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
However, I personally think Brosnan's acting in TWINE is one of the most offensive performances in the 23 official film canon. He was much better in DAD (someone must have given him a good talking to) and I can actually watch DAD from start to finish. TWINE is the one I cannot for the life of me get through without feeling nauseous (and there is no other Bond film that I feel this negatively about.....not even close). Marceau is brilliant in it though......the one positive aspect of that mess of a film imho.
^:)^ =D> ^:)^
That sums it up to me.
I agree. Elektra is the most overrated Bond girl in the series both in looks and character. I didn't find anything particularly special about her at all and it almost sickens me how emotional Bond got when he watched the tapes of her captivity. I don't know if it was the script or Brosnan's wrong approach to acting the scene or a combination of the 2 but one thing's for sure; Natalia is the best Bond girl from the Brosnan era and one of the best in the series and Brosnan's best performance as Bond was in DAD.
I agree completely. I too get sick at that teary eyed computer screen touching thing.... I also feel Natalya is hands down the best of that era (truly up there with the best of them) and Brosnan was best in DAD imho.
As if any Brosnan film was a true Bond movie.
Yes that screen touching had me cringing. Bond's behaviour was just so inappropriate.
Completely DISagree.
Let's face it: Natalia was throughout the film the "good girl". Like so many previous Bond girls. She was smart -computer programmer-, but nothing really "changed" about her character.
Tracy? By jolly, from a suicidal, chronically depressed woman, she starts to flourish when she gets to know Bond better. And until her death, she was finally happy again.
Vesper? The complete opposite of Tracy. She starts off as an overly self-assured business-babe. But during the film we get to slowly know her double agenda better. An agenda that facilitated her death by suicide.
Elektra? She starts of as a rather vulnerable beautiful girl, who inherits a fortune. Like Vesper she's very self-assured, but in such a way that she lets us think only her good sides are facilitated. Wrong. She turns out to be the first female villain executive.
Natalia? Besides some pretty nasty things that happened to her in the first part of the film, she merely becomes Bond's sidekick. I found her acting on the Cuban beach a good example of "over-acting" that didn't catch me: "How can you act like this, how can you be so cold". It reminded me a lot of Kara Milovy's whining, screaming and moaning. Although much better than Jinx, Wai-Lin and Christmas Jones, I also think she's no match for Tracy, Vesper and Elektra.
Regarding Pierce Brosnan in DAD:
I really thought they did this "Bond gets lost, being left for dead, theb need to recuperate again"-thing was done way better in SF than in DAD. There were simply too many cheesy elements with Brosnan's portrayal. He doesn't even need Shrublands-esque treatment to get fit again?
;)
Vesper was ludicrously compromised before she stepped foot on the train where she met Bond for the first time. Tracy was the suicidal daughter of one of the biggest criminals in the world and Elektra was a psychologically damaged kidnap victim who felt betrayed and identified patricide as a step in the right direction.
Natalya was just a random victim of circumstances who ended up getting caught in the extraordinary events that unfolded. The irony is, she may have ended up as Bond's sidekick of sorts but she never once felt like an intrusion or tried to take the spotlight from Bond to suggest she's a modern woman who can do just as well if not better than Bond; a trope tgat got kicked into warp-overdrive in the films that followed. She was a resource and an asset to Bond without being fully immersed into the damsel in distress role. That scene on the beach where she sort of loses it with Bond was done really well imo because she's caught up in a world that she doesnt fully understand and cant wrap her head around Bond seemingly taking it all in his stride. Sometimes keeping a character simple can yield interesting results and it worked very well with Natalya.
In a way Natalya is made in the mold of Honey Ryder, albeit without a tragic past. It does work, but she lacks the raw charm of Honey.
That scene always seemed to come out of nowhere. It's been awhile since I've watched GE, but if memory serves it doesn't advance the plot in any way. Cut it out of the film and nothing is lost.
I guessing you've never read a Fleming Book (the man who invented Bond) or indeed seen a Connery era film? Craig's films hark back to the source material. I disagree with all your points as they lack insight (or knowledge) I'm afraid.
The Fleming Bond and the EON have been two separate entities for a long time, referring to them is kind of nonsensical.
While I agree that CR is a step up form DAD QoB is not it is also full of CGI craziness which I find the worst offender in recent 007 outings.
