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'd watch it for Walken's performance alone.
Exactly.
This is what happened with For Your Eyes Only, the Dalton films and TWINE for me. I adore all four now.
As someone who was a big advocate of Dalton from the get go after watching both his entries recently I came to the conclusion that he's a great Bond but his entries aren't, they have their moments but even times even TLD seems uneven and jars with his interpretation.
I starting to doubt LTK gritty credentials, yes it's got some gory moments and Bond swearing but the crow barring of tick the box moments underwhelm an otherwise admiral attempt to inject some Fleming back into the series after the Playboy Moore era.
That being said I think I would return to these films if only to see Dalton's Bond.
I only recently watched the Craig films and still continue to enjoy them, QOS is better as a companion piece to CR but I wouldn't watch on it's own and I still continue to enjoy Skyfall immensely.
As for the previous entries I think I would watch again
DN
FRWL
GF
TB
YOLT (mainly for Barry's score though)
OHMSS
SWLM
FYEO
TLD
LTK
I was talking to a non-Bond fan at work today who told me he'd seen Octopussy on TV last weekend. His response? Meh it was ok. Although he said he wasn't really "on board" with Moore's Bond.
As someone who enjoys OP I was a tad disappointed but not really surprised.
Would it be one I'd call a "must see" though? Probably not to be honest.
Funnily enough my colleague also said he saw adverts for a few of the Connery ones and commented "he's so much better".
I've thought about this and I think I've realised why Moore's Bond doesn't work for some - he's too "likeable". In todays climate of Daniel Craig, being likeable doesn't really cut it.
Dalts rulz!
I'm tempted to put FYEO in there too as it shows Moore at his most serious, but ultimately I think Spy just has too many iconic elements to ignore (the PTS, Carly Simon, Jaws, Atlantis etc)
Dalton is Bond. End of.
:D I know. I always advise anyone who hasn't seen 'em all to skip DAF-LALD-TMWGG. The early 70's were quite simply the PITS for cinematic Bond.
I truly don't get what some people see in Live and let die the movie - read the book instead.
Yes, you state this in nearly every thread you post.
This is what makes the series fun - hindsight! Knowing now what they did wrong back then. The bad Bond films weren't meant to be bad, they just got stuff wrong. They are still to be admired in some capacity.
Bond films remain a work in progress. Embrace them all, good and bad.
Couldn't have put it better.
Moore at his youngest and therefore perhaps most plausible.
A superb cast of villains headed by a really underrated performance by Yaphet Kotto.
Jane Seymour!
Including all of the sparkling dialogue.
Featuring some truly outstanding stunt work.
Let's not forget one of the best (if not the best) non-Barry scores in the entire series?
You must give me the number of your oculist.
Yes, that is a large part of my enjoyment of it!
Exactly.
Just doesn't do it for me. It's too tacky and plodding. Even Jane Seymour and the good score don't redeem it...
Having said that it's a darn sight better than DAF or TMWTGG, but don't get me started on those
8-|
Exactly !
But ultimately they're all worth at least one watch, apart from the Brosnan ones - don't even bother. In my mind it wasn't a six year stoppage between LTK and GE, it was a 17 year one between LTK and CR. Seen this way the average quality is much higher.
Perhaps, but I back it up by explaining that the Moore Bond is first about the gag, the giggle, the tickle and the laugh above all else, where the laugh should be the surprise element of the character and is done so much better by the other actors. Even the Bros tries to take the character seriously, which is the sin I take Moore to task for, simply not taking the character seriously.
I'll admit the films are flawed but I too am glad they exist. Personally I think GE through to TWINE are better than several other entries.
As far as the production levels are concerned I don't actually think they are any more flawed than a large amount of the canon. The one criticism that I think is applicable across the board with the Brosnan era is that his films can be seen as following a greatest hits template, rather than doing anything that could be perceived as risky or forward thinking.
They clearly didn't feel like they were in a position to break from expectation, as happened in '06, and I find that completely understandable. That's not to excuse the fact they seemed happy to adhere to the template, but in amongst the contrivances I believe there are genuine moments that stand up against the rest of the series and I think the era contributes more than its fair share to the wider image of the cinematic 007.
To sum it up, I don't know a single band for whom their 'greatest hits' is my favourite album. Bringing together everything that seemingly defines a band into one record doesn't quite have the same appeal as a standalone album, defined by its time, by its cultural and emotional resonance - that's the Brosnan era for me. Too many boxes to be ticked and not enough genuine invention or desire to think outside those boxes. A little more restraint regards implementing the tried and tested and a more courageous appetite for change and the films would have benefitted. As it is, I'm pretty confident that was never going to happen. Plus, I still get a kick out of seeing Brosnan as Bond.