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
The movie's Deus ex machina is quite obvious. It's not perfect IMO. I never liked the ending even when I was a kid.
That Craigs Bond could inhabit a more fantastical world. I just love the phrasing of that, because its so spot on. There's the character, and there's the world he inhabits. And what do we rely on to show us the relationship between the two? It's the filmmaking. You can have an obstensibly larger than life Bond AND an obstensibly larger than life world, but if the connective tissue isn't there I.e. the filmmaking, then neither will be taken full advantage of. That is the missing element, I think, with modern bond. Roger's Bond was larger than life, his world was larger than life, but crucially that third element - the filmmaking - was also there to make them both sing. So when Rog smiles, there's that little "ting" sound effect, or when he lands in the acro star and says "fill her up please" the hands come up and envelope his face into the titles. I think that's the missing element with Craig and the modern era, those little flourishes that are a direct message from the filmmakers to the audience, "don't worry, we're just having fun, enjoy it" aren't there, and instead there's a strange restrained stuffiness about the way things and presented. Craigs bond went from fairly grounded in Casino/Quantum to a more fantastical bond in his later films, but the filmmaking remained reserved and mannered like his early entries, because like I explained there was a slightly hysterical paranoia amongst film producers in the 2000's that anything too full-throatedly silly would make you the next "batman and robin" laughing stock, so they steered well clear. As a result nothing feels like it is played to its full potential, or really reveled in as you would expect from a larger than life bond adventure. Plenty of times you have a Bond looking very dapper, doing very bondian things but it doesn't quite connect because the filmmakers aren't shooting it loose and playful and kinetic but restrained and slow, think about some of the establishing shots in SP for instance. Even the action scenes, going down the mountain or driving around Rome, they are obviously going for light, exciting, and everything looks right on a technical level, but there's a strange disconnected quality, and the scenes don't come off nearly as thrilling as they should be. This is why I loved the Paloma sequence so much in Bond 25, because when she starts taking out those guys and the music starts playing, in finally felt like for a moment the restraints were being lifted off, and they were having some fun with the filmmaking again. We weren't witnessing these crazy things from a cold, objective distance, but instead we are swept up in it, and the filmmaking reflects it. I really think that's what classic bond is all about, the filmmakers cannot merely hope to cynically present us with things like a white tuxedo, a train carriage fight, a crater base, a neru jacket and expect us to find that sufficient, they also have to approach it with the right intentions.
Raiders is close, Godfdather I and II, Jaws, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Dog Day Afternoon, all close to perfectly made from story to acting to costumes to art direction to editing to music… but there are flaws in each (examples can be lighting issues in both Godfather’s especially the second film when Michael has his last conversation with his mother by the fireplace, or in Goodfellas, Paulie’s cigar keeps changing sizes in the same scene (when he’s asked to take over the restaurant)).
The hyperbole pitched at Bond, especially those who didn’t like the Craig films, goes over the top by one or two posters on here. Especially when every Bond film has some kind of flaws in them. It’s impossible to make a flawless film.
I don’t understand why the Craig haters (specifically one who keeps saying the same things over and over), just can’t accept these are films that weren’t to their tastes. But to speak as if these films were so flawed that the missteps have weakened and derailed the series and important details like M giving Bond assignments have been left to the “wayside” is just utter nonsense.
Yeah I think Raiders is the same in as far as every department excels. The one flaw for me is that the 'shut your eyes' thing isn't seeded earlier, and I think it's a bit too crucial not to have been.
I reckon Die Hard is up there, in terms of being a movie which accomplishes everything it sets out to do and excels at it. I guess there's a continuity mistake with the truck in the basement, maybe John's vest changing colour, but tiny things.
But yeah, also tired to keep reading how the last 20 years of Bond films have been terrible. They weren't.
Yes absolutely that should have been a plant earlier in the film, @mtm . And that leads me to my biggest complaint:
Indy’s whole intent is to stop the Arc from ending up in the Nazis hands.
