Last Bond Movie You Watched.

FieldsMan wrote:

This is 1987.

Don't know about Brosnan playing Bond in TLD, but looks like he could've belted out the title track with gusto.

The words 'Another take, Pierce ... maybe a bit less bonkers than that last one?' clearly not in the Taffin director's vocabulary .

Makeshift Python wrote:

What's got me thinking is how much of an impact Dalton had on TLD, and what would be lacking if any other actor had stepped in instead. Dalton was very irritated with Glen's directing style, always preferring to focus on plot mechanics and less on character and performances. Dalton reportedly picked up that slack by collaborating with other actors he'd work with to get richer performances when the time came to shoot. You take away Dalton's presence and replace him with any other actor including Brosnan, I wonder if we would have gotten lesser performances from supporting actors. We know that supporting cast was already set by the time Brosnan was selected, and the script Wilson and Maibaum wrote had Bond written more generically, so that whoever was cast would slip in easily with only a few rewrites to accommodate the actor. We would have largely gotten the same film, only the presence of the actor would have changed the way scenes played out.

Where did you read/hear about Dalton workshopping scenes with the actors?

Maybe some scenes would have played out differently, but I think the chemistry between Brosnan and d'Abo would have created a more memorable relationship than what exists today. Not to say what Dalton did was bad, it's that Brosnan has more presence (and charm), despite Timbo perhaps being a more technically proficient actor.

CJB wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

This is 1987.

Don't know about Brosnan playing Bond in TLD, but looks like he could've belted out the title track with gusto.

Having been at a friend's house on Saturday night and necked several beers yesterday was unsurprisingly a low-activity Sunday, helped by Dr No being on telly in the afternoon. I closed the curtains and settled back with the 'modest acorn from which the mighty oak grew'.

Connery is of course excellent on his debut ... insouciant, charming, amusing yet tough and ruthless when the situation demands it. And it's a shame Lord didn't continue as Leiter. Love the little touches like the 'freelance' licking her camera's flashbulb and Bond checking his watch while snogging Miss Taro.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

The words 'Another take, Pierce ... maybe a bit less bonkers than that last one?' clearly not in the Taffin director's vocabulary .

LOL. His delivery of that line always grated on me but the rest of the movie is very good. It's what convinced me he could play Bond as the first mention of Remington Steele for the part left me shaking my head. Not that my approval was sought at any time.

FieldsMan wrote:

Nothing of the idea that Bond would ever be a rookie as a 00 agent makes sense, regardless of age.

This is the biggest problem of the series since the reboot. The whole idea of a double OO section is that these men are highly trained and TRUSTED to be both loyal and highly competent so they can be sent off to some farflung corner of the empire...err, world and be able to decide who needs killing and who doesn't. They are not hit men sent out to eliminate only a specific target like the SMERSH assassin who let Bond live in the CR novel because he did not have orders to kill him. So all this nagging from Dench telling Craig he needs to learn who to trust is plain silly. SHE obviously needed to learn who to trust and since she couldn't tell her friends from her enemies it was past time for her to go. The whole PTS in Skyfall, as exciting as it was to watch, was ridiculous. There's M trying to micromanage the mission over the radio from London. WTF? This is what double OOs are for. Send one of them to recover the stolen harddrive and then leave him to it. Trying to do it yourself from an office in London is liable to get the wrong man shot.
Anyway, I've been watching the movies in order from the start and am currently watching Octopussy. Great theme song and while I could do without the Tarzan yell and tennis crowd gag, it's been very enjoyable overall. Sir Roger gets a lot of stick from some quarters for playing it for laughs. I think Sir Roger can play a hardass just as well as Sir Sean did and let's face it, Sir Sean served up plenty of cheese in his time. I've still got about half the movie to go and am looking forward to Sir Roger in clown makeup trying to convince the Americans that he is serious. Sort of the problem he faced all through his tenure as Sir Sean's replacement.

Also, the sight of 009 fighting and running for his life in a clown outfit was delightfully bizarre.

BBC America has them on all day

Saw FRWL again

OO7 wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

The words 'Another take, Pierce ... maybe a bit less bonkers than that last one?' clearly not in the Taffin director's vocabulary .

LOL. His delivery of that line always grated on me but the rest of the movie is very good. It's what convinced me he could play Bond as the first mention of Remington Steele for the part left me shaking my head. Not that my approval was sought at any time.

FieldsMan wrote:

Nothing of the idea that Bond would ever be a rookie as a 00 agent makes sense, regardless of age.

