Moore was too rough on Andrea Anders in TMWTGG, but what's the problem with holding a gun to Rosie? She's working for Kananga. What else should he do?
hey he's the one with the License, he can use it as he sees fit
but it undermines any claim MooreBond was a gentleman who is always respectful to women
he was charming or abusive, as he saw the job required
there's also the human shield incident from Spy, come to think of it
deceiving poor Solitaire out of virginity want so nice either, it cost her a whole career
That's right. I don't have a problem with any of these things because Moore was playing James Bond, not Brett Sinclair. I don't think it is a criticism of him. Being the perfect gentleman all the time would be wrong for James Bond.
Felix Leiter (David Hedison) last appeared in Licence To Kill in 1989 and had his leg bitten off by a shark. To bring him back under another actor is wrong, the characterisation is just...wrong.
As for Moneypenny, Samantha Bond should have continued in the role.
Different timeline, though. And how is the characterization wrong? Jeffrey Wright follows along the the lines of Jack Lord's Felix Leiter in being cooler and less stodgy than other incarnations.
Naomie Harris was perfectly cast, what was wrong with her? The fact that she was even a field agent to begin with goes against the books anyway.
1. the reboot means new Felix who you don't like never did get his leg bitten off by a shark .. but are you saying you would like this actor better if only he had a peg-leg and a hook, like he did in the books?
2. if you don't think MooreBond hit women and roughed them up, you need to rewatch his first two films. I think he was more physically abusive to women than any other Bond. the scene where he holds the gun to Rosie Carvers head makes me wince
No, Felix shouldn't have been brought back at all. He should have just been left in 1989.
There was only that one time in TMWTGG where Roger Moore roughed up Anders (Maud Adams), but apart from that, Sean Connery was much towards women, he used to slap them, and don't forget in DAF he pulled a woman's bra up and tried to strangle her when he asked her where Blofeld was.
The Rosie Carver scene in LALD didn't make me wince at all, it was nothing. Roger Moore didn't take it too seriously, he wasn't as bad the other Bond actors. Pierce Brosnan also elbowed Xenia over the head in Goldeneye and knocked her out, and shooting Electra in TWINE. Then There was Timothy Dalton, the most serious out of the lot. I don't know about George Lazenby hmm... I don't suppose he roughed women up in OHMSS.
Different timeline, though. And how is the characterization wrong? Jeffrey Wright follows along the the lines of Jack Lord's Felix Leiter in being cooler and less stodgy than other incarnations.
You could say Jack Lord's Felix Leiter was a different timeline too. Or then again, you could question David Hedison's Felix Leiter in LALD and LTK. I just think Felix Leiter should have been left in 1989.
Naomie Harris was perfectly cast, what was wrong with her? The fact that she was even a field agent to begin with goes against the books anyway.
I think either Caroline Bliss (if she had stayed on after LTK) or Samantha Bond from DAD has continued, either Caroline Bliss or Samantha Bond could have potentially been a great Moneypenny just like Lois Maxwell. I think Pierce Brosnan and Samantha Bond were robbed of the chance to be a great Bond and Moneypenny, just like Roger Moore, Sean Connery and Lois Maxwell.
Pierce Brosnan is now obviously too old to be James Bond, he looks too old too, now 60+, and whether he could have continued up until 2010 or 2011, or been brought in during 1987-1989 and starring in another Bond film or 2, to take his tally of Bond films to 5 or 6.
I just hope James Bond gets better into the 2020s and 2030s, someone like Aidan Turner or Jamie Dornan cast as James Bond, and either Caroline Bliss or Samantha Bond could have continued as Moneypenny up until the age of 60 in the early 2020s.
Or better still, James Bond getting pensioned off in the 2020s or early 2030s. It's almost as old as Coronation Street! I mean if James Bond can continue after the 1960s, why not continue Remington Steele after the 1980s? It's ridiculous.
Bring back the lotus espirit?? What the wedge shaped car with the little engine and the Austin maestro door handles! It's an iconic machine but a modern turbo diesel is quicker and it's just so dated next to a modern sports car.
Well if you think the suggestion of bringing back the Red Lotus Espirit from 1981 is a stupid idea, then what are the Bond producers stupid enough to bring back the Aston Martin DB5 from the 1960s time and time again from Goldeneye onwards in 1995!!??
bonds boss should always be male? Despite the fact mi5 had a female boss. I could go on.....
Well then, Bond had 2 male "M" bosses in Bernard Lee and Robert Brown. Either Judi Dench could either continued as the 1 female "M" boss until she passed away and then cast another woman her age with short grey hair as the new "M" then, just like Robert Brown succeeded Bernard Lee or a Chief Of Staff like in FYEO.
Bring back the lotus espirit?? What the wedge shaped car with the little engine and the Austin maestro door handles! It's an iconic machine but a modern turbo diesel is quicker and it's just so dated next to a modern sports car.
Well if you think the suggestion of bringing back the Red Lotus Espirit from 1981 is a stupid idea, then what are the Bond producers stupid enough to bring back the Aston Martin DB5 from the 1960s time and time again from Goldeneye onwards in 1995!!??
bonds boss should always be male? Despite the fact mi5 had a female boss. I could go on.....
Well then, Bond had 2 male "M" bosses in Bernard Lee and Robert Brown. Either Judi Dench could either continued as the 1 female "M" boss until she passed away and then cast another woman her age with short grey hair as the new "M" then, just like Robert Brown succeeded Bernard Lee or a Chief Of Staff like in FYEO.
