It’s all our level
1 Like
I’m not so sure on the locations. And being a smart-aleck I could point out that while GF is set in Miami, that was (dodgy) back projection and Fort Know was all Pinewood (think that’s true of CR too - don’t think they ever set foot in Miami but I’m ready to stand corrected).
As for the American leading ladies and the films being a bit duff, not a rule per se but there’s definitely a pattern.
DAF/Tiffany Case - not entirely duff, the two hours go down easily for me. That said, it does feel, despite the best efforts of Ken Adam, to have been filmed on an LA backlot. Which I think it was…
AVTAK/Sutton - yeah it does have its charms but ultimately, more than leans duff. Roberts is a terrible actress and each location they go to, including San Francisco itself, is ruined by some awful back-projection.
LTK/Bouvier - fan of the movie and Lowell is terrific. Yes, she does go a bit wobbly over Bond a bit too quickly after her tough-girl start, but the film is always interesting when she’s in it, which for many of the leads over the years (regardless of nationality) is certainly not the case. The exception that proves the rule. She’s not duff and neither is the film.
TWINE/Jones - I defend a film on a regular basis (ok, kind of try to excuse/stick up for it before leaving it to its fate at the hands of my friends here - bullies!!!) and I defended her in this thread. But, unlike Bouvier, the film isn’t any more interesting when she’s in it and she is extraneous in the extreme. Not Richards’ fault, but Jones is there, because, well, don’t we need to have a girl there?
DAD/Jinx - as yesterday’s discussion showed, the gift that keeps on giving…
4 Likes
This is an interesting way to look at it, and I find myself agreeing.
There’s a certain fantasy element to Bond’s world, with beautiful people wearing fancy dress in opulent casinos, often speaking in flowery language (especially the villains) and hanging out in castle-like hideouts on top of mountains or inside volcano or under the sea. There are similarities now and then to our own world, but it’s ultimately not the one we live in. For us Yanks, it’s like a modern-day fairy tale: we know it can’t happen here, but maybe it could happen in the Old World. And even if not, at least the scenery’s better.
It’s curious, but while Bond is an aspirational character for us, and we daydream about living his lifestyle in whatever fictional world he occupies, the truth is if that guy and his entourage showed up in real-life America, we’d be chuckling. It’d be a bit less ridiculous than Legolas walking around with his bow or Luke with his lightsabre, but it’s only a question of degree. Indeed when Bond does show up on the streets of Harlem in LALD, he stands out like a sore thumb and NOT just because he’s a white guy. Thank god they deleted that scene from DAF where Sean appears in a Vegas casino wearing a tux and Sammy says, “They ain’t never gonna find a wedding cake big enough to fit him on!” Not because it’s not funny, but because it cuts too close. It breaks the fourth wall, bursts our bubble and says what must always remain unsaid in these films: this guy does not belong in our world.
Plus, as an American, I’m more interested in far-off places than spots I can drive to. I know that’s not fair: I mean, to someone, the Taj Mahal and the Eiffel Tower, the Hagia Sophia and St Mark’s Square are everyday sights, too, and not “exotic” at all. They deserve to see something unusual, too. I’m just not always sure America is “unusual” in a good way. LOL
5 Likes
It depends.
For the locations:
GF - maybe a bit duff but it’s all in the Pinewood Studios (the fact that Connery was also filming the Woman of Straw (it’s set in London) at the same time that Goldfinger was filmed is obvious that it’s not really in Miami, but in Pinewood).
DAF/Tiffany Case - I loved those Vegas scenes, but those Oil Rig scenes, yes not a fan of that much. But to be honest this film was probably the best depiction of America in any Bond film with the exception of that oil rig scenes which was shot in California.
Locations wise, it’s great. Story wise, not.
LALD - I haven’t watched this film for a very long time, but some of the scenes there still remained in my mind, the San Monique scenes? I think it still holds up well, I need to rewatch this one for a better judgement.
AVTAK - it’s Duff really, all of the great scenes there are in France in my opinion, but once they get to America, it became boring and also Stacey Sutton devolves into a bimbo.
LTK - locations wise, it’s duff, it felt like a TV movie, a generic 80s action movie like Miami Vice and Lethal Weapon, drugs in America! Of course Bond needs to be there too. But story and characters wise they’re all great.
CR - I think it’s great, but those scenes looked and felt like a Liam Neeson action movie for me, particularly the airport scenes.
Now for the Bond Girls:
With the exception of Bach (great character but Bach was miscast in my opinion.)
The problem with the majority of American Bond girls here are more on the writing really, had they been well written, they could have been great.
