Alternative007 Articles Reviewed

[adam]

Good MR review. I doubt anyone left the cinema disappointed in 79. MR was the kind of film the public wanted back then. Star Wars, Close Encounters, Superman & even TSWLM had made big money in the late 70's. If they had tried to make a CR or LTK type film they may have been lynched. Everything you wanted in a Bond movie was there, big set pieces, action, girls, henchmen and a supervillan intent on world domination. Bond even did some spying in the film. The weak points are the lack of tension. It's the high point of super human Bond Casual, smirking, rarely wounded and possession of extraordinary powers. But I kind of expected that after seeing Bond fly through the air within the first couple of minutes. Only in the centifuge scene (which I agree is Moore's finest moment) is Bond fighting for his life.

[Kadov]

skywalker said:

I'm sure Poirot, BJ and Kadov might shed some light on it.

You called?

The more recent Bond films don't seem as grand as perhaps the Moonraker and Spy of this world. Is it down to budgets or do EON consider it not essential?

In my view, it's down to EON (Energized On Nonsense) thinking it's not essential, especially in this new rebooted series. They simply don't have the time to think about the grandeur in those stylish Bond films when there is serious mimicry to do with the scaled-down grittiness of the Bourne films. At the same time, it all points to budget matters. It was already there in the initial negotiations with Brosnan back in '05 or so. Once negotiations came to a dead end, the salary issue was resolved and EON then pursued a PR strategy to snow the public on the idea that Brosnan wouldn't come back, that they needed a younger actor to reboot the series, that they were abandoning those Bond films of yesterday to make a serious film. The goal of making CR and its so-called down-to-Earth realism comes from economical decisions.

Come to think of it, Craig also dictates on some level EON's current approach. He's now the "face" of the franchise. Yet he wouldn't fit in the grandeur of a film like Moonraker. He would be completely out of place in the lavishness and spectacle of Moonraker, so he actually limits EON in their scope. For example, when Roger Moore arrives in Rio, he looks immaculate in a white tropical suit as he gets off the Concorde. He's then whisked off in a Rolls, I believe, and ends up in a top-notch hotel suite complete with a bar where a South American beauty is fixing a vodka martini. That whole sequence is so Bondian, and Moore and his suaveness owned that entire sequence. You simply believe that Moore/Bond is comfortable in that jet-set world, and his ease somehow reflects the travelogue narrative in the Fleming books--that confident authorial voice that becomes our companion in those books, a personality that we find comforting because he has a somewhat greater knowledge of cities and places than us, and knows the great hotels, a good bottle of wine, etc. Craig, however, is too crass and would fit better in a scene set in some low-life bar in the Bronx.

[James]

kadov said:

[ Craig, however, is too crass and would fit better in a scene set in some low-life bar in the Bronx.

I don't know if this translates outside of Britain but Craig in a suit always reminds me of some chavvy Premier League Footballer arriving for his latest court case.

[skywalker]

kadov said:

skywalker said:

I'm sure Poirot, BJ and Kadov might shed some light on it.

You called?

The more recent Bond films don't seem as grand as perhaps the Moonraker and Spy of this world. Is it down to budgets or do EON consider it not essential?

In my view, it's down to EON (Energized On Nonsense) thinking it's not essential, especially in this new rebooted series. They simply don't have the time to think about the grandeur in those stylish Bond films when there is serious mimicry to do with the scaled-down grittiness of the Bourne films. At the same time, it all points to budget matters. It was already there in the initial negotiations with Brosnan back in '05 or so. Once negotiations came to a dead end, the salary issue was resolved and EON then pursued a PR strategy to snow the public on the idea that Brosnan wouldn't come back, that they needed a younger actor to reboot the series, that they were abandoning those Bond films of yesterday to make a serious film. The goal of making CR and its so-called down-to-Earth realism comes from economical decisions.

Come to think of it, Craig also dictates on some level EON's current approach. He's now the "face" of the franchise. Yet he wouldn't fit in the grandeur of a film like Moonraker. He would be completely out of place in the lavishness and spectacle of Moonraker, so he actually limits EON in their scope. For example, when Roger Moore arrives in Rio, he looks immaculate in a white tropical suit as he gets off the Concorde. He's then whisked off in a Rolls, I believe, and ends up in a top-notch hotel suite complete with a bar where a South American beauty is fixing a vodka martini. That whole sequence is so Bondian, and Moore and his suaveness owned that entire sequence. You simply believe that Moore/Bond is comfortable in that jet-set world, and his ease somehow reflects the travelogue narrative in the Fleming books--that confident authorial voice that becomes our companion in those books, a personality that we find comforting because he has a somewhat greater knowledge of cities and places than us, and knows the great hotels, a good bottle of wine, etc. Craig, however, is too crass and would fit better in a scene set in some low-life bar in the Bronx.

