I really think there is a lot of dick heads on here ! skyfall is fantastic ...........end of ! the numbers prove it ! dan is the best bond since connery ! I hope he does 3 more and I hope sam directs all of them !
just as long as we are having a reasoned discussion about it, that's the main thing B-)
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
I really think there is a lot of dick heads on here ! skyfall is fantastic ...........end of ! the numbers prove it ! dan is the best bond since connery ! I hope he does 3 more and I hope sam directs all of them !
What a class act you are. If the success of SF's box office is the result of viewers like you, society is in trouble.
"...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.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
It's not that too far off conceptually and it's fitting your AJB name is Gala Brand. Several years ago many of the older members of this board fell for this hoax 1956 version of Moonraker and for a while we were impressed with a Dirk Bogarde Bond:
Mmm.
But before James Bond was "Hollywoodised" by Cubby Brocolli, magnified into the tradtional 6'2" 13st 7lbs leading man of Mr Sean Connery, the form of Dirk Bogarde as a virile male lead in a 1950s BRITISH studios Bond would have been fine.
I'm not knocking Bogarde. He was a good actor when he was cast in the right role. But his specialty was playing neurotics and I don't see James Bond as being neurotic.
I see your point, about Bogarde, though I think in real life his candidacy as Bond was considered; he was no more neurotic, (or gay) as Lawrence Harvey, who I think would have made a fantastic "serious" Bond. As for Bond being neurotic, in the books he was borderline near the end of the series (to be treated by Sir James Moloney, a neurologist) and I think from Dalton onwards, some of it peeked through and I think it runs deep despite the bravado (as exposed by Vesper in their 1st meeting), though we can't have him exhibiting full blown neurosis, can we?
"...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.....
Yes, a non-Hollywood British 1950s Bond series would have suited Bogarde well, in the absence of any other 1950s British male lead contenders. He is certainly nearer to the way I imagine Bond when I read the books. I just can’t see the Connery, Moore, Dalton and Craig Bonds in the books. I can see some of Lazenby, though, but I can't put my finger on why that is.
Michael Craig might have suited the part as well. He was a little-known 1950s British male leading man whose career never really took off. Also, Stanley Baker might have made a go of it during the 1960s. He looked a bit like Connery and had the cynicism of Daniel Craig.
IMHO, Patrick McGoohan - who in the late 50s was just coming into his own - would have been a fantastic Bond. He was one of the producers' first choices but turned it down as the whole guns & girls thing didn't fit his beliefs... Shame.
Yes, a non-Hollywood British 1950s Bond series would have suited Bogarde well, in the absence of any other 1950s British male lead contenders. He is certainly nearer to the way I imagine Bond when I read the books. I just can’t see the Connery, Moore, Dalton and Craig Bonds in the books. I can see some of Lazenby, though, but I can't put my finger on why that is.
Michael Craig might have suited the part as well. He was a little-known 1950s British male leading man whose career never really took off. Also, Stanley Baker might have made a go of it during the 1960s. He looked a bit like Connery and had the cynicism of Daniel Craig.
IMHO, Patrick McGoohan - who in the late 50s was just coming into his own - would have been a fantastic Bond. He was one of the producers' first choices but turned it down as the whole guns & girls thing didn't fit his beliefs... Shame.
He would have been a fine Bond, in a fan-boy Daltonesque manner. I think though that the right man got the job in terms of propelling the Character into a world wide phenomenon and provIding the basis for the longevity we have seen. That swagger and elan were mission critical even if not as prominent in Flemings conception.Something about Connerry caught the public imagination in a way that I doubt McGoohan would have.
I dont think it is lame at all I think it is a fantastic film with plenty of everything that should be in a bond film , its a film that gave me that feeling I used to get years ago when I was young when watching a bond film .dsn is the best bond since connery. The first 20 bond films should be put aside these new films are nothing to do with them its a new beginning. After all this needed bto happen or bond would be an old man.