This is the biggest problem of the series since the reboot. The whole idea of a double OO section is that these men are highly trained and TRUSTED to be both loyal and highly competent so they can be sent off to some farflung corner of the empire...err, world and be able to decide who needs killing and who doesn't. They are not hit men sent out to eliminate only a specific target like the SMERSH assassin who let Bond live in the CR novel because he did not have orders to kill him.  So all this nagging from Dench telling Craig he needs to learn who to trust is plain silly. SHE obviously needed to learn who to trust and since she couldn't tell her friends from her enemies it was past time for her to go. The whole PTS in Skyfall, as exciting as it was to watch, was ridiculous. There's M trying to micromanage the mission over the radio from London. WTF? This is what double OOs are for. Send one of them to recover the stolen harddrive and then leave him to it. Trying to do it yourself from an office in London is liable to get the wrong man shot.

Sporadically, M in Bond's ear could work, to really heighten what's at stake. But yeah, it becomes excessive when she's both in his ear and visits every almost country Bond goes to, i.e. QOS. Even in CR, there's absolutely no reason why M needs to brief Bond in the Bahamas.

Even when she's dead she manages to talk to him.

OO7 wrote:

Anyway, I've been watching the movies in order from the start and am currently watching Octopussy. Great theme song and while I could do without the Tarzan yell and tennis crowd gag, it's been very enjoyable overall... Also, the sight of 009 fighting and running for his life in a clown outfit was delightfully bizarre.

I think we'll get on just fine. Welcome to the forums, Double O Se-ven.

FieldsMan wrote:

Where did you read/hear about Dalton workshopping scenes with the actors?

I read about it awhile back online, wish I could find the source to share. Dalton is too much of a gentleman, so he won't ever publicly speak ill of Glen or whatever creative issues he had. Glen however elaborated a bit in his book that things had gotten sour between them by the end of LTK to the point they were having a slanging match across the pool on the Sanchez lair set.

Quote :

Maybe some scenes would have played out differently, but I think the chemistry between Brosnan and d'Abo would have created a more memorable relationship than what exists today. Not to say what Dalton did was bad, it's that Brosnan has more presence (and charm), despite Timbo perhaps being a more technically proficient actor.

Basically you prefer the more traditional cinematic Bond approach that Brosnan continued from Connery and Moore. Dalton could have easily channeled that if that's what he wanted to go for, but instead insisted on bringing Fleming's Bond to screen, who was more prickly and humorless than the cinematic version. The closest Dalton ever gave a more debonair Bond performance where he turns up the charisma was in THE ROCKETEER.

Makeshift Python wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

Maybe some scenes would have played out differently, but I think the chemistry between Brosnan and d'Abo would have created a more memorable relationship than what exists today. Not to say what Dalton did was bad, it's that Brosnan has more presence (and charm), despite Timbo perhaps being a more technically proficient actor.

Basically you prefer the more traditional cinematic Bond approach that Brosnan continued from Connery and Moore. Dalton could have easily channeled that if that's what he wanted to go for, but instead insisted on bringing Fleming's Bond to screen, who was more prickly and humorless than the cinematic version. The closest Dalton ever gave a more debonair Bond performance where he turns up the charisma was in THE ROCKETEER.

Not necessarily. Dalton's "charm" comes across as a little dorky at times. Fleming's Bond didn't. While Dalton could have brought a debonair performance, it would have been manufactured whereas that charisma comes naturally to Brosnan. Dalton certainly brings Fleming's Bond to the screen except when he's wooing his Bond girls. A little too 'bookworm' when it shouldn't be.

FieldsMan wrote:

Sporadically, M in Bond's ear could work, to really heighten what's at stake. But yeah, it becomes excessive when she's both in his ear and visits every almost country Bond goes to, i.e. QOS. Even in CR, there's absolutely no reason why M needs to brief Bond in the Bahamas.

Even when she's dead she manages to talk to him.

LOL. Nagging from beyond the grave. Poor chap can't catch a break

FieldsMan wrote:

I think we'll get on just fine. Welcome to the forums, Double O Se-ven.

Thank you, FieldsMan, and may I say your username indicates great taste in Bond girls

FieldsMan wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

Maybe some scenes would have played out differently, but I think the chemistry between Brosnan and d'Abo would have created a more memorable relationship than what exists today. Not to say what Dalton did was bad, it's that Brosnan has more presence (and charm), despite Timbo perhaps being a more technically proficient actor.

Basically you prefer the more traditional cinematic Bond approach that Brosnan continued from Connery and Moore. Dalton could have easily channeled that if that's what he wanted to go for, but instead insisted on bringing Fleming's Bond to screen, who was more prickly and humorless than the cinematic version. The closest Dalton ever gave a more debonair Bond performance where he turns up the charisma was in THE ROCKETEER.

