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
Still, that may be even harder then making a completely new, stand alone film. tbh I thonk it's quite amazing what they pulled off with CR, QoS and SF. SP wasn't that much to my liking, but elements of that film were really good.
All the films from Dr. No to Die Another Day are part of my cinematic persona. Even though some of these films, like Moonraker or Die Another Day, are (heavily) flawed I still like them, because the teenager in me has such a connection with these films.
Ever since the reboot in 2006 I just do not have the same connection with the Bond films. I can objectively admit that CR, QOS and SF are good movies and I do not dislike them, but I cannot warm to them in the same way as I could warm to the films of the original timeline. Maybe I would be more forgiving towards SP as well, but I just can't feel it.
I love the films from 1962-2002 despite some of their flaws, while I don't feel the same about the rebooted series despite their strenghts.
I understand this completely. It's an age thing. I feel the way you do about all the Bond films but my timeline is from 1962-1989. Everything after that - I had developed critical facilities especially in cinema appreciation and film criticism. I remember reading on these pages that people felt the same way post 1979 or even 1967.
Hence my appreciation pre1990 Bond is clouded by nostalgia and feelings of uncritical love. From Brosnan onwards is clouded by the fact I was well educated in cinema by 1995. There was one exception and this was CR - because it felt like an explosion of the spirit of Bond captured in Fleming's text. Being a Dalton acolyte I had wide eyes and even wider smile when this premiered - especially in the first twenty minutes and last two minutes of that film. It was electric in the cinema watching Bond being reborn that way.
You will be interested in this thread I created,matey :
https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/17747/in-search-of-james-bond-007-is-he-disappearing#latest
In the original Bond series, only a handful of films really attempted to touch base with the novels of Ian Fleming. "Dr. No" showed the Fleming feeling for character and action, but introduced elements to the plot that detracted from the 'hard-boiled' spy story that Fleming thought he was writing; "Thunderball" came close, but that was because Fleming developed the story on commission for the film. "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" had the book's plot pretty down pat, and was made in a kind of 'grand adventure' style. "The Living Daylights" showed the producers' interest in returning to the roots. "Goldeneye" was admirable attempt to update the Fleming milieu for the end of the Cold War, but left the character himself as yet without an 'updated' definition.
The character of Bond presented in Casino Royale may disappoint the average member of the public, but the news is, this is FLEMING's Bond - an orphan uncertain of his own identity, a disillusioned romantic trying hard to pretend he's incapable of emotions, a middle class, middle-brow, middle-level management type who just happens to kill people for a living. But he does it extremely well.
It is pure class.... and the best Bond film since Connery's first 4 films (and OHMSS).
Now onto the pre-curser to CR......There is nothing in Die Another Day that feels original or fresh. And the John Woo influenced cinematics have no place in a Bond film. And what's with the use of CGI in place of real stuntmen doing the impossible, as they did in every other film? Sure, it may look "super cool" in concept, but in fact it looks fake and out of place.
Of the four Brosnan Bond-films, this is by far the worst. The filmmakers aren't even trying to base the film in real life anymore, (dna manipulation and invisible cars!?!). Instead, the attention is focused on mindless action scenes with seriously crappy CGI and effects.
Moreover, the film looks awful, the dialogue consists of bad one liners and lame sexual innuendos, and the acting belongs in a made for TV movie, (Halle Berry is especially bad). Die Another Day easily qualifies as one of the worst films I've ever seen. James Bond has definitely passed his sell-by-date.
I have nostalgia for Connery, Moore, Dalton etc......but not for 2002......they nearly killed Bond with this film! there Is no nostalgia here.
Agree with most of the above posters - Craig’s era needs to end, but it’s been so long I have doubts we can ever get back to Cubby Bond, the Bond that people grew up loving and shared with family.
They’re not as bad as the latest Star Wars films, which represent some of the strongest cinematic destruction on record, but just because they’ve been less flashy doesn’t mean the effects haven’t been as damaging.
The production team realised DAD was crap, hence, why they changed direction. Brosnan went on record saying they went to far. I didn’t mean kill the franchise financially, just that the direction was in danger of taking away the past brilliance and venturing into parody. Financial success films doesn’t mean much in terms of quality.....look at Marvel and the new Star Wars films......Casino Royale brought back the spirit of Fleming but made more money at the same time....perfect.
I would argue that removing the guano stuff and the *GIANT SQUID BATTLE* probably made the film quite a bit more hard-boiled than the (excellent) novel.
I often wonder what would have happened to the franchise had they kept the giant squid in the movie, done by say Ray Harryhausen.
Sure they omitted the wisecracking, which was admittedly un-Fleming, but they also eliminated Bond’s refined style and turned him into a working class brute sans manners.
Mainstream audiences seem to think if you make James Bond an introvert and leave out the punchlines that you’ve got Fleming’s Bond, while they forget that Bond was also a little bit of a snob who felt at home in fancy surroundings. Craig’s Bond is quite the opposite, looking more like a kickboxer who made way too much money.
Also, there is no way you can or should update James Bond to the 21st Century. Fleming’s Bond was already an anachronism from the moment he first appeared and that’s partly why the books and the original films work so well. You cannot modernise 007, because in his essence 007 was never modern to begin with. Thankfully so.
Exactly well said! Eventually they need to get back to the character which existed for twenty films which everyone remembers and loves.
Very good post! People also forget that literary Bond and cinematic Bond are two completely different animals.
Wait so there was no space laser battle in the MR novel?
With that being said in regards to controversy.
MR is my favorite Moore film and my number 5 overall.
FYEO is my least favorite Moore and overall film.
But Craig’s portrayal of the character is very much Flemings in CR bar the blonde hair? Craig’s Bond is sophisticated and stylish? He has a taste for fine champagne, tailored suits, (including personal tux), caviar, Vodka Martinis, the finest scotch whiskey, he charms beautiful women, he attended Public School (that mean Private School to any Americans out there), he is the freehold owner of a Scottish Mansion, he has a Chelsea flat. Indeed he refuses to stay in cheap hotels even if it means risking his cover! The only complaint I have with Craig’s Bond is around his flat....he would have it just so.....it wouldn’t be empty.....it would be more like Connery’s in Dr No.
Correct.
The whole thing feels bland to me. Especially coming off Moonraker. I wasn't alive when these were released but it's like going from eating a Smores dunked in caramel to a plain graham cracker.
Lois Chiles is like a mannequin imitating a corpse.
FYEO is a breath of fresh air after the part parody that is MR. Parts of Flemings plots were used alongside a harder edged Moore. Moore’s second best film after LALD.
I also can't stand the music. Im always looking for Rocky Balboa pushing a log up the hil in the background of the ski chase. Stupid Conti. The gunbarrel tune is one of the best in the series I'll give him that. The warehouse raid is the best part of the film. The Citroen chase and the recovery of the ATAC are abysmal.
The Citroen chase is abysmal?? What have you been smoking?