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
If you're calling me succinct I'll take that as a compliment.
You claimed that the question implies something. I said it doesn't imply anything of the sort. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Has the OP explained what he meant and what he implied by the question?
SF is 3 years old. We won't know whether it has 'evergreen' status like the old Bond greats for at least a decade. If someone thinks otherwise they either have a crystal ball or are letting their personal opinions cloud their judgement.
If you think this topic is finished, why keep posting in it?
I'm of two minds on this topic: has M:I surpassed Bond in making great movies? I'd say yes. I'd far rather watch MI4 and MI5 in an evening than SF and SP.
But Bond still reigns as the cultural icon. There's no website about the "Ethan Hunt lifestyle". There's (to my knowledge) no websites devoted to obsessively chronicling Hunt's wardrobe. No one has ever said "ever man wants to be Hunt, and every woman wants him."
Well, since when has "fan" become a dirty word? Fans are by no means professional journalists...or people who work for a movie company. At least not with something that's related to Bond. They do share one thing: Love for the franchise. And that's off course less objective than whatever professional is doing.
I like MI-1 very much now. I think it's a film that's far ahead of its time, visually and story wise. I didn't like it when it was released because it seemed a little too character driven and artsy even, but I think it's aged very well......certainly better than the generic 90's Bond fare. What they did then with that film is all the rage these days.
As I said before, MI has not surpassed Bond, but there are recent MI films that have certainly surpassed recent Bond films, and the rate of consistency of late has been better imho.
I think the first M:I film is the best of the 5. I don't see the Phelps in the film as the same character as the Phelps in the TV series.
MI:5
MI:4
MI:1
MI:2
MI:3
MI:5
MI:4
MI:2
02) M:I - 3
03) M:I - GP
.
.
.
.
.
04) M:I - 1
05) M:I - 2
What I disliked about "M:I 1" is how it confused me. There are simply...too many plot twists and turns in this first film. On top of that, Tom Cruise simply isn't a very good actor (I think he only excelled in "Magnolia" and "Eyes Wide Shut").
When Ethan (Tom Cruise) loses his mentor, loses his 3 team-members, fails at finishing an important mission and his chief officer tells he's the suspect - he finds the person behind these, Tom Cruise just stays.....cool and...sorry, for me that's a bit unbelievable. At least Daniel Craig is way more capable of showing off emotions.
Same
Ditto!
I felt the relationship between Hunt and his wife was beautifully done ,you actually care for the characters somewhat similar to CR ( though CR has It better)
I was able to buy the CR relationship because DC sold it well. His unbridled machismo charisma allowed me to accept his tenderness in the situation and also still accept him as a trained Govt. killer/assassin at the same time.
With MI3, for me, the problem was I couldn't buy Cruise in that scenario. He appeared more emotional but without the manliness/masculinity that DC brought. Sort of like how I felt with Brosnan towards Elektra in TWINE (my absolute bottom Bond film). So all of a sudden I see Cruise not as a trained govt. spy, but more as a emotional love sick puppy..
I did not feel that way about DC in CR or in QoS.
So I understand that if you connected with the relationship, then it worked for you.....otherwise it didn't.
That said, Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation smoke the first three films.
In hindsight, you have to blaim Ian Fleming for writing such a crap love story.
*not*
If only they'd have followed the Fleming story, it might have worked.
TWINE is in my bottom three:
TWINE
LTK
DAD
In no particular order.
I actually may agree with you that the way they sold the marriage/romance in MI3 (plot wise) may be more credible than the whirlwind romance in the later half of CR, but I just bought into it more due to the leads.
I do like TWINE.
:-L
What the hell....are we going to downgrade "CR" too and call it worse than "M:I 3". It seems all Bond fans are turning to 'The Dark Side'. Some people in here need to be forced in a torture chair. And I know how to destroy someone's balls. Anyone?? >-)
:-t
I laughed way too hard at that
Well, perhaps I feel a little bit depressed? It hurts me a bit to see people dissecting our 'own' new Bond film to death, until nothing 'fun' and 'exciting' is left of it.
And frankly, I saw the same thing shortly after "Skyfall" premiered. I think we lost the ability to simply feel entertained. And perhaps one reason for it that we can't live in the moment anymore. Everything has to be discussed....to death sometimes.
You know, I'm not a movie professional. But I am a Bond fan. And I really think we should be a bit more positive-spirited about our own Bond franchise. Perhaps I'm harsh to some people. But if you're a forummember in here long enough, you would have known I'm a staunch, at times objective, but especially now a very proud and subjective defender of Mr Bond.
One more thing, if there was social media back in the 1960's, then Bond would have died after "OHMSS".