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
Steve Mcqueen wasn't in TTOP?
Great post. +1.
Misread your post, thought you were talking about Pierce. My mistake.
For me turn of the century hasn't brought much excitement in terms of Bond.
In 1999 I fell in love with the Bond movies up to TWINE. Since then, I got bitterly disappointed in DAD, I've seen two admittedly good but somewhat overblown films and two rather pretentious and fairly dull affairs.
I like how Bond used to get on M and Q's nerves for instance. I like how every film had some humour in it. Even LTK had a large part for good old Q to compensate the dark nature of the film.
In the 90's we got Wade and Zukovsky and they were, especially the latter, fun additions. Familiar faces that gave a sparkle to the movies. Like Desmond did.
Since 2000 I have missed the eccentric nature of the Bond films ("Hurrah another Rory Kinnear exposition").
The Young films were perfect at this, and I think the Craig films have returned to that tradition more than anything after the 60s, blending vintage Bond with earnest, modern sensibilities in a blend that doesn't feel incongruous.
Couldn't agree more. Terence Young is remembered today as the director of three of the first four James Bond films: Dr No (1962), From Russia With Love (1963), and Thunderball (1965). I.E. Connery's best films by far with a perfect blend of suave style, seriousness and tongue in cheek wit. Not shit like 'Saved by the bell' etc from DAD.
I always remember a work colleague making the "Christmas comes once a year" joke and that made me realise how naff it is. Any idiot trying to be funny could tell that joke.
Bond should be wittier than that.
I love when Bond teases Le Chiffre about his bleeding eyes, replies, "I'm sure they do," when Greene says his friends call him Dominic, plays the chess game with Silva when they first meet and teases Blofeld incessantly about how meek he is to work from behind a curtain. These moments are scripted in the way the 60s team would deliver them, smart and biting. Bond in those films and in this current era is just how he should be, a sonuvabitch, a man too quick witted for his own good who can't resist unleashing his condemnation for his foes through severe and unrelenting verbal roasts of their character and inadequacies.
I adore it.
I also wouldn't argue that Bond hasn't been mature before. The content of some of Connery's films was very grown up, especially From Russia with Love and its emphasis on sex, On Her Majesty's Secret Service is full of not only a Greek styled narrative structure but also aspects of a tragedy narrative with similarly mature content, showing Bond as he never has been seen before. Both Dalton films are very mature, the first dealing with complex geopolitical issues while witnessing the rise of a fundamentalist religious uprising through terrorism, while the second is single-handedly the darkest and most adult Bond film ever depicting/implying a rape, a dismembering and a man getting lit on fire, amongst other images. The Craig era returns to this idea of showing Bond navigating a dangerous world in which he has to be on his game, using modern themes of surveillance, terrorism, ecology, technological advancement, geopolitics and much more to make statements about him and "our" world. It's not pretentious, it's what Bond has always done.
Moore and Brosnan's films were silly in between all this, but even those movies have their moments. The Moore era partly explored the growing detente between Russia and the west through Gogol's character in very mature ways, and the Brosnan films showed us the guilty past of Cold War Britain and proved the negative power of the media when it's used as a tool of fear.
These films are largely not kids' entertainment, and I don't think they've ever been meant to be. The escapism of Bond's sometimes violent and dark acts, the adult eroticism elicited by the bare naked women that propagate the franchise and the mature approaches the films have taken to the geopolitical issues of each era and the silent war between Cold War powers make for very adult movies.
That's not what the box office takings indicate.
“Spies are trained to keep their mouths shut and they don’t often lose the habit. That’s why true spy stories are extremely rare, and personally I have never seen one in print that completely rang true. Even in fiction, there is very little good spy literature. There is something in the subject that leads to exaggeration, and the literary framework of ‘a beginning and a middle and an end’ doesn’t belong to good spy writing, which should be full of loose ends and drabness and ultimate despair. Perhaps only Somerset Maugham and Graham Greene and Eric Ambler have caught the squalor and greyness of the Secret Service.” Ian Fleming.
I.E. Bond is a Spy, Fleming just 'sexed' him up for the adults that read his books.
Great post.
To be fair, he'd said earlier on in the film that "I don't know any doctor jokes", and that was a kind of sly nod that he was in character, as the Russian. The audience was expecting a 'Bond groaner' when she said her name, and didn't get one. So when they finally got one, it was a particularly bad one. But it kind of worked in a you got your Xmas pun after all way.