I really think there is a lot of dick heads on here ! skyfall is fantastic ...........end of ! the numbers prove it ! dan is the best bond since connery ! I hope he does 3 more and I hope sam directs all of them !
What a class act you are. If the success of SF's box office is the result of viewers like you, society is in trouble.
Well said.
That guy is probably exactly the sort of audience Babs and Mike are aiming at now.
Yes, a non-Hollywood British 1950s Bond series would have suited Bogarde well, in the absence of any other 1950s British male lead contenders. He is certainly nearer to the way I imagine Bond when I read the books. I just can’t see the Connery, Moore, Dalton and Craig Bonds in the books. I can see some of Lazenby, though, but I can't put my finger on why that is.
Michael Craig might have suited the part as well. He was a little-known 1950s British male leading man whose career never really took off. Also, Stanley Baker might have made a go of it during the 1960s. He looked a bit like Connery and had the cynicism of Daniel Craig.
IMHO, Patrick McGoohan - who in the late 50s was just coming into his own - would have been a fantastic Bond. He was one of the producers' first choices but turned it down as the whole guns & girls thing didn't fit his beliefs... Shame.
Yes, McGoohan would have been good. As would have Laurence Harvey who Superardo mentioned before.
I dont think it is lame at all I think it is a fantastic film with plenty of everything that should be in a bond film , its a film that gave me that feeling I used to get years ago when I was young when watching a bond film .dsn is the best bond since connery. The first 20 bond films should be put aside these new films are nothing to do with them its a new beginning. After all this needed bto happen or bond would be an old man.
Everybody says Craig is the best Bond since Connery but I don’t know why. What has Craig got that remotely echoes Connery’s performance to make such a comparison? Lazenby had more in common with Connery than Craig has. Perhaps people mean that Craig is the best because he’s “tougher” than Moore or Brosnan—if so does that alone make for a good Bond? I don’t see Bond as merely a tough guy.
When people say that about Craig, I interpret it in terms of his portrayal of a 'secret' agent, a man who is licensed to kill & who has his own coldness / torments / foibles etc. In this regard he is the best since Connery IMO. I don't view it as being the best in terms of closeness to how Connery played the character. After all, each of the actors to date have all played the part differently, bringing different perspectives to the role.
I dont think it is lame at all I think it is a fantastic film with plenty of everything that should be in a bond film , its a film that gave me that feeling I used to get years ago when I was young when watching a bond film .dsn is the best bond since connery. The first 20 bond films should be put aside these new films are nothing to do with them its a new beginning. After all this needed bto happen or bond would be an old man.
Everybody says Craig is the best Bond since Connery but I don’t know why. What has Craig got that remotely echoes Connery’s performance to make such a comparison? Lazenby had more in common with Connery than Craig has. Perhaps people mean that Craig is the best because he’s “tougher” than Moore or Brosnan—if so does that alone make for a good Bond? I don’t see Bond as merely a tough guy.
Of course, every Bond, with the obvious exception of Connery himself, has been annointed by the public and press as "the best Bond since Connery", including Lazenby.
And, I confidently predict, so will Craig's successor.
At which time Craig nuthuggers will have to prepare themselves for a storm of "truth" about Craig's films and the usual revisionism every Bond suffers on his departure.
When people say that about Craig, I interpret it in terms of his portrayal of a 'secret' agent, a man who is licensed to kill & who has his own coldness / torments / foibles etc. In this regard he is the best since Connery IMO. I don't view it as being the best in terms of closeness to how Connery played the character. After all, each of the actors to date have all played the part differently, bringing different perspectives to the role.
I understand your reasoning, but I get the impression that most of the public (non-Bond fans) who see him as the best might do so because of his tougher persona. Dalton was just as good as Craig with regard to the qualities you mentioned Craig as having, yet he has been largely underrated by the public, in my view. Dalton also looked closer to the Bond in the novels, in the sense that he looked a bit like Hoagy Carmicheal, who Fleming said Bond looked like.
