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 changed it though, as the prospect of not watching some of my favorites for a while put me off. So now I'm going (worst, best, second worst, second best, etc). Which for me means
TWINE 24
SP 1
TND 23
LTK 2
GE 22
TLD 3
GF 21
OP 4
FRWL 20
LALD 5
DAD 19
FYEO 6
YOLT 18
QOS 7
CR 17
OHMSS 8
TSWLM 16
MR 9
TB 15
DN 10
SF 14
TMWTGG 11
AVTAK 13
DAF 12
Only done my least favorite, TWINE, and my favorite, SP, so far. But I've already had a breakthrough in that I enjoyed TWINE! It was previously the only Bond movie I didn't like. It may move up a couple places, but most important to me is that I now actually like all 24 Bond films. :-D After I've done a few more I may do a writeup.
No, the number next to the film is the ranking. Spectre is my favorite and TWINE least. LTK is second favorite and TLD third.
"Why didn't you learn the violin?"
Good on you, coming out as a Spectre fan (although I think I've seen your comments about that before).
I must run through the film in my head to remember when and why I laughed out loud. Only Bond fans can actually recreate a two hour film, scene by scene on their heads and miss nothing out. ;)
After the terrific TLD, we get a grim story of revenge and retribution.
Even though LTK always ends up bottom of my Bond ranking it isn't because I don't like it. I mean its better than a whole host of other action films and maybe 100 times better than Die Hard 5. Its like if you have 24 babies and you like 23 of them better....?
Anyhow, my main problem is getting past the sadistic beating of Lupe, her beau's heart being cut out, the rape and murder of Della, Krest's exploding head, half chewed Felix, completely chewed Dario and so on.
I'm not squeamish and the occasional gruesome killing in a Bond is always good fun, but here there are too many innocent people being hurt or killed in ways even Tarentino would be proud of. Della, especially, is a sad victim of this film's drive for realism. And even though we don't witness her fate we get to watch her fear and despair. I simply hate that scene with a passion.
The villains are expertly played all round, the action is top notch as you would expect from John Glen. But some of what we expect from a Bond - sweeping music, great cinematography, light hearted moments, quotable dialogue etc are all missing, engulfed by the intensity of the story and the sheer tight lipped earnestness of Dalton's performance. Bond's gung ho assault on Sanchez's world of course destroyed the Chinese infiltration of Sanchez's business and ruined Pam's deal with Heller, and also got alot of people killed, including big, gentle Sharky. Still, it was worth it because chirpy widower Feliz Leiter is ready for a fishing trip with James just as soon as he's out of hospital. You've got to bury Della first you big dope. What's he like eh?
Michael Wilson was striving to get Bond as far back to Fleming as possible, but by doing so he was risking losing his audience, because Film Bond and Book Bond are two entirely different creatures. And while we like Film Bond to have one foot in Book Bond's world, it really doesn't suite him to leap in both feet first. Cinema audiences have moved off in a different direction with their James Bond.
Yet, a film so lacking in wit can produce a moment as good as the end of the PTS when Bond and Felix enter the church and bridesmaids pick up their parachutes like the train of a wedding dress. How we miss that level of clever visual humour over the next two hours.
Funnily enough though, I enjoyed it more this time than the last dozen times. Maybe my expectations were low.
And each to his own and all that!
For me, LTK has one of the strongest stories, a beginning, a middle and an end. It doesnt meander, or slow down like a lot of the Bond films
It has one of THE best villains in Sanchez, a true equal to Bond, a rich supporting cast (ok, Lupe is wooden but my God, she is gorgeous!) And some of the best action set pieces since OHMSS!
Yes, its more violent, but these were the 80's where it was competing with more violent movies (and Fleming could be quite nasty in his books), but it was also great to see elements from his books being used!
And of course lets forget, its got Tim Dalton, who was simply sensational as 007! A lot people, fans, complained that it was too different from TLD but I love the fact it was a different beast and I have no doubt, his 3rd would have been different again! Alas, not to be!
:)
Fair enough! Am enjoying your reviews though!
Keep them coming
Weirdly,i always do Star Warsathons in chronoligical order.I watch them in the order Lucas prefers ( Disney Star wars is not canon for me ).
A soft re-boot with many new faces in front of and behind the camera.