But M is essentially a job title, therefore the people playing m can be fluid, the reason for this is explainable in many ways. Bernard Lee 's M retired to his lepidoptery, Robert Brown is the new M etc. Q 's role can be similarly dealt with. But to say M should always be a man? Why? Because Fleming wrote the character as a man? Fleming also gave bond an Aston Martin db3 in the book, there was also no q so should we just drop that character?
But M is essentially a job title, therefore the people playing m can be fluid, the reason for this is explainable in many ways. Bernard Lee 's M retired to his lepidoptery, Robert Brown is the new M etc. Q 's role can be similarly dealt with. But to say M should always be a man? Why? Because Fleming wrote the character as a man? Fleming also gave bond an Aston Martin db3 in the book, there was also no q so should we just drop that character?
No, it's just that Bond had a man boss for the most part until Judi Dench came along. Judi Dench may as well have continued in the role as M then until the day Judi Dench dies and then cast another woman around her age with short grey hair as the new M after 2025.
No, Q shouldn't be dropped.
You could question the Lotus Espirit too, if Fleming didn't give Bond that in the books, then why give Bond a Lotus Espirit in the films?
But M is essentially a job title, therefore the people playing m can be fluid, the reason for this is explainable in many ways. Bernard Lee 's M retired to his lepidoptery, Robert Brown is the new M etc. Q 's role can be similarly dealt with. But to say M should always be a man? Why? Because Fleming wrote the character as a man? Fleming also gave bond an Aston Martin db3 in the book, there was also no q so should we just drop that character?
No, it's just that Bond had a man boss for the most part until Judi Dench came along. Judi Dench may as well have continued in the role as M then until the day Judi Dench dies and then cast another woman around her age with short grey hair as the new M after 2025.
No, Q shouldn't be dropped.
You could question the Lotus Espirit too, if Fleming didn't give Bond that in the books, then why give Bond a Lotus Espirit in the films?
There's lots of questions you could ask.
There are indeed, but I didn't ask them, the films have to reflect the modern world, for many reasons. The story dictated mallory would succeed as M, the espirit is by today's standards underpowered, outdated and underwhelming by today's standards ( unless your a die hard fan) but fail to answer my questions to your posts.
Caroline Bliss or Samantha Bond continuing as Moneypenny until the 2020s? Bringing back the Lotus? The thing about the DB5 is that it's fashionable and cool to own one now, but not neccessarily to own a Lotus. Why would Samantha Bond or Caroline Bliss be kept on 30/35 years after they started? Especially if you think Brosnan is too old for Bond now. I think Brosnan could still pull off Bond now, honestly.
There are indeed, but I didn't ask them, the films have to reflect the modern world, for many reasons. The story dictated mallory would succeed as M, the espirit is by today's standards underpowered, outdated and underwhelming by today's standards ( unless your a die hard fan) but fail to answer my questions to your posts.
The Aston Martin DB5 is an underpowered, outdated and underwhelming car by today's standards too, in other words it's an old banger.
I hate how people go on about the Aston Martin DB5 being a classic car, but the Lotus Espirit is a classic car too.
There was the newer Aston Martin that was in TLD with Timothy Dalton and the Aston Martin Vanquish in DAD with Pierce Brosnan.
As for the Lotus Espirit, there are recent, up to date ones I agree in the modern day. The Aston Martin DB5 just had an ejector seat, and the Lotus Espirit could convert into a submarine and be used underwater.
If the Aston Martin has been brought back several times, why not bring back the Red 1981 Lotus Espirit too for a few more films. It's almost like the Bond producers have forgotten Roger Moore's contribution as James Bond. It's all Connery this and Connery that, Roger Moore was a better James Bond than Connery because out of all the 6 Bond actors put together, Roger Moore never hit women too much and never took it too seriously. Roger Moore's films were more fun, the man with the prosthetic arm in LALD, the man with the golden gun and 3rd nipple in TMWTGG, the greatest villain of all in Jaws in TSWLM and Moonraker, where he finds his girlfriend, much better than Blofeld. Then there's FYEO where Blofeld gets killed off for good, TSWLM and FYEO are 2 of the greatest Bond films either and the songs are excellently sung by Carly Simon and Sheena Easton - 2 of the greatest Bond themes too, much better than the dreadful Goldfinger with Shirley Bassey which sounds dreadful.
Then there's Octopussy where Bond is dressed as a clown and like Tarzan in the jungle, again it was fun. Then there's AVTAK with the fire engine and the policeman that gets squirted with the hosepipe on the side of the engine, again it was fun.
Caroline Bliss or Samantha Bond continuing as Moneypenny until the 2020s? Bringing back the Lotus? The thing about the DB5 is that it's fashionable and cool to own one now, but not neccessarily to own a Lotus. Why would Samantha Bond or Caroline Bliss be kept on 30/35 years after they started? Especially if you think Brosnan is too old for Bond now. I think Brosnan could still pull off Bond now, honestly.
Lois Maxwell who played the original Moneypenny was born between 1927-1930 along with Roger Moore and Sean Connery and both Lois and Roger were 58 around 1985 when they last did AVTAK.
Samantha Bond and Caroline Bliss were born around the early 1950s with Pierce Brosnan too, and they'd now be over 60, so again, too old. What I mean is that they could potentially have continued up until around 2009 or 2010.
