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
YOLT trumps the other two for many reasons. Reason #1- Connery, Connery, Connery. Two, the most beautiful girl of all Bond girls (to me), the "Brigitte Bardot" of Japan, Mie Hama. Three, we finally see Blofeld. Four, the magnificent volcano set. Five, well I guess everyone who agrees will get it. Compared to others in the series, I consider YOLT middle of the pack or so but I'll always love the movie and will always be happy to watch it when I do.
The interesting thing is that I got into Bond when it was basically a Connery vs Moore situation...a classic example of young guys thinking that they're only allowed to like one of two things. All the guys at my school LOVED Connery when we first saw the GF and DAF double feature but they quickly jumped to Moore when they saw his films because they were new and exciting, and more "in style" and current.
As much as I loved Bond when I was young (which describes every guy) I had really written the films off by the time of Moore's retirement. I hadn't really thought they would make the films any differently than the Moore films, and when Brosnan's name was first bandied about I thought that confirmed that the "Moore style" was the permanent style of the Bond films. I did like Brosnan as Remington Steele, but he seemed FAR too lightweight for Bond, even as a Moore clone.
I had heard when Dalton was cast but when I heard his resume I was only surprised, not excited. A "Shakespearean actor" as Bond? Wow, weird choice. Then I saw him on the cover of a magazine (GQ?) and thought well, he's kind of strange looking but wow, he's a lot younger than Moore. And he certainly looks a lot more like Fleming's Bond. Then the good reviews for his performance came in and I saw TLD, my third Bond film in a theatre (after OP and NSNA). I was blown away by Dalton, and although the film wasn't a classic like the ones from the 60s it was a huge improvement over what I had seen of the Moore years. Reading that Dalton read all of Fleming inspired me to read the books which I had tried at 12 years of age - and hated. I quickly read all of the books and gained even more appreciation for his performance. When LTK came out I was shocked - I thought it was so "different" that it took me a couple of days to decide what I thought about it (I realized that I loved it). I was very upset when Dalton's third film was delayed - I figured it would be his GF or TSWLM.
When Brosnan was cast I was surprised - for some reason I thought his time was past. I worried again that his performance would be more like Moore's but I was actually quite impressed with him in GE - although some of that had to do with REALLY low expectations. I thought Campbell directed him quite well and even made him convincingly tough, although at times he seemed to be playing Remington Steele rather than Bond. But he grew on me, and I thought he got better and more comfortable with each film.
The funny thing is, as soon as I saw what Craig did with the role in CR there was an immediate, retroactive diminishment of Brosnan in my mind. Craig's conviction, his presence, his interesting line readings, his wide range of emotions - it was a revelation to see what a great actor could do with the role. I still really like Brosnan, and he switches with Dalton on my list of Bonds:
1) SC
2) DC
3/4) tie or often switching places - TD/PB
5) GL
6) RM
As one of the few on here who has managed the Herculean task of seeing all the films I can inform you that DAD is not just a poor Bond film, its a poor film period.
And as actonsteve eloquently outlined DAD is woeful from the start not just after it reaches Iceland (although for me the moment Jinx hoves into view is when the film is fatally holed below the waterline - up until that point it is still salavageable).
The hovercraft chase is another dull Vic Armstrongs by the numbers overchoreographed Universal Studios live action stunt show for the family (dont get me wrong I have a lot of respect for Vic but hes not a director and hes not particularly creative). The Cuba scenes are decent for about 5 mins and then we have Jinx, an idiot trying to disguise himself by changing race but not bothering to think he might still be recognisable by the load of easily removable diamonds embedded in his face, more Jinx and a godawful CGI dive.
I'm also not buying that the swordfight is a stunning action scene. Its serviceable but again overchoreographed and honestly would Flemings Bond kick off in the middle of a gents club? I think not. Would have much preferred a proper fencing scene with the villain rigging the machine or something rather than this shoehorning in of another action scene.
There are 3 decent moments in the first half of the film - Bond walking into the hotel, catching the gun as it falls off the MRI scanner and kicking the foil into the camera. Honourable mention too to the surfing sequence which doesnt get any recognition but is practically the only stuntwork done for real in the whole film. DAD is dross from start to finish and the only reason the first half is regarded as good is the 2nd half jumps the shark so badly it just seems that way but its all relative. The first half is better but not good.
The pan across the roof top set to Barrys music in YOLT and the PTS (Jaws aside) and Derek Meddings effects for the shuttle launches (again set to Barrys music) in MR are better than DAD in its entirety. I would even go as far to say to Flash that you ought to get hold of a copy of MR ASAP as if you mentally erase the awful moments (and they are just moments - not sustained misery like DAD) such as Jaws flapping, the pigeon, the hovercraft, Jaws & Dolly then there are more Flemingesque moments than DAF, LALD, TSWLM, and any of the Brozzas including your beloved DAD all of which presumably you have seen.