But it does.
And then the Nazis open the Ark to gain God’s power and what is Indy doing? Keeping his eyes closed during the climax of a great adventure!!!!
This entire concept is on the flawed side and I wished they figured out a better solution and had our hero *active* during the climax!
Like I said, I think it's the balance that dictates the heightened realism of Bond, especially in terms of that filmmaking you talked about. I actually don't think the stylistic self-awareness (insofar as every Bond film has to have some degree of self-awareness) you're referecing always worked during the Moore era. Actually in quite a few instances the extremes of that general approach has famously taken fans out of the films (ie. the slide whistle, Tarzan yell etc) which is a no-no and counterintuitive to sweeping the audience along in the story. To me that's much more a disconnect than the examples you've cited. It's not really making the world fantastical as much as it is adding an extra layer of non-diegetic humour/significance. Which is fine so long as it doesn't take the audience away from the film.
I agree that there has to be a degree of finesse in the filmmaking, and it has to sweep us along in Bond's world. I see the Craig era as being closer in style to the 60s films than the 70s and 80s ones, more subtle but still tightened together with that Bondian style through cinematography, sound, music, and editing choices. I get a strong whiff of it when, for instance, the Bond theme blares after the Aston Martin is destroyed in SF and Bond gives us that glare/finishes setting up the explosion. Or when we get that long take at the beginning of SP with Craig's Bond looking awesome as he strolls along the roof to that Bond theme (incidentally its main purpose isn't plot based/to purely show us relevant information but to literally 'sweep' the audience along into the Day of The Dead and give us this larger than life Bond). The transition into the OP titles example you cited is, to me anyway, simply a more whimsical version of the gun barrel to title transition in CR, and is similarly self-aware (more badass than the OP example, but still in that ballpark).
I'd say also say that the Craig era created some of the most atmospheric locations/scenes of the series that really hammered home the heightened reality of the world, even if it was diegetic. The mise-en-scene of Silva's abandoned, crumbled island juxtaposed by the jaunty French music over the speakers and the rather creepy game of William Tell is absurd, purposeful, and brilliant. These diegetic choices all blend together to create this unsettling and vaguely fantastical scene. Same for the SPECTRE party in NTTD, and as you said that sequence certainly has an energy to it. But I really don't think the Craig era as a whole is quite as restrained as you're remembering to be honest.
Ooh, well, this is a totally different conversation(!) but I might disagree slightly there: I don't think a hero has to necessarily succeed in his mission (see Goldfinger, or Casino Royale even I guess) just win out at the end- and Indy's main prize in that film is to have won Marion.
Also, I'd disagree that he doesn't achieve anything: he prevents the Ark from being flown to Berlin where it would have been experimented on etc. - they are forced to take it to the island by his actions.
Indy stands there telling Marion not to look and is inactive during the climax. I’m talking about making the hero active during the climax, and I think they should have solved this issue during development of the script.
By not having your hero “active” in the climax is anti-climactic— which was a strange choice to make in this case, considering who the filmmakers behind Indy were!
A perfect example of being active, yet still losing (but still winning), is the first Rocky film: he loses to the champ, but he survived to the final bell, proving he’s “no bum”. And he actively participated in this moral victory.
Indy closes his eyes and the Arc does the rest.
The formula has been done to death, particularly 10. I appreciate that the Craig era shook things up. It was stirring.
Yeah, The Last Crusade handles this better.
Maybe the movie needed a religious approach but it would be a bit strange for an adventure movie
But he was active. He was actively not looking, which I’ve always found to be the hardest trial an archeologist could bare in that particular situation. I’ve often wondered if I, given that particular challenge, would not look. That would be hellish, to say the least. So I’ve always appreciated that piece of writing and respective choices. It stuck with me for years. Sometimes the hardest action is inaction. Sometimes, the battle happens inside one self, against one’s instincts and desires. I found it to be quite odyssian, as in being tied to the mast whilst the sirens sing their tune ;) I suppose that’s where they got their inspiration from. And the Odyssey is still relevant by way of it’s narrative choices, as is ROTLA, IMO, an almost perfect film, also IMO.