Caroline Bliss or Samantha Bond continuing as Moneypenny until the 2020s? Bringing back the Lotus? The thing about the DB5 is that it's fashionable and cool to own one now, but not neccessarily to own a Lotus. Why would Samantha Bond or Caroline Bliss be kept on 30/35 years after they started? Especially if you think Brosnan is too old for Bond now. I think Brosnan could still pull off Bond now, honestly.
Lois Maxwell who played the original Moneypenny was born between 1927-1930 along with Roger Moore and Sean Connery and both Lois and Roger were 58 around 1985 when they last did AVTAK.
Samantha Bond and Caroline Bliss were born around the early 1950s with Pierce Brosnan too, and they'd now be over 60, so again, too old. What I mean is that they could potentially have continued up until around 2009 or 2010.
Samantha Bond and Caroline Bliss were both born in 1961 so are now 55-56 so ten years younger than your reckoning .
Samantha Bond and Caroline Bliss were both born in 1961 so are now 55-56 so ten years younger than your reckoning .
Yes well, on the basis of that, either 1 of them could have continued as Moneypenny from the 1990s and 2000s onwards up until say, probably, 2019. Basically, I am just not happy with the direction James Bond has gone in since DAD in 2002, I think the modern Daniel Craig films were badly produced because they didn't begin with a proper gunbarrel until the recent film in 2015. I just hope things improve by the 2020s and early 2030s, hopefully Daniel Craig will have stepped down from the role by then, and the modern Bond films under Daniel Craig are too scary, they're like horror films, even the legendary Roger Moore felt they were too violent etc, with the opening titles with death music, skeletons, gravestones and snakes, it's been that way actually since DAD in 2002, I hated the added bullet gunbarrel effect of Pierce Brosnan of 2002 in DAD. I think James Bond has gone crap since the 21st century, but then, so has British TV in general with reality tv shows, freeview etc and endless channels of crap.
Samantha Bond and Caroline Bliss were both born in 1961 so are now 55-56 so ten years younger than your reckoning .
the modern Bond films under Daniel Craig are too scary, they're like horror films with the opening titles with death music, skeletons, gravestones and snakes,
.
... the new Felix Leiter doesn't look right either ...
skimming through some Fleming, I noted Leiter is always described as a "sandy haired Texan"
in no movie is any Leiter actor sandy-haired
I don't believe any Leiter actor ever had a Texan accent either
therefor no Leiter ever "looked right"
I do appreciate however that the same actor actually played the character for two films in a row, and only wished he'd kept on reappearing in the last two
The films went downhill from DAD onwards, they couldn't get a proper gunbarrel for their introductions!
Thanks so much for pointing that out - in future when the next Bond film comes out I'll download the gun barrel introduction before wasting my hard earned sitting through 2 hours of drivel.
I think you picked faults with my quotes because I wear a Rastafarian hat, enjoy reggae music, think Naomie Harris is gorgeous, Jeffrey Wright is the best Leiter since Jack Lord and Usain Bolt is the greatest athlete to ever grace the planet - read in to that what you will and I could care less.
And by the way, it's not bollocks that I think Craig is the best Bond since Connery, that is just my opinion but I guess you missed that bit.
"Everyone knows rock n' roll attained perfection in 1974; It's a scientific fact". - Homer J Simpson
I'd say Jeffery Wright is the best Leiter since Bernie Casey myself and IMO making Moneypenny a field agent was idiotic. She quits it and becomes a secretary. The filmmakers may not have intended it but it comes across as regressive.
As for Daniel Craig...he's a plank of wood. What choices has he really made as an actor? He doesn't convey intelligence or charisma to me either. He also has a face like a bag of hammers. Very unimpressive.
Bond film's have always been hit and miss but all the rebooted films have missed for me.
Samantha Bond and Caroline Bliss were both born in 1961 so are now 55-56 so ten years younger than your reckoning .
Yes well, on the basis of that, either 1 of them could have continued as Moneypenny from the 1990s and 2000s onwards up until say, probably, 2019. Basically, I am just not happy with the direction James Bond has gone in since DAD in 2002, I think the modern Daniel Craig films were badly produced because they didn't begin with a proper gunbarrel until the recent film in 2015. I just hope things improve by the 2020s and early 2030s, hopefully Daniel Craig will have stepped down from the role by then, and the modern Bond films under Daniel Craig are too scary, they're like horror films, even the legendary Roger Moore felt they were too violent etc, with the opening titles with death music, skeletons, gravestones and snakes, it's been that way actually since DAD in 2002, I hated the added bullet gunbarrel effect of Pierce Brosnan of 2002 in DAD. I think James Bond has gone crap since the 21st century, but then, so has British TV in general with reality tv shows, freeview etc and endless channels of crap.
