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 never thought AVTAK would have been a good launching pad for Dalton (maybe Brosnan?) but it's intriguing to think what Dalton would have done with Grace Jones and Christopher Walken.
She is however stunning to look at (imo) but I think Moore needed an older actress to be paired with.
Chiles is actually more convincing as a cold agent than Barbara was, the thing is Chiles didn't have anything to do with the character, I liked Holly Goodhead for how she was played with more agency in the film, with Barbara Bach, she had to play with the character's complexity and emotion about her boyfriend being killed and exacting a revenge on Bond, and a Russian accent, Barbara failed it, then the character didn't helped who did nothing for most of the film, after the Egyptians scenes at least, when she's supposed to be the Proto Wai Lin (TND).
Holly Goodhead, I don't think are that much of a demanding character, all she needed was to be a capable fighter and an agent, an action heroine, she didn't need to show any emotions, and her background was not as strong as Anya Amasova (who had a Siberian Survival Course and a Major to boot and had dead boyfriend that she needed to avenge), but Holly did more than what she was written as she showed off her fighting skills, so, in many ways, she improved on Anya, and Lois Chiles didn't have to dealt with emotional scenes and an accent.
I get that Chiles' performance is a bit weak, but yes, it has something to do more with the material, Chiles didn't have to work much with the character, other than to be a capable fighter aiding Moore's Bond, it's not that Chiles' performance is better, but the material elevated Chiles' more than Bach, because Chiles did what the material asked, she played a convincing CIA Agent, that's all, nothing more, nothing less.
The frustrating thing about Bach, was the character was more than what she had shown, she was supposed to be a complex character with a dead boyfriend she's going to avenge and confront Bond for killing her lover, then she had this Siberian Survival Course, a Major of KGB, the top Agent of Russia, and of course, a Russian, but Bach, failed to deliver the performance, the way she delivered her lines was like she's reading it straight from the script while she's 'acting', it's just flat, the same for facial expressions, she's just flat and wooden, I didn't get a sense of anger or any emotion from her deliveries when she vowed Bond to kill him after the mission when she learned that he killed her boyfriend, or when she pointed the gun at Bond in the end, there's no emotion, she just stared blank and probably minding being beautiful in that shot (thanks to her waterproof makeup), and the accent was strange and odd, then to top it off, she didn't showed any skill that would prove her training and her background as a Top KGB Agent (a Major).
I know, those two are a bit different, but Chiles probably had an advantage of delivering a less demanding character, Bach, on the othe hand, had been tasked with delivering a character more than she could chew.
I don't think Bach is quite that bad. I've never had a problem seeing her as this very business-like Russian agent whose exterior breaks a bit during the story. I'm a sure a better actress would have put in a more layered performance, but ultimately all I have to do on is what we got. For whatever reason I don't find that Chile's natural charm comes through in MR (again, very stilted performance in a number of scenes - very odd).
I'd say someone like Michelle Yeoh doesn't have a lot to work with as Wai Lin but she has quite a lot of charm in TND. So I don't think it's always a case of the character needing to be more complex...
Yes, I agree, a better actress would've given a more nuanced and layered performance, when it comes to a very business like Russian Agent, the best example of it would be someone like Xenia Onatopp, or Pola Ivanova, I just think both are played very well (Bach's accent was also a bit strange, she should've been dubbed instead).
Famke Janssen and Fiona Fullerton still acted like humans, Bach acted more like a barbie doll 😅, when I've learned that Bach was set to return in AVTAK, initially, in place of Pola Ivanova, I can't imagine her in that hot tub scene, that banter Fullerton had with Moore, the expressions, I just can't imagine Bach, thankfully she didn't returned.
Onnatop's a very different character. But Janssen looks like she's having a great time with it. Not sure if Pola ever really stood out to me in terms of the actress's performance though, but maybe I haven't seen AVTAK in a while. But if anything perhaps Bach's 'flatness' makes her more memorable in some strange way and brings out that side of the character more, especially when we see the contrast with her warming to Bond or telling him she'll kill him (not that I'd call her performance completely flat even if it lacks that more dynamic element a better actress might have given it - I think she does better than many give her credit for honestly).
