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
Sweet! At first I was hoping it was a November Man sequel, but the synopsis for this movie was so compelling to me that I will not complain.
In my head canon, I treat all these spy characters Brosnan's been playing recently as his Bond, with a dark side.
Adding to that, Brosnan's son, Sean Brosnan, will be playing the younger version of his character in Last Man Out. They do look alike. A lot.
Recently I've enjoyed viewing 'The Matador' as taking place after DAD, with Brosnan's Bond being completely worn out and past his prime, working with a seedy organization that helps him put his talents to work while still raking in the cash and bedding anyone in sight. Of course, the drinking and cursing have been heightened by roughly 4,000%, too, which is always fun!
@Creasy47, interesting. I think what Pierce has been doing is finding projects that speak to him with the tones that he wanted to tackle while playing Bond, but that never really worked out. He's so good as these morally ambiguous bastards who make you see the grays in how we act towards one another. That scene in November Man where he does a certain thing to a certain character with a certain sharp object really spoke to me, as that's who I wanted him to play Bond as. He's a man who needed results, and he acted in a way that would get him those effectively.
Absolutely, I agree. He's said on numerous occasions how bad he wanted his Bond to be more akin to the way Craig has been playing him: grounded, brutal, realistic, bloody, and sexy. Shame that he got paired with the likes of DAD, which is the complete polar opposite of Craig's tenure.
The scene where he slits open the woman's leg? I also would've loved to see that side to his Bond. You could always tell tha beneath Brosnan's performance, there was something there that he just wasn't allowed to bring out, a sort of bastard side. We'd seen a bit of that side in Goldeneye, but it just got lost afterwards. Real shame too.
I think I heard once that Brosnan really wanted to amp up the maturity of the era too, especially in the sex scenes. If he'd gotten the input Craig has, those would've been some super interesting films. It just feels like after GE they went back to basics instead of really moving towards a new arena for Bond.
I guess that so soon after the failure of Dalton's more edged out films to hit with audiences, they felt the world wasn't ready for it yet, especially in the states.
Interesting. I assume it had Jinx orgasming or something, as I can't think of anything else that would really set the MPAA on the attack.
There should be room in Bond to go there. These are on the whole very adult films with adult content, so sex should be fair play. The fact that violence gets a pass while one nipple sinks the ship is so laughable to me in so many ways and speaks to western culture's massive logic gaps.
I'm happy that with the Craig era EON have really gone to places that some Bonds wouldn't go, in both departments. The love scene with Bond and Lucia in SP, for example, is really strong for me, and I almost feel bad for watching it as it comes off as a steamy and private moment between two lovers. We see no actual sex, yet it feels so sex-laden. That's something Bond should be able to do, and I'm glad EON don't shy away from that. It's a part of who Bond is, and if you can't show that, what's the point?
Even the earlier films were pushing the boundaries for how sex should be portrayed on screen. I've heard from James Bond Radio that Dr. No was the first film to show both a man and a woman sharing the same bed, although I don't know how true that is.
I agree though, that Bond was always very adult. The sexuality of the 60s films is mind-blowing, really, considering the time and place. DN has some of that adult content, but FRWL really pushed the boundary. A lesbian villain who is overtly into sex, Bond has a sex tape filmed of him, the cinematography focuses on female mouths wide open as the man penis size is implied, and all the rest. It's one of the Bond films where an overwhelming amount of its themes are sex based or tied to sexuality.
Add in all the stuff in GF and the very unrestrained focus on the female body and the villains who oppress sexualized and independent women, TB's use of Domino as a sex object for Largo that he abuses openly and the sick sexual relationship they have despite their age gap, and you've got some strong sexual content there. OHMSS caps off the era nicely in this regard, what with all its references to sex, Bond's erection at dinner, and the many women who swoon after him at Piz Gloria. In the character of Tracy the writers also made obvious sexual references: to thank Bond for helping her at the gambling tables, Tracy has learned via her past that the best way to pay a man back is to have sex with him and pay him. In a nutshell that tells us so much of what kind life she's led, how men have abused her for sex and all the rest. There's also the implied source of her suicide at the beginning, brought on by the death of a child she had by a man who abandoned her.
Vintage Bond went there, and I love those films for pushing that envelope. It was considered ballsy to go against the Hayes code even in the late 60s, but Bond has gone there from jump in major ways.
The books would've had a better chance of being liberated, as those kinds of barriers were always being broken for centuries, but for films of the day, it wasn't so easy. To show such explicit and implied sexual things at the cinemas that the public flocked to like a temple, was ballsy. The films of the 60s really began shattering the Hayes Code to tell interesting stories in an uncensored way, and for a series like Bond to go that route on such a dramatic stage of popularity, was something. Just two years before DN it was considered shocking for a woman to appear on screen in a bra. It's just crazy to imagine.
It was films like that that gave way to the 70s, and made the environment a safe one to tell more adult stories that didn't shy away from showing things as they were, and where violence and sex didn't have to be just implied or cut away from anymore. We couldn't have the great 70s films without the 60s films that really paved the way towards more freeing filmmaking long before.
I agree, the 70s was truly the "golden age" of cinema in my opinion. Filmmakers were becoming more and more inventive, and kept pushing those boundaries for how much violence we should show on screen, how much sex should we show, how much could we get away with. I like to think the Bond films helped pave the way, more than any other movie, for those types of films in the 70s, and also helped paved the way for Hollywood becoming more modern, and less shy towards sex, violence, etc. As people say, when Dr. No bursted onto screens in '62, it was unlike anything anybody had seen before. Gone was the era of the "kitchen sink drama", in came Bond, and the rest is history.
Funny because I'd argue nowadays the opposite is happening, where it's cool to not show sex, nudity, romance for the sake of it.
I'd say the same thing really, I think that nowadays you have so many big budget Hollywood movies that they would need to ensure whatever they could to get a lower rating for more audience members. You'd get more ticket sales off of a PG/PG-13 movie than R rated. It's a shame too because sometimes the studios behind these movies will make the directors compromise their vision for the sake of the approval rating.
He just choked on his vodka martini :
That's what I say! Pierce will soon be playing an Irish spy in an upcoming film that looks to be as dark as November Man, so that at least has me excited.
Some Internet issues at the time kept me from finishing it - the movie wasn't anything unique or grand (from what I saw, anyway), but it wasn't terrible, either. Would like to finish it some day.
Now I just need to get my hands on 'November Man' but it's never on.
I don't want to buy it yet,in case I don't like it .
It's a $15 Million budget production, with a lot of aspects you could see in a TV movie. It could have been better to display better quality action like the Bourne films, but at the end of the day, and that's only in my opinion, feels like a ripoff. However, Pierce is THE one who carries it through and Olga gives it an outstanding push. I don't care about the other actors in it... well, maybe Luke Bracey who seems to be a great newcomer. So, it's a Brosnan vehicle, so go for it. Especially when it's a spy flick. :)
Nice one @ClarkDevlin ,I will have a look and see what I can find,thanks matey !