You don't seem like a Happy Camper at all. I'm not a fan of everything in the Craig era, but then again I was not a fan of everything that preceeded it. For me the Craig era has not been all of a piece, or a smooth continuem there have been peaks and troughs since Dr No. Indeed even in the novels you find oscillations between light and darker installments. . We Bond nuts are not all joined up and in agreement about how things should be or the state of the Bondiverse. For every devotee of FRWL you'll find a fan of Moonraker, for every Brozzer fan you'll find someone (myself included) who feels it's a great shame that Georgy boy only did one. Even the individual films have highlights and lowlights within them for example I love DAD up until the Ice Palace, beyond then it's a disaster. I love CR but still have my issues with Daniel but agree that the torture scene is one of the series highlights and the fight in the Toilet and Daniel's reaction in the mirror are truly first rate. I still don't rate Eva Green though but the film is a triumph. We love to argue, debate, discuss disagree and occasionally even fall out. That's all fine and dandy and what makes it enjoyable.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
The cast is fine -- Craig and Wright are the best Bond and Leiter, respectively, since Connery gave up the role. The problem is the films themselves. After CR, they squandered the momentum of stronger writing and story and instead went for a different set of cliches, becoming more hollow as stories. The productions spent more money but someone seemed less and less impressive overall. The biggest hit, SF, swapped intelligence for sentimentality. Still, they're well ahead of any effort by Brosnan.
The highly overrated GE is a made-for-cable TV movie, with cheap production values and a script that promises a lot more than it delivers. A battle between two 00s is a great idea -- too bad GE does almost nothing with it. Trevelyan could have been any run of the mill villain since he spends most of his time on a train spouting villainy rather than doing it. Well, except for that silly chase at the end around a telescope.
The film never could decide whether it wanted to be taken seriously or as a joke and has too much camp: The tank "chase," Boris "I EM EENVEENCEEBULL" Grishenko, Xenia "Moose and Squirrel" Onatopp, and Valentin "Moose and Squirrel" Zukovsky all bring an air of silliness to the production. This saturnine Moneypenny spends too much time dressing Bond down rather than being supportive -- they should have called her Neverhappy.
There are moments that work, but it was a bad omen when the new Bond is revealed while hanging upside in a lavatory while a Russian soldier is defecating. GE is no CR, not even close, in either quality of script or production, even if directed by Martin Campbell.
For starters, it has Fleming, and the construction of the story, even in updated form, works because of that connection. CR also found a way to make Bond fresh again -- this is a Bond we've seen before and yet haven't, in part due to Craig's great testosterone-y performance but also because the story is character-based. It's not a James Bond movie, like GE, but a movie about James Bond.
It's one of the few Bond films since the 1960s that doesn't choose to remain on the surface and merely be constructed around its stunt sequences and goings-through-the-motions. GE is the standard formula -- CR is the ancestor of the formula, as though the formula doesn't yet exist except in a sketchy form. There are many. many great moments as a result.
Brosnan, in his debut, is pretty much what you'd expect as Bond, though he unwisely tries to butch it up. Craig, though, is unpredictable, and while Brosnan's Bond exists mostly because he's a suave, blown-dry clothes horse, Craig brings Bond to life with everything from his walk to his tenacity to his menace to his cockiness. It's a bravura performance that takes the elements from the script and brings them to life.
Brosnan couldn't have pulled it off, even in his prime, nor Moore nor Dalton. But pretty much any actor who met the principal expectations of the till-then modern cliche of Bond -- tall, dark, and model-like -- could have done as well. There's no challenge in the GE script beyond the standard expectations for James Bond.
Campbell steps it up, too, as the director, perhaps because in the meantime he'd worked on such large-scale productions as The Mask of Zorro. He's simply far more thoughtful directing, with better camera set-ups, tighter action, and greater confidence in his actors. In GE, his directing is by and large workman-like, and the production too often not only has a cheap feel but a minimalist one, as well. CR has more color, more energy, more suspense, and more pay offs. GE seems like an approximation of a theatrical film, hence the cable TV quality, whereas CR is a bonafide theatrical film.
There are quite a few other elements, too. The music in GE is for the most part awful, as are many of the costumes -- when Bond boards the yacht, for instance, he appears to be wearing an off-the-rack suit from Sears and Roebuck. GE's comedy wasn't funny then and isn't now. The model work and rear projection are really poor -- people laughed at the film in the theater as Bond chased the plane. The cast in GE simply can't compete with the higher-quality actors in CR -- Mikkelsen outshines Bean, Green outshines Scorupko, Christensen outshines Gottfried, Wright outshines Baker, etc. Even Judi Dench is better playing M -- she doesn't have any of the wishy-washy qualities that in GE had her chewing Bond out only to have to ruin the moment by suddenly getting weak-kneed about Bond. The henchmen -- Abkarian, Foucan, Santamaria, and Sammel -- are far more menacing onscreen, and Pistor manages to be just as goofy but not as annoying as Cumming.
That doesn't mean there aren't missed opportunities in CR. For all that works, the romance, to me, needed more development -- except for the tragic elements, it's barely more explored than the formulaic one in GE. There's enough to get the story, and had someone of lesser ability than Eva Green played Vesper it wouldn't have worked any better. But in the same way that GE fails to explore the Trevelyan character as a 00, who should have been a pretty even match for James Bond across the board, CR is content to treat Vesper mostly as "the one" in the sense that you know she will break Bond's heart. Again, Eva Green gets the lion's share of credit for making a character who deserved more screen time and repartee with Bond a greater presence than she is in the script. The same goes for Giancarlo Giannini, who makes Mathis such a great character, his rueful dispatch in the numbingly pedestrian follow up QOS is criminal.
The highly overrated GE is a made-for-cable TV movie, with cheap production values and a script that promises a lot more than it delivers. A battle between two 00s is a great idea -- too bad GE does almost nothing with it. Trevelyan could have been any run of the mill villain since he spends most of his time on a train spouting villainy rather than doing it. Well, except for that silly chase at the end around a telescope.