I understand your reasoning, but I get the impression that most of the public (non-Bond fans) who see him as the best might do so because of his tougher persona. Dalton was just as good as Craig with regard to the qualities you mentioned Craig as having, yet he has been largely underrated by the public, in my view. Dalton also looked closer to the Bond in the novels, in the sense that he looked a bit like Hoagy Carmicheal, who Fleming said Bond looked like.
Fully appreciate your view & can't argue with what you've said. I guess as with most things it comes down to personal preference & for me it's DC. His overall physicality, coldness of portrayal to date, dry humour & lack of 'cheesiness' appeal to my view of how the character should be (rightly or wrongly). Dalton got / gets such a raw deal on so many levels IMO. He was very, very good in the role & for some reason appears to not get the plaudits he deserves.
I understand your reasoning, but I get the impression that most of the public (non-Bond fans) who see him as the best might do so because of his tougher persona. Dalton was just as good as Craig with regard to the qualities you mentioned Craig as having, yet he has been largely underrated by the public, in my view. Dalton also looked closer to the Bond in the novels, in the sense that he looked a bit like Hoagy Carmicheal, who Fleming said Bond looked like.
Fully appreciate your view & can't argue with what you've said. I guess as with most things it comes down to personal preference & for me it's DC. His overall physicality, coldness of portrayal to date, dry humour & lack of 'cheesiness' appeal to my view of how the character should be (rightly or wrongly). Dalton got / gets such a raw deal on so many levels IMO. He was very, very good in the role & for some reason appears to not get the plaudits he deserves.
Shallow as it may be, for all the qualities Craig has Dalton matches, and therefore the deal-breaker for me then is the actual fact that he simply LOOKS more like the James Bond that Fleming described than Craig does/can.
As has been said many times before, I really do believe that it's solely down to personal preference ... one man's poison & all that. I find that DC edges the physical stuff & is more convincing in this particular regard (fight scenes, chases etc), yet doesn't have the apparent suaveness or class of Dalton or Brosnan. I guess it's ultimately down to whatever yanks your chain at the time.
My thoughts on SF: it was an OK Bond film, no more and no less.
NEGATIVES:
-Story-wise, I expected more than what the filmmakers gave us. I was in my seat thinking, "Come on, where's the bloody story?"
-The film's length - quite simply it was unnecessarily long.
-Judi Dench's line with an "F" word - totally unnecessary in a Bond film. (I know, I know - Clifton James said it in LALD, too, and that film didn't need it, either)
-Where was the element of FUN??? 8-) I had very little joy thoughout the film, and I was thinking, aren't these films made for people to have fun?
-When the hell is DC's Bond going to sit back, relax and have a wild, unadulterated time with some hot chicks - who end up living afterwards - and then carry on with his mission? WHEN, BABS AND MIKEY, WHEN????? 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
POSITIVES
-The PTS contained just about all the elements one would have come to expect from a Bond fillm, and Mendes and co. did a fine job.
-The performances and interaction between the actors were unusually prominent in a Bond film, so much so that they made the action scenes and stuntwork take a back seat.
All in all, I would rank SF about 6th or 7th from the bottom of my list of Bond films.
"Well, he certainly left with his tails between his legs."
Fully appreciate your view & can't argue with what you've said. I guess as with most things it comes down to personal preference & for me it's DC. His overall physicality, coldness of portrayal to date, dry humour & lack of 'cheesiness' appeal to my view of how the character should be (rightly or wrongly). Dalton got / gets such a raw deal on so many levels IMO. He was very, very good in the role & for some reason appears to not get the plaudits he deserves.
I’m glad we can disagree amicably. Most Craig fans take even the slightest reservations about him as being blasphemous.
