moore does the icier scenes very well.
And of course bringing Jaws back was a mistake...is there another film earlier in the series that feels as much like a sequel as MR does to TSWLM?
An interesting question, @echo. I get the sense that Cubby and others where playing it safe. TSWLM had cost a small fortune and had been Cubby's first solo Bond. Plagued by lawsuits and such, it had been a huge bet. But it had paid off. I understand the temptation to do it again, especially with the Star Wars wind in the sails of a more space-themed Bond. And at least financially, it paid off again.
I'm a fan of the '80s Bonds, bar AVTAK. One thing that can be said about all of them, though, is that they all feel different; no two of them are alike, neither in tone, nor in concept, nor in setting. Watch FYEO and then LTK: in one of them, Bond lectures a girl on the personal traps of going out on a personal vendetta; in the other, Bond himself is vendetta personified. Isn't that great? I love that most Bonds are similar and yet also very dissimilar.
As for SF, I don't care if for some people it is not well-regarded. For me, it is solidly among the top five of the franchise, and I keep watching it for enjoyment.
(Just realized I forgot to actually post this about 2 1/2 hours ago, so this does not take the last four postings into account.)
I'm with you on this. Unforgettable foes, great atmosphere, a superb Rog, a fine score and the Golden Gun itself.
Interesting discussion on Skyfall in here. I agree with this take but I still probably hold the film in higher regard. I particularly think the action in the PTS is pretty fantastic; the cinematography, and generally the beautiful nature of the visuals makes up for the dullness in my opinion. Maybe strange but I sometimes consider it the Bond franchise's Mona Lisa; obviously an outstanding achievement and I have the utmost respect for it, but yeah, I'd prefer to engage with something else more often than not.
Yeah. Anyway, all Moore's movies have humor and compared to Octopussy and Moonraker this movie seems like Billy Wilder.
Even then I think it's more Bond fans who feel that way about it. Most people I know outside these forums would say it's one of the best Bond films. Without it I really can't see Craig's Bond era being quite as successful.
Anyway, for me TND is one I can't understand not being quite as well regarded. I think nowadays it has a much better reputation amongst wider audiences owing to the media mogul/fake news aspect (and how entertaining the film itself is), but I'm actually quite surprised it wasn't quite as well received at the time. It's not perfect (no film is) but it's got that wonderfully fast, but fine tuned pace to it the very earliest Bond films have, and it's fun and even dramatically gripping to watch in places. It's one of my most watched Bond films.
I think the problem is that it's not a GE sequel. I'm not a GE fan so I don't care. This is more fun and more suitable for Brosnan.
I can sort of understand how after GE TND was seen as an odd follow up. It's much faster paced and slightly more action orientated. That said to me it feels more or less in line with GE. Both involve modern takes on the megalomaniac Bond villain trope (amongst other Bond tropes) and we get characters from Bond's past being involved in the plot to dramatic effect. I personally rate both highly.