The film never could decide whether it wanted to be taken seriously or as a joke and has too much camp: The tank "chase," Boris "I EM EENVEENCEEBULL" Grishenko, Xenia "Moose and Squirrel" Onatopp, and Valentin "Moose and Squirrel" Zukovsky all bring an air of silliness to the production. This saturnine Moneypenny spends too much time dressing Bond down rather than being supportive -- they should have called her Neverhappy.
There are moments that work, but it was a bad omen when the new Bond is revealed while hanging upside in a lavatory while a Russian soldier is defecating. GE is no CR, not even close, in either quality of script or production, even if directed by Martin Campbell.
GoldenEye was an absolutely perfect reboot for a 90's Bond film. I know it mostly gets love among the fans, but it also has people who downright hate it. There is no doubt it put Bond back on the map. It was an enjoyable Bond movie, action, girls, bit cheesy but overall a great time.
Sounds like a Bond film to me. In fact, it actually reminds me of a 60's Bond film more then any other movie.
Goldeneye was what a Bond movie should be. Its greatest quality is, perhaps, how unforgettable it is. On the other hand, when re-watching Casino Royale, I always wonder "Who is this? Why are they doing that? This doesn't make sense!"
The highly overrated GE is a made-for-cable TV movie, with cheap production values and a script that promises a lot more than it delivers. A battle between two 00s is a great idea -- too bad GE does almost nothing with it. Trevelyan could have been any run of the mill villain since he spends most of his time on a train spouting villainy rather than doing it. Well, except for that silly chase at the end around a telescope.
The film never could decide whether it wanted to be taken seriously or as a joke and has too much camp: The tank "chase," Boris "I EM EENVEENCEEBULL" Grishenko, Xenia "Moose and Squirrel" Onatopp, and Valentin "Moose and Squirrel" Zukovsky all bring an air of silliness to the production. This saturnine Moneypenny spends too much time dressing Bond down rather than being supportive -- they should have called her Neverhappy.
There are moments that work, but it was a bad omen when the new Bond is revealed while hanging upside in a lavatory while a Russian soldier is defecating. GE is no CR, not even close, in either quality of script or production, even if directed by Martin Campbell.
GoldenEye was an absolutely perfect reboot for a 90's Bond film. I know it mostly gets love among the fans, but it also has people who downright hate it. There is no doubt it put Bond back on the map. It was an enjoyable Bond movie, action, girls, bit cheesy but overall a great time.
Sounds like a Bond film to me. In fact, it actually reminds me of a 60's Bond film more then any other movie.
Nah, it was pretty unremarkable. It had the benefit of Brosnan, a popular actor whose time was overdue with Bond, and that six years had gone by without a Bond film so the public was hungry. Its fans tend to give it a lot more credit than is due, but it's got a weak story and disappointing production. There are some good moments in it, but taken as a whole, it's a middling production, as the Brosnan Bonds mostly were.
People are certainly free to like it, but I'll never be convinced it was more than a pay cable TV-level production -- something that might have appeared on Showtime or HBO in those days.
Goldeneye was what a Bond movie should be. Its greatest quality is, perhaps, how unforgettable it is. On the other hand, when re-watching Casino Royale, I always wonder "Who is this? Why are they doing that? This doesn't make sense!"
I actually had to go back and reread the description of GE to have my memory jogged about the Zukovsky character. I forgot that Joe Don Baker was in it.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
The highly overrated GE is a made-for-cable TV movie, with cheap production values and a script that promises a lot more than it delivers. A battle between two 00s is a great idea -- too bad GE does almost nothing with it. Trevelyan could have been any run of the mill villain since he spends most of his time on a train spouting villainy rather than doing it. Well, except for that silly chase at the end around a telescope.
The film never could decide whether it wanted to be taken seriously or as a joke and has too much camp: The tank "chase," Boris "I EM EENVEENCEEBULL" Grishenko, Xenia "Moose and Squirrel" Onatopp, and Valentin "Moose and Squirrel" Zukovsky all bring an air of silliness to the production. This saturnine Moneypenny spends too much time dressing Bond down rather than being supportive -- they should have called her Neverhappy.
There are moments that work, but it was a bad omen when the new Bond is revealed while hanging upside in a lavatory while a Russian soldier is defecating. GE is no CR, not even close, in either quality of script or production, even if directed by Martin Campbell.
GoldenEye was an absolutely perfect reboot for a 90's Bond film. I know it mostly gets love among the fans, but it also has people who downright hate it. There is no doubt it put Bond back on the map. It was an enjoyable Bond movie, action, girls, bit cheesy but overall a great time.
Sounds like a Bond film to me. In fact, it actually reminds me of a 60's Bond film more then any other movie.
Nah, it was pretty unremarkable. It had the benefit of Brosnan, a popular actor whose time was overdue with Bond, and that six years had gone by without a Bond film so the public was hungry. Its fans tend to give it a lot more credit than is due, but it's got a weak story and disappointing production. There are some good moments in it, but taken as a whole, it's a middling production, as the Brosnan Bonds mostly were.
People are certainly free to like it, but I'll never be convinced it was more than a pay cable TV-level production -- something that might have appeared on Showtime or HBO in those days.
By saying “people are certainly free to like it” rings with condescension, as if those who do like it are lesser and you have the monopoly on authoritative opinions and good taste, which by the way is not gained by nitpicking on things, then exaggerating and expounding on them. I grew up watching Rocky and Bullwinkle, but I don’t see the forced comparisons with Onatopp and Zukovsky…should I? The portrayal of Russians seemed at par with those in FRWL and TSWLM and I didn’t realize GE was supposed to be John Le Carre.