I understand your reasoning, but I get the impression that most of the public (non-Bond fans) who see him as the best might do so because of his tougher persona. Dalton was just as good as Craig with regard to the qualities you mentioned Craig as having, yet he has been largely underrated by the public, in my view. Dalton also looked closer to the Bond in the novels, in the sense that he looked a bit like Hoagy Carmicheal, who Fleming said Bond looked like.
Fully appreciate your view & can't argue with what you've said. I guess as with most things it comes down to personal preference & for me it's DC. His overall physicality, coldness of portrayal to date, dry humour & lack of 'cheesiness' appeal to my view of how the character should be (rightly or wrongly). Dalton got / gets such a raw deal on so many levels IMO. He was very, very good in the role & for some reason appears to not get the plaudits he deserves.
Shallow as it may be, for all the qualities Craig has Dalton matches, and therefore the deal-breaker for me then is the actual fact that he simply LOOKS more like the James Bond that Fleming described than Craig does/can.
Yes, that would be the deal-breaker for me, too. I do think the actor playing Bond has to at least look the part. I might have even been able to accept Craig had he dyed his hair dark. He’s done so for other non-Bond roles.
Fully appreciate your view & can't argue with what you've said. I guess as with most things it comes down to personal preference & for me it's DC. His overall physicality, coldness of portrayal to date, dry humour & lack of 'cheesiness' appeal to my view of how the character should be (rightly or wrongly). Dalton got / gets such a raw deal on so many levels IMO. He was very, very good in the role & for some reason appears to not get the plaudits he deserves.
Shallow as it may be, for all the qualities Craig has Dalton matches, and therefore the deal-breaker for me then is the actual fact that he simply LOOKS more like the James Bond that Fleming described than Craig does/can.
Yes, that would be the deal-breaker for me, too. I do think the actor playing Bond has to at least look the part. I might have even been able to accept Craig had he dyed his hair dark. He’s done so for other non-Bond roles.
Very true. And very obvious. Shame. I wonder why the filmakers ignored it?
I have a feeling it was because Babs had some sort of “thing” about breaking the Bond mould—to be innovative and “daring”. I think Craig wouldn’t have given a toss about dying his hair dark if he’d been asked to.
I have a feeling it was because Babs had some sort of “thing” about breaking the Bond mould—to be innovative and “daring”. I think Craig wouldn’t have given a toss about dying his hair dark if he’d been asked to.
Quite feasibly. We know Babs wanted Sean Bean as Bond rather than the ready-made and pre-packaged conventional Bond image of Brosnan for GOLDENEYE.
Personally, I don't think Craig's look in CR made a bit of difference. Christ, he's playing an immature 38 YEAR OLD ARROGANT MANCHILD while looking like a world weary man of maturity and experience!
There seems a bit of problem with Craig and the whole sex thing... It's very much start as you mean to go on. So once you have the first girl dying, it's hard to change tack and have a nice, happy finale for the next one. I for one would not really want that silly sex farce 'Really, 007!' ending for a Craig film. It belongs to another era. But the sex in his films just doesn't quite work, it doesn't have a context imo.
I suppose once you stop treating sex as the punchline in your movie you have probs with how to present it. But it's also one area where the past films weigh heavily on the present.
There seems a bit of problem with Craig and the whole sex thing... It's very much start as you mean to go on. So once you have the first girl dying, it's hard to change tack and have a nice, happy finale for the next one. I for one would not really want that silly sex farce 'Really, 007!' ending for a Craig film. It belongs to another era. But the sex in his films just doesn't quite work, it doesn't have a context imo.
I suppose once you stop treating sex as the punchline in your movie you have probs with how to present it. But it's also one area where the past films weigh heavily on the present.
Erm, it worked for a certain IF and Bond's martini glugging final scene in LIVE AND LET DIE with Solitaire as the follow up to CASINO ROYALE, though...
It's just a stylist EON cop-out (or bad writing, take your pick). There's no reason at all Craig-Bond can't end up with an embrace with a smitten girl.
