It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
@Creasy47
the face Silva makes after being knifed in the back by Bond - when he turns to look at him... the genius of it (yes i said "genius"), is that you are intended to laugh at it.. Look at how flamboyant and ridiculous his character is throughout the whole movie, him turning around with a "seriously?!?!?!" expression/reaction is freaking hilarious - i laugh every time i watch it, because it's intended to be funny..
i dont mind him using new model Astons in films.. but lets give the ol' DB5 a rest for a little while..
I wouldn´t even mind it to be in every single film, if it would be there kind of casually. This constant rubbing it up the audiences noses is what´s really turning me off.
I have no problem with the DB5 being Bond's personal, non-tricked-out car like it was in GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies (with the exception of a special compartment for chilling champagne).
Where it got wonky was in Skyfall and Spectre with how the DB5 somehow became both Bond's personal car he had in storage and a gadget-laden vehicle under the maintenance of Q-Branch. Just one more example of throwing things in with nary a thought about logic.
At last someone with a properly explained argument that I can buy.
Flamboyant and ridiculous is spot-on for Silva and yes, it can be meant in a positive way.
I will re-watch Skyfall, even though I just have watched it a couple of weeks ago and try to see him in a different light. Maybe it's really supposed to be comedy from Mommy...is...verybad to his last freakish expression on his face.
Maybe I just didn't get it up to now.
Thanks @haserot
Yes please
Silva is absurd that is the point, larger than life and Bardem never betrays the character.
The pissed off look on his face when he realises Bond has beaten him, , he just wants to casue chaos for M and get his revenge and although he is indirectly involved in her death dies not knowing this.
I think Bardem wanted to hark back to the Bond villains of old and Mendes coaxed a performance out of him that reflected that, he clearly gelled with him better than Waltz who has alluded to not getting the spark to go anywhere interesting with character.
Skyfall is pretty much going to be the iconic Bond film of this era like GF is for Connery, I'm not saying best, I think the fanbase will tend to favour CR a bit like I much prefer FRWL to GF but SF did something that no other Bond has done in decades.
Agree totally about SP here but I still love SF. That's what is great about this series,though, there's variety for everyone! And I think it's really cool they can crank out variety like SK vs. SP in the space of just two films. Mendes always says he doesn't want to repeat themselves and it's good they decided not to do SF Part II when they made SP.
The main difference between the two films, whichever you prefer, is effort.
Everyone in SF brought their A game to the table whereas with SP you can't say anyone did, with the possible exceptions of Whishaw and Bautista.
If producers, writers, actors and director can't quite be arsed it comes through in the final product.
SP is good but there's just a little spark missing, which is there in SF, that makes it gel and kicks the whole thing into life.
The talent has never been better, and for that I am grateful, but there needs to be better collaboration between all parties involved
On the writing front, it's hard to agree. Maibaum is king of that department; a one of a kind that we'll likely never see again in the franchise.
Maybe after the impeccable acting jobs that gave us LeChiffre and Greene, Silva was too cartoonish for me which I feel doesn't fit the overall tone of SF.
True, there's also Ken Adam, John Barry who brought the movies to life, not to mention the tireless efforts of those behind the screen.
I was referring more to acting across the board and cinematography.
As I've said on numerous occasions, I don't have a problem with 'formula', but if one is going to go down that path, one has to get it just right. There is far less room for error, because one is doing something that the audience has seen before in various guises, and is attuned to, so their expectations are higher. One can't fall into the trap of predictability. At least in my case.
SF had the good sense to be a different kind of Bond film, and therefore it surprised the audience and confounded their expectations. What it did do, it did very well, as you note.
IHMO Maibaum's best movies were the ones based on Fleming's source material, with the exception of The Living Daylights, whereas his original scripts (such as DAF, OP and AVTAK) are his weakest ones. So he was good, but not exactly a king.
He wrote the 60s Bond into history. As far as I'm concerned, he's king.
He suspects the next instalment – AKA Bond 25, the title, release date and star of which remain tantalisingly unconfirmed – will take a lighter, and therefore presumably more Russian-friendly, approach.
“Well I think if you’re the next director of Bond, you’re going to not want to go down the tone and argument of what Sam [Mendes] has put into the films,” he says, though is quick to stress he’s “heard nothing”. “Questions of British nationhood, and whether Bond is a dinosaur, all that. So I would guess if you’re coming to do the next Bond, you’d want to take it somewhere radically different, I think.”