A battle between two double-0s and GE does “almost nothing with it?” Are you serious?
“Made-for-cable-TV movie” and “cheap production values?” Sounds like a bit of hubris going on there. Which made-for-cable-TV movies from that period can you compare GE with? Sure, GE is not perfect, but quality of production in terms of the main elements of what goes into making a movie, shows…at least at levels expected for Bond movies, which are not meant to be Schindler's List or The English Patient.
And, do you know what production values actually mean? You take the tank chase as camp, but that’s a combination of high production values staring you in the face, which included location shoots in Russia as well as a recreation of St. Petersburg in England, utilizing a real tank and a real locomotive with their corresponding high-end miniatures and the best effects and stunt work in the industry. The same could be said for the other location shoots in Monte Carlo, Puerto Rico and Switzerland. The other “givens” of production, wardrobe, lighting, sound, editing, etc., were likewise not cheap, and it showed. The cinematography is as beautiful as you can expect for Bond film standards, certainly as good or better than the top grossing theatrically released movies of that year.
However, if you think that GE sucked, you’re certainly free to think that.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Comments
That's right. I don't have a problem with any of these things because Moore was playing James Bond, not Brett Sinclair. I don't think it is a criticism of him. Being the perfect gentleman all the time would be wrong for James Bond.
Ozzy Osbourne
Naomie Harris was perfectly cast, what was wrong with her? The fact that she was even a field agent to begin with goes against the books anyway.
No, Felix shouldn't have been brought back at all. He should have just been left in 1989.
There was only that one time in TMWTGG where Roger Moore roughed up Anders (Maud Adams), but apart from that, Sean Connery was much towards women, he used to slap them, and don't forget in DAF he pulled a woman's bra up and tried to strangle her when he asked her where Blofeld was.
The Rosie Carver scene in LALD didn't make me wince at all, it was nothing. Roger Moore didn't take it too seriously, he wasn't as bad the other Bond actors. Pierce Brosnan also elbowed Xenia over the head in Goldeneye and knocked her out, and shooting Electra in TWINE. Then There was Timothy Dalton, the most serious out of the lot. I don't know about George Lazenby hmm... I don't suppose he roughed women up in OHMSS.
You could say Jack Lord's Felix Leiter was a different timeline too. Or then again, you could question David Hedison's Felix Leiter in LALD and LTK. I just think Felix Leiter should have been left in 1989.
I think either Caroline Bliss (if she had stayed on after LTK) or Samantha Bond from DAD has continued, either Caroline Bliss or Samantha Bond could have potentially been a great Moneypenny just like Lois Maxwell. I think Pierce Brosnan and Samantha Bond were robbed of the chance to be a great Bond and Moneypenny, just like Roger Moore, Sean Connery and Lois Maxwell.
Pierce Brosnan is now obviously too old to be James Bond, he looks too old too, now 60+, and whether he could have continued up until 2010 or 2011, or been brought in during 1987-1989 and starring in another Bond film or 2, to take his tally of Bond films to 5 or 6.
I just hope James Bond gets better into the 2020s and 2030s, someone like Aidan Turner or Jamie Dornan cast as James Bond, and either Caroline Bliss or Samantha Bond could have continued as Moneypenny up until the age of 60 in the early 2020s.
Or better still, James Bond getting pensioned off in the 2020s or early 2030s. It's almost as old as Coronation Street! I mean if James Bond can continue after the 1960s, why not continue Remington Steele after the 1980s? It's ridiculous.
Well if you think the suggestion of bringing back the Red Lotus Espirit from 1981 is a stupid idea, then what are the Bond producers stupid enough to bring back the Aston Martin DB5 from the 1960s time and time again from Goldeneye onwards in 1995!!??
Well then, Bond had 2 male "M" bosses in Bernard Lee and Robert Brown. Either Judi Dench could either continued as the 1 female "M" boss until she passed away and then cast another woman her age with short grey hair as the new "M" then, just like Robert Brown succeeded Bernard Lee or a Chief Of Staff like in FYEO.
But M is essentially a job title, therefore the people playing m can be fluid, the reason for this is explainable in many ways. Bernard Lee 's M retired to his lepidoptery, Robert Brown is the new M etc. Q 's role can be similarly dealt with. But to say M should always be a man? Why? Because Fleming wrote the character as a man? Fleming also gave bond an Aston Martin db3 in the book, there was also no q so should we just drop that character?
No, it's just that Bond had a man boss for the most part until Judi Dench came along. Judi Dench may as well have continued in the role as M then until the day Judi Dench dies and then cast another woman around her age with short grey hair as the new M after 2025.
No, Q shouldn't be dropped.
You could question the Lotus Espirit too, if Fleming didn't give Bond that in the books, then why give Bond a Lotus Espirit in the films?
There's lots of questions you could ask.
There are indeed, but I didn't ask them, the films have to reflect the modern world, for many reasons. The story dictated mallory would succeed as M, the espirit is by today's standards underpowered, outdated and underwhelming by today's standards ( unless your a die hard fan) but fail to answer my questions to your posts.
The Aston Martin DB5 is an underpowered, outdated and underwhelming car by today's standards too, in other words it's an old banger.