New boy Pierce clearly has a few wobbly moments and struggles to hide his excitement at being the new Bond. However,when he gets it right he can do the dramatic bits (his scene with Judi Dench in M's office is spot on, and Brosnan matches Dench all the way), and he can do the comedy ( 'who's strangling the cat?'). Perhaps he rises to the challenge of sharing scenes with high calibre actors, but some of his work here really is top drawer.
The problem is, other times he loses his grip a little and becomes far too self conscious of the fact he's playing Bond (the Moneypenny and Q scenes for example)
Still, its not a bad start and the film itself is pretty good. Not over-burdened with action scenes - the action tends to blend into the plot rather than look like they were designed first and the plot developed to fit them (like For Your Eyes Only) - and fringe characters are allowed to develop. Comedy and drama are well blended and the script clearly and deliberately returns Bond to his hedonistic best.
Best of all the casting is done carefully and thoughtfully. It did feel in the late 80s that Eon weren't always taking much care over the casting of some roles, but here it's almost note perfect and Judi Dench as the new M, starched, guarded, aware of her elevated place in a man's world, is the cherry on the cake.
The film does have a sort of mechanical, cold feel to it but maybe that's deliberate, reflecting the world Bond is operating in (After all the same director gave us so much opulent warmth in Casino Royale). The music, the hardware, the set design all punctuate this.
In 1995 Brosnan and GoldenEye were welcomed with open arms by critics and fans alike. Time (and Daniel Craig's appearence) has muted some of that enthusiasm, but despite the now healthy support of Dalton, and the ongoing respect and love for Craig, we must not lose sight of the fact that Brosnan brought 007 back from the brink. If nothing else, we should be grateful to him for that.
Looking at Bond rankings across the forum I have soon become aware that You Only Live Twice is something of a guilty pleasure for me. And the same can be said for TND.
All the criticisms I've read about it somehow don't register with me. Forged from the wreckage of a writers strike and rushed through post production at a galloping pace the fact we have anything of note is nothing short of a miracle.
The director has managed to inject some classic Bond moments and typical Bond tropes into the story, and combined with new boy David Arnold bringing some lush orchestral melodies back to the series, we have two hours of pretty good fun, and it really does feel like a proper Bond film.
Pierce Brosnan is excellent throughout (sue me!) He looks great, and he has ditched those moments of Roger Moore smirking which crept into his GoldenEye performance. He is now comfortable as Bond.
The plot is a little thin it has to be said, and the film relies heavily on some huge action set pieces. It would have been nice to have a couple more dialogue scenes at the expense of a minute or two from the long, albeit well crafted bike chase. But I refuse to nit pick.
highlights:
Great PTS driven by the urgency of the approaching missile.
Bond brushing up on his Danish
Bond/M scene in the car
Bond drinking vodka, and subsequent scene with Paris
Dr Kaufman
Car chase
HALO jump
Escape via the canvas poster of Carver
Bond and Wai Lin in their little boat finding mutual ground.
The music and locations.
It dawned on me that the other big release in December 1997 was Titanic and both films end with a ship/boat sinking and the stars floating around on the debris. Fancy that.
And, I had forgotten about the dedication at the end to Cubby, so when it came up and my wife said 'Oh, look!', I was momentarily far too choked to explain.
This film feels so muted. I'm not sure if its the flat action sequences or the use of muted colours - browns and dark blues - or the fact there are no Dr Kaufmans or Jack Wades to add a bit of zing. But, it lacks something.
Pierce tries hard, the cast is actually very good, the plot is good, the music is good. Oh I dunno, something is definitely off.
One moment always leaves me open mouthed and speechless.
Renard - "She's worth fifty of me"
M - "For once I agree with you".
Say what? Electra has just massacred your MI6 team, murdered her father (one of your oldest friends), and supposedly murdered Bond. How can you still rate her so highly?
Get a grip woman.
I can see what Michael Apted was trying to achieve, but he really needed a better script to work with and a keener eye for action.
A failure maybe, but a heroic failure. We certainly haven't hit an all time low..just yet.
Nearly 20 years on this one still somehow remains a bit of a missed opportunity. At times frustratingly excellent (Bond and Raoul, the sword battle, some of the Havana scenes, the Hong Kong hotel scenes, the opening surfing sequence) in a way TWINE could only dream of.
