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
No, it's not.
I have always viewed LALD very highly, but for me it lives in that area between top tier and just another bond outing. It definately has some of the requisite invention and ingenuity of a classic. The crocodile sequence for instance is utterly bondian. I think the villian, while acted well, is a little jumbled. The best bond villains have very simple motivations and characterisations. Think Goldfinger, scaramanga. Also, I think there is one chase to many. They seem to happen not to advance the plot but to prevent the pace from slowing. I would have liked a more diverse range of action, but I think the producers realised that Moore wasn't the most physical actor.
That being said, I think Moore gives his best performance here, BEFORE he figured out his own interpretation of the character. I just love Baron Samedi, a real fleming strangeness and yet makes sense in the context of the story. He doesn't inhabit the story so much as haunt it. The plot itself is so low-key that it feels like a throwback to the pregoldfinger days. People remember LALD as the one with all the voodoo and mysticism but really its just about drugs. It has one of the most realistic evil plans of the lot. Its definitely my favourite Moore film.
I'd pull Campbell from the mix there (some good stuff in GE, but I still find CR to be infuriatingly ill-conceived and executed, not just on casting but pretty much everything), but certainly Young above all others, and also Hunt.
I agree, CR is prob the most overrated of the series. I really like the middle act, but the ending is botched completely for me. It's easy to find people that are offended by this view, especially whose bent on critical uniformity
Brilliant come back @RC7. Spot on.
You're doing a mighty fine job of it.
Thank you.
Seems to me that that is exactly what's going on.
I whole heartedly agree with this
@Sark @RC7 Have you ever seen Blue Velvet? Indeed, themes (and subtext) are often a substitute for plot.
Now, SF is far from being a David Lynch film, but the plot of SF is perfectly fine within the scope of the Bond universe. What is different is the added thematic layers of paradigm shifts, old vs new, feelings of being obsolete, knowing where you have been to understand where you are going. These deeply personal (and psychological) themes have never been explored in a Bond film before. They resonated too, as Bond's BO numbers were fueled by older audiences, like me, who could "identify" with Bond, on a personal level, for the very first time.
Also, most people here judge Bond films based on what they envisioned as "the perfect Bond formula". The closer a Bond film to their "perfect Bond formula" is, the more they will like it. I do not care about any of that. I see the bigger picture.
I don't mind the end of CR but am not a fan of the Miami airport sequence - that's the bit that could have been cut IMHO.
CR is a good Bond movie. Not a personal favourite but I rate it.
Funny though that for me it's as if GE and CR were made by completely different people.
I also wouldn't say Campbell gets Bond from my perspective. I've always felt GE is a very weak movie. CR is not a traditional Bond film but that's one of the things that makes it so fresh.
GE tried to be a classic Roger movie but failed (IMO). CR is a reboot and reimagination and works very well.
Part of it is a pre-supposition by some of us that there were Bond fans going into that film wanting to dislike it. They already didn't like DC, certainly didn't like Mendes directing it, didn't like Newman scoring it, didn't like Adele doing the theme, etc. They went into the theater looking for flaws. It's like how Obama was the "worst U.S. President ever" before he'd even been sworn in.
Now, that is probably NOT true of those critical of SF on these boards; but since this is a medium that makes nuance and personal connections very difficult, some posters might bring that "well, they hated it before even seeing it" baggage into the forum. LOL
For me, it's tough to swallow the "plot holes" arguments, because this is, after all, a James Bond film. For me, the best criticism of SF is its lack of international intrigue; Silva's plan to "out" operatives is, at first, an international crisis and very stirring. But it devolves into personal vendetta. This didn 't bother me too much, but I can see how it bother others.
I am all for Bond films having excellent production values, but great cinematography and a feast of interesting themes don't make it a good Bond film, or even a good film full stop.
A layer ? IMO The "old vs new" theme in Skyfall is more a bump, a bubble in the layers, I mean something that's so blatantly put in your face (it's said several times by the characters !) that it somehow makes you feel like you're treated like an idiot.
I'm okay with some food for thought message hidden under the sugar (like well for instance, the little message about the danger of mass surveillance in Captain America : The Winter Soldier, it was only a few minutes here and there, no patronizing). But here it seems Mendes wanted to be sure the audience understood there was something underneath the eye candy. Hardly subtle.
I mean, is it possible to actually be more clunky and less subtle?
And those are valid criticisms.
You aren't alone. I'd be more or less content with that. The only Connery film that could possibly be above those two (for me) is From Russia With Love. A classic in every sense of the word.
Nonsense.
More daft than Bond and Holly entering a space-shuttle and "suddenly" finding one hell of a space station that both the NASA and the Russian Space Administration never noticed during its construction??
I think you're using....well......at least some hyperboles. I mean come on, even I would defend my own actions, even in front of a committee. That's an aspect you tend to forget. Even in our democracy government officials don't go to a public hearing to let themselves walk over completely.
I fully agree with you that Judi Dench' reign as "M" was over-the-top and unrealistic at times. Just read some of my posts back. But it's at least more realistic than a frikkin' insanely big space station in geostationary orbit. On top of that, "M"s ludicrous reign and its subsequent globetrotting didn't kick off in "Skyfall". It started with "TWINE", and was made worse in "DAD" (North-Korea), "CR" (Bahama's) and "QOS" (Bolivia).
Having said all that, I think it was a marvellous cinematic experience hearing and seeing "M" citing Tennyson....and actually, at that moment, being completely correct and realistic about the importance of espionage!
And if it's not clear, I've really enjoyed the Craig era, LOVED CR and QoS (and I've loved the latter since I first saw it), and most certainly did not go into SF with the intent of hating it or being disappointed.
Do you ever have....ehm....something positive to say about a Bond film? Especially in your case you only seem to be here for the sake of.........'the bad and the ugly'.
Just because you regard a scene to be great its not necessary that others will see eye to eye with that ..