I hate how people go on about the Aston Martin DB5 being a classic car, but the Lotus Espirit is a classic car too.
There was the newer Aston Martin that was in TLD with Timothy Dalton and the Aston Martin Vanquish in DAD with Pierce Brosnan.
As for the Lotus Espirit, there are recent, up to date ones I agree in the modern day. The Aston Martin DB5 just had an ejector seat, and the Lotus Espirit could convert into a submarine and be used underwater.
If the Aston Martin has been brought back several times, why not bring back the Red 1981 Lotus Espirit too for a few more films. It's almost like the Bond producers have forgotten Roger Moore's contribution as James Bond. It's all Connery this and Connery that, Roger Moore was a better James Bond than Connery because out of all the 6 Bond actors put together, Roger Moore never hit women too much and never took it too seriously. Roger Moore's films were more fun, the man with the prosthetic arm in LALD, the man with the golden gun and 3rd nipple in TMWTGG, the greatest villain of all in Jaws in TSWLM and Moonraker, where he finds his girlfriend, much better than Blofeld. Then there's FYEO where Blofeld gets killed off for good, TSWLM and FYEO are 2 of the greatest Bond films either and the songs are excellently sung by Carly Simon and Sheena Easton - 2 of the greatest Bond themes too, much better than the dreadful Goldfinger with Shirley Bassey which sounds dreadful.
Then there's Octopussy where Bond is dressed as a clown and like Tarzan in the jungle, again it was fun. Then there's AVTAK with the fire engine and the policeman that gets squirted with the hosepipe on the side of the engine, again it was fun.
Lois Maxwell who played the original Moneypenny was born between 1927-1930 along with Roger Moore and Sean Connery and both Lois and Roger were 58 around 1985 when they last did AVTAK.
Samantha Bond and Caroline Bliss were born around the early 1950s with Pierce Brosnan too, and they'd now be over 60, so again, too old. What I mean is that they could potentially have continued up until around 2009 or 2010.
Samantha Bond and Caroline Bliss were both born in 1961 so are now 55-56 so ten years younger than your reckoning .
Yes well, on the basis of that, either 1 of them could have continued as Moneypenny from the 1990s and 2000s onwards up until say, probably, 2019. Basically, I am just not happy with the direction James Bond has gone in since DAD in 2002, I think the modern Daniel Craig films were badly produced because they didn't begin with a proper gunbarrel until the recent film in 2015. I just hope things improve by the 2020s and early 2030s, hopefully Daniel Craig will have stepped down from the role by then, and the modern Bond films under Daniel Craig are too scary, they're like horror films, even the legendary Roger Moore felt they were too violent etc, with the opening titles with death music, skeletons, gravestones and snakes, it's been that way actually since DAD in 2002, I hated the added bullet gunbarrel effect of Pierce Brosnan of 2002 in DAD. I think James Bond has gone crap since the 21st century, but then, so has British TV in general with reality tv shows, freeview etc and endless channels of crap.
Surely that was RMs Live and Let Die .
Not at all, RMs LALD was nothing compared to that of DCs films of 2006 Present.
in no movie is any Leiter actor sandy-haired
I don't believe any Leiter actor ever had a Texan accent either
therefor no Leiter ever "looked right"
I do appreciate however that the same actor actually played the character for two films in a row, and only wished he'd kept on reappearing in the last two
Thanks so much for pointing that out - in future when the next Bond film comes out I'll download the gun barrel introduction before wasting my hard earned sitting through 2 hours of drivel.
I think you picked faults with my quotes because I wear a Rastafarian hat, enjoy reggae music, think Naomie Harris is gorgeous, Jeffrey Wright is the best Leiter since Jack Lord and Usain Bolt is the greatest athlete to ever grace the planet - read in to that what you will and I could care less.
And by the way, it's not bollocks that I think Craig is the best Bond since Connery, that is just my opinion but I guess you missed that bit.
As for Daniel Craig...he's a plank of wood. What choices has he really made as an actor? He doesn't convey intelligence or charisma to me either. He also has a face like a bag of hammers. Very unimpressive.
Bond film's have always been hit and miss but all the rebooted films have missed for me.
You don't seem like a Happy Camper at all. I'm not a fan of everything in the Craig era, but then again I was not a fan of everything that preceeded it. For me the Craig era has not been all of a piece, or a smooth continuem there have been peaks and troughs since Dr No. Indeed even in the novels you find oscillations between light and darker installments. . We Bond nuts are not all joined up and in agreement about how things should be or the state of the Bondiverse. For every devotee of FRWL you'll find a fan of Moonraker, for every Brozzer fan you'll find someone (myself included) who feels it's a great shame that Georgy boy only did one. Even the individual films have highlights and lowlights within them for example I love DAD up until the Ice Palace, beyond then it's a disaster. I love CR but still have my issues with Daniel but agree that the torture scene is one of the series highlights and the fight in the Toilet and Daniel's reaction in the mirror are truly first rate. I still don't rate Eva Green though but the film is a triumph. We love to argue, debate, discuss disagree and occasionally even fall out. That's all fine and dandy and what makes it enjoyable.
The film never could decide whether it wanted to be taken seriously or as a joke and has too much camp: The tank "chase," Boris "I EM EENVEENCEEBULL" Grishenko, Xenia "Moose and Squirrel" Onatopp, and Valentin "Moose and Squirrel" Zukovsky all bring an air of silliness to the production. This saturnine Moneypenny spends too much time dressing Bond down rather than being supportive -- they should have called her Neverhappy.