But then it sinks to such astonishing depths one can hardly credit it. And I don't mean the usual targets -eg Madonna who isn't that bad, and would be overlooked if it had been any other half decent actress. And Halle Berry is no better or worse than the majority of Bond girls.
I mean the dreadful, toe-curlingly bad double- entendres and general wordplay Bond indulges in with all three girls, and of course the overload of bad CGI in the last half an hour. All of this kills the film dead in its tracks and this is such a shame.
There is a pretty good car chase where the cars bounce around with balletic beauty, and when it ends with Bond saving Jinx the film feels like it has reached a reasonably satisfying conclusion. But we then have another climax on the plane and this is where we all start to really lose interest.
And of course the rubbish theme song. I don't mind Madonna's cameo at all, but I will never forgive her the techno shite song she presented to the world. Luckily David Arnold did a sterling job with the rest of the score.
The cast is hit and miss but what a shame we didn't have more of Emilio Echevarria as Raoul. Apparently they cut out some of his scenes, perhaps so they could squeeze the para surfing/tsunami sequence in? I certainly hope this isn't the case otherwise Lee Tamahori will answer for his crimes. Because I will find him... and I will kill him.
Though Berry... Sometimes she's quite pleasant. Then other times, her dialogue, and delivery of said dialogue is so woeful.
But I always have fun with DAD. It has such a self awareness to it. Only recently did I see that.
One thing that has always been true for me, is that I tend too prefer Tamahori's muscular direction as opposed to Apted's staid approach.
Oh yes, Jinx and Bond’s smutty pick up lines come first.
It's been a while but my Bondathon is back on track.
Old Wives Tales, part 3
Following on from my personal decision that some Bond opinions stick over the years and are blindly followed by everyone: So far I have mentioned...
1. Connery looked bored in YOLT (No he didn't. Only the opinion is boring)
2. No one was ready for a serious Bond in 1987 (absolute bullshit)
And now, number 3.
3. *cough* Timothy Dalton's performance paved the way for Craig's Bond.
No! No it didn't. Dalton's Bond was edgy and sardonic. He probably didn't sleep well at night and hated his job (but he knew no one could do it better).
Craig's Bond is more impulsive, cocky, egotistical. He uses people and suffers the consequences. He loves what he does and probably sleeps like a baby.
Just because neither plays it for laughs doesn't mean they play it the same way. And when CR came along the general public had probably forgotten Dalton altogether.
On to the film:
The first thing that struck me is that Bond's pursuit of the bomb maker was well under control until Walker ballsed it up by getting himself clocked. So Bond had to improvise and as a result gets a right grilling from M. Didn't she realise that the fool was Walker, not Bond?
Never mind. This film is a true epic in the 007 canon. Huge in scope and ambition and with a first rate cast it's hard not to be pulled in and thoroughly impressed by Martin Campbell's work.
Craig is a revelation. If anything the impact of his performance has possibly lessened over time, and I feel the future may not be as kind to his interpretation of the role as, say, Connery's has been. But this can not detract from what was an astonishing debut.
The scenery is gorgeous, the women beautiful and voluptuous, the sweeping score is wonderfully epic and the script intelligent.
Does it have any down side?
Well, yes it does. I don't think the love story was paced properly. They went from arguing and sniping over the buy in money, to declaring eternal love a day or so later. (side note: Leiter buys Bond back in and Vesper makes no comment about how or where Bond's $5 million came from. Was she not even slightly curious?) I think The Living Daylights was more convincing. Bond and Kara's story was paced beautifully and totally satisfying.
Some moments were poorly explained during the film.
i) I've never been happy with the moment Bond says 'Mathis' to himself in the restaurant. What triggered the realisation that Mathis was the villain? (even though ultimately he wasn't).
ii) Who was the guy arrested for having two corpses in his car boot?
iii) The arrest of the police chief ( played by MGW). Not explained very well through Mathis's dialogue.
iv) Bond grabs a knife and pursues Le Chiffre. Why? What is he intending to do exactly?
I'm not saying these moments are not explained at all. But on first viewing (and second) they remain quite ambiguous.
