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
SF did feel flat and dreary a lot of the time. But the lead-up to Silva's interruption of M's speech was suspenseful I suppose.
Unfortunately since CR we have lost that suspense feel.
What you probably intended to say is: "the first 70 minutes"
After Silva enters the screen the movie comes close to unwatchable for half an hour.
Wishful thinking that films reputation is already set my friend, it might change in the fanbase but SF will clearly be rememeber more fondly than SP.
You obviously have convinced yourself that a film lacking suspense and danger is a masterpiece so it's futile arguing.
It just goes to show us Bond fans have very differing views, I will gladly admit that SF is far from perfect and even my no. 1 OHMSS has it's flaws but you've convinced yourself one of the most devisive Bond films of the last 30 years is a masterpiece.
I don't think any Bond film is a masterpiece, the genre that Bond inhabits has one true masterpiece and I'm afraid that is Raiders of the Lost Ark, no Bond film has got that close.
Do you really think Bardem is that bad an actor?
At least he put some effort in, Waltz and actor we expected to do wonders with the role just phoned his performance in.
Mads set the bar and I'm afraid no other actor has delivered like him, Almaric was underwritten but did well with the material he was given but Christoph just slummed it.
He's not a bad actor, but his performance he one of the worst things in the franchises history. It's best not to look directly at it.
I don't personally see it, I think Bardem is great in SF I have no problem looking at it, considering the garbage we got in the Brosnan era, Jonathan Pryce is atrotious in TND and don't get me started on Toby Stephen's effort in DAD.
I think Silva comes across dangerous a wild card, maybe close to Ledger's Joker but far more threatening than Hans Landa diet in SP.
I was really expecting Waltz to knock it out the park, Han Landa in Inglourious is a revelation but here he's just so safe.
Silva will go down as one of the most memorable Bond villains of the series.
SPECTRE is going to go down as the one where Bond found out Blofeld was his brother and people will reference Austin Powers, I'm afraid the damage is done and all the fan love from JasonBond006 isn't going to undo it.
Never let Mendes & P&W near another Bond film again.
SF will indeed be remembered more in the future, it was a phenomenon which had partly to do with the movie itself, partly because of the incredible hype that went on before it (50th Anniversary).
Raiders Of The Lost Ark just may be the best movie of the 80's. Maybe Star Trek Wrath Of Khan comes close or is better, depending if you really want to compare them.
I believe some Bond movies could be considered masterpieces, cinematically. FRWL comes to mind and OHMSS of course. I don't see why they couldn't have been nominated or won Best Picture for example.
If nowadays Lord Of The Rings can do it, and movies like Avatar (for Christ's sake) and Mad Max Fury Road get Best Picture nominations (and the latter wins 6) why not a Bond movie.
CR should have gotten nominations and wins. Eva Green just stole the show. Mikkelsen was Oscar worthy as well imo.
SF's cinematography is freaking fantastic and to hell with the Academy for not giving Deakins his Oscar.
Albert Finney is one of my favourite actors. He is bloody kicking ass in SF, and I wish he had more to do in the movie.
It's funny that so many criticise the Skyfall Scotland sequence when this is clearly the best thing in the movie. At least Bardem has not much dialogue there which is a good thing, because for me, Silva almost ruins the movie, bad OTT acting and worst dialogue ever of a villain imho.
The first 70 minutes of SF are absolutely ok, there should be more action but it's ok. Then it becomes almost unwatchable up to when Bond and M go to Scotland as I mentioned, when the movie is at its best.
I'll give it another chance in the new Bondathon I've started. I will try to ignore Silva as good as I can :))
If you like Silva, more power to you.
you're right, Toby Stephens is one of the worst things in DAD, never mind invisible cars. Compare him to Mads Mikkelesen, no contest.
P&W are what's holding the franchise back from returning to its former glory.
To anyone who actually liked Bardem's performance and dialogue: Good for you. For me that is Austin Powers level.
Imagine a guy like Mikkelsen had played Silva. Bardem was just wrong.
=))
He delivers every line in the same sniggering, sneering manner. I think he might not have got the memo that a villain has to have more to them than that. I stand by my previous comment. [-(
=))
I suppose your right. I love to see actors who ignore the facts and give it their all anyway. As it is I view him as complicit in the mutiny of the franchise I love. :-S
Personally, I like him just fine. Suitably creepy.
Well anything SF comes close to winning in the elimination games. That's no argument :))
I don't believe Silva is unpopular in general by the way. I don't believe he is one of the most popular either. He's just one of many Bond villains.
You are most likely right with the time, soon as Bond gets off the Chimera my interest wains dramatically.
BBC radio versions of the Bond novels. So he's been both Bond and a villain. :D
Tension and suspended is lost ( in my opinion) as he usually wins :D
SF: The PTS was intense; the duel (with the shot glass on Severine's head) was particularly intense; the chase through the subway and the final scenes Skyfall were also suspenseful.
SP: The PTS, yes; the train fight; the race through the old MI6 building; I also found the scene with Lucia, coming home after the funeral, to be especially effective--as we see the two hitmen in the bg. But the films two big moments, the escape from the crater and the downing of Blofeld's helicopter, are way too ho-hum.
Craig in all his previous entries has felt in danger after the PTS he never feels in jeopardy at all. Even the torture chair moment is defused as soon as we see the watch.
While echoing the Moore era like some have been begging for since DC put on the tux and holstered the walther he has been neuteted of any real fear and tension. Compare this to the ball whacking moment in Casino and it's all plain to see, Craig's Bond should never be saved by anything as generic as a bloody watch.
P&W were bought on board to inject more humour and Bondian moments to SP. Instead of delivering material more keeping with Daniel's portrayal they stick the kind of nonsense we thought had all been jettisoned when Craig had signed on.
Yet some who clearly dislike this era claim this more like the Bond they like. So ticking the boxes and trowling on the cliches makes it Bond does it? Are you sure you actually like the character and not just a collection of elements that remind of the past as opposed to a compelling three dimensional human being?
I never known Craig's Bond seem so safe and un-threatened till this film.
Give the people what they want.
SPECTRE obviously was what they wanted. So everything is as it should be.
In 2012 they wanted the hype, the celebration of the Anniversary and a Bond movie that resembled some great moments of the past, they wanted the drama, the soap.
In 2015 they wanted the Bond back they've known for decades that worked so well.
Everything is as it should be.