The astonishing PTS, the centrifuge, the death of Corinne, the death of the scientists are all played dead straight and are pretty dark. Even the space scenes are by and large done straight and are pretty well within the realms of scientific possibility. I'll agree with your contention that it is a whole different animal to FRWL and OHMSS but then so are YOLT and the lamentable DAF which you dont appear to have a problem with.
Whilst I am a devoted Fleming Bond fan, I can happily turn my brain off from time to time and thoroughly enjoy a YOLT or a MR as they do offer pure entertainment, whereas even with your brain switched off DAD is an insult.
At the very least you are missing out on some of John Barrys best work by imposing this rather irrational ban on yourself. The space scenes are beautifully scored and his rendition of AVTAKs theme song as the airship approaches he Golden Gate bridge is epic.
At least the fact that you are a Blackadder fan fills me with hope that you are not beyond redemption but why not lighten up and give Moore another go as theres plenty of juicy nuggets of Bondishness in MR, AVTAK and even TMWTGG that are well worth your perusal. But not DAD.
* just in case anyone thinks I'm being excessively obnoxious towards thelordflasheart, whilst thats true the intelligent amongst you should recognise the literary allusion.
We don't have to all love one or the other, simply accept that we don't all feel the same way.
And I don't rate DAD that much, I just thaink that the almost aggressive anti-DAD feelings are intimidating and anyone with a more measured opinion will get shouted down.
Apologies WIZARD but I do really like the sword sequence. Yes its again silly and "un-Fleminglike" but would his character really drive through Venice in an adapted hovercraft? I think not. I'm going to go a step further and say I'd actually take the fencing scene over the gondola hovercraft sequence. Its one of the very few high points of DAD (despite the proceeding Madonna cameo). It's classically filmed, well staged and memorable.
Both films have made me cringe heavily in the past and thus both aren't ranked that highly in my mind. However MR is still the better film of the two IMO simply because of Michael Lonsdale and the SFX. Die does have some good qualities (a good performance from Pierce and the q workshop scene to name 2). However it also has some VERY bad ones.
In regard to MR I do think people are being a little bit too kind to that one. It seems to be made out to be a great entry on this site but it really isn't THAT great IMO.
Fair points about DAD being genetically closer to MR the book than the film of MR is. The fact that they were using (however loosely) one of Flemings best books as a template makes it an even bigger travesty that it turned out as it did.
The point here is that my defence of MR or my ‘letting it off lightly’ is being done so only in relation to the competition it is up against. If it comes to MR v FRWL or OHMSS then obviously MR is poor but invisible cars, Jinx, the villain in a cartoon Robocop suit and more CGI than Transformers are in a whole different ballpark to space shuttles (which actually exist!) and momentary aberrations such as pigeons and circus tents.
(gap)
MR
(humungous gap)
DAD
18. MR
22. DAD
But it seemed to morph into something the epitome of ghastliness.
One day when Purvis and Wade are in their dotage and Tamhori has ascended to the great cross-dressing toilet in the sky we are going to find out how much they did change. Invisible cars? Gene therapy? Laser satellites?
But the worse thing about it is that the charm has gone. It almost is a parody of a Bond film with enough naff innuendo to sink a Carry On film. In fact Tamahori alluded the Bond films to the Carry on films. The Bond films have always sent themselves up but have always done it with abit of class. DAD just doesnt have it. It tries for classic Bond but misses every time.
As for being not hard enough on MR.? It has faults - big ones. Ones that almost sink it but the charm ladled on by Cubby, Lewis and Roger does tend to make it more forgivable.
MT is like a big old english sheepdog - knocking you down with its friendliness. DAD is like an incontinent daschaund shitting all over the floor.
I never thought about the loose ties to the plot of the novel Moonraker and this film - but I still don't think that it gives any more reason to have a pass over the film Moonraker - just because there are some loose ties to Fleming's work... almost every film up to a certain point had some connection to Fleming's work, but I never heard them getting that little bit of a pass - just because there seems to be more Fleming Bond in DAD than MR..... which I have to contest in this instance..... while yes, it may have those connections, the complete lunacy of this film bastardized those connections, at least to me it does.... and the plot holes in this film are often times so big, you could parasail 100 CGI Brosnans through 'em..