Agreed. Films need to move forward, not backward.
You can take successful tropes and put a fresh spin on it, but that's what the Craig Era did, so...
It goes back to: it's about what the story demands, and then, how it's executed.
On a side note, I kept forgetting to applaud @QBranch 's cool suggestion of Little Island. That'd definitely be a nice spot to start, maybe in the PTS, or a lead Bond follows shortly after the opening credits. It's a nice way of Bond touching down in the US, but in a unique setting (then I'd have him move further south, perhaps in South America somewhere?)...
Edit: sorry @Univex , going to have to agree to disagree on this one. It was actually lazy to have your hero "forced to close" his eyes during the climax.
I understand what you're saying in theory, but, if this was the case, we'd have to see more of an "internal" struggle of him having to keep his eyes closed during this climactic scene.
He wasn't having any difficulty keeping his eyes closed.
This was simply a case of deus ex machina. He closed his eyes. The arc did the rest.
It's a fair point; I must admit I don't mind it however. Maybe it's case of exception that proves the rule, or maybe it just conveys the power of this object really well to have all agency (I hate that term!) taken away from everybody we've been watching in this film up until this point: no one can match it, and that helps to terrify us in the audience: suddenly this thing everyone has been chasing comes centre stage and we didn't realise that it would dwarf all of them. Indy is able to save his and Marion's lives, which is something (although much as it needed seeding earlier in the film - not looking at the Ark comes from the bible, apparently), and as much as he's capable of in that situation.
I dunno, I like it, and then I like the more conventional ending to the next film too so I'm nothing if not inconsistent! :)
Now I Know what you're thinking. But that's Skyfall, surely? No, Skyfall is a story about the old ways are the best, "the shadows", "we are not that strength now that in old days moved heaven and earth", resurrection. But then that's SP, surely? No, SPECTRE is the story of surveillance, "information", government overreach, "cuckoo", "brothers always know which buttons to push".
What I mean is, instead of thinking of the story you want to tell with the character, and then finding ways of lacing the bondian tropes into it, (which is the method they used on Skyfall and SP Sam Mendes has admitted as much in interviews) do the opposite. You have the rigid, static framework of a old school Bond film updated to the current day (like they did in the brosnan era), and then you plop real, 3 dimensional characters into it, and whatever story you have is just what comes out of that. There's no fancy allusions, or gestures towards real world goings on, no going rogue, no bond having kids, or mommy issues, or "the old ways are the best". You just roll with the story and whatever calcifies from the character interractions is the "meat" you get to work with, and the rest is pure formula. The bond film this would be closest to is actually The Living Daylights, and even that has the little extra element of Bond wanting revenge for the dead agents. I'm saying remove any and all extraneous plot reasons for Bond to be morose or angsty, but keep him the same human, real person and put him in a truly fantastic, bizarre scenario with a few allies and a Bond girl, and see what comes of it. What unique interactions and dynamics does that lead to? Can't what comes organically from a situation be just as engaging and compelling as some contrived "my dad kicked me out of the nest, so now I'm an evil mastermind" melodrama nonsense? If a humanised bond were to be suddenly thrust into a situation like TSWLM, what would that look like? how would they handle it?The problem with a humanised bond, and what we saw with Craig, is the second he goes on his first mission he has a traumatic incident, and because its a realistic bond he can't just dismiss or overcome that trauma, like Brosnan could with Paris Carver, so it ends up becoming what defines his whole run. But what about a bond that never started out in a realistic, back to basics mid 00's gritty reboot? What about a bond whose first mission is a TSWLM style epic romp adventure? What comes of that?
And in the end @mtm, that's what matters most: despite flaws, we love what we love. And that's well worth the trip to the cinema!
