The Bond That Went Too Far
Sir_Miles_Messervy
MI6 CLASSIFIEDPosts: 113MI6 Agent
In the over-the-top often tongue-in-cheek world of Bond, only one man’s films have been able to actually cross the line and step into the world of becoming parodies of themselves. While I’ve no doubt that many would instantly think of Sir Roger Moore in such terms, I have no intention of putting down the man that carried Bond throughout the seventies. No, I’m thinking of a slightly more modern era and the man who picked up the reigns a full 10 years after Moore put them down, Pierce Brosnan.
I was born under the sign of AVTAK, and much too young to appreciate Bond before Brosnan’s tenure began. I distinctly remember seeing Goldeneye for the first time at a friend’s birthday. “Not bad.” Those were the modest thoughts of the kid that would grow up to be the man with a tattoo of the 007 logo. Two years later, I went with my uncle and cousins to see Tomorrow Never Dies in the movie theater. I was, in a word, underwhelmed. I didn’t hate it or even dislike it, but I was certainly not captivated as a soon to be die hard fan might be expected to be.
It wasn’t until two years after the release of TND that I finally got interested in Bond, and The World is Not Enough had nothing to do with it. I was 14 and feverishly trying to impress a friend of mine, a friend that happened to be a huge Bond fan. I caught a televised marathon of Bond and was, for the first time, exposed to Connery, Moore and Dalton. I can’t say how many hours of Bond I watched that holiday weekend, but it was the beginning of a love affair that would long outlast the friendship that lead to it. I was (and remain) hooked.
Following that fateful weekend, I got to know Bond better than most (though, I humbly submit, not nearly as well as many here at AJB). I watched all of the films, read some of Fleming’s books and even read books about the Bond legacy. Brosnan landed firmly in third place, behind the brooding Bond of Timothy Dalton and the sophisticated ruthlessness of Sir Sean Connery. Brosnan’s suave depiction, after all, was the Bond of my generation. Moore’s various was decidedly too light hearted, and Lazenby was Lazenby.
As I grew older, my prefrontal cortex finished its development and Daniel Craig moved the character forward by going backward (in many ways), I began to realize the Brosnan Bond did not deserve automatic reverence (if you can call fourth place reverence). He was surely still better than Moore and Lazenby though, right? The man was, after all, born to be Bond in the eyes of many. What suddenly made him so undeserving of my affection?
The answer hit my square in the chest one night as I drunkenly responded to the question “What was the worst Bond movie?” My mind flashed back to a televised showing of Tomorrow Never Dies, and I boastfully submitted that as the worst Bond film of all time. Why? It knows it’s a Bond film.
Certainly TND is not the first Bond film that suffers from this affliction. DAF, TMWTGG, MR and other Moore titles are certainly guilty of the same to some level. The difference lies in the fact that they are actually aware of their own value as parody, and this makes it passable for me. The audience is clearly in the on the joke and all involved are aware of the outlandishness of what they are doing. The belly dancer screams that she’s lost her charm and Roger straightens his tie and says “Not from where I’m standing…” and he may as well be winking at the camera as he says it. If you don’t agree that they know they are ridiculous, please see: double-take pigeon.
TND is the film that both parodies itself and takes itself seriously while it is doing it. The character of Bond is actually a caricature of Bond. Quite simply film tried to become the embodiment of every “canon” Bond trait imaginable. There was not a drop of originality and it was as if someone handed them the “how to make Bond film” playbook and they ran it step by step. I imagine a lengthy check list that demanded a specific number of one liners, explosions, gadgets and other various Bondian elements. There was nothing organic about the film.
I could talk about being handcuffed to hot girls with BMW motorcycles, the words
“I’ll be right back,” cunning linguists, and Jake Wade, but it might just be better if you watch the film. Actually, I implore you to watch the film as if it is an actual parody of a Bond film, and see what you think. If you felt like following it up with TWINE (let me straighten my tie under water) and DAD (do I need examples?), I’m relatively certain you’d find the same elements at work. At the moment, I am undecided about GE. I think it may have also been too Bond to be Bond. Still, it had a freshness that came from a 6 year gap, which did add something relatively special to the film.
I always wondered why my earliest experiences with a character I came to love so dearly never gripped me in any meaningful way. I’m thankful that I’ve finally been able to discover the answer.
