A James Bond Fan Reviews the Franchise

[SchwEnt]

Count me in on Clive Owen, too. I REALLY wanted him instead of Brosnan, or at least after Brosnan left.


And Moneypenny and Q...
I've read they were absent in the two Craig movies due to the script and stories. The filmmakers weren't purposely omitting them, but just didn't have a reason or scene that required them (although that hasn't stopped Bond makers in the past). They've said that if the script needs either of them, they'd go ahead and put them back onscreen.

And if you do need a new Q, I think Cleese is a fine choice. If you accept that no one can replace Desmond, then who WOULD be better than Cleese? Especially if you want Q in the same type of role, with a little snarky humor.
If they totally reboot Q as say, a deadly serious guy or a something, then you can start looking at other actors.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Clive Owen would make an excellent villain. In fact, he was the one I was rooting for to be the Bond who replaced Brosnan.

Same here. I think he looks perfect for Bond.

He definitely looks the part and after seeing him in Croupier, I was hoping that he would succeed Brosnan. But I've long since changed my mind. I still like Owen as an actor but he's better as an offbeat, shambling hero. Put him in a mainstream actioner - eg King Arthur - and he doesn't work.

Owen mumbles and fidgets his way through a movie. He'd have to totally change his acting style to play Bond. I'm not saying he couldn't do so, but if he played Bond like he's played most of his roles over the last decade or so, he'd be all wrong for it.

He was linked to a revival of Philip Marlowe a few years ago. I think that's a literary character turned big screen hero hes much more suited to.

 

[Starkers]

Martin sheen wasn't in Tron?

Thanks for spotting my obviously deliberate error EMH!

Captaindemotion, I think you're probably right about Owen, he does the dishevelled hero so well, in fact he'd probably be better as Harry Palmer than 007, not to say he couldn't have pulled it off (Craig isn't exactly always suave!)

 

[Captaindemotion]

^Clive in glasses .... hmmm! Who knows.

I could well be wrong about Clive, I wasn't in favour of either Brosnan or Craig being cast - shows what I know.

 

[Admiral Shran]

Merry Christmas everyone!

As a Christmas present to myself, I found a full copy of Never Say Never Again on YouTube. I'm be reviewing it within the next day or two.

Still having trouble finding a copy of Casino Royale (1967) though.

 

[Greg Cox]

Cool. I look forward to hearing what you think of NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN.

 

[jadcox@mindspring.com]

Thanks so much for the thread! I enjoyed it all, reviews and comments ... especially the overall recap. I even think I agree with this:
Dalton (9.500) > Craig (7.500) > Connery (7.000) > Lazenby (7.000) > Moore (6.286) > Brosnan (4.250)

Dalton and Craig are close to even in my book, although Dalton has a slight edge. I might put Bosnan ahead of Moore, but Moore DID make more better films. Very nice analysis.

When you're looking for NSNA, there is, somewhere on the Web, a "re-edited" version with the main theme (score sampled from the other "official" films) and the familiar gun barrel opening. It's a fun variation.

Thanks again!

 

[BlkTopTrvl]

Hello Folks, you all don't know me from Adam, so I will first say hello.

I registered and logged into this site for two reasons, (1) I am an Original Star Trek fan, meaning that I have watched ST from it’s birth in the original broadcasts till now, and my philosophy is that "Any Star Trek is Better than No Star Trek", and (2) because I have seen all of the Bond Movies and enjoy many of them.

I was searching the Web for a 007 series review when I came across your site. I wanted to see how many (if any) had the same feeling I did that most of the series, especially those films centering on Roger Moore, were as mindless as I thought they were; plenty of great looking girls, yes, plenty of hot cars, yes, plenty of action, Yes; but story and logic? No.

Mentioning Logic reminds me… How do you get a website devoted to both ST and Bond? But I digress…

Of course I don’t know the OP, but before I start to read his synopsis of the series (who knows I may agree with him in the end), I have to wonder what his reviews are based on after reading his order of precedence for the actors?

They seem totally wrong to me and I wonder if that is based on our age differences - if there is any. Outlook on life? Or maybe the OP just likes the newer films more because they are more gadget filled? Or simply because they are newer?