Couldn't agree 'Moore'.

[FormerBondFan]

kadov said:

Come to think of it, Craig also dictates on some level EON's current approach. He's now the "face" of the franchise.

Does that mean that EON's giving more powers to DC? This sounds like the Antichrist if you ask me.

[Kadov]

dcistheantichrist said:

kadov said:

Come to think of it, Craig also dictates on some level EON's current approach. He's now the "face" of the franchise.

Does that mean that EON's giving more powers to DC? This sounds like the Antichrist if you ask me.

I don't think EON has given Craig more power. But the actor playing Bond--his looks, his overall personality--dictates to some extent what the filmmakers can do. We've all heard over the years from, say, Michael G. Wilson or some other member of team EON proclaim that they couldn't make a Connery-type Bond film with Roger Moore, that Moore wouldn't be suited for that style of Bond film. With, Craig, they went for such a bizarre look, and the actor himself lacks the panache of the character that we've come to know. This guy would be completely out of place in the luxurious settings of a Moonraker. He was already pushing it in CR, in that scene where he was admiring himself in the mirror as he wore the tuxedo. He looked awkward in it, and for the rest of the casino scenes he had a stiff uncomfortable expression on his face as if he knew he was in the wrong film.

[skywalker]

kadov said:

This guy would be completely out of place in the luxurious settings of a Moonraker. He was already pushing it in CR, in that scene where he was admiring himself in the mirror as he wore the tuxedo. He looked awkward in it, and for the rest of the casino scenes he had a stiff uncomfortable expression on his face as if he knew he was in the wrong film.

He did seem to be more comfortable when dressed casual than in the tux, but I think it was meant to be filmed that way. The problem is, by making him look so 'uncomfortable' in the fitted tuxedu, it begs the question "Why is a guy who looks his age, playing someone so uncouth"?

[harrypalmer]

I enjoyed the new article on David Arnold's "Shaken and Stirred" CD he did a few years back. I have not listened to it for ages.

[alex]

I have to say, that David Arnold album wasn't very good. I think the review had it about right in suggesting that OHMSS was the only thing going for it.

[skywalker]

I thought Jake's Goldfinger review was excellent.

www.alternative007.co.uk/90.htm

What do you guys think?

[007]

I think he was right to make the point that Sean Connery did not take the role that seriously and his films were frequently fantastical. That's one of the major reasons (apart from their respective looks) why I've never taken any attempted comparison between Connery and Craig at all seriously.

[poirot]

An excellent review of Goldfinger. I particularly like his comments about Ken Adams' work: "Goldfinger still has a slightly futuristic, heightened sense of reality, like a retro vision of the future." It's surprising that so many younger fans can watch a Connery film and overlook the fantasy aspects.

He also raises a good point about Connery looking as though he was enjoying his tenure as Bond. The same could easily be said of Moore and Brosnan, and has often been cited as a key ingredient to making a good 007. It will be interesting to see if Craig still appears thorougly depressed while running around the $230 million QOS.

[skywalker]

www.alternative007.co.uk/91.htm

Another top review by Jake and his opinion of the film is one I share. I think Jake sums it up best when he says: "Overall, The Man With The Golden Gun is a colourful and underrated addition to the series."

Interestingly I feel Moore had the right balance in LALD, yet at times in TMWTGG he seemed to be unsure of himself.

[Greg Haugen]

May 30, 2008 6:56:29 GMT -5 skywalker said:

www.alternative007.co.uk/91.htm

Another top review by Jake and his opinion of the film is one I share. I think Jake sums it up best when he says: "Overall, The Man With The Golden Gun is a colourful and underrated addition to the series."

Interestingly I feel Moore had the right balance in LALD, yet at times in TMWTGG he seemed to be unsure of himself.

I think it took them a couple of films to work out what Roger's strengths were. This film is generally hated on other Bond sites isn't it? I think it's ok.

[adam]

TMWTGG was released only a year after LALD. They simply did'nt have the time to make it that spectacular and innovative. The action is a bit tame and some of it seems to be copying the Bruce Lee films. Therefore it is a notch down on most of the other Bond movies. The public were probably not too keen on seeing two Bond movies in 12 months, so stayed away. The film seems a bit too serious and a lot of the fun things which had previously been associated with Bond had gone. This is perhaps the direction Harry Salzman wanted to go in. There is a definate toughening up of Bond. Moore later said he was uncomfortable hitting Maud Adams. Maybe the producers thought all Bonds have to be tough like Connery. It was lucky Moore had signed up for three Bond movies, otherwise TMWTGG may have been his last. This was perhaps a watershed film. Harry Salzman left, Cubby Brocoli spent three years trying to get things back on track & making a film that would suit Moore. The result was 1977's TSWLM which saved the franchise.