And in this case, like Die Hard, the imperfections are slight, and the bigger picture is a successful story told up on the big screen, where most walk away having experienced great value in the magic the filmmakers provided...
Yes, I want to add One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest, On The Waterfront, Pulp Fiction and The Dark Knight as near perfect movies in my eyes. There's no such thing as a perfect anything. However, the movies that you and I mentioned are pretty close. ROTLA is debatable, but just don't listen to The Big Bang Theory on it's viewpoints! TBBT is an example of being overrated and anything but perfect. I recommend reading the novelization of Raiders, a lot of things get explained. As for Bond and perfection, no book, movie or video game is without flaws, but it's more often than not, the pure enjoyment for me that makes Bond flawless overall.
I have always, since first viewing, took it as totally normal/instinctual (closing eyes) for a few things:
1. almost-cute childhood instinct to close your eyes when you're scared
2. you close your eyes when talking/confronted with god (typically) in prayer
3. having the chance to face god or his wrath directly on earth, to any religious-ish man probably, would easily be taken as a temptation/test and the only way to win is not to play etc.
Yeah I think Goldfinger is probably still the only one which transcends being a Bond film, if you know what I mean: it's a proper classic movie, and possibly the only candidate Bond has for being near-perfect.
CR might get there in future, I think it's very well-regarded as a movie, and not just a good example of a Bond movie, if you follow my point.
The opening of the Ark also takes (I believe) from Altman's Spillane adaptation Kiss Me Deadly, which has that great bonkers ending where Pandora's Box goes nuclear. When you've got the talent and do it right you can take from elsewhere and make it feel new.
To be fair Casino Royale has a lot of stuff that, due to adaptation, could be considered plot holes (or at least illogical), so I wouldn't call it perfect just from that perspective. And the dialogue sometimes isn't great. But it's still a great film (both a great Bond film and a great film, if there's even a difference, which I'm not necessarily sure there is). Hell, it's arguably even a classic, albeit a modern one. Personally, I'd say FRWL (and possibly SF) are near 'perfect' but that's really only in my mind and I'm sure others would disagree.
I suppose at the end of the day it's what you see the flaws of any given film being. The Dark Knight for instance was cited as a perfect film in the above posts. I think it's a very flawed film (it has at least two badly directed/edited action sequences, plot holes such as why Gordon feels the need to fake his own death are never explained, and the entire ending/Batman's decision contradicts the entire premise of the film in a way I don't think the script is quite aware of). It's an enjoyable film - certainly if CR is a modern classic TDK is as well - but I wouldn't call it a near perfect one (I don't even think it's even in the top Batman films, which again is very much a personal opinion).
Now, there are certainly films that do seem to transcend just being a Bond film and are able to capture audiences worldwide for a host of reasons, as was mentioned. SF is definitely one of those, no matter how much I don't like it.
As hard as it is to believe, @Creasy these will be sobering words for some.
Nailed it @sandbagger1 — this is storytelling in a nutshell. This is it!
Oh sorry, yes I didn’t mean CR is near ‘perfect’; I wouldn’t say that at all, just that it’s one of the very few which is, as you say, a classic movie rather than just a classic Bond movie.
The Bonds are imperfect films in my opinion. And that's fine because I usually cherrish their flaws. Also, they don't have to be perfect to give me what I want from a Bond movie. Even if I were to call a Bond film perfect, as I sometimes do CR, what I'm really saying is that it gives me nearly everything I'm hoping for, not that it truly is a flawless film.
Wrong thread, dimi, you want the controversial opinions thread.
Beautifully stated. And so true.
As there's literally not a single person in this conversation who has asserted that any film is perfect, those people getting sobered aren't to be found here!
Except maybe Mendes himself, 😂. The guy who has the perfect and absolutely definitive response for every misstep the Craig Era and “Babs” made, especially on the objectively terrible Bond 25, and he absolutely has recommendations that every Bond fan will all agree to!