I would like to ask the OP, if you are up to it, to state just why it is that you like each actor/sub-series in general? Maybe that will give readers a better take on where you are coming from and therefore a better insight into your reviews.

 

[ichab]

Of course I don’t know the OP, but before I start to read his synopsis of the series ....

You need to read his reviews because all your questions are answered there.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Mentioning Logic reminds me… How do you get a website devoted to both ST and Bond? But I digress…

Elam Garak?

 

[Admiral Shran]

I was searching the Web for a 007 series review when I came across your site.

Glad to know my ramblings are spreading out beyond the TrekBBS.

I would like to ask the OP, if you are up to it, to state just why it is that you like each actor/sub-series in general? Maybe that will give readers a better take on where you are coming from and therefore a better insight into your reviews.

Your questions are answered, particularly in the franchise wrap-up (post #386). But, I'll gladly give a quick recap....

I like Dalton and Craig for the more down-to-earth atmosphere their movies have and for the gritty realism of their portrayals. I like Connery because he offered a very balanced performance between toughness, compassion and humor. Lazenby had potential, but in his one movie was too heavily focused on the gentle side of Bond. I also like Moore - yes, he's much more light-hearted in the role, but I can appreciate that. Brosnan is my least favorite not because I don't like him but because of things outside his control - his movies are too gadget filled, too reliant on things like special effects and many of the supporting characters aren't to my liking.

In short, there isn't a Bond I don't like.



FYI - I should have the Never Say Never Again review up late tonight.

 

[BlkTopTrvl]

Mentioning Logic reminds me… How do you get a website devoted to both ST and Bond? But I digress…

Elam Garak?

Hmmm, that would not be a bad persona to adopt.

 

[BlkTopTrvl]

I was searching the Web for a 007 series review when I came across your site.

Glad to know my ramblings are spreading out beyond the TrekBBS.

I would like to ask the OP, if you are up to it, to state just why it is that you like each actor/sub-series in general? Maybe that will give readers a better take on where you are coming from and therefore a better insight into your reviews.

Your questions are answered, particularly in the franchise wrap-up (post #386). But, I'll gladly give a quick recap....

I like Dalton and Craig for the more down-to-earth atmosphere their movies have and for the gritty realism of their portrayals. I like Connery because he offered a very balanced performance between toughness, compassion and humor. Lazenby had potential, but in his one movie was too heavily focused on the gentle side of Bond. I also like Moore - yes, he's much more light-hearted in the role, but I can appreciate that. Brosnan is my least favorite not because I don't like him but because of things outside his control - his movies are too gadget filled, too reliant on things like special effects and many of the supporting characters aren't to my liking.

In short, there isn't a Bond I don't like.



FYI - I should have the Never Say Never Again review up late tonight.

I have actually completed reading all of your reviews and I found them to be very interesting and well thought out. I also found a lot of added comments from other users to be very insightful.






My own take on Bond has been as follows..

• I started with 007 in the mid-sixties with Sean. And since he was the one who brought me to the party, he was my favorite, and I never felt that he "dishonored" the series. I don't remember which was the first flick I saw, But I do know that by the time George took over, I knew the prior movies inside and out.
• George played a Bond that a 9 year old would not like. I wanted action and he wanted to give love and romance.
• Because I also watched "The Saint" on TV, I am more likely to dismiss Roger Moore's portrails. I felt that he was playing "Simon Templar" more than Bond. And even though he may not have been the driving influence and head decision maker, I did feel that his movies made Bond look silly and that was not what I wanted to see. Even in my teens I knew that Bond was basically a sociopath (there is a scene, I forget which movie where James is kissing a woman and as he is looking into her eyes sees the reflection of someone sneaking up on him. He spins her around to be clubbed on the head and then fights off the attackers. That was cold!) And yes, that is the person I wanted to see more of in the movies. Hard driving, pantie dropping, and killing off the bad guys!
• Dalton was OK, but his movies had no pizzaz. To me, he was just another generic spy guy.
• Brosnan brought back the "real" Bond characteristics for me. The parking garage scene where he was driving the BMW from the back seat was something I wrote about in another forum. At first I thought it was out of character, but the more I think about it, the acto of running around a parking lot, in danger, destroying a bunch of stuff and really, really enjoying himself while doing so was one of the best car scenes. At first I really didn't like the fact that he "returned" the car to the rental agency by throwing it off the roof as a diversion. I thought that would be wrong because it unnecessarily endangered the public. But when you remeber his psychology, it fits.
• Craig. I was very much prepared not to like Daniel Craig as the new Bond. Mostly because he didn't look the part to me, but he has impressed me so much that I think I have to move him to the top of the list. His Bond is again cold and hard. Even more than I would have expected. But what I see in his movies is an agent who is emotionless and who does not give a rat's ass about ANYONE - except oddly "M" (I do hope that in future movies they continue to explore their relationship) and Vesper. I love how she melted his heart in "Casino Royal" then was the reason it was hardened as shown in "QOS". In this Bond, I do not see swuave killing machine, but a broken and lost man who in his latest incarnation is learing to be a person. Still a killer, but someone you can understand. I like this Bond!