Beyond being just a horrific mishmash of 5 different (previously used) plot elements, that were thrown into a CGI blender.... it literally felt like I was watching a generic, run of the mill disaster flick, with James Bond thrown in the mix - if you get my meaning.... it was devoid of any real wit and charm like other posters said above... instead of plot and character development furthering the story - it was cringe inducing grade school dialog, action, and at times, the most wooden and unenthusiastic Bond performance delivered in the series' history.... insert Vin Diesel, this could've been his xXx part 2.... DAD was about as mainstream, and run of the mill "status quo" action film as you could get.
Ironically Lee Tamahori directed XXX2 aswell :-)) (that was terrible and had equally bad SFX).
Although, I can't agree with you on Sir Rog's Bond, of course, flashy. Still, it'd be a dull world if we all thought and felt the same way on things, eh...? ;)
working on the other side of the camera as i have now, i realize there is only so much a director can do with what he has (in terms of the story)... but I couldn't find one instance where Tamahori made me go, "wow, that was an amazing shot" - or - "what a brilliant choice of editing" ....... as horrid as the story was - directing and editing were equally as terrible..
the only cool shot in the whole film, came right before the main sword fight, where Bond kicked the sword towards the camera...... but that was not by design - it was just a happy accident, so i only give Tamahori half credit on that one, for recognizing it and leaving it in the film.
I know in my mind which man is the more poised, the more graceful and the more sophisticated ;)
Brosnan got me into Bond and hence will always be one of my favourites - despite DAD.
Brosnan got me into Bond as well - and thats why I can't fully hate on the guy.... and really, I don't hate or dislike any Bond actor... i like all the movies really, and would rather watch them over anything else.......... except for just that 1 Bond movie lol..
but as I got into the series more and more, I realized that Brosnan's best performance was in his debut film Goldeneye.. he got progressively worse.... what i initially liked about Pierce (in GE) was that he seemed to pull off the toughness of Sean, and the humor of Roger, and was a nice sort of hybrid of the two... but as his tenure went on - he started becoming more of straight clone of Roger... and as it stands today GE remains Brosnan's best outing as 007.
"You couldn't kill me... you'd miss me..."
(yes?) ".... DIVE! BOND!-" BANG!
"I never miss."
classic.
the only downer is that he didn't then unload a round into Denise Richards as well ;-)
I always enjoyed the line
(Goldie): After you.
(Bond) No, after you (jams gun in back) I insist.
That's Bond down to a tea and Brosnan delivers the line perfectly. Confident and self assured.
As for TWINE, I'm much less impressed by Brosnan. Most of that film feels like artistic wannabe stuff and Brosnan seems a bit unaware sometimes of how he has to move. I thought he was particularly weak and shallow when playing in a scene with Sophie, whereas when on screen with Denise, he's suddenly a lot better. I wonder why. ;;) Yet again, the third act destroys everything for me. Aboard the sub, Brosnan's less than average IMO but here too I wonder who could have done the job well when immersed in such a screenwriting mess.
MR: Music, cinematography, direction, locations, humor, PTS, villains, henchmen
YOLT: Bond, action, Bond song, sets
DAD: Girls
Have to agree with a lot of what Hasreot and actonsteve have said. MR and DAD are both packed with un-Flemingian moments and naffness and indeed downright cringeworthy moments - the difference is MR manages to pull it off and DAD doesnt. MR treads a very fine line but just keeps on the edge whereas DAD falls into the abyss.
Reasons for this? Rog at his best, ditto Barry, class stunt work, proper SFX, screenwriters who could write an innuendo? I dont know if thats enough but whatever it is MR gets away with it like a cheeky schooolboy whereas everything abaout DAD is painfully forced and layered on like a 50 year old whores make up.
James Bond: I fell out of an airplane without a parachute.
James Bond: You dont believe me do you?
Miss Moneypenny: No.
There's a sense of disbelief among the characters themselves about what's happening in the film.
The Bondola really makes no sense. Why would anyone design a custom gondola just for a chase through Venice? Surely there's easier and less obvious ways to sneak up and chase someone.
Drax is a highlight, as are the locations, and of course the John Barry score.
Personally I don't mind Jaws becoming a good guy and falling in love. He's such a likable character that it's nice to see him come out on the good side.
Moonraker's first half is actually great but is over shadowed by it's insultingly silly and superfluous second half.
Die Another Day suffers the same problem as Moonraker; the first half is considerably better than the second. DAD's first half isn't all too bad, but once Halle Berry becomes a larger player and that parasailing scene ensues, the film becomes unsalvageable.
As far as the films hold up in the rankings for me:
#11) You Only Live Twice - 7.5/10
#19) Moonraker - 5.5/10
#20) Die Another Day - 5/10
..but if you were to remove all the dumb stunts, ridiculous plot devices, awful dialog and nostalgic callbacks... you might as well rewrite the whole script...... or throw it out..... i prefer the latter lol.