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
LTK is just a refreshing film period. The main criticism it gets is that it isn't traditional enough, but why oh why does every Bond film have to play by the same old formula? It's a real hamper on any actual innovation to make every Bond film play by the same kinds of rules. For every Bond with souped-up glamor, exoticism and "style," you also need some in between that let loose and tell more human and bare-bones stories. Movies like LTK and QoS get all my respect for telling the stories they do, and for once deciding not to be a slave to what has been done in every other movie before. These films then get called anti-Bond, which I find hilarious. LTK has some amazing content in it, and Dalton's performance (as well as his work in TLD to a lesser extent) is the first truly impressive one since Sean's Thunderball.
All great lines.
"Compliments of Sharkey".
My controversial opinion is that Lupe is my favorite Bond girl. She is stunning to look at, sexy and her acting is fine.
The problem I have with Dalton is that you can sometimes sense him putting effort into his performance as opposed to it coming naturally (i.e. the scene when he finds Della).
I think this is her at the start of this classic clip:
(I'm swear the "mother" could be Grace Jones :))
Hmm. Well, I think that if they are going to stray from the formula they have to be relatively confident with the material they have, and I think many here feel that LTK doesn't tell a story well enough to justify abandoning the formula over.
Also, during the final scene Bond seemingly manages to get his job back in a cutesy "end on a happy note" manner.
Some may feel that way, but in the late 1980s Dalton's movies came off of a 12 year span where average stories were being told with the formula, so changing it without so much of the formula was worth it for me. The issues I have with TLD and LTK can all be traced back to the unwillingness on EON's part to give Dalton a script that 100% played to him. They let him have a slice of his Fleming cake here and there, but they also forced him to play from Moore's abridged playbook in truly horrendous moments too, and that's a shame. Dalton knew what he wanted, everyone else didn't, and that's the big issue with those films. If the effect of the Moore era wasn't enough, it also had to cancerously linger on past even AVTAK and infect Dalton's movies. Thankfully his acting and the overall grounded sense he gives to things help to diffuse the bad hangovers of the previous era whose presence is probably partly down to Glen, as he likely still had Moore on the mind and wasn't able to engage with Dalton in the way he needed to.
Beautiful to look at, but some of her line deliveries are really bad.
I'd say that in terms of women, the 1960's featured some really beautiful, voluptuous women, then it was the skinny 70's and 80's. The women of Casino Royale brought back what I had not seen since Diamonds are Forever.
So was OP and TLD they are both more Bondian.
@TellyBlofeld, agreed. The 60s women were true women of all sorts, with some built up like goddesses landed on earth (Honey), real and raw women (Tatiana, Domino, Tracy), an independent spirit (Pussy and Aki somewhat) and just flat out sex kittens (Plenty). A very nice range, but all of them had an iconic beauty while still being unique.
The 70s are a bit of a dead period for any kind of Bond glamour in the suits or women, save for Seymour and Bach, while only TLD's more "cute" Kara and LTK's ladies added nice things to look at, but no 60s level babes. The 90s had Natalya, who I think is one of the sexiest Bond girls ever, but the rest of the women have a very artificial feeling about them, beautiful women who were hired because of their looks while lacking the talent to make their characters stand out.
I agree that the Craig era has been a return to 60s styled Bond women, where the actresses have done what the original gals did and balanced their incredible looks with actual talent. While a good number of the 60s women were models or pageant winners with varying acting experience, their performances truly were impressive and are iconic for a reason; you'd never think they hadn't had experience in acting before. Andress beautifully played up Honey's oblivious nature to the dark acts she committed, Bianchi displayed Tatiana's inner battle and tug of the heart between Bond and Klebb with real depth, Blackman made Pussy a feminist icon by imbuing the character with a very strong nature and hands-off disposition, Auger shows the cracks in Domino's innocence and peels back the layers enough to reveal her inner pain, and Rigg hits about every level you could ever ask a Bond girl to.
It's clear that a return to the 60s spirit has been a game plan of the Craig films, in more ways than one. In addition to recalling a vintage style of fashion in suits and more vintage spaces, dialogues and spirits, it's also clear that most of the main Bond girls were chosen because they were talented and beautiful modern women who could recall the feeling of the 60s Bond girls. Women like Eva Green, Caterina Murino, Gemma Arterton, Bérénice Marlohe and Léa Seydoux all scream vintage style and beauty, down to their curves, hair styles and fashions. It's been a real treat to see this revival, where the leading women can both act alongside the leading man and knock your socks off with their gazes in a way we haven't seen for decades.
Even Stacey, Pam & Lupe have the goods, if not the acting skills.
It's only Goodhead, Corinne & Kara who are a bit lacking in the curvature dept, relatively speaking.