There are moments that work, but it was a bad omen when the new Bond is revealed while hanging upside in a lavatory while a Russian soldier is defecating. GE is no CR, not even close, in either quality of script or production, even if directed by Martin Campbell.
It's one of the few Bond films since the 1960s that doesn't choose to remain on the surface and merely be constructed around its stunt sequences and goings-through-the-motions. GE is the standard formula -- CR is the ancestor of the formula, as though the formula doesn't yet exist except in a sketchy form. There are many. many great moments as a result.
Brosnan, in his debut, is pretty much what you'd expect as Bond, though he unwisely tries to butch it up. Craig, though, is unpredictable, and while Brosnan's Bond exists mostly because he's a suave, blown-dry clothes horse, Craig brings Bond to life with everything from his walk to his tenacity to his menace to his cockiness. It's a bravura performance that takes the elements from the script and brings them to life.
Brosnan couldn't have pulled it off, even in his prime, nor Moore nor Dalton. But pretty much any actor who met the principal expectations of the till-then modern cliche of Bond -- tall, dark, and model-like -- could have done as well. There's no challenge in the GE script beyond the standard expectations for James Bond.
Campbell steps it up, too, as the director, perhaps because in the meantime he'd worked on such large-scale productions as The Mask of Zorro. He's simply far more thoughtful directing, with better camera set-ups, tighter action, and greater confidence in his actors. In GE, his directing is by and large workman-like, and the production too often not only has a cheap feel but a minimalist one, as well. CR has more color, more energy, more suspense, and more pay offs. GE seems like an approximation of a theatrical film, hence the cable TV quality, whereas CR is a bonafide theatrical film.
There are quite a few other elements, too. The music in GE is for the most part awful, as are many of the costumes -- when Bond boards the yacht, for instance, he appears to be wearing an off-the-rack suit from Sears and Roebuck. GE's comedy wasn't funny then and isn't now. The model work and rear projection are really poor -- people laughed at the film in the theater as Bond chased the plane. The cast in GE simply can't compete with the higher-quality actors in CR -- Mikkelsen outshines Bean, Green outshines Scorupko, Christensen outshines Gottfried, Wright outshines Baker, etc. Even Judi Dench is better playing M -- she doesn't have any of the wishy-washy qualities that in GE had her chewing Bond out only to have to ruin the moment by suddenly getting weak-kneed about Bond. The henchmen -- Abkarian, Foucan, Santamaria, and Sammel -- are far more menacing onscreen, and Pistor manages to be just as goofy but not as annoying as Cumming.
That doesn't mean there aren't missed opportunities in CR. For all that works, the romance, to me, needed more development -- except for the tragic elements, it's barely more explored than the formulaic one in GE. There's enough to get the story, and had someone of lesser ability than Eva Green played Vesper it wouldn't have worked any better. But in the same way that GE fails to explore the Trevelyan character as a 00, who should have been a pretty even match for James Bond across the board, CR is content to treat Vesper mostly as "the one" in the sense that you know she will break Bond's heart. Again, Eva Green gets the lion's share of credit for making a character who deserved more screen time and repartee with Bond a greater presence than she is in the script. The same goes for Giancarlo Giannini, who makes Mathis such a great character, his rueful dispatch in the numbingly pedestrian follow up QOS is criminal.
GoldenEye was an absolutely perfect reboot for a 90's Bond film. I know it mostly gets love among the fans, but it also has people who downright hate it. There is no doubt it put Bond back on the map. It was an enjoyable Bond movie, action, girls, bit cheesy but overall a great time.
Sounds like a Bond film to me. In fact, it actually reminds me of a 60's Bond film more then any other movie.
People are certainly free to like it, but I'll never be convinced it was more than a pay cable TV-level production -- something that might have appeared on Showtime or HBO in those days.
By saying “people are certainly free to like it” rings with condescension, as if those who do like it are lesser and you have the monopoly on authoritative opinions and good taste, which by the way is not gained by nitpicking on things, then exaggerating and expounding on them. I grew up watching Rocky and Bullwinkle, but I don’t see the forced comparisons with Onatopp and Zukovsky…should I? The portrayal of Russians seemed at par with those in FRWL and TSWLM and I didn’t realize GE was supposed to be John Le Carre.
A battle between two double-0s and GE does “almost nothing with it?” Are you serious?
“Made-for-cable-TV movie” and “cheap production values?” Sounds like a bit of hubris going on there. Which made-for-cable-TV movies from that period can you compare GE with? Sure, GE is not perfect, but quality of production in terms of the main elements of what goes into making a movie, shows…at least at levels expected for Bond movies, which are not meant to be Schindler's List or The English Patient.
And, do you know what production values actually mean? You take the tank chase as camp, but that’s a combination of high production values staring you in the face, which included location shoots in Russia as well as a recreation of St. Petersburg in England, utilizing a real tank and a real locomotive with their corresponding high-end miniatures and the best effects and stunt work in the industry. The same could be said for the other location shoots in Monte Carlo, Puerto Rico and Switzerland. The other “givens” of production, wardrobe, lighting, sound, editing, etc., were likewise not cheap, and it showed. The cinematography is as beautiful as you can expect for Bond film standards, certainly as good or better than the top grossing theatrically released movies of that year.
However, if you think that GE sucked, you’re certainly free to think that.