And I like the analysis I have read here. The theory that each new Bond is the next "Dread Pirate Roberts" is a thought that had bounced around my head, but it is now an Idea that I am really liking - it would explain a lot of things.

I also never felt that the previous movies were as well connected to each other as has been described here - with the same characters and themes continuing from movie to movie, but I will have to watch them again to see if I can pick up some more if that insight you all have observed.

 

[Warped9]

I, too, have often felt Moore was more Simon Templar than 007 in his films. It wasn't pure Simon Templar, but often close. That said I enjoyed some of the Moore films and some of his portrayal. Moore was actually the first one I saw on the big screen although I was already somewhat familiar with Connery through television reruns of his Bond films.

In the end I preferred Connery in his first three or four films, particularly the first two because there he really seemed to have stepped from the pages of Fleming's books. Indeed reading the original novels after being introduced to Bond in film is what eventually drew me to prefer Connery.

I thought OHMSS was a good story, but Lazenby left me cold.

I think Brosnan could have been a good Bond, but the films are just crap and I can't stand them. What he might have been doesn't count for me.

Timothy Dalton was a step in the right direction for the character and I rather enjoyed The Living Daylights, But License To Kill felt off for some reason. That said I was a bit disappointed when dalton didn't return for another try.

Daniel Craig nailed it in terms of characterization. He really is the Fleming Bond come to life albeit adapted a bit for contemporary times. It also helped enormously that his two films were the right vehicles and right overall approach for his portrayal. It all meshed generally well.

Craig and Connery are oddly tied for top spot in my view. I like Craig's portrayal yet the young Connery is still what I visualize in my mind in terms of what the Fleming Bond looks like.

 

[Admiral Shran]

Never Say Never Again (***½)

I hope we're going to have some gratuitous sex and violence.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

On the whole this is good movie, with a few problems. More on the problems, and a comparison to Thunderball and Octopussy, later. First, what did I like....

Connery is back in top form. He does a much better job here than in Diamonds Are Forever, maybe even better than in You Only Live Twice. He seems to be enjoying himself more than in those movies and it shows. His balance of coldness, gentleness, and humor is as good as always. It's also nice that he's playing the role as an older Bond, something Roger Moore would soon try to avoid in A View to a Kill. I also liked how the action was more suited for an older man, with Bond not just laying waste to his opponents, but oftentimes either running away from them or barely winning.

While the movie makes no attempt to hide the fact that this is an alternative take on Thunderball, I do like a few of the changes to the general story. For example, it was nice that Jack Petachi was being forced by SPECTRE to take part in their plans, instead of greedily going along with them for profit. It was also a nice touch that they retained the plot line from the novels that members of SPECTRE constantly change their numbers in order to further disguise their identities, with Largo here being #1, instead of #2 as he is in Thunderball. Finally, it was nice that there was absolutely no ambiguity about Bond killing a woman this time. All I can say about Fatima Blush's death is.... DAMN, they weren't messing around this time were they?!

The music is also nice, though it does feel rather odd to not have the standard gun barrel and titles sequences.

