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
Skyfall is more Bondian than most of the PB entries.
Certainly more British, and far more proud of it. ;)
SF is a strange one for me. I've not come across the 'universal love' you cite. In fact, whenever I meet people and they find out I'm a huge Bond fan their first question is always, 'What do you think of SF?' Brcause their assumption is that I will automatically see it as sacrosanct, which I don't, and there's a palpable release of tension - which results in comments ranging from, 'I thought it was ok', to 'I thought it was utter shit'. Don't get me wrong, I've met people who love it also, but I could count on one hand the number of people who think CR is OK (note: I've never come across anyone who thought it was bad, never mind shit). I've met a lot of people who don't rate SF. It's very divisive, unlike CR which I genuinely believe has a universal appeal.
There s a moderator here on this diabolical site who begs to differ.
As for the universal love, well I really think CR is still the masterpiece that no one expected in the last 25 years. I don't hear CR associated with "overrated". I do for SF...
I was going to mention the Major, but I couldn't remember if he'd acknowledged it as a decent film, just not a Bond film.
Smythe doesn t even recognize the OP reference, he is lost to the dark side of Bond fandom. At least he is a Dalton fan, gotta love him for that.
@Thunderfinger, i'll offer a man hug.
@MajorDSmythe, and yet, parts of the Dalton films, which you love, are full of just as much drama as the Craig era, if not more. How much darker does it get than Bond stumbling across his friend's mangled body and his brutally murdered and raped wife the day after their marital bliss was rung in? It's the darkest and most dramatic Bond has ever been!
Examples, please. You said "most" Bond films, so I guess you have at least 13 bigger plot holes in mind.
You're absolutely right. However, there is a big difference between licence To Kill (many others will agree with em, but for different reasons). Licence To Kill is what it is, an attempt to keep up with Bond's US hero counterparts that were flooding the market in the 1980's. It doesn't come off as ashamed to be Bond, it's just trying to keep up with the competition.
Skyfall on the other hand, comes off as being a Bond film is embarassing, it has to be something better.
At the end of the day, maybe I will never be happy with a Craig film. While I might set out to watch a Craig Bond, because I don't buy into him in the role, my mind wanders and I look at thing to pick at. If on the off chane that EON made a Bond film, with Craig, that opened with the full gun barrel (no half cuts, no early fade away), toned down the drama to make a spy thriller, and put the Bond theme in the film (the full theme, not just a few bars here and there), I would happily put my money where my mouth is, and like Craig's first 3 Bonds, give it a chance. But as one disgruntled fan, who am I to make demands.
Have you not seen SP yet?
Seems to sum up my thoughts about the Craig era, except for CR.
...Or you don't need to explain this at all: Silva did not bribe Metropolitan policemen but got his own men to wear the uniforms of the police and use their equipment. Which is easier to do and not even a stretch.
That's it.
I rank the Craig era as second best, behind the Connery era. Dan's a good, tough Bond.
Best in the entire series.
Of course, and even outside the series. I'm still mad as hell Deakins didn't get the Oscar!
And to a CGI fest of a film at that! Of course, some of the most talented people in the film industry rarely get any awards, so Deakins is in great company.
Most Bond films deal with secret evil organizations, the composition of which is next to impossible. Right? Mind you, this isn't a complaint; merely an observation. The entire series is based on preposterous ideas and plots. But who cares? It's Bond.
This why criticisms of SF's perceived plot holes are nonsensical.
Regardless, while Silva does have henchmen, it is a small group...much easier to believe.
There is one big and important difference.
Skyfall takes itself seriously all the way, which is untypical for a Bond movie. If you do that you just can't have that kind of plot holes, they become apparent and distracting.
In MR, GE or SP nobody would complain about plot holes, because those movies like practically all Bond movies besides Skyfall are fun to watch all the way.
Very good point, Skyfall wants to be taken seriously and, on that basis, perhaps it is fair that the bar is raised in terms of how the plot works.
Big time SPECTRE totally wasted Waltz, he lacked any sense of menace and seemed to be phoning his performance in. It felt like a neutered Hans Landa. I think the idea of Christoph playing a Bond villain got us all wet but the reality was just very underwhelming.
Bardem in contrast was larger than life and truly memorable, nothing in SPECTRE gets near his introduction and his taunting of Bond on in that sequence. The meteor sequence followed by the author of your pain nonsense is just completely flat in comparrison like Craig going full on Bond.
Yeah lighten up a bit but they just pushed it too far and his trademark take on the role took back seat at times to some rather poorly delivered one liners, the one in the torture chair about time flying was particualrly atrocious. and while he was good I preferred him in his the previous 3 films even QOS.
I think Dan is great at the dead pan humour but trying to do the Moore type oneliners, leave that to Pierce, I didn't actually like them when he did them but at least it was more fitting with his take on Bond.
Also I love Hoyt's work on Thomas Alfredon's Let The Right One In and Tinker Tailor but his efforts on SP were just underwhelming, after the PTS I just wasn't that impressed.
Deakins work on SF was phenomenal, SPECTRE is just so flat and completely lacks any thrill or danger, SF in comparrison delivers in spades.
Yes it does have plot holes and while I'm no real fan of Newman's score to SF it's better than the copy and paste version in SP.
The Bond fan community has turned on SF quite visciously at time but it always delivered to me whereas it's follow up promised so much then spectacualry dropped the ball, I can't say I've been so disappointed with a film in a long time.
The direction, cinematography and editing and dialogue and acting is top notch and it couldn't be any better.
To even compare the Austin Powers like OTT overacting Bardem's Silva introduction to it is irrational.
Mommy - was - very bad. A true "high point" in the franchise, and people complain about Jinx's dialogue. Not even starting about the "rat" talk...or the totally disastrous glass prison scene with Silva and M with ridiculous CGI in Silva's face.