Not necessarily. Dalton's "charm" comes across as a little dorky at times. Fleming's Bond didn't. While Dalton could have brought a debonair performance, it would have been manufactured whereas that charisma comes naturally to Brosnan. Dalton certainly brings Fleming's Bond to the screen except when he's wooing his Bond girls. A little too 'bookworm' when it shouldn't be.

I guess we'll agree to disagree. I find Brosnan's "charm" pretty vapid in GOLDENEYE, where he seems to be trying to maintain some kind of smooth composure but comes off more stiff than anything. More surface level than substantial. Contrast that to his performance in DAD, where he seems much more relaxed and in charge of the role. I think Roger Ebert's review of DAD really put it more eloquently:

Roger Ebert wrote:

I realized with a smile, 15 minutes into the new James Bond movie, that I had unconsciously accepted Pierce Brosnan as Bond without thinking about Sean Connery, Roger Moore or anyone else. He has become the landlord, not the tenant. Handsome if a little weary, the edges of an Irish accent curling around the edges of the Queen's English, he plays a preposterous character but does not seem preposterous playing him.

It's a shame we didn't get THAT Brosnan from the start. As silly as the film was, it was pretty exhilarating to see his performance in theaters.

Local tv station is showing The Living Daylights on Friday but I have it on now in the kitchen while I bake a late night bday cake.

LTK will be 30 years old this year. I don't care who pans it, it's in my Top 3.

Makeshift Python wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

Maybe some scenes would have played out differently, but I think the chemistry between Brosnan and d'Abo would have created a more memorable relationship than what exists today. Not to say what Dalton did was bad, it's that Brosnan has more presence (and charm), despite Timbo perhaps being a more technically proficient actor.

Basically you prefer the more traditional cinematic Bond approach that Brosnan continued from Connery and Moore. Dalton could have easily channeled that if that's what he wanted to go for, but instead insisted on bringing Fleming's Bond to screen, who was more prickly and humorless than the cinematic version. The closest Dalton ever gave a more debonair Bond performance where he turns up the charisma was in THE ROCKETEER.

Not necessarily. Dalton's "charm" comes across as a little dorky at times. Fleming's Bond didn't. While Dalton could have brought a debonair performance, it would have been manufactured whereas that charisma comes naturally to Brosnan. Dalton certainly brings Fleming's Bond to the screen except when he's wooing his Bond girls. A little too 'bookworm' when it shouldn't be.

I guess we'll agree to disagree. I find Brosnan's "charm" pretty vapid in GOLDENEYE, where he seems to be trying to maintain some kind of smooth composure but comes off more stiff than anything. More surface level than substantial. Contrast that to his performance in DAD, where he seems much more relaxed and in charge of the role. I think Roger Ebert's review of DAD really put it more eloquently:

Roger Ebert wrote:

I realized with a smile, 15 minutes into the new James Bond movie, that I had unconsciously accepted Pierce Brosnan as Bond without thinking about Sean Connery, Roger Moore or anyone else. He has become the landlord, not the tenant. Handsome if a little weary, the edges of an Irish accent curling around the edges of the Queen's English, he plays a preposterous character but does not seem preposterous playing him.

It's a shame we didn't get THAT Brosnan from the start. As silly as the film was, it was pretty exhilarating to see his performance in theaters.

I guess we will have to. Sure, I do prefer his performances in TND and DAD, but he certainly doesn't look uncomfortable in GE. For that I point you to Craig and his noticeable discomfort in sharing the screen with any woman around his age or younger. As for Brosnan in GE... I started listing all the moments that really highlight my point but I it became laughable how much I was referencing. Just pop the film in again

OO7 wrote:

Thank you, FieldsMan, and may I say your username indicates great taste in Bond girls

Not my favourite anymore I'm afraid, but Arterton's presence is still highlight of QOS.

Must say I don't detect any 'discomfort' in either Brosnan or Craig. That said, I'm also the one who can't spot Connery's apparently plain-to-see boredom in YOLT either.

I wasn't saying I saw discomfort specifically in Brosnan's performance in GE, rather he's just a little more wooden in that film than his later performances. Funnily I do think Brosnan's obvious discomfort with having to work with Hatcher in TND inadvertently adds to the tense reunion with Paris. He may have hated working with her, but it helped a little in their scenes together.

As for Connery in YOLT, the boredom is only apparent to me because he doesn't seem as anywhere near energized as he was in his other movies. Given how little character there is in YOLT, I don't blame him.

FieldsMan wrote:

Not my favourite anymore I'm afraid, but Arterton's presence is still highlight of QOS.