I think Brosnan had some great one-liners. I loved "saved by the bell".
His delivery was fine for me, as long as he kept away from the Americanisms in his voice and delivery. Which actually, we got a bit of in SP with "you gotta be kiddin' me!" (That's so not Bond!)
Fantastic quote
It's close to becoming mine, also - even just for the Hamburg scenes.
GE has its flaws but it has a strong supporting cast.
"No, to the gun!"
Incidentally, I had a conversation today with a work colleague, who keeps joking with me that he should be the next Bond. As he has a strong American accent I've joked back that if he ever became Bond I'd boycott the series and that he'd be better as a villain.
I asked him today if he knew any villains and he answered "Teri Hatcher" :))
Bet you can guess who his favourite Bond is ;)
Given his thick American accent, I can only assume it is he of "station break", "then check this out" & "my cell phone opens the car" fame.
I disagree, the Hatcher subplot is one of the most interesting things in the film imo. The problem is that a better actress was needed. I also like the idea of it being an existing character (like Natalya) so that we feel more attached, but this could feel contrived.
TND is probably the most consistent film of the Brosnan era but it's still my least favourite Brosnan film. Even at the time (when I was an impressionable teenager) I didn't like it anywhere near as much as Goldeneye. It was fun to watch, but it just wasn't anywhere near as memorable for me. Which is weird because it is actually full of interesting concepts and great moments, it's just the bits in between are pretty bland and even the good bits often don't feel as exciting as they sound on paper.
The DenOfGeek Bond retrospectives compared TND to GE by saying "the good bits aren't as good, but the bad bits aren't as bad". Which is true imo. There's nothing in TND that's as shocking as the blue screen when Bond catches the plane or 90% of Serra's score but GE has everyone firing on all cylinders, it feels fresh and energetic and exciting and it's unique. TND is solid but doesn't have that feeling.
While I'm on about it, can I just say that those retrospectives are by far the best reviews of the franchise out there imo, they're great reads, fair, honest, open minded and always entertaining (my favourite bit is probably when he described the rules of Barracat as "both members turn over their cards and Bond wins). The author's name has slipped my mind unfortunately but they're brilliantly written and even when I disagree with him I can always appreciate the review.
Anyway, my Brosnan era ranking is GE (a classic), then TWINE (almost as brilliant, definitely top ten material), DAD (it's really really stupid but it's so fun to watch, even the crap bits are entertaining in a so bad they're good way and it does have genuinely great moments), and then TND (see above).
Exactly how I felt at the time. It was strangely unsatisfying, whereas the earlier film had me leaving the theatre on an ecstatic high. I think it's down to the plot being too derivative of the Gilbert greats without bringing enough new to the table. The news baron idea is interesting and perhaps they should have played up Carver's craziness more. There's a certain trite derivative nature to the whole thing, right down the naval uniform & stealth boat opening up. Having said that, TND is technically superior to GE in nearly every way.
My ranking would be GE, TND, DAD & then TWINE. I really can't stand the the third film, and I'm glad EON remade it in 2012.
You guessed right ;)
Had him going on about his upcoming "vacation" not long ago
~X(
Well said. SF is a Twine retread. Almost as bad in my book.
SF is also heavily indebted to TMWTGG
This is my opinion as well. Opinions on the most recent Bond tend to sour whenever a new Bond takes the reigns (at least from what I've seen and read of the history of the series).
The quality of the Brosnan films, by and large, tends to hew closer toward the wrong end of the list, but by and large I don't think Brosnan is to blame for it. Even in TWINE, it's pretty clear he was achieving something approximating what the director wanted, as his performance is mostly in keeping with all of the "serious" turns from his fellow cast members. Certainly his weakest performance of the four, though I don't think he's particularly strong in GE either.
In TND and DAD (his best turn, handily), he's quite good and his performances are closer in quality to some of the better actors to play the role.
tl;dr -- Of course Brosnan isn't "really all that bad," and I'm glad people are starting to recognize that by and large the filmmaking/writing let down his era moreso than his performances. Is he one of the "weaker" Bonds? Yes. Does that mean he was terrible? No.
Agreed. In GE he was servicable, while in TND and especially DAD he was pretty good.