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
I was not looking forward to seeing DAD. However, once again, I was surprised how much I enjoyed it. In fact I enjoyed DAD more than ever. Up until the Antonov climax this is a rip-roaring action adventure, excluding the "stop motion" effect when the ice dragster goes over the cliff, anyway. My sentiments have mellowed over the years, I was a very serious child, and even back then I was put off by comedic excess and sci-fi nonsense. It was good after the serious trio of the Craig films, to just switch off ones brain, and enjoy oneself. Which is the key to why the Bond movies have been going for so long - it would get rather boring if the films were all the same, be it gritty and violence, or fantastic and campy.
So the good;
The action is where the film really stands out; even the ice chase between the two spy cars - the height of ridiculousness, I know, but, gosh darn it, it's just so much fun. Like I was 14 all over again.
David Arnold comes up with the goodies for his action scores (although I was less than impressed with his villains motif, especially when Col. Moon is kicking his anger manger.)
Lee Tamahori's direction is brisk and brusque in the first half.
The Pikelet
The production values
Bond going rogue in a novel fashion, trying to redeem himself.
Main titles given us a glimpse of Bond torture.
Raoul is a great little ally, and General Moon gives some presence to his character.
The scenes with Bond and M crackle with tension.
Graves’ sneering villainy.
The Moonraker novel provided inspiration for the screenplay.
Bond attempting to kill Frost after she was exposed.
The segue into the main titles.
I have to disagree with Pierce Brosnan's assessment; he really did nail it on his fourth go.
"Maybe you've been down here to long..."
And the bad;
CGI parasurfing
Plot circa 1971
Zao
Jinx (good up until Cuba, then Berry becomes hammy as hell)
Corny dialogue in the second half
Woeful punning.
Aston Martin Vanish. (granted it may be applicable nowadays, but not this good. Bond films are meant to show the technology 2 minutes into the futures, not 20 years...)
Meanwhile, I caught up with TLD and GE last evening. While I'm not expecting any revelations about TMWTGG, I was pleased at how good both the first Dalton and first Brosnan films were. I can now be counted among those who prefer TLD over LTK in the Dalton period and can definitely say that GE was much better than the Brosnans that came after it.
Why TLD over LTK? I suppose mainly because it's more of a classic Bond adventure. While I have no philosophical objection to innovation and new directions, my issue with LTK is that it seems cheap-looking to me. I've heard LTK praised for being dark and serious and I appreciated that aspect of the film as far as went. But there was still too much silliness in it for me, things like playing with Q's gadgets in the hotel room or anything having to do with Wayne Newton. I don't find any fault with Dalton's performance in either of his films but I liked the scope and intrigue in TLD better than LTK. Maybe it also added something personally that I've visited Austria and the Czech Republic since the last time I'd seen TLD. I wouldn't say that TLD is among the greatest Bond films overall; some of the story seemed all too familiar and I thought the Afghanistan sequence dragged a little before the exciting stunt work for the final battle between Bond & Necros outside the plane.
GE had a more coherent plot than the rest of the Brosnan series and some exciting action sequences. The humor was toned down nicely for my tastes and I thought Brosnan made a pretty solid debut performance. This one actually got better as it went along and I'm not sure why I didn't like it better when I went out to see it in 1995.
Oh, you made yourself clear! It is worse than I thought. You really need help!
Dalton is like you???????????? Are you Delusional?????????????????????????????? Shit! I cannot believe what a moron you really are!!!
@Bain123, please cease and desist from putting your inadequacies on Mr Dalton. I know for a fact you are useless with women, but, please do not ever, and I mean ever type such nonsense again.
For your information, if there was a Mr Dalton aged 35 with you in a bar, who would the women be interested in taking home?
You are pathetic and this time, you really crossed the line of unacceptability.
I took the liberty of seeing your picture on your avatar, and this gorgeous Latina I know, who finds Dalton irresistible found your assertion laughable!
The wedding scene in LTK is not there to showcase how he is with women. It is a passing scene where the focus is on Felix and Della, to make what is coming to them that much more shocking. And you missed the body language when Bond first meets Pam in Felix's office.
You also use the word arrogance so much. I doubt you know what it means, as you confused casual with smooth on the Daltonites thread.
Johnny Depp does not display that male arrogance, but, he is hugely popular with women. Ask yourself why? You clearly are clueless about the opposite sex. Not every man has to behave like the video game character Hitman or Jason Statham to get a woman to go to bed with him.
You are an insecure saddo who needs to make himself feel better by attacking an ALPHA male like Dalton. Get some professional help!
Dalton is like me? I did check if the date was April Fools, but, alas, no!
So, this is the man you think you are like who is not very good with women. Just watch how commanding he is!
Unfortunately, @Bain123 makes inaccurate assertions. Inaccuracy is not opinion. He said Dalton was like him, which, as far as I am aware is not an opinion let alone a fact. That made me see red, because the arrogance was titanic. Had he said that about Connery, the vitriol would have been palpable.