Yes, Yeoh is a good one. I don't think she's an especially good actor either -in any of her roles- and yet she's great onscreen, very charismatic.
Janssen is a much better actress than any of these, and it shows. She knows exactly what she is doing.
True, she's probably the best Russian Agent actress in the series, very convincing, Famke is a great actress in general, I liked her roles in Taken and X-Men.
I think Auger quite fits as Domino, if looking at the character itself, unlike the Domino in the book which was more demanding (I think some of the character's elements are transferred in Fiona Volpe's character), but in the film, she's alright, no different from the Kim Basinger version in Never Say Never Again, her role was to be of Largo's mistress, a damsel in needing of Bond's rescue.
But if Auger was given a more demanding role, I'm not sure if she could've pulled it, yes, Domino quite fits in her performance, she's not given much to do.
I think the only time where Barry's experiments worked was in TLD, it's suave sounding and a bit exciting, the beats quite worked.
Its a great story. The Lazenby movie on Hulu is a great watch for a fictionalized version of what happens
TB is the closest a Bond film gets to being 'so bad it's good'. Not all the way through of course (it has a lot about it that's brilliant, as does every Bond movie). But watching it today there are quite a few scenes that range from unintentionally hilarious to weird. Even more so than DAD. The strange opening with Bouvar dressing as his own widow and the janky fight, the rack scene, the casual sexual harassment Bond inflicts on the nurse, Sir John and giant map/useless presentation, the final fight on the boat with sped up editing and the poor henchman who gets knocked over while bringing up some champagne etc.
I don't have that with TB, though I do have that with YOLT. I think Sean is in good form in TB and he knows it's all a bit silly, but enjoys it nonetheless. YOLT is even more ridiculous, though in that one he doesn't seem to enjoy it anymore, giving it an unwilling autoparody feel.
YOLT doesn't quite have that for me. It's ridiculous, but apart from the silly scene with Bond being half heartedly disguised as a Japanese fisherman I don't think there's anything necessarily unintentionally funny in there.
The first three have little action for modern audiences, YOLT is too ridiculous and OHMSS is hurt by the fashion of the late 60s.
I'd say FRWL, GF and OHMSS hold up better nowadays. The barn scene has its criticisms, but they've got good stories and pace. If you're not into Bond or movies from that era in general, sure, you're not going to like them, but that'd the case with all the Bond films from that decade anyway. YOLT I wouldn't necessarily recommend either to someone wanting to watch a 60s Bond film for the first time, and its issues overlap with TB I'd say (ie. they lag quite a bit just before the climax).
TB has a lot in it that just comes off as... well, naff when rewatching it. At least in my experience. There's a noticeable step down in quality from the previous two. It's quite a funny film to watch with people if in the right frame of mind. It's a weird Bond film in terms of reputation though. It seems to be highly regarded for certain people, but I don't think I've met anyone outside these forums who's loved it after watching it for the first time. Anyway, I think it's got the most unintentionally funny/'bad' moments out of any Bond film.
Interesting, yeah I can imagine a sort of Mystery Science Theatre 3000 watching it and talking about all the dodgy back projection, Bond in his little jetpack helmet, the Vulcan modelwork, Largo being kind of ridiculous from the off, the nonsense bit with the tape recorder in the book etc. I think you have to be in the right mind for it.
Even so, I dunno, it still has that sheen of quality. Connery is great in it, the music is wonderful, it generally looks superb... I think there's enough which is good that it can kind of seduce you. In terms of So Bad It's Good I kind of look towards DAD in a way: there's something much more naff about it which I can imagine working more for that sort of thing: like Pierce is kind of bad, but very enjoyably and charmingly bad- I love to sort of laugh along with him.
Oh yeah, neither TB or DAD are The Room or Birdemic. There's a quality to TB that can be seen onscreen.
TB for me has more to laugh about though compared to DAD (which yes, has some very odd, dated moments, including some strange 2000s slow motion/sped up editing). Again, the rack scene, the opening, the fact that you can see very overtly that punches aren't landing a number of times. Even some odd plot points like whatshisname saving Domino or the weird moment where Bond realises his hat has gone (I know there are explanations, but no casual viewer will get it immediately as it's so out of context) are quite baffling. So yeah, very much that Mystery Science Theatre 3000 element to it.