But, Casino Royale continued the tradition of launching the new Bond actor with a right corker.
A good description why Tim is my favourite.
Great review btw. I am enjoying these, even though we don't always agree.
From the first viewing and since, I see that as pretty much identical to the Fleming novel. And Bond didn't suspect Mathis to be a traitor in the restaurant.
To that point Mathis isn't in question, the idea is introduced later by the villain Le Chiffre to serve his purposes. Also understanding it's unresolved within the film.
I remember seeing this scene in the cinema, and how I thought to myself that this was exactly how I had pictured it reading the book. It was a wonderful transfer from book to film.
So, Bond considers the idea that Mathis sends a note as suspicious, and from there works out that Mathis probably tipped Le Chiffre off?
I can buy that, but the film didn't exactly put it across very well. Does he mention his reasoning about the note later in the film? I can't recall it happening.
Only later Le Chiffre introduces doubt with his "I'm afraid your friend Mathis..." comment, that's allowed to linger and is not resolved until QOS. Before that moment, nothing suggests Mathis is on the bad side.
It seems the filmmakers decided some elements/items would heighten the drama plus link and continue in future missions. Plus it plays out as a distraction from the real traitor. Here's more film dialog to assist memory.
CR
QOS
Re. Mathis' note. I always interpreted that a note from Mathis was out of character for him. Surely he would join in the celebrations? And with Bond on high alert over Le Chriffre's last gambit, it made sense for Bond to smell a rat.
I mainly intend to concentrate on the positives as the negatives go without saying.
Over the years we have acknowledged the debt owed to John Barry for often lifting a less than great Bond film with a wonderful score. Maybe here we should offer the same courtesy to David Arnold.
The film itself - short and punchy - feels quite frantic, and its hard to say which action scene is the best, because if I'm honest they all seem a little similar (with the honorable exception of the great Tosca sequence) thanks to the editing. So when the film quietens down and we have moments of calm Arnold's score floats around with an almost dream-like resonance. It helps accentuate these quiet, reflective moments. They act as punctuation marks to the frenetic activity which has gone before.
There are other moments of excellence, like the whole Tosca sequence from Bond entering the building to the execution of Haines's bodyguard. For a few minutes the film doesn't put a foot wrong.
Elsewhere we are either completely won over by an individual scene, like Bond's recruitment of Mathis, or signing into the Haiti hotel to a scene stealing performance from David Harbour as the odious Greg Beam. He is a terrific actor and here creates a complete, three dimensional character in roughly three or four short scenes. And he gets the best line in the film
Leiter: You know who Greene is and you want to put us in bed with him.
Beam : Yeah, you're right. We should just deal with nice people
So good in fact a version of the same line crops up later when M is hauled in front of a Government official.
Judi Dench gives her sixth outstanding Bond performance in a row, and we haven't even arrived at her greatest piece de resistance - Skyfall.
We have two sacrificial lambs. Both are so moving for different reasons. Mathis because we have grown to know him over two films, and Fields because when M explains to Bond that she was just a filing clerk you feel his pang of regret and sorrow, because he simply didn't know. In one simple line M filled in some background to Fields and gave us a reason to mourn her. It was a jarring moment.
Best of all is the closing confrontation between Bond, Yusef and Corrine. Every emotion is there on the faces of one character or the other. And when Bond dismisses Corrine and the realisation that everything she thought or believed in at that moment in time, was a lie, (but she also realises she is going to live), her heart breaking 'thank you' to Bond as she leaves is a quietly remarkable moment.
But despite all of these positives this is still a Bond film in search of an identity. However surely Bond films already have an identity and shouldn't need to be scratting around for a different one? Casino Royale reminded us how opulent, and exotic and thrilling a Bond film should be, so for QOS to chicken out and look for inspiration elsewhere is something of an insult to the glorious film that went before it.
And yet, the director got so much right, and showed us a few moments that suggested a different film, a better film, was somewhere in there. Somewhere amidst the mad, brain numbing action scenes with all the hand held camera work and crazy editing there is a really decent Bond movie trying to get out.
I especially like this insight. In fact, the film creates quite an atmosphere, through both sounds and sights. It's ethereal, perhaps the most ethereal of all the films. Also, I enjoy its starkness when placed in contrast to CR's opulence.