Who's your favourite now, then? The sight of her wandering around town in boots and a raincoat is definitely a highlight. Also sprawled across the bed covered only with oil. I still reserve the right to tell M to get stuffed out loud when she starts lecturing Bond for getting her involved with some bad people when M is the one who sent her to head him off at La Paz. Presumably Fields was given to believe that Bond was easily distracted by scantily clad women which is why she had nothing on underneath that mac. But it's all Bond's fault? No wonder they shot her in Skyfall

Makeshift Python wrote:

Funnily I do think Brosnan's obvious discomfort with having to work with Hatcher in TND inadvertently adds to the tense reunion with Paris. He may have hated working with her, but it helped a little in their scenes together.

Brosnan has said that his scenes with Paris are among his favourite scenes as Bond, and thought Hatcher acquitted herself very well in the role.

BI wrote:

That said, I'm also the one who can't spot Connery's apparently plain-to-see boredom in YOLT either.

The only scene it's truly noticeable is the Moneypenny scene. His lines couldn't be delivered any more one-note and feigned, particularly when he says "which girl". Shame. Lois Maxwell deserved better.

OO7 wrote:

Who's your favourite now, then? The sight of her wandering around town in boots and a raincoat is definitely a highlight. Also sprawled across the bed covered only with oil. I still reserve the right to tell M to get stuffed out loud when she starts lecturing Bond for getting her involved with some bad people when M is the one who sent her to head him off at La Paz. Presumably Fields was given to believe that Bond was easily distracted by scantily clad women which is why she had nothing on underneath that mac. But it's all Bond's fault? No wonder they shot her in Skyfall

While the trench and boots ensemble is charming, I've never been too keen on the GF reference to be honest, even when she was my favourite Bond girl. I don't think all that much of QOS anymore because of the aforementioned logic (or lack of).

Favourite Bond girls would be Tracy, Elektra, Fiona, Paris and Tanya/Pussy at this stage.

FieldsMan wrote:

The only scene it's truly noticeable is the Moneypenny scene. His lines couldn't be delivered any more one-note and feigned, particularly when he says "which girl". Shame. Lois Maxwell deserved better.

For me it's always been the scene where he's tied up by Helga. The only thing working to make the scene play is the ever reliable John Barry. Sir Sean looks like he couldn't give a shit.

Yeah, Bond's confession that he's a spy isn't delivered all that convincingly. But I find there are moments in the scene where Connery delivers. "The things I do for England" and "well enjoy yourself" work for me.

Plus he looks just perturbed enough at the skin-removing scalpel being waved in front of his face.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Plus he looks just perturbed enough at the skin-removing scalpel being waved in front of his face.

Yeah, as though he's trying to hide how terrified he is of being sliced by the scalpel. It's one of the few scenes in the film where we some vulnerability from Connery.

Bond "confessing" he's a corporate spy is a great idea for an light interrogation scene, if only Connery played with that instead of being so unengaged.

Watched a View to a Kill last night and enjoyed the hell out of it. Sure Sir Rog's getting long in the tooth but he actually comes across as harder than some of his earlier movies. He never was the most athletic looking Bond anyway despite having beaten up Lee Marvin irl, apparently. Walken is very convincing as a total psycho and Tanya Roberts is gorgeous. The Bob Hope dangling from a fire truck ladder scene was pretty funny without making Bond look like a dork. All in all Moore manages to portray both humour and action without detracting one from the other. Every time the bad guys seem to get the upper hand Bond manages to turn the tables like switching the tapes on the Russian agent. It's too bad Sir Roger didn't get the job right from the start, imagine if he had done 14 Bond films over about 25 years.

I really like Ms. Arterton but feel she really didn't come across very well in QoS. The Fields character should have been much more spunky and resilient even if designated to the sacrificial lamb role. Thus the audience would care more because they had been invested. Overall she's essentially a new variant of Paula, but instead of being given a graceful and heartfelt end, we get such a cheap, infuriating scene that agonizingly and worthlessly hammers in a GF connotation. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THIS, and if they had wanted there to be an oil connotation to her demise there are far more tasteful ways to do so -AND STILL REFERENCE JILL'S DEATH IF DESIRED.

I was in a sneak preview showing of QoS (I go to these if at all possible for each so I'm not buying an actual ticket to support the abomination, and so I can get it over with early on and not endure the promotions wondering how bad it will be.) and was not the only one who exclaimed disgust audibly in the theater at just how shockingly they threw that reference out as if to say "F*** what came before".


Come to think of it, it is a great loss that she was not instead cast as a proper modern reinterpretation of Fleming's actual Mary Goodnight character. Or Penny. Or Loelia Ponsonby. I think she can do banter very, very well.