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
Ignore him mate. The fact that it's Getafix leading the anti SF crowd pretty much proves that that's not true. It's just @actonsteve being a knob and making provocative comments about the Brosnan era and the people who like it as usual.
About SF being so appreciated here as a masterpiece, I'm not even sure it would end here on top of CR, actually.
CR is the better film, SF is the most fun. CR's great but a bit too serious. In SF Craig is more relaxed, and yeah the story is not perfect by a long shot but it's pretty damn fun. Bond's always been escapist fun, and I feel SF was the 21st century version of that, atleast so far. I'm sure if EON improves here and there for Bond 24, it could be the new proper TB. But that is only my opinion, for me TB is the perfect larger-than-life epic Bond adventure, and my favorite Connery outing. SF is the closest it's been to TB since the new millenium started, but it's not quite there yet.
But if B24 is Craig's YOLT, I'd be more than happy!
The underwater battle is beautifully shot and has a stunning balletic quality, but the movie overall for me is rather dull. I remember even as a kid really disliking the PTS and finding the rocket pack a really naff device - sort of the 60s equivalent of the DAD invisible car. A pointless gadget shoe-horned in for the sake of it. And seriously, does any one actually like the title song?
I love YOLT for the wonderful Japanese locations, music, and the incredible Ken Adamness of it all. Brilliant allies as well. Tiger is a legendary ally. And Pleasance as Blofeld versus some old Italian dude as Largo - c'mon, seriously? The whole Bond going Japanese thing is utterly absurd, but just can't help loving it. It all boils down to personal taste at the end of the day, but give me YOLT over TB any day, pacing included.
Connery's best performances are in the first 3 IMO, but even when he's not firing on all cylinders he's brilliant, so I've never bought this nonsense about him being supposedly bored in YOLT. I think he was p****d off with EON and clearly disturbed by the attention he was receiving from the Japanese media, but I still think he gives a fine performance.
Top 3.
1. GoldenEye
2. Licence to Kill
3. Skyfall.
That's a f****d up top 3! In a good way. ;)
1) Licence To Kill
2) The Living Daylights
3) Goldeneye
Last time I ranked the films Skyfall was 6th or 7th I think.
I guess so. I suppose I don't draw such big distinctions between the Connery and Moore eras. I think the main difference is that Connery started off at least, giving this really quite serious performances, amidst the fantasy crazyness, whereas Moore was always a bit more post-modern and self conscious. But I think there's also a lot more in common between the Connery and Moore eras than some people make out. The first 3 Connery films are probably the best in the series for me and after that it became a bit hit and miss. Moore is my second favourite Bond though, and at their best, there is an irresistible fun and entertainment quality to the Moore films that has never been bettered.
Totally agreed.
It's like any list - you have to have a first stab at it and then you work on it and refine it. For most people I expect it changes a bit over time. For me it's mainly about how much I enjoy the films. The top half of the table sorts itself out quite easily and then the bottom half is more about sifting the least bad from the truly awful.
I might give it a shot with my next Bondathon I do. It'll be hard picking through them after a while and I'm sure I'll constantly question it, but it can't hurt to try.
I think of which Bond film is my favourite (which will probably always be LTK), and put that down as no 1. Then I decide what my favourite is excluding LTK, which is TLD, so that's no 2. Then I decide which is my favourite excluding those two, GE, so that's no 3, and so on.
So I list my favourite as no 1, then decide which is my favourite out of the ones that are left, then I put that down as no 2, and again I decide which is my favourite out of the ones that are left. I repeat this until I've run out of films. Pretty easy really.
Thanks. I need to get around to rewatching them all. It's been too long since I last watched a Bond film.
I think there are a few key reasons SF is attracting a few more negative comments now, whilst QoS is getting more favourable comments amongst fans. I've listed 5 of them below:
1. QoS direction was shaky, unclear and jarring especially in the PTS. As a result, after the first viewing (which for most fans was after much anticipation, having shelled out the high cost of a cinema ticket, probably on a special night, etc.) viewers felt bewildered and like they joined a story half-way in (which in fact they did). With time, everyone has had time to watch the film a few more times, so they get the story, know what is happening, and can enjoy the finer points in context.
2. SF missed some great set-piece opportunities. Top one being a final fight to the finish between Silva and Bond. How refreshing to see Bond come off worst, and M step in to rescue him by sacrificing herself and Silva with a single bullet. A number of recent Bonds have missed a step in the third act. (TWINE is similar to TB, in that underwater finales just never feel fast-paced or grand enough).
3. CR gave Bond fans permission to be critical of storyline, script, performance and production qualities at a new level. QoS was an art-house picture visually, and stands repeated viewing for that reason. It is acquiring long-term fanbase respect for that.
4. Just as QoS needs watching a few times to understand and follow the events (see 1 above), so SF suffers as, with repeated viewing, after the big picture gloss has gone, flaws with story, plotting etc start to surface.
5. SF is still underestimated at this point. In time, its greatest achievement will be recognised. What few people seem to comment on about SF is how cleverly the makers have pulled together the two universes of Bond. After the Craig re-boot, a challenge has existed, whereby we haven't yet seen Bond get married, lose Tracy, face Blofeld, SPECTRE, SMERSH. We didn't know whether we would have to sit through those stories again, re-imagined (please God, no. If you've watched the new Star Trek films you will understand how tedious re-cooking a classic dish can be), or whether we have to lose that entire history and watch a new version of Bond where those events don't occur, in an alternative universe.
SF hints that all the events of 1-20 may have occurred since QoS; hence the Aston Martin equipped with gadgets from GF, and the older, wearier version of Bond that Craig portrays. We end up with M, his office, MoneyPenny, Q, a slightly stuffier and more old-fashioned version of MI6 - all the regular components of films 1-20.
In SF, though, the only potential anachronism between films 1-20 and 21-23 is Judy Dench being M, so in true Bond villain style, they just killed her off. All change with Ralph Fiennes.
(I'll have to eat my words if they are stupid enough to put Blofeld and Tracy into Bond 24, but if they are really smart, they'll just mention that Bond is widowed and we will be right up to date!)
This was one of my main issues with SF when I first saw it. It was as if MI6 was just utterly incompetent at every single stage of the movie. To the point that Bond gets the head of MI6 killed and then turns up for work as if he's the champion of the world. Any way, probably enough has been said on SF, although it is interesting discussing it and seeing how people see it so differently.
Mod edit: profanity removed.
:P
This. I don't understand the back-and-forth name calling and whatnot. People really get heated, it seems, when someone goes against SF. Brosnan's my favorite and he gets trashed a lot. You just have to counter points/opinions with your points/opinions and move on. Plus...we're on an Internet forum, most of us daily or weekly.
A forum solely dedicated to James Bond.
I think we might be past the point of saying who does or doesn't have a life. ;)
Wait- it's around here some place...
#-o
I have a smartphone: big deal I hear you say, as so does anyone over the age of 3 3/4 years old it seems. This of course means where there is any opportunity / downtime (and signal) in my life it can blissfully be enhanced by being here in this place. ;)
And I don't 'telly'. At all. I don't even own one - everything I watch are films or clips via my MacPro / Apple Cinema Display when I'm not doing work through it.
As for getting out more, I'm virtually always out whilst I am on here... I'm standing on the golden albeit moonlit beach as I type this! :P