Doubt Lazenby's DAF would have had the Georgester end up looking miserable on his own?
For me, the sex scenes in the Bond films have always been irrelevant, and in the Craig films they seem to have been given more importance than they should have. I liked the way the Connery films never showed any sex, but rather just him pulling the woman, then a quick cut to them afterwards lying in bed with him promising to save her from the villain etc. I know that’s corny, but it moved the plots forward, so the films didn’t get bogged down in “relationship” issues.
SeanConnery007The Bond Archive - London, EngPosts: 169MI6 Agent
The biggest issue with SF (though currently I have only had the one viewing on release night, Blu-ray in UK soon), is that it lacks the two most important aspects of any film; narrative and jeopardy.
Think of previous Bond films and the basic narrative is clear;
LTK, Bond seeks revenge for the brutality against a personal friend by a corrupt drug Lord organising an illegal deal. Bond's vendetta whilst working outside of MI6 provides the jeopardy.
GE, ex-agent seeks revenge by stealing Russian satellite weapon and intends to bankrupt England. The fact Bond has to deal with friend becoming foe provides the jeopardy.
CR, a banker to terrorists attempts to reclaim lost funds at a poker game. The fact Bond is an arrogant rookie unaware of the higher criminal powers at work provides the jeopardy.
SF just isn't too sure whether its trying to be a standard Bond film or whether its being explicitly 'clever' and 'modern'.
The data being lost introduces an initial jeopardy, but is soon forgotten. Arguably the fact Bond's abilities are being questioned introduces jeopardy - but come on, this is a Bond film, we cant begin to question whether 007 is still capable (and infact just hold on until after the PTS and he's suddenly 'back in action'). Then we get M being hunted by Silva - another possible jeopardy - But, at no point do we really feel like Silva is truly a threat to M. In fact, it seems Mallory and the Government powers offer more of a threat to her pension than Silva does for her life. If we accept that the film's jeopardy is meant to derive from the 'will she be killed/ will she survive' of M in the hands of 007, then the films climax offers no resolution - the jeopardy is lost both in M's demise and in Bond's failure to avert the demise.
So what is the films basic narrative? The data plot is dropped early on and so all we're left with is Bond finding Silva, losing Silva and then the showdown at the film's namesake. Other than this I struggle to find any other clear narrative plot that strings the sequences together. At this point the film instead decides its had enough of a standard narrative and wants to play 'clever'. The film is full of themes and motifs - the tired and outdated, no longer fit for service agent and M, represented in 007's literal and symbolic 'fall', M's political reputation all present in the painting of the decrepid warship. The need for resurrection, new life and prosperity in a new MI6, new M and all who sail in her (another painting). The Oedipal relationship of two agents and their figarative mother. The need to re-visit the past and reconcile with its demons in the country homestead of Bond's family and M's ever-blotted C.V.
SF sometimes seems so determined to be 'clever', to harness something deeper and more serious than a secret agent saving the world and getting the girl, that it forgets to tell a story. The film is structured by its need to focus on motifs and themes and so evidently it never settles longer enough to get a plot straight and instead attempts to shoe-horn in a DB5, a MoneyPenny a Martini and a "Bond... James, Bond", to fill the gaps and remind you, "Yes, its a Bond film but haven't we been clever in repackinging it!?".
That, ofcourse, is determined only by you.
The REALLY clever denoument of SKYFALL would have been Bond saving M, getting the girl (any old Glencoe wench would have done in context; hey, Kincade turns out to be a comely lass who always lusted after JB).... and then after meeting Mallory as the new M it's revealed Dench-M died off screen due to a heart attack due to her age and stress of the events in Scotland,
There seems a bit of problem with Craig and the whole sex thing... It's very much start as you mean to go on. So once you have the first girl dying, it's hard to change tack and have a nice, happy finale for the next one. I for one would not really want that silly sex farce 'Really, 007!' ending for a Craig film. It belongs to another era. But the sex in his films just doesn't quite work, it doesn't have a context imo.