And to think no one challenged him was incredible. If I said Roger Moore reminded me of a lady's underwear, I would deserve a bashing here for being so stupid!
He is welcome to criticise Dalton, but, he better make out an incredible case. He insults Dalton, and I am giving him a taste of his own medicine. To every action, there is an equal or greater reaction. The laws of the universe! :)
I had to correct him on the Daltonites thread, when he did not bother to think what he wrote down. He needs to be man enough to take it when he is wrong. My patience ran thin with my previous post. Intellectual standards must be maintained on any forum for it to survive and grow.
Just watched QoS Perfect antidote to TWINE. A raw intense movie at times, suits Craig and see this and CR as Craigs interpretation of Bond. One of the reasons I did not like SF was i felt there was too much of a character shift, i understand that SF alludes to the fact its several years later, though much preferred the Bond portrayed in his first two movies and wanted a more natural progression in his third. Of course just my personal opinion and realise Bond just reflects the time in which the film was made.
Brosnan is quite low down on my list of Bond movies, GE his best film for me. TWINE and DAD I chop and change as to which film is best or rather worst :-)
Although most fans consider this to be the pinnacle of the '80s/John Glen Bond movies, I don't find that to be the case! In fact, as crazy as it may sound, this is my least favorite of that lot. Even so, that is not because I dislike it; it is merely because I think the other four (FYEO, OP, AVTAK, and LTK) are all better. TLD somewhat held my attention this last watch, but fell for me in certain places, like the scenes in Czechoslovakia with Koskov's "defection", as well as Bond tailing Kara and avoiding the KGB. Then you have all the dull scenes in Austria, with the exception of Saunder's assassination, of course. The movie really picks up for me once Bond "eliminates" General Pushkin- that, for me, is the official starting point for all good things to come, and from there on out, it is mostly a terrific Bond movie. The high points of the entire film include Timothy Dalton's slam-bang debut performance as 007, the gripping soundtrack from Barry, the locations, and the action sequences, particularly the airbase battle at the end of the movie and Bond's confrontation of Whitaker at Tangier. Another important note is that I actually enjoyed the villains in TLD, even though they are considered some of the worst. Are they entirely memorable? No, not particularly, but I loved how sleazy Koskov was, and how sly and cunning Necros was; even Whitaker was enjoyable to watch, as he attempted to evade Pushkin's authority and Bond's. All in all, pretty great!
Current Ranking in my Random Bondathon
1. GoldenEye
2. License to Kill
3. SkyFall
4. A View to a Kill
5. Tomorrow Never Dies
6. Live and Let Die
7. Octopussy
8. The Living Daylights
9. The Spy Who Loved Me
10. From Russia with Love
11. Thunderball
12. The World is not Enough
13. The Man with the Golden Gun
14. Casino Royale
15. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
16. Quantum of Solace
17. You Only Live Twice
18. Moonraker
I just don't why this film has such a bad reputation round these parts. Surely my sentimental feeling towards this film (it was my first time seeing Bond on the big screen), has blinded me to the obvious?
Sophie Marceau is sexy and seductive, Robert Carlyle evokes genuine pity, and The Brozz turns in a supremely elegant and dangerous performance as Bond, plus the overall premise is inspired and all the Bondian attributes abound and in novel fashion.
Now in light of objectivity, I shall point out some of the film's flaws...
The more emotional nature of the script allows for some unintentional melodrama. (Primarily the scene between Bond and M in Scotland and the scene where Bond confronts Elektra.). I always imagined Bond being more still, in the two aforementioned scenes. Brosnan is too animated in those particular scenes. Fleming wrote that Bond is precise in his movements, decisive and economical. He wouldn’t have acted like that. Just my two cents worth.
It sounds like I'm being too hard on The Brozz, but he's my childhood Bond, and he carries a special place in my heart.
To balance out, then, here are some moments in which Pierce Brosnan is just so smegging cool;
The ways he takes out the goons in the Banker's office
Sorting out the heavy, gaining access to Zukovsky's office
During the buzz-saw helicopter attack, Bond opens a trap-door, pushes a goon away, and fires straight up, through the floor, to a second goon.
The other major weakness is the staid direction of Michael Apted - this is the first time I was not overly impressed by the director - even Lee Tamahori, in the first part of Die Another Day anyway, showed more drive and inventiveness. Also I can't believe that Apted didn't, in the two aforementioned scenes, call Brosnan to rein it in a bit.
I emphasise with your sentiments towards TWINE. It's the same reason that I am still quite fond of OP. Mt first Bond in the cinema. 30yrs ago! :-O
What can I say from the first minute to the last very entertaining with a impressive Sean Connery, in Rogers' catchphrase: "Nobody does it better". The man is so impressive that it is sheer brilliant that EON ever found other folks to play the part as they can only stand in the shadow.
Agreed completely. OP's silliness--particularly in the Indian sequence--practically destroys this film. I find Gun to be much the better Bond picture.
Ha, ha! MY first Bond in the Cinema was almost exactly ten years before yours: LALD, also being commemorated this year! Please don't feel too old - I'm that much older than you are!
