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
Mendes doesn't do subtext. He just slaps you round the face with his 'message'. Hence the absurdly overrated S.P.E.L.L.I.N.G. it out Tennyson poem in SF.
"Doh! So THAT'S what it's all about?!"
Student filmmaking at its finest.
That sums up Mendes' MO quite nicely.
I also hope there is less use of CGI. The obvious greenscreen usage in the PTS in SP, during the helicopter fight, takes me a little out of the film.
@Getafix I always liked that Tennyson-scene, even if is a little on the nose. I remember getting goosebumps in the cinema when I first saw it. Probably because the build up, music and the confrontation between M and Silva.
I don't mind a colourful adventure for B25 as a contrast ... but I like and liked SFs look and feel a lot. It was new and like CR something that has not been done in the series so far and a valueable addition ... imho.
Ufff, be careful now @Getafix ;-).I'm quite the fan of Sam Mendes. And none of his films to me are 'cheap student projects'. I certainly don't think he slaps you around your ears with his message. I always think his themes and messages are subtle at most. And perhaps, if you dig a bit deeper, you can discover the rich beauty of his subtle messages. Like this one:
https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/16671/the-kennedys-james-bond#latest
And that to me make the Mendes Bond films rather special and unique within the franchise. Perhaps as unique as Campbell's CR or Peter Hunt's OHMSS. Time will tell, but I guess at least SF will turn into one of those unexpected 'Bond evergreens'.
An ex-agent trying to bring down 'M'.
And Bond failing to stop him. Another wonderful anticlimax brought to us by Mendes.
Or a given fact that today's terrorism is very hard to prevent? Sorry, but to me it's boring if we Always have a Hollywood ending in which person A saves person B, beds person B, and with it saves the planet. I mean, Mendes understood that, in order to give SF a slightly different and more Original feel, you have to reshake certain elements of the franchise.
So again, I completely disagree with those Bond fans who want to have simple endings. For goodness sake, even Ian Fleming didn't do simple endings with his novels.
Yeah, and Bond throwing away his McGuffin, the A.TA.C. in FYEO, is considered professional too eh.
Still, there are other Bond films in which the loss of a McGuffin is the driving force for the rest of the narrative. It....simply happens......loosing a McGuffin. To make that a rime point of criticism for the total failure of SF is simply grotesque.
Bond is meant to be escapism, not realism.
I don't ask for simple endings, but I do ask for good, climactic, satisfying endings. Mendes didn't deliver that, though I will say that SF's ending is considerably better than SP's.
I just realized something;
In CR, Bond fails to bring in Le Chiffre, fails to protect Vesper, and captures Mr. White only to have him escape in QOS.
In SF, Bond fails to stop Silva from killing M.
In SP, Bond fails, by (poor) choice, to kill Blofeld.
What has Craig Bond actually succeeded in doing in the grand scheme? He killed Green, so the Bolivians can sleep easy knowing their water is safe, and he stopped nine-eyes, but not without the help of the Scooby-gang.
Exactly. Bond succeeded in preventing the enemy from having control of the ATAC; he won. In SF, Bond's mission was to stop Silva from killing M; he failed. Silva killed M. The bad guy succeeded in his goal. SF is the only Bond movie where the villain wins.
But when Silva dies he has no idea 'M' is about die too - so he doesn't win. There's some nuance to the whole affair - it's never black and white. That's what makes it such a distinctive Bond film. Bond's mission wasn't to save 'M', either, it was to capture/kill Silva. 'M' knew that hence why she agrees to be bait.
OHMSS and CR are fantastic, well executed films. They have nontraditional endings and yet are still satisfying experiences. These are artistic Bond films done right. SF and SP are cheap, unsatisfying films with anticlimactic endings, where any attempts at artistic flair come off as pretentious due to the ham-fisted manner in which Mendes went about it (i.e. "The dead are alive."). That said, I take no issue with the poetry, and I greatly enjoyed the Tennyson scene in SF. My main issues with these films is not their snobbish attempts at artistry, but their anticlimactic endings and plots that see Bond essentially being pointless (failing to save M, not killing Blofeld).
In a nutshell, Bond failed, Britain appeared weak, the enemy won and successfully humiliated MI-6. Publicly I may add. That's as bad as it gets. I've no idea how anybody could cheer for that.
Regardless of whether or not Siva got to die knowing that he succeeded, he still succeeded; M died. I doubt Silva cared about living or dying; he was a terrorist, he succeeded in committing terrorist acts, and killed his target. And you can hardly call the events in Skyfall a victory for Bond, with the villain he intended to stop having already achieved all of his terrorist goals before dying.
Missed this as I was typing my response. Very well said. A better more detailed explanation than mine.
An alternative would be Dench M doesn't appear at at all, Fienes M shows up, and the personnel change is mentioned in the dialogue. THAT would lazy and a missed opportunity in comparison.
Like I said, @BMW_with_missiles, you've got to be either my estranged twin or my doppleganger. :D
So what you're basically saying is it doesn't chime with what you personally want in a Bond film. That's fine, but it doesn't mean it's bad.