I suppose once you stop treating sex as the punchline in your movie you have probs with how to present it. But it's also one area where the past films weigh heavily on the present.
Yes, well give me character over sex etc. any day! Long live King Daniel Craig.
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
The biggest issue with SF (though currently I have only had the one viewing on release night, Blu-ray in UK soon), is that it lacks the two most important aspects of any film; narrative and jeopardy.
Think of previous Bond films and the basic narrative is clear;
LTK, Bond seeks revenge for the brutality against a personal friend by a corrupt drug Lord organising an illegal deal. Bond's vendetta whilst working outside of MI6 provides the jeopardy.
GE, ex-agent seeks revenge by stealing Russian satellite weapon and intends to bankrupt England. The fact Bond has to deal with friend becoming foe provides the jeopardy.
CR, a banker to terrorists attempts to reclaim lost funds at a poker game. The fact Bond is an arrogant rookie unaware of the higher criminal powers at work provides the jeopardy.
SF just isn't too sure whether its trying to be a standard Bond film or whether its being explicitly 'clever' and 'modern'.
The data being lost introduces an initial jeopardy, but is soon forgotten. Arguably the fact Bond's abilities are being questioned introduces jeopardy - but come on, this is a Bond film, we cant begin to question whether 007 is still capable (and infact just hold on until after the PTS and he's suddenly 'back in action'). Then we get M being hunted by Silva - another possible jeopardy - But, at no point do we really feel like Silva is truly a threat to M. In fact, it seems Mallory and the Government powers offer more of a threat to her pension than Silva does for her life. If we accept that the film's jeopardy is meant to derive from the 'will she be killed/ will she survive' of M in the hands of 007, then the films climax offers no resolution - the jeopardy is lost both in M's demise and in Bond's failure to avert the demise.
So what is the films basic narrative? The data plot is dropped early on and so all we're left with is Bond finding Silva, losing Silva and then the showdown at the film's namesake. Other than this I struggle to find any other clear narrative plot that strings the sequences together. At this point the film instead decides its had enough of a standard narrative and wants to play 'clever'. The film is full of themes and motifs - the tired and outdated, no longer fit for service agent and M, represented in 007's literal and symbolic 'fall', M's political reputation all present in the painting of the decrepid warship. The need for resurrection, new life and prosperity in a new MI6, new M and all who sail in her (another painting). The Oedipal relationship of two agents and their figarative mother. The need to re-visit the past and reconcile with its demons in the country homestead of Bond's family and M's ever-blotted C.V.
SF sometimes seems so determined to be 'clever', to harness something deeper and more serious than a secret agent saving the world and getting the girl, that it forgets to tell a story. The film is structured by its need to focus on motifs and themes and so evidently it never settles longer enough to get a plot straight and instead attempts to shoe-horn in a DB5, a MoneyPenny a Martini and a "Bond... James, Bond", to fill the gaps and remind you, "Yes, its a Bond film but haven't we been clever in repackinging it!?".
That, ofcourse, is determined only by you.
You’ve hit the nail on the head—there’s absolutely nothing at stake in this film. In “Moonraker”, at least the survival of the world was.
Comments
just as long as we are having a reasoned discussion about it, that's the main thing B-)
What a class act you are. If the success of SF's box office is the result of viewers like you, society is in trouble.
I see your point, about Bogarde, though I think in real life his candidacy as Bond was considered; he was no more neurotic, (or gay) as Lawrence Harvey, who I think would have made a fantastic "serious" Bond. As for Bond being neurotic, in the books he was borderline near the end of the series (to be treated by Sir James Moloney, a neurologist) and I think from Dalton onwards, some of it peeked through and I think it runs deep despite the bravado (as exposed by Vesper in their 1st meeting), though we can't have him exhibiting full blown neurosis, can we?