I was born under the sign of AVTAK, and much too young to appreciate Bond before Brosnan’s tenure began. I distinctly remember seeing Goldeneye for the first time at a friend’s birthday. “Not bad.” Those were the modest thoughts of the kid that would grow up to be the man with a tattoo of the 007 logo. Two years later, I went with my uncle and cousins to see Tomorrow Never Dies in the movie theater. I was, in a word, underwhelmed. I didn’t hate it or even dislike it, but I was certainly not captivated as a soon to be die hard fan might be expected to be.
It wasn’t until two years after the release of TND that I finally got interested in Bond, and The World is Not Enough had nothing to do with it. I was 14 and feverishly trying to impress a friend of mine, a friend that happened to be a huge Bond fan. I caught a televised marathon of Bond and was, for the first time, exposed to Connery, Moore and Dalton. I can’t say how many hours of Bond I watched that holiday weekend, but it was the beginning of a love affair that would long outlast the friendship that lead to it. I was (and remain) hooked.
Following that fateful weekend, I got to know Bond better than most (though, I humbly submit, not nearly as well as many here at AJB). I watched all of the films, read some of Fleming’s books and even read books about the Bond legacy. Brosnan landed firmly in third place, behind the brooding Bond of Timothy Dalton and the sophisticated ruthlessness of Sir Sean Connery. Brosnan’s suave depiction, after all, was the Bond of my generation. Moore’s various was decidedly too light hearted, and Lazenby was Lazenby.
As I grew older, my prefrontal cortex finished its development and Daniel Craig moved the character forward by going backward (in many ways), I began to realize the Brosnan Bond did not deserve automatic reverence (if you can call fourth place reverence). He was surely still better than Moore and Lazenby though, right? The man was, after all, born to be Bond in the eyes of many. What suddenly made him so undeserving of my affection?
The answer hit my square in the chest one night as I drunkenly responded to the question “What was the worst Bond movie?” My mind flashed back to a televised showing of Tomorrow Never Dies, and I boastfully submitted that as the worst Bond film of all time. Why? It knows it’s a Bond film.
Certainly TND is not the first Bond film that suffers from this affliction. DAF, TMWTGG, MR and other Moore titles are certainly guilty of the same to some level. The difference lies in the fact that they are actually aware of their own value as parody, and this makes it passable for me. The audience is clearly in the on the joke and all involved are aware of the outlandishness of what they are doing. The belly dancer screams that she’s lost her charm and Roger straightens his tie and says “Not from where I’m standing…” and he may as well be winking at the camera as he says it. If you don’t agree that they know they are ridiculous, please see: double-take pigeon.
TND is the film that both parodies itself and takes itself seriously while it is doing it. The character of Bond is actually a caricature of Bond. Quite simply film tried to become the embodiment of every “canon” Bond trait imaginable. There was not a drop of originality and it was as if someone handed them the “how to make Bond film” playbook and they ran it step by step. I imagine a lengthy check list that demanded a specific number of one liners, explosions, gadgets and other various Bondian elements. There was nothing organic about the film.
I could talk about being handcuffed to hot girls with BMW motorcycles, the words
“I’ll be right back,” cunning linguists, and Jake Wade, but it might just be better if you watch the film. Actually, I implore you to watch the film as if it is an actual parody of a Bond film, and see what you think. If you felt like following it up with TWINE (let me straighten my tie under water) and DAD (do I need examples?), I’m relatively certain you’d find the same elements at work. At the moment, I am undecided about GE. I think it may have also been too Bond to be Bond. Still, it had a freshness that came from a 6 year gap, which did add something relatively special to the film.
I always wondered why my earliest experiences with a character I came to love so dearly never gripped me in any meaningful way. I’m thankful that I’ve finally been able to discover the answer.
Comments
1. M with holding the fact that she managed deduce that a Carver Media Satellite was giving the HMS Devonshire the wrong directions. She claims she with held this information because she would get in trouble with the PM. Gee, M getting yelled at by the PM or preventing a war with the strongest millitary on earth ? Bravo M, great move.
