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
+1
So, what does Christ have to do with it?
No we are not talking religion here
For real. I think we all learned that some things should not be discussed here.
I don't get bored with any of DC's Bond films. SP is the weakest entry of them, but I still watch it and get much out of it. In fact, SP has quickly become the "weirdest" of all Bond films, and by "weird" I don't mean in a David Lynch sort of way. I mean that there are tonal, dramatic, setting, and casting oddities that ultimately make a film so forgettable that it in turn it becomes unforgettable.
My point exactly, that’s why I asked.
I always found SP weird from the get go, which is why I’ve cut it some slack. There’s lots technically wrong with it, particularly in a narrative sense, but all I ask of my Bond’s is that they’re distinctive. For better or worse, I think SP is. Put it this way, I can’t imagine switching Bond out for any other character in either of CR, SF or SP, but it’s almost too easy to switch Matt Damon into QoS with little to no impact. It’s a generic film, that has none of the inventiveness or, indeed, oddities that make up the other three (to varying degrees).
QoS is a film suffering an identity crisis. It tries too hard not to be a Bond film, unlike CR and SF, for example, which are trying to be a ‘different’ Bond films, but Bond films all the same.
I’ve got to say, very clever. ;)
Profound misunderstanding of QOS IMO.
Possibly the most Bondian film we've had since 1987.
Far more reminiscent of very early Bond than anything else Craig has been in.
It's chocca full of classic Bondian elements but with a slight fresh. It absolutely wants to be a Bond movie but definitely doesn't want to be another greatest hits tick box exercise.
Bit like LTK. On first watch it's a "WtF" movie and then you rewatch and realise it's got 'James Bond' running through the middle like a stick of rock.
Also happens to challenge CR for Craig's best performance as Bond which way too many people just seem to overlook.
"Moore doesn't have what it takes to go the distance. He's just not James Bond. Get Connery. Even Jason Connery. Pay him whatever."
"Why does Cubby keep hiring Mankiewicz?"
"That was easily Barry's weakest score. Bring back Martin!"
etc.
B25 will be fine.
That's my point.
Well it would have been fair comment. He didn't really hit his stride til Spy.
Makes you wonder what Dalts would have done with a third movie, given he hit it out of the park from day one.
It’s nothing like early Bond. It’s far too earnest for that.
It is like LTK, in the sense both very closely ape the style du jour, but do nothing to progress it or mix it up. Where LTK is streets ahead is in its ability to tell an engaging story, with great characters. Sanchez and Greene are aeons apart. Both examples of trying to ‘ground’ the villains and their schemes in reality. One is pulled off with aplomb, the other is gossamer thin and dissolves on contact with air.
:)
+1.
Good points. I think QoS in the end is still a Bond movie, but definitely the most "conceptual" and "abstract" one. Still, remains a unique entry.
Agreed about Roger's performance he was at his best in TMWTGG & OP
The auteur Bond films, which I think we aren’t leaving anytime soon, I just find disappointing after CR. I wish they kept that creative team, focus on source material, and Craig’s performance for a few more movies.
I’m hoping Mar 1st will inject enthusiasm and confidence in where they’re headed.
I enjoy all Roger's films, some more than others. But I don't think anyone can deny he hit his stride with OHMSS.
Despite it's iconic status I find LaLD one of his most lacklustre entries. SPY by contrast is just firing on all cylinders.
Gun is highly entertaining but OP is perhaps my favourite Rog entry.
That line is delivered so smoothly you know he’s the man to look up to when you have to impress a woman on a date. I raise my glass to Moore in applause every time I hear him saying that line.
“There’s a useful four letter word, and you’re full of it. When I kill it’s on the specific orders of my government. And those I kill are themselves killers.”
He sounded very threatening there and very Bondian it draws a smile on my face in admiration of the man. One of Moore’s finest moments.
Indeed, take Moore’s portrayal of Bond in TMWTGG, and drop it into an overall superior film, and it would be a classic.