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
It was not until CR came out and I realized that EON was capable of making a great Bond movie once again, they just never did during Brosnan's era.
If I`m right in remembering, each Brosnan film bought in more bums on seats than the last, so how do you figure? Oh wait, they weren`t Bond fans?
You are right in the fact that the press certainly didn`t like DAD, but the enthusiasm for Bond was always there. DADs many faults were overlooked by many of the media at the time.
It`s a bit like when Moore was Bond, we overlooked the fact that he was a little creaky at the time, but in retrospect after Dalton come along, it`s easier to stick mud on his Bond. This is what happened to Brosnan after Craig came along.
I suspect that one day, we will be asking why Craigs Bond was so moody, and rough....who knows.
Might I add, I like all the portrayals of Bond, some more than others of course!
As far as I remember, GE was almost unanimously praised, TND was highly praised in the states and had less positive but still decent reviews overseas. TWINE was a mixed bag but generally favourable, whereas DAD was slightly negative without being considered a terrible film, most reviewer called it a popcorn flick or equivalent. Upon reconsideration, perception by many fans and media was that the Brosnan period was well received but aged badly, kinda like 70s fashion.
I've had time to re-think about this during my workout, and I think that I've pinpointed the reason I like the Moore popcorn era and didn't want any of it after Brosnan. In short, as much as Connery reeked screen presence and animal magnetism, the absolute believability that on a single look, any girl fell head over heals for him, and that a single Connery karate chop would instantly kill an enemy, Roger Moore reeked gentlemanliness and class, to an extent where every villain liked him. I watch the so called "bad" Moore Bonds, those being AVTAK, MR, and TMWTGG, and I'm loving every minute of it. This is what's missing from the Brosnan period, and why I didn't want tongue-in-cheek, popcorn after Brosnan, because the souvenirs of his attempt left a sour taste. He simply doesn't possess the class that Roger Moore generated every time he smiled, winked, or spoke. You've heard me say this many times, but the best way I have to describe Brosnan is that he's a poser. He looked the part, but didn't pan out. In sports, he'd be the 1st round draft pick rookie who never manages to make the starting lineup.
Another reason may be my general admiration for Connery and Dalton's darker work, evidently a slight contradiction compared to the Moore era, but one can appreciate both styles! Craig is dark indeed, perhaps a bit too dark, but still very much enjoyable.
I`d also argue Lazenby was the greater poser. For a start, the man was posing as an actor, wasn`t he?. Still, must have been good at it, at least in the auditions.
Brosnan I felt was a grand Bond, the right choice for that time period. He looked like Flemings Bond, and aged well. I think it`s wise to look back at the older Bonds in context of the era they were made in. Brosnan was rightly percieved at the time as the best Bond since Connery. He had a good balance of hardness, and humour, which he delivered well. No easy thing, considering some of the lines!
I don`t remember Dalton recieving as good notes from the critics, as good as he was.
Like I said, all the Bonds have aged, and it`s always the era that came before that looks like it has aged the most. Connery now looks classic, but I bet in the late `70`s it was percieved as a little out of fashion.
There will be a time when the next generation may regard Craig as "emo Bond", and question it`s coolness. This is natural....
DAD was a poor effort all round, but TWINE I really love. One more Brosnan Bond would have been great. One more Campbell/Brosnan Bond would have been genius!
I like the idea of an older, peed off Bond.... B-)
I think TWINE is Brosnan's absolute low point. Him posing as Dr Arkov, him lecturing Elektra about the sholder, the pain faces while on the chair or strangled by Renard... I find nausea creeping up inside me each time I sit through those moments. Bond's fist confrontation with Renard only slightly compensates that. I find Brosnan much more up to his usual stuff in DAD.
The submarine fight is classic Bond stuff, and I find the character of Renard to be real fresh. Carlyle is awesome.
To change the subject, you know what I`d like to see filmed? The John Pearson book "The James Biography".....now that, my friend, would be a fresh take on Bond!
How does Bond go on through life after all the killing and losses...? It`s an interesting idea, dying to be explored.
At the risk of saying the wrong thing, a friend of my Father is ex Mi6, and you wouldn`t believe what he does now!
Submarines, skiing, meglomaniac villains, femme fetales, martinis, and a charming and ruthless Bond, yes, all done before, but these are key ingredients for Bond. I was never bothered that things had been done before, as they always were done with a fresh modern take.....
LTK is a bit tv movieish. It looks a little cheap on tv, although I`m sure on the big screen it worked better. Dalton keeps this film in my top ten!
Hey, if we all agreed on all things Bond, we wouldn`t have much to disscuss here would we? ~O)
At the mo its #10 on my list.
:-)) Speak for yourself. I've never been a nerd a day in my life. At least since I became a teenager in the 70's. Well at least that's how I see things.
For me, it will always be Connery ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ (and Young too)
Some great ideas and some great moments, but they can't just seem to bring it to life. Maybe Brosnan's somewhat out-of-his-depth and overly mawkish performance is an issue (I do like him, but agree with the critic who said he was more of a TV actor than a movie actor) but the direction really sinks it for me. The parahawk attack is one of the least exciting, most poorly filmed action sequences in a Bond film, the fight with Renard should tremendously difficult for Bond but isn't, and M in the field really lessens her character (especially when she's trying to get the clock). Not only that but there are little details that good actors and a good director should have caught - Renard can't feel anything but is able to reach behind him and grab a door without looking at it! And this is after they made a huge point about he doesn't just have a problem feeling pain, he can't feel *anything*.
Having said that, there are lots of great moments and they certainly *tried* to give us a more adult Bond film.