The 70s/80s women were okay, but nothing in character really backed up their looks to add power. The 60s women truly felt believable while being babes on top of it, and that's why I think they're the ultimate hetero-male fantasies come to life. They were more than just pretty faces, they also had personalities that made them unique and allowed them to feel very real. I don't feel any of that with the women of the Moore era outside Solitaire, Melina and maybe Octopussy, but I'm being generous. I think Kara is a nice return to a beautiful woman with a personality (though I know she annoys some), whereas Pam and Lupe, while beautiful, do suffer from the annoying love-triangle they put Bond through and at times make it hard to like them. I much prefer Pam, though, if pressed.
I also think that Anya and Goodhead were way ahead of their time as Bond equals of sorts, and still find them far more credible than any of these 'macho' types who've come since, including Kung Fu girl Wai Lin. Perhaps it was Moore's unthreatening approach, but I really felt that they were his equal (without him looking like a wuss), and that made their roles more credible. Again, as I've said somewhere before, they seem like women of today, who don't expect any favours from men and do things their way. Given that these films were made in the 70's, it's quite impressive. Far more adventurous and contemporary than whiners like Pam or uncredible jokers like Christmas and Jinx.
I wouldn't say SF is a continuation of Mankiewicz's use of stupid or naive female characters. Most of M's problems are created for her by others, like Moneypenny just being horrible at field work and Silva asking to be served up for jeopardizing his own age. M simply acts in the way she sees fit at the time, in tough situations. She ordered Moneypenny to fire because she didn't want to risk the drive getting away, as it was better lost as an alternative if Bond couldn't secure it. When it comes to Silva, he proved that he was unable to play by the rules and act according to orders, and so it was worth it to swap him for six agents who wouldn't act so thick and arrogant. I can't disagree with any of M's decisions, as I see why she made them. They're tough calls, but that's the business she is in; there's no such thing as an easy decision.
Interesting perspective. I just never connect any sympathy to Silva, and can't wait for him to die, so he doesn't feel like a tragic figure. He screwed up, he paid, M did her job. Bond understood her decision and gave her a look that said, "You did what you had to do," and I agree with the both of them. Silva's cyanide capsule failing isn't going to make me get all empathetic, and I'd actually be interested to know if Mendes and co. were really going out of their way to make audiences feel sorry for Silva.
I wouldn't say that in M and Moneypenny's case. I think they were taking calculated risks. Some of which didn't come out in their favour. As for Moneypenny she also saved bond's life in the machau casino and came to M's aid in the courtroom scene - two examples of excelling at her job. But also Mankiewicz uses Rosie and Goodnight's ineptitude and complete lack of strength of character for laughs. They are exclusively inept agents and used ostensibly as subjects of derision.
@Major_Boothroyd, the real victim of SF (and the Craig era as a whole, really) is Tanner. He's one of the most inept characters we've had that is written to be seen as foolish, uncoordinated and weak in direct comparison to everything Bond does. Sometimes I feel bad for old Tanner, but the moment he left M's side when she needed him in SF I had it with him. So much for loyalty, but at least Mallory was there to save her, even though they were practically strangers.
That's exactly how I saw it. There was a certain acceptance, but I did not see approval. Craig sold that well for me at least - it was in his eyes. I too didn't feel anything about the cyanide capsule. That was incidental to the betrayal.
In MP's case, Bond goes out of his way to embarrass her playfully to her face for her mistake (not only at MI6, but also in Istanbul when she hits the mirror). I think that was quite bold for the film makers, given he is a white man and she is a black woman, especially in today's PC climate. The implication is that she is best suited to a more female centric secretarial or administrative duties rather than the more meaty & manly stuff.
In M's case, as I mentioned above, it is her double cross of Silva, in combination with her incompetence in losing the disc (a career ending move as per Mallory) and getting Bond shot that come to mind.
Rosie was afraid of Samedi's powers which led to her nervousness, and she was clearly out of her depth. Goodnight had a good heart, but again was out of her league as a field agent.
As for the way Moneypenny was written, I see nothing wrong about her being presented as a woman who tries field work, doesn't take to it and decides to settle for the desk. I don't see it as an anti-woman statement, though I am shocked that in this outrage prone world Mendes wasn't beheaded by social justice warriors for it. I think even in 2012 things were better socially, however, whereas if that movie came out this year, there could be that kind of backlash. Utterly outrageous.
People should be happy that the Bond series is indifferent to bullshit social mores of acceptance peddled by an uber-sensitive portion of the population who are oblivious to the fact that what they're really fighting for is censorship. Bond films do what they want, and are able to at times go counter-culture. While the rest of the world was painting Soviets as demonic, the Bond series showed open detente with the west and east. Today they are doing the same with gender based interactions, taking "risks" like the above to develop Moneypenny into the role she's always had without a worry of getting flamed reactions back. For my money, though, the Bond girls we've had since CR have also all had major depth, which is always a great thing to see. They feel like real women and are played beautifully by each and every actress. I don't want to hear lip from any feminists on this count.
When it comes to M, I just don't see much that is her fault. Ronson and his whole crew really weren't prepared for attack, Moneypenny's bad aim isn't on her, Silva was an ass who didn't follow proper orders, etc. The only way M is fully responsible is if she had mind control powers and failed to make everyone act as she wanted. But only then. ;)