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
This summarizes what I feel better than I could say it
+1
Which is of course the point of this thread!
:-)
Well TLD is my favourite Bond film so I am probably more forgiving than others. But still I find the mix of Cold War espionage in Europe and the adventure in more exotic locations just so very entertaining. Daltons gives us a Bond who seems very normal and likeable by remaining still very focused on his mission. The whole film is also less depressing or pseudointellectual; it is just a good example of smart escapism.
Indeed,it was a film of the day,i have no problem with that.
We all know what my problem with it is,and how the film would leap up my rankings without it.
Really Thundy, you’re better than this. These are the 80’s and the Afghans were the enemies of our enemies.
That’s like dismissing WWII films for helping the communists.
Furthermore, not every Afghan resistance fighter became member of the Taliban. After the Russians left, they had a devastating civil war between several fractions.
Spot on old chap,spot on.
Put away the Kleenex tissues and leave the bedroom !
Oh Wiz,how disappointing.
Actually he is right with every word he says. But don’t bother with thinking it through.
It was the Western slant at the time. I can't blame the filmmakers for that. I just find that whole section dull and awkward.[/quote]
Indeed,it was a film of the day,i have no problem with that.
We all know what my problem with it is,and how the film would leap up my rankings without it.[/quote]
If only you'd learned to play the violin.
Yeah that’s how it went. I watched Rambo III and blinded by my stupidity I thought the Mujahedeen must have been a fun gang.
Of course not, I am interested in history and looked all that stuff up. Furthermore, I have a brother who studied Middle Eastern and North African History at university, so no need to patronise me Mr Thunder.
Well put.
True. I choose to think that Kamran Shah and his compatriots later fought for the Northern Alliance. And until the surviving 1/2 of the writing duo that wrote TLD's script(Michael G. Wilson. Richard Maibaum died in January 1991, more than a decade prior to 9/11) says otherwise I will continue to think so.
I have a brudder, too.
That said the mujaheddin were never nice boys even when the CIA sponsored their weapons and training. They weren't nice before the Russians came and definitely afterwards they were no shining knights, mostly religious fanatics and drugslords. You should read up on Ahmed Rashid's Jihad or Ghost wars by Steven Coll. They paint a less favorable picture.
I guess Cubby's choice of leaving real world politics out of the movies was a right choice to begin with and they should stick with it. TLD did an oopsie with the so called noble savage.
The villains in Bond films tend to be rogues with their own devious agendas. That is how they keep it apolitical. That is how it should remain.
But probably one that doesn’t know as much when it comes to the situation back then. Look, back in the 80s you would have been very hard pressed to find anyone ( apart from the Pravda that is), who didn’t consider it right to help the Afghanis in their fight. Most saw them as a kind of noble savage. Kind of like Indians. Religion wasn’t on the monitor all way back then. Actually the educated consensus was that religion was on its way down and probably almost nonexistent in the 21st century. Hindsight is always 20/20.
I'm a very big fan of Craig - I really like him in general, like him in the role, and like his movies. I also think he's got a great look for the part.
But: on the way to the Macau casino in Skyfall, he looks awful. I think it's a combination of lighting and makeup and the general palette of the movie, but he looks like a clown:
I take no joy in saying it, but there you go.
To me, Craig works best in casual gear when his rugged features and bulky physique are best represented. Put him in trad gear, prissy him up and try to make him look all suave stylish and it doesn't work for me any more (not like it did in CR/QoS, and it barely did there either). It takes a certain look to pull that off, which is why not everyone can be Bond.