After Craig we'll get a lighter 007 without any doubt as the Kingsman, MI & Uncle movies will point the way to again.
Look if you want that type of things watch those franchises, you clearly prefer them. I could post exactly the opposite in those respecting forums for those franchises if they have one but I don't because I have no desire for them to ape Bond, I'm happy with Bond as it is and don't want it turning ludicrous again.
As for Bond getting lighter when Craig leaves I don't think you have quite grasped how much his casting as changed the landscape of Bond. SP will be probably be Craig's most fun adventure but the next actor who takes this on will be signing because they want the drama and depth he has bought to the role not to become some Moore/Brosnan knock off.
I agree with your points. However, I don't equate Moore's 12 yr era with Brosnan's. I know some do, but they were quite different (apart from MR). One was for all intents and purposes pastiche, and the other was not - but rather a reinterpretation to suit an actor.
Don't forget that every time period gets its own set of Bond films. The 1960's were a continuation of the big American Dream that president Eisenhower kicked off -directly or indirectly- in the 1950's. There was no threat from the Middle East or China. You only had the Soviet Union, and at that time the Soviet Union was already suffering its demise.
So the 1960's gave us the lush, epic introduction to the Bond franchise.
The 1980's were economically way more troubled. Hence why the 1980's films did not really stand out anymore. The Bond films got eaten alive by other blockbusters like Lethal Weapon and Die Hard. Even the two flicks with Tim Dalton weren't as succesful.
The 1990's were perhaps the most stable and peaceful years that the "Classic West" had ever witnessed. Powerhouse Soviet Russia was gone. China was on the rise, but nearly not as powerful as it is now. There were no big anti-West terrorist attacks. 9/11 still had to happen. So the Brosnan films felt way more easy-going, more comedic and at many times more cheesy as well.
Then 9/11 came. And as you can see in the "Everything Or Nothing" documentary, Ian Flemings groundworks came relevant again. Perhaps the Cold War was ended, but espionage came relevant again. And with it uncertain times for the entire West. Ever since 9/11 things hasn't been so flourishing anymore for "The West". After that we got terrorist attacks in Madrid, London, a political muder in Netherlands, attacks in Copenhagen, Paris. Another civil war on the Eastern Border of Europe. And we had the big financial crisis that started around 2008. And looking at Greece, we're stilll suffering from it. And then there's Russia and China, who seem to become very powerful again, and who are now actually sticking together as "friends".
I think these times are reflected in the current Bond films as well. And re-reading some older Fleming thrillers, I can't help to think that these times are similarly uncertain as the postWW II-era and the Cold War, as written in the novels.
@Gustav_Graves, I agree with you except for the 80's. From my recollection, at least in the US/UK, the mid to late 80's were a time of prosperity/rising optimism (Reagan's Sunny in America/tax cuts, Maggie's Falklands Rule Britannia victory/North Sea oil discoveries etc.), although it also came with rising income inequality.
In fact, I thought Bond also bucked the trend in the 70's (Moore's films were light hearted when most 70's thriller fare was cynical and dark), and the 80's (lower budget/less escapist films from EON when everyone else was upping the ante, although they went more violent and joined the trend with LTK at the end of the 80's). In the 90's they jumped back on the trend bandwagon.
One thing worth remembering, though, is that 'light' doesn't have to mean 'campy'. What needs to be continued and built upon when DC leaves is character development, because while character development involves light and shade it's not restricted to the protagonist being morose, depressed, introverted, etc. There can be an effort made to get Bond back in to that frame of mind where he counter-acts boredom and apathy with indulgence. Bond can have a little joie de vivre in his life, while still fighting his inner demons.
I agree that this is the trick. It's a question of credibility.......one must not lose credibility/believability with the audience, no matter what route one takes. The actor must also be able to sell whatever direction/approach convincingly.
"This is like swearing in church, but what does it say about our society when the modern James Bond looks like the Bond villain of old? It is time for a change back to elegance and smoothness and good humour, and we cannot really say we look forward to SPECTRE, even if the papers nag about it every week."
(Latest issue of Filmmagasinet, translated by yours truly.)
Thanks pal, interesting quote there for sure. Does Daniel Craig as Bond = Grant/Necros/Stamper then?
Blasphemy.