IMHO, Patrick McGoohan - who in the late 50s was just coming into his own - would have been a fantastic Bond. He was one of the producers' first choices but turned it down as the whole guns & girls thing didn't fit his beliefs... Shame.
He would have been a fine Bond, in a fan-boy Daltonesque manner. I think though that the right man got the job in terms of propelling the Character into a world wide phenomenon and provIding the basis for the longevity we have seen. That swagger and elan were mission critical even if not as prominent in Flemings conception.Something about Connerry caught the public imagination in a way that I doubt McGoohan would have.
Well said.
That guy is probably exactly the sort of audience Babs and Mike are aiming at now.
Yes, McGoohan would have been good. As would have Laurence Harvey who Superardo mentioned before.
Everybody says Craig is the best Bond since Connery but I don’t know why. What has Craig got that remotely echoes Connery’s performance to make such a comparison? Lazenby had more in common with Connery than Craig has. Perhaps people mean that Craig is the best because he’s “tougher” than Moore or Brosnan—if so does that alone make for a good Bond? I don’t see Bond as merely a tough guy.
Of course, every Bond, with the obvious exception of Connery himself, has been annointed by the public and press as "the best Bond since Connery", including Lazenby.
And, I confidently predict, so will Craig's successor.
At which time Craig nuthuggers will have to prepare themselves for a storm of "truth" about Craig's films and the usual revisionism every Bond suffers on his departure.
I understand your reasoning, but I get the impression that most of the public (non-Bond fans) who see him as the best might do so because of his tougher persona. Dalton was just as good as Craig with regard to the qualities you mentioned Craig as having, yet he has been largely underrated by the public, in my view. Dalton also looked closer to the Bond in the novels, in the sense that he looked a bit like Hoagy Carmicheal, who Fleming said Bond looked like.
Fully appreciate your view & can't argue with what you've said. I guess as with most things it comes down to personal preference & for me it's DC. His overall physicality, coldness of portrayal to date, dry humour & lack of 'cheesiness' appeal to my view of how the character should be (rightly or wrongly). Dalton got / gets such a raw deal on so many levels IMO. He was very, very good in the role & for some reason appears to not get the plaudits he deserves.
Shallow as it may be, for all the qualities Craig has Dalton matches, and therefore the deal-breaker for me then is the actual fact that he simply LOOKS more like the James Bond that Fleming described than Craig does/can.
NEGATIVES:
-Story-wise, I expected more than what the filmmakers gave us. I was in my seat thinking, "Come on, where's the bloody story?"
-The film's length - quite simply it was unnecessarily long.
-Judi Dench's line with an "F" word - totally unnecessary in a Bond film. (I know, I know - Clifton James said it in LALD, too, and that film didn't need it, either)
-Where was the element of FUN??? 8-) I had very little joy thoughout the film, and I was thinking, aren't these films made for people to have fun?
-When the hell is DC's Bond going to sit back, relax and have a wild, unadulterated time with some hot chicks - who end up living afterwards - and then carry on with his mission? WHEN, BABS AND MIKEY, WHEN????? 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
POSITIVES
-The PTS contained just about all the elements one would have come to expect from a Bond fillm, and Mendes and co. did a fine job.
-The performances and interaction between the actors were unusually prominent in a Bond film, so much so that they made the action scenes and stuntwork take a back seat.
All in all, I would rank SF about 6th or 7th from the bottom of my list of Bond films.
I’m glad we can disagree amicably. Most Craig fans take even the slightest reservations about him as being blasphemous.
Yes, that would be the deal-breaker for me, too. I do think the actor playing Bond has to at least look the part. I might have even been able to accept Craig had he dyed his hair dark. He’s done so for other non-Bond roles.
Very true. And very obvious. Shame. I wonder why the filmakers ignored it?