Tiffany Case/Jill St. john was one of the best female characters that Fleming wrote, but the writing never gave the character justice in the film, it was the Producers’ decision to turn her into a comedic character to fit the film’s campy tone, which was a demand at that time.
Anya (Triple XXX) Barbara Bach - For me (no offence) she’s a bit duff.
The character was great and was supposed to be Russian, so I think she’s a bit miscast in my opinion, there’s some scenes where she’s a bit wooden and her Russian accents fell flat, I don’t know if who are the other Actresses that was considered for the role though, if my memory serves Catherine Deneuve was also up to this role based on Mankiewickz’ article, I think she could have done it better than Bach.
Holly Goodhead/Lois Chiles - I think she’s fine, my only complaint was her lack of chemistry with Moore, I think she’s fine as an actress, maybe much better than Bach when it comes to acting, and the character also holds up well.
Stacey Sutton - Yes, a Duff really, I’m not going to call her a bad actress, it’s a bit harsh, RIP Tanya Roberts.
But I will just say that her acting was left to be desired, she won a Razzie for her role as Stacey Sutton, but I think it was also in the writing too, and Moore was also old in this film, so there are other factors other than Roberts herself, so it’s a combination of bad character and actress.
Pam Bouvier/Carey Lowell - Hairstyle aside, she’s great, my only complaint was she’s acting like a jealous teenage girl at the final act of the film and that love triangle, “I’ll be damned if I help him!”
Still not a fan of that line, but the rest of her scenes are all great. She’s great overall.
Christmas Jones/ Denise Richards - A duff for me.
But not her fault though, more on the writing, yes, she’s miscast for the role of a doctor, but the character really makes no sense, she’s just there, it needs a rewrite really.
Jinx/ Halle Berry - Duff, again like Christmas, more on the writing too, they’re the victims of poor writing, Berry was a great actress, but she’s given a weak material to work with.
5 Likes
Just to come to the rescue of poor screenwriters everywhere:
No director, producer or studio executive ever forced any actor to say a line of dialogue they had not approved.
It’s rather the other way around: the writer comes up with something terrific, the director wants to change it, the producer wants to change that, and the actor improvises on the spot something completely else.
So…
3 Likes
In other words, poor screenwriters aren’t helped at all by equally poor directors, producers and performers. Got it.
This actually might explain something like the “witty banter” in the Ice Palace in DAD. It’s like the actors are engaged in some kind of “bad pun brinksmanship” to earn the top spot in a retrospective clip reel on the excesses of the Bond double entendres. Or maybe they think it’s an audition tape for the next Austin Powers entry.
2 Likes
I would add too - cinema’s history has been primarily written in and by Hollywood, and so to your point, there is something less “exotic” when Bond travels to the US. It’s a ‘scenery’ that’s already familiar to audiences, both on the big screen, and I would add on the small screen which for decades was the easiest point of entry for the rest of the world to engage in western culture.
Bond feels less exotic, more mundane even, travelling to US shores, than pretty much any other country in the world.
I think if a film is bit duff (sorry AVTAK, I’ll use you as an example), it’s not because it was in the US, but that the backdrop can’t save it (hey TWINE-bashers, if you don’t like it now, imagine how much worse it would feel if it was set in Oklahoma…
). There’s nothing exotic about San Francisco when everyone from Dirty Harry to Karl Malden in The Streets of San Franciso have already “transported” that backdrop around the world.
TMWTGG is near the bottom of most lists but you know, it feels exotic if nothing else!
6 Likes
Wait a minute…
Connery: DN, FRWL, GF… um… um…
But Moore: LALD, TSWLM, MR and… um… OP?
Hey, Brosnan was in… um…
And Craig did… CR and QOS and… SF… and…
Damn.
4 Likes
April 27 -
Great ones’ …loved the above from @secretagentfan .
Connery - surely…FRWL , TB, DAF … Damn it !
Moore - LALD, TSWLM, MR and…
Brosnan - just no
Craig - CR, QOS, SPECTRE , Sky… maybe
All subjective, but… I think as films Connerys’ first four are great achievements, YOLT is a great action film and DAF works on so many levels it cannot but be a great filmic achievement, so I’m saying Connery had 6. Moores’ first is a great yarn and introduction to a new actor. Enjoyable as I find it TMWTGG is not particularly well edited and so falls short. TSWLM, not a favourite of mine but it is a great film, MR yes , the rest a little too lazy to be great. Moore gets 3. Craig, like Connery has had a consistent run of great movies, CR is a great piece of action cinema and one of a handful of greats from the 2000s, QOS is brave, experimental and propulsive and has enough visual and technical beauty to be great, SF, great, again not my favourite but it’s a great movie. Spectre is a great movie - FACT. as is NTTD. Brosnan’s first two are great executions of what they do and the time they were made in. The latter two are not.