2. James Bond goes to the primere of the Carver Media Group Satellite Network in the guise of a banker and oh so tactfully he tells Carver that he knew about the whole business with driving the HMS Devonshire into China. Bond is then beaten by Carver's goons, without a scratch on him, and then he just sits and waits for them at the hotel. In all seriousness, I can't people believe how many people have claimed Bond sitting there drinking straight vodka with holding his walther PPK "moodly" reflected Fleming's Bond. It's like throwing a brick at wasp's nest and then waiting to be stung. Depensing all sarcasm, this "secret agent" is a bloody idiot.
3. Paris Carver, Bond's former lover, magically forgives Bond for leaving her years and plays right into his hands by telling him about a secret lab in Carver's building. Funny thing is moments earlier, she said she would not be used as a tool to betray Carver. I guess their grand total of what ? Five minutes or less of screentime together had changed her mind ?
4. Wai Lin. That's it, just Wai Lin. She does nothing. She botches sneaking into the Carver building by setting off an alarm and has the guall to sneak out while everyone else is shooting at Bond like a fish in a barrel. She also occasionally pops up where Bond is so someone with an IQ of 60 would believe she is actually doing something productive in the film. Yeah the Bond girl that "kicks ass". And no, her running around machine gunning people in Carver's stealthship dosen't count. Goldeneye firmly established that Bond could take out an entire army of men with just an AK-47.
5. The henchmen. Except for Henry Gupta, they do nothing. Dr. "yah" Kaufman merely threatens Bond with a gun and stupidly gets shot. Stamper engaged Bond at the very end when the evil plot was all but shot. Also all this brag of torture from both parties was interesting and would have been even better if someone actually was tortured during the whole film.
6. The Plot. Is it smart ? Yes. Is it merely glanced over ? Yes. Things just happen in this film, explosions, shooting, "Shaken Not Stirred", gadgets, and then the classic ticking clock. Elliot Carver just flops around scene by scene merely talking about the plot and then he dies in a dreadfully over-the-top fashion. What brilliant writing.
Is it the worst ? I can't agree. I enjoyed Jonathan Pryce despite the fact he is given nothing to work with and Pierce was pleasingly more masculine than he was in Goldeneye. Also unlike Quantum of Solace, you can actually see the action occuring and unlike The World is Not Enough, Bond is not a metrosexual p***y. It's certaintly down there though, bottom five easily.
Much obliged. I'm glad you enjoyed it!
I think some confusion arises because this is the first Bond that sets out to make the character 'iconic'. After the success of GE, back came the James Bond theme (ludicrously used as Bond is going thru Hamburg airport, totally diff vibe to Connery in Dr No). Perhaps because the original script fell through, they fall back on a by the numbers job for the plot, but this is the first one where they realise they haven't a clue what to do with Bond and his world; GE was a kind of farewell to Bond, dealing with the end of the Cold War, and they didn't know where to take it next.
As bad is that with Cubby gone, the new gang clearly had no ideas of their own, I mean no enthusiastic Boys Own take on new stunts or set pieces to contribute. So the action is not groundbreaking in any way at all, in fact you could have shot most of it for TMWGG, it really is no different in fact I'd argue that the car chase in Rog's film is better shot than the bike chase in this one.
So all the cliches are there and you have Spottiswoode directing, who claimed he didn't really want to make a Bond film as such, rather an action film that would hold up on its own, so you jettison that smirky, funny feel that might redeem it, yet if Sir Hil's take is anything to go by, TND failed as a conventional blockbuster too.
I'll always remember Face/Off as the best Bond film of that year.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Honestly I'd take the plot of TND over Goldeneye's flimsy revenge story. I like the fact that Bond is dealing with a media mogul for the first time however the film was muddled with the stupidity I stated earlier. It's really a shame.
That was so stupid how everytime Bond made a one-liner to Q a horn blared. That's right up there with the all time corn of Monty Norman scoring a spider being stomped to death.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
At the very least, I do think Pierce gave a decent preformance.
http://apbateman.com
Moonraker has more redeeming qualities IMO. The great Ken Adams sets, beautiful locations, and the beautiful John Barry score.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
... disjointed storyline, an over-the-top egotistical villian who has too many chances to kill Bond, poor delivery of humour... Sorry I forgot which one I'm talking about now...
http://apbateman.com
It's funny how Drax's first chance of killing Bond is the one that makes so sense; He wanted him dead at the very minute he saw him. Moonraker is a pretty poor film but at least it showed more creativity, and visual appeal, than the banal settings of Tomorrow Never Dies and it's explosion-a-minute action sequences.