Wow, what a splendid guy you are. I've seen some butting of heads on here, but this takes the biscuit. In my social circles you'd be what's known as a wally.
Highly likely. I actually thought they knew each other as the character assassination was so pointed and vindictive that I could only assume they've actually spent some time together. Way to make an assumption about one's character - their avatar :)
Woof Woof ;-)
Ooooooooooooooooh! Wally??? That had the psychological stopping power of a drop of water hitting my skin! As for your social circles, what makes you think I would want to hang out in them?
I suggest you re-read what @Bain123 wrote and see the true import of his idiotic assertion. And nice of you to defend him, but, where is the man himself?
Yes, and way to make an assumption of my character. For clarification, I based my opinion on @Bain123's previous posts. Or are you saying one cannot deduce a person's character from their writing style. So much for modern psychology then!
@Bain123 goes for easy targets where he assumes he won't get much attack. He is the man that also said LTK was like Miami Vice, but, on further probing, he admitted he had never seen Miami Vice. So what does that tell you? In fact, I shall tell you. @Bain123 copies others ideas he reads and attempts feably to pass them off as his own. Not with me!
If he is a complete weakling and cannot take a bashing for making mistakes in an era, where the information he asserts is readily available to refute him, then that does not speak highly of the standards here!
As for assassination of his character, I can go way further if necessity compels me! I was going to call him "The Man With The Golden ***Hole For A Mouth".
Your entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. As I said I USED to consider LTK one of my fav's, I still like it, but try watching it after some of the other (classic)films and its weaknesses are clear. Dalton has described the film as "too dour" and Desmond Llewelyn has said it "lacks style" - and they were in the film. Kill is a sometimes exciting film but I'm really not sure it is in the same league as FRWL, OHMSS, CR and SF.
That said I've already explained in other threads that I consider it better quality wise than 3/4 of the films that followed (and I grew up in that era).
I try to be fair and understand that I'm not always going to have people agree with me. That's the nature of forums. It's called debate.
Plus casual vs. smooth?
I'd say Connery is casual and Moore is smooth.
Thank you @Bain123
;) I appreciate it!
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion on the film. But you were talking more about Dalton himself than the film. I reacted to what you implied about Dalton, as in "He's like me". That was what got the ball rolling. Or that he would "not hurt a fly" as you put it.
And Dalton is not nervous around women which was also inaccurate. I would say he is actually aggressive on balance. Much more akin to the Fleming Bond in the books. Even Lucy Fleming said "He was very much Ian's Bond".
Now, I am sure we can all agree, but, one thing all the Bonds are good with is women. Some are more obvious to the audience womanisers, but, the Fleming character is a dark horse who calculates everything. And those are the most dangerous in the real world.
Dalton is more nuanced and less obvious. The best womanisers are those who never make it obvious to those around them. Actually closer to Dalton in his films.
Cubby in his book talks highly favourably of Dalton's casting as Bond and said that he had never seen any actor put as much work into the character as Dalton did. Cubby himself said Dalton really went into the true psychology of the character.
But, I can tell anyone here, that Dalton knows the complexity of women. He just approached it more maturely which went over the heads of a younger Bond audience. Men prefer the instantly sexually gratified Bond because it plays into the fantasy. But the real world is where, if, that is believed is the cause of trouble and a lot of failure.
The older I get, the more I notice the nuancing in Dalton. He is a man worth studying!
As for CR and Skyfall, they have no resemblance to the classic films. They are a re-boot that are entirely different in approach to the films of the 60's. Glen in his book says the mistake many make with Bond is when they think it is nothing more than formula.
The old Bond films for their time were extremely fresh and new. They pioneered the action genre. There was less self-consciousness of the franchise in the earlier films than now. And that is why they worked so well! SF was a huge apology note for QOS, but, QOS was a far balsier film and the negative kick-back proves that!
And LTK has more in common with the classic Bond than the new films. It was the last film of the classic era. As in the people who worked on it, were involved in Bond as far back to the 1960's. And the film has so much Fleming which to me makes it true to Bond.
It was the first film to show a really nasty side to Bond, and how he is so close to the villain in terms of psychological makeup. A theme explored in the novel CR. Bond in reality is no better than his enemies!
As for Desmond, he changed his mind over the years. I know that at the time of Goldeneye he was critical of the direction. But, he always praised Dalton' s performance as the closest to Fleming. And that is what counts.
Sometimes a film takes years for it to be appreciated as is the case for LTK. Same for QOS, which I preferred to CR or SF. In QOS, I thought Craig gave his best performance, and the film is the LTK of the modern times. I enjoyed it the most at the cinema. I ignore the media consensus as they talk crap most of the time.
Speaking of LTK, it was a shocker after the excess of the Moore era. Because many in the 80's mistook Bond as nothing more than a comedy character. Myself included until I read up on his creator.
And that was where the controversy of Dalton's approach was highlighted. Because most of the audience generally at the time compared Dalton to Moore, and that is where they got the wrong end of the stick.