3 Likes
I like YOLT, and appreciate it as a cinematic work of art in terms of cinematography and score. But I rank Connery’s first four films as truly great - meaning he easily passes this criteria.
I find the other Moore era films enjoyable, but believe he made his biggest mark with TSWLM and MR. Outside of those two, OP has a similar energy and therefore I include it in the same conversation.
Without NTTD I could only classify CR and SF as great, but that’s now a moot point. These films are big events and technically well made. As for Brosnan I can find enjoyment in DAD but can’t compare it to GE or TND, which are solid outings. That’s where his era peaked.
1 Like
I guess it depends on where you set the bar for “great,” but I’d say today’s statement is dead-on.
2 Likes
In as much as, even within a single actors run, there’s too much variation in style and tone with the Bond movies for one person to not prefer one against the other, so pure number alone mean only Connery and Moore had a shot at someone being able to name more than 3 to their exact taste.
It’s a simple statement to try and describe a complicated discussion.
6 Likes
More than 3? No, not even SC. I think the run of FRWL through TB is as strong as it gets (I’m not GF’s hugest fan but it’s wider status is undisputed). I tend not to count DN as a great. Important, yes, but great, no. It still feels as cinema of the 50s, and the pacing that underpinned the next few is absent.
IMHO, CR thru SF is almost as strong, but then I know that QoS is probably the inverse of GF. Most don’t like it, but I do, so I’ll concede to the masses and say FRWL-GF-TB is 3 within one actor’s tenure and that’s not been topped.
2 Likes
I am sure that is the case some of the time and you have certainly said you have often experienced that in your own career. But I don’t think this is always true and a good amount of stuff that is badly written that perhaps later collaborators help. One article I read a number of years ago noted that great movies like the Godfather really were not the result of one person but due to great collaboration.
1 Like
I was exaggerating, of course, that the writer always comes up with something terrific.
In the best case everyone involved contributes to make the best possible film.
But if it becomes a failure people always assume it was the writer who did not construct a good plot or forced bad dialogue on the poor actors.
Never ever. If the writer is bad (and there certainly are examples) and the end result is horrible, rest assured the producers, directors and actors were just as bad. All of them will control what is being filmed.
For example: if P&W came up with „Yo Mama“ EON, Tamahori and Berry must have thought „Wow, hilarious and witty“.
1 Like
With regards to the American locations and leading ladies question, I can go along with thinking the American locations can tend to be a bit dull (although I would love to see them go back to New Orleans and its surrounding areas), but as far as I’m concerned, Carey Lowell squashes the notion of the American leading ladies being nothing special. This will, I’m sure, be considered heresy, but I’ll take Carey Lowell’s Pam Bouvier over any of the other Bond girls. Tracy and Vesper included.
With regards to the question of any actor being in more than three great films, the only with with an argument is Connery, and that depends on whether you put GF and TB into the great category. DN and FRWL are, as far as I’m concerned, cemented in that greatness category. I don’t find GF to be great at all, but given its contributions to the iconography of the franchise, I can see the argument. Same for TB, which I’m more inclined to grant that status to.
Moore had TSWLM and FYEO as far as I’m concerned, Brosnan doesn’t get anywhere near the debate with only GE being worthy of that discussion, and Craig would have been on his way to eclipsing it had EON not completely botched the end of his tenure with SP and NTTD.
3 Likes
Indeed, it’s hard to imagine being the person who got to tell Halle Berry, “Congratulations on being the first African-American actress cast as the main love interest in a Bond film. Now in this scene, we want you to say, ‘Yo Mama!’”
3 Likes
Agreed. I liked the atmosphere of the Body Worlds Exhibit, but Miami International is easily the weakest part of CR. It drags on too long and looks generic visually. But the film is still a good one, along with GF, LALD and LTK. I rate Fort Knox, but mainly because of Ken Adam’s imagination. Seven Mile Bridge looks great on a big screen, and the New Orleans Bayou was used excellently for the boat chase.
4 Likes
It’s impressive that they ripped off the Liam Neeson action movies given Taken, the film that spawned that era of Neeson’s career, came out two years after Casino Royale…it’s like how they ripped off the MCU for years before Marvel could even make movies…
Definitely not revisionist history…
2 Likes
I actually forgot about that, too.
But I would - heretic alarm! - even go further and say that CR on the whole is directed with little visual flair and rather more in a style of a generic actioner.
Good, effective - but… well, not great. Typical Martin Campbell.
Which might sound funny coming from me after defending John Glen as one of the best directors for Bond.
But Glen, for my taste, had less need for grit, more interest in laid back fun.
5 Likes