It also has some great one-liners the "re-entry" still makes me smile.
http://apbateman.com
For me, this was the Bond that went too far.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I thought she was 16 ? Still, that was hella gross.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
http://apbateman.com
That's a good point; Never thought of that before. I can see a 16 year old lusting after a man between 30 and 40.
What weirded me out about it, though, was Kristatos implying that she was a virgin when he first meets Bond (I mean really, who does that? "Hello stranger, here is my teenage virgin neice") and the implication in the last few scenes that he's had the hots for her. Is that really necessary? Wasn't the villain being a long-term double-agent who collaborated with the fascists, and later the KGB, evil enough?
Anyway, TND. If you ask me, it's a decent Bond movie but not great. Carver is hammed up to the max and too far over the top. The sheer stupidity of giving himself away through his newspaper really is hard to accept. No wonder he gets found out, he practically screams "I'M A BADDIE" with every other line.
Also, the movie is far, far too self-conscious of Brosnan's Bond's superhuman status: M not only sends a solitary man to deal with the biggest threat to peace since the Cuban Missile Crisis, but she is so confident in him that she doesn't keep the British government informed of what's going on. What are the other 00s doing? Why doesn't she tell the PM about Carver - and, y'know, stop WW3 - just because he might not like it? A real low point for Dench's M.
It's another bland "Bond saves the world" approach with very little thought put into it.
Yes that was really last-minute with Kristatos being a perv.
EDIT: Oh, whoops, sorry for bumping. Didn't realise this was a relatively old thread.
Moonraker - James Bond in space. Enough said.
Die Another Day - The first half was actually good then it became too fantastical.
Not so much the plot but the poor direction by John Glen, and the lazy efforts at locations, plot, the girls and especially the violence like Krest having his head de-pressurized. Weak film, it was taken too far in terms of becoming more like Miami Vice rather than a Bond film, and definitely the worst Bond released in the 80's (excluding Never Say Never Again).
Poor Timothy Dalton, the BEST Bond actor in my eyes only had two films, one of which suffered poor direction, and yes they took it too far with aspects like the violence, the plot involving drugs, etc.
Die Another Day of course is the other one that springs to mind, of course, being the worst Bond movie.
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Lazenby 5. Craig 6. Brosnan
LTK just seemed like a generic 80s action movie, not so much like a part of the Bond franchise. Although I did really like the tanker chase at the end, almost made up for the rest of the movie
The non-Bond music that they used during the gun barrel sequence just didnt fit.
I believe Timothy Dalton himself went out there and commented stating that LTK went too far, and that's very much what happened. It did not feel like Bond, it was violent and totally un-like Bond. Worst of all and as I mentioned, it feels very tired and that little effort went into the direction, terrible locations and the script problem. The plot itself was OK but it needed a strong boost, in terms of getting more suitable actors, more action, less underwater scenes which were clearly as dull as Thunderball's on this film, better Bond girls who actually make a good impression etc. John Glen should have given up the torch after The Living Daylights, as I feel Licence To Kill is a mediocre Bond film that could have been made sooo much better. I would still declare Glen as being my favorite Bond director though, due to the four previous films.
The best aspect regarding Licence To Kill was Timothy Dalton. The best Bond actor was given one of the worst pictures in the Bond franchise, and then came the stupid 6 year hiatus. I really do not understand why people are quick to defend this film, I mean I wish I could very much, and that would due to Dalton's AMAZING portrayal of 007, but it's just wasted opportunity when the film itself blows. The Living Daylights is Dalton's best Bond film, hands down, and it is one of my favorites. That film wasn't anything like this, it had a nice down to earth cold war plot, very much like For Your Eyes Only, nice Bond girl, great cast members, good script, and a fresh portrayal after years with Roger Moore.
John Glen, who directed all five Bond films of the 80's did a terrific job, but the only one he should not have directed was Licence To Kill. For Your Eyes Only is my favorite Bond film, Octopussy is very impressive, A View To A Kill is superb and The Living Daylights is terrific.
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Lazenby 5. Craig 6. Brosnan