So what's wrong? Well, again it's the supporting cast. Kim Basinger doesn't do a good job as Domino. Claudine Auger did a much better job in Thunderball. I've always liked Basinger, but this is OBVIOUSLY many years before she won an Oscar (and deservedly so) for L.A. Confidential. Klaus Maria Brandauer also pales in comparison to his Thunderball counterpart. Adolfo Celi did a much better job as Largo. Max von Sydow is probably one of the most awesome actors ever to live, but his Blofeld just leaves me cold. And finally, there's M. What is this guy's problem? He treats Bond like crap, shoots down Bond's ideas and generally acts like an asshole for no particular reason. I thought Judi Dench's version of M was bad in Brosnan's movies, but this version is much worse. At least Dench's M had a reason to dislike Bond - she thought he was a sexist (it wasn't a good reason, but at least it was a reason). Edward Fox's M just dislikes Bond because.... well because.

Also, SPECTRE's plan to steal the nuclear weapons was a little too hard to accept. How exactly did they get a perfect copy of the President's eyeball? The idea of using an impostor was a better way to go.

So how does Never Say Never Again compare to Thunderball and Octopussy, the "official" Bond movie released the same year. Well, I got to say that I prefer both Thunderball and Octopussy to this one. Thunderball wins out simply because it has a better Domino, a better Largo, a better Blofeld (strange as that seems, since I'm comparing von Sydow to a voice) and a better M. Octopussy is a much closer call, but ultimately I feel that it has a better sense of fun and excitement to it. And there's the fact, as I said in my Octopussy review, that that film has a lot of nostalgic value for me.

So, this is a good Bond movie and a worthy, shall we say, "sidequel" to the franchise. It's a shame I waited so long to watch it.

That's Amore: 4
Bond slept with Nurse Fearing, Fatima Blush, a tourist in the Bahamas, and Domino.

Body Count: 6

Redshirt Sidekicks: 1




Also, I still haven't found a copy of Casino Royale (1967). I've looked in all the local rental stores and libraries, but none of them have it (I suppose living in a small town in northwest Ohio has it's disadvantages). I watched Never Say Never Again on YouTube, so does anybody know where I can find a copy online? If not, I doubt I'll be able to review it.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I liked Moore's comment, when asked about the fact that there would be two 007 movies released in the same year. Old Rog replied, tongue-firmly-in-cheek (I hope) that one could go to the same street in Stratford on Avon or the West End of London and see Gielgud and Olivier playing the same roles in theatres a short distance away from one another.

I also think it's interesting that not only did 1983 see the release of both NSNA and Octopussy but it also saw George Lazenby return to the role - kinda. In the tv movie The Return of the Man from UNCLE, he has a cameo in a bar frequented by spies (including Solo and Kuryakin). His character is referred to as JB and IIRC he drives an Aston Martin. Wonder who that was meant to be? So really, 1983 is the year of the three Bonds.

 

[SchwEnt]

no comment on nigel small-fawcett (rowan atkinson) in NSNA?
helped the movie? hurt it? like or dislike?

 

[Saxman1]

I really liked NSNA and have fond memories of it. I took my dad to see it for Father's Day (he despised Roger Moore as Bond, loved Connery and even Lazenby in the role, died before Dalton took over the role, probably would have enjoyed him, too) and had a great time. Connery seemed to be having a ball and that only added to Dad's and my enjoyment of the film.

 

[Admiral Shran]

no comment on nigel small-fawcett (rowan atkinson) in NSNA?
helped the movie? hurt it? like or dislike?

He didn't really leave much of an impression on me - as he's only in, what, three short scenes?

I guess if anything, I would have liked if he wasn't included, or at least not played for pure comic relief. As it stands, the character is unnecessary. Besides, all I can think of when I remember the character is.... Mr. Bean?

 

[Starkers]

It's a real shame that the man who was Blackadder is more likely to be remembered as Mr Sodding Bean!

As for NSNA...It's been so long since I've seen in I don't know if I can comment. I suspect I'd prefer it to Thunderball, but given how I feel about TB that isn't hard

About the only thing I do recall is a rolicking good pre title sequence!