It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I certainly wouldn’t say SP and NTTD are boring. Frustrating perhaps at times, but I find them much more gripping to watch for all their flaws.
I must admit I don't have that issue with YOLT; not that I watch it much of course as I've seen it(!), but although it's not top tier Bond there's enough in there to keep me interested. Unlike TB it does at least seem to be a sequel to GF in spirit.
In this case, yes.
NTTD is too long for the story it tells. You can make every scene shorter.
And SPECTRE... well. Why doesn't it end in Blofeld's lair?
Both movies drag a lot.
It's the wedding and all the stuff when they're hiking to the volcano that bores me a bit. This might be subjective too but the film as a whole has an odd feel to it where it seems like the script has been written to accommodate set/stunt pieces, as if it's stopping and starting almost (obviously Bond and many other films will do that by their nature, so it's not necessarily a bad thing. But with YOLT there's no tangible reason for, say, Helga to pretend to fall for Bond only to trap him in the plane a scene later. It doesn't feel quite as organic compared to the previous Bond films, and for me it can get a bit tiresome).
We're all different, but I'd personally say being boring isn't a sin of SP or NTTD, even if being long might be (although even that's quite debatable - actually I think NTTD is well paced even if it's overloaded with story).
I'm not sure if I'd describe any other Bond movies as 'boring' aside from those parts of TB and YOLT.
Oh yeah, Young was a superior director to Hamilton (though GF is pretty great). I do wonder if he was the right director for TB though. A lot of his flaws really do come to the forefront of that film (Peter Hunt always said he had a bad habit of calling cut way too early and it would force him to edit scenes in certain ways. You really see it during that last fight in TB).
I agree. NTTD does really drag as it has too many characters.
Oh yeah, I totally agree that it's very episodic and choppy, it does feel like lots of things just chucked together. I still like it regardless as it's colourful and varied and there's always something different coming up next(!) but it's not one of the best.
Interesting, I totally agree about the directors at least; I think Hamilton especially shows that into his 70s efforts.
I'd agree with that. I think the advantage it has over TB is that it is quite technically accomplished and stylistically has a flair to it. I'd say if we're comparing directors Young was better than Hamilton (the latter's 70s Bond films really have some poor direction and filmmaking that gets into the realm of outright mistake) but Gilbert really stands out. His Bond films might not be for everyone but there was a sense he knew what he was doing.
Connery wanted Young to direct YOLT. Perhaps the film would have had more edge.
I think Young was better with tighter, more small scale Bond thrillers. Gilbert was the director who really brought that flair to the bigger Bond films and set pieces (even GF isn't quite as big or bombastic compared to later Bond films).
Bringing this back to SF, I find Gilbert similar to Mendes in many ways. Both were accomplished filmmakers who had prior careers with more drama based films (albeit in many different genres), and both directors went on to make Bond movies that really ran with that heightened, unashamedly Bondian flair and humour (SF certainly has plenty of those moments). Both SF and TSWLM even have that clear undercurrent of character drama to them which I find makes them stand out.
(I'm of course just waiting for the inevitable response to this post about how Mendes was in fact not a good Bond director at all and everything I said is wrong, with the expectation that this will in some way tarnish SF's reputation as a film, haha).
Yeah, I hate this... :(
Yep, it's getting a bit easy to second guess now, isn't it? :D
Not really sure what a 'Bond director' is, really. Mendes did give the series a bit of gravitas, that's for sure. You can imagine the actors responding well to his instruction or he would batter them with a blunt object.
I could imagine Tiger deploying a second chopper just so he too could watch it. He lives in an underground tram by himself. Needs all the fun he can get.
Nope, not really, no idea what you mean.
You rarely do, chief!
A Bond director is a director... who has directed a James Bond film...
Says the guy who doesn't understand what a Bond director is :D Feel free to explain why you think that YouGov survey you posted says what you said it did then rather than ignoring it. Or this weird Mendes thing, are you saying he's known for battering people?
Nope, no idea what you mean.
Don't forget a bit of fun.
That's obvious.
I watched it for the first time in years during the COVID lockdown. I had always dismissed it but upon rewatching it, I walked away feeling differently. I now consider it to be PB's best; it's his most assured performance and the film has real dimension. Robert Carlyle is an underrated villain and a prototype for Silva.
Actually, it probably is Brosnan's best. There are some hairy moments for him, but he's the best thing about the film. Definitely.
The film isn't good, though.
Very broadly too I'd say the film owes a lot to the Brosnan films. The whole 'old vs new' theme is also there in GE, and Silva's also comparable to Alec Travelyan (worth noting GE is also a film that references Bond's past, and the idea of 'orphans making the best recruits' is very much there in that film too). And of course SF outright references that film with the exploding pen line.
It's similar to how TSWLM's plot effectively adapts YOLT's. Or how TLD uses a lot of FRWL. You can apply it to many more examples, but the Bond series - literary and cinematic - has a tendency to revisit many of its own ideas. For what it's worth I think SF is a lot more thought out than TWINE, and I'd argue works much better.
Goldfinger is literally named after a modernist architect whom Fleming didn't like.
Yes, SF is highly derivative of both previous Bonds and other box-office bonanza. The lower end Bond films usually follow this formula.
I'd argue it's a kindred spirit more of DAD (anniversary feel, bluster) than TWINE, but it's better than both. Just.
SF's sly dig at GoldenEye is absolutely unforgivable, though.
:)) Automatic anti-Skyfall defences engaged...
And no, it's not just the 'lower end' Bond films that do that. You can apply that to some of the most well regarded and financially successful ones in the series. Including SF ;) And yes, SF is definitely an anniversary Bond film and uses references similar to how DAD uses them... that said I don't think I see much else in common with those two films, haha.