Quite feasibly. We know Babs wanted Sean Bean as Bond rather than the ready-made and pre-packaged conventional Bond image of Brosnan for GOLDENEYE.
Personally, I don't think Craig's look in CR made a bit of difference. Christ, he's playing an immature 38 YEAR OLD ARROGANT MANCHILD while looking like a world weary man of maturity and experience!
I suppose once you stop treating sex as the punchline in your movie you have probs with how to present it. But it's also one area where the past films weigh heavily on the present.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Erm, it worked for a certain IF and Bond's martini glugging final scene in LIVE AND LET DIE with Solitaire as the follow up to CASINO ROYALE, though...
It's just a stylist EON cop-out (or bad writing, take your pick). There's no reason at all Craig-Bond can't end up with an embrace with a smitten girl.
Doubt Lazenby's DAF would have had the Georgester end up looking miserable on his own?
Think of previous Bond films and the basic narrative is clear;
LTK, Bond seeks revenge for the brutality against a personal friend by a corrupt drug Lord organising an illegal deal. Bond's vendetta whilst working outside of MI6 provides the jeopardy.
GE, ex-agent seeks revenge by stealing Russian satellite weapon and intends to bankrupt England. The fact Bond has to deal with friend becoming foe provides the jeopardy.
CR, a banker to terrorists attempts to reclaim lost funds at a poker game. The fact Bond is an arrogant rookie unaware of the higher criminal powers at work provides the jeopardy.
SF just isn't too sure whether its trying to be a standard Bond film or whether its being explicitly 'clever' and 'modern'.
The data being lost introduces an initial jeopardy, but is soon forgotten. Arguably the fact Bond's abilities are being questioned introduces jeopardy - but come on, this is a Bond film, we cant begin to question whether 007 is still capable (and infact just hold on until after the PTS and he's suddenly 'back in action'). Then we get M being hunted by Silva - another possible jeopardy - But, at no point do we really feel like Silva is truly a threat to M. In fact, it seems Mallory and the Government powers offer more of a threat to her pension than Silva does for her life. If we accept that the film's jeopardy is meant to derive from the 'will she be killed/ will she survive' of M in the hands of 007, then the films climax offers no resolution - the jeopardy is lost both in M's demise and in Bond's failure to avert the demise.
So what is the films basic narrative? The data plot is dropped early on and so all we're left with is Bond finding Silva, losing Silva and then the showdown at the film's namesake. Other than this I struggle to find any other clear narrative plot that strings the sequences together. At this point the film instead decides its had enough of a standard narrative and wants to play 'clever'. The film is full of themes and motifs - the tired and outdated, no longer fit for service agent and M, represented in 007's literal and symbolic 'fall', M's political reputation all present in the painting of the decrepid warship. The need for resurrection, new life and prosperity in a new MI6, new M and all who sail in her (another painting). The Oedipal relationship of two agents and their figarative mother. The need to re-visit the past and reconcile with its demons in the country homestead of Bond's family and M's ever-blotted C.V.
SF sometimes seems so determined to be 'clever', to harness something deeper and more serious than a secret agent saving the world and getting the girl, that it forgets to tell a story. The film is structured by its need to focus on motifs and themes and so evidently it never settles longer enough to get a plot straight and instead attempts to shoe-horn in a DB5, a MoneyPenny a Martini and a "Bond... James, Bond", to fill the gaps and remind you, "Yes, its a Bond film but haven't we been clever in repackinging it!?".
That, ofcourse, is determined only by you.
Bit too subtle and clever. Film writers, eh?
100% agree!
Campbell is a genius!
Movies: The Spy Who Loved Me. Actor: Pierce Brosnan. Theme: You Only Live Twice. :D
Yes, well give me character over sex etc. any day! Long live King Daniel Craig.
You’ve hit the nail on the head—there’s absolutely nothing at stake in this film. In “Moonraker”, at least the survival of the world was.