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
They had been away for 6 years, and arguably it had been much longer since there had been a larger than life threat like that in a Bond film. I believe it was deliberately injected to provide that level of familiarity with those earlier films. A throwaway.
From my point of view, the character aspects are very important. That's what draws viewers into the narrative and establishes a connection with the audience. GE/SF do that very well, which allows many (myself included) to overlook other failings.
There is a sort of "battle for main character" going on in GE, and ultimately I think it was the wrong choice that Bond ended up winning that battle. I would have liked to have seen that beach scene played out, but with the roles reversed. She looks at the waves, thinking about the friends she lost and how her life has been turned upside down, when Bond comes over to comfort her. I think the scene would have worked much better, were it done that way around.
I don't understand your argument. Films that resonate go beyond the basic mechanics of screenwriting/film making, which is why the two films you mention did exactly that.
A tired retread of long ago flogged to death cliches
My point is that they easily could have both. At no time in the history of the world there was a lack of threats and plots, and especially not after the end of the Soviet union when there were dozens of new born states with their own nuclear arsenal ruled by often wannabe dictators and egomaniacs.
I mean is it really too much to ask them to go to some length to construct a compelling story and threat?
You see my litmus test is always if a movie's storyline- and development would suffice and work in a novel where are you can't avoid to explain more and go into some details.
Neither GE, SF or SP to make the cut in that regard.
And before you use the killer argument of "it's a James Bond movie", there are some that do stand the test.
My feelings toward GE could hardly be more ambivalent.
I agree that modern Bond is afraid of telling a simple story, without some kind of personal stakes or other gimmick. The irony being that, just as it was a bold move to introduce the personal element before, today it is a bold move to try and do a Bond film without said element. It's gone full circle.
Considering that, GE is an extraordinary film, because it´s pretty good after all ;-).
I don't like TND particarly. I've always just felt it's the least bad of the Brosnan era. GE I've always thought was a total stinker from day one. But with TND, while still being hackneyed and cliched, the first half at least I found mildly entertaining. Arnold's score probably helped a bit after the cacophony of Serra's score in GE. I also felt TND looked and felt a bit more like what I expected From a 90s Bond film. At the time architecure, art and design were all popping in the UK. GE felt stuck in the 80s (in a bad way) - all big hair, shoulder pads, hair gel, chest hair and cravats. I know people on here love it but the GE PTS is abysmal. The TND PTS is actually rather good (if cliched). I liked the Hamburg location. Loved the end titles song as well and have often thought That if they'd used it as the main song it would have lifted the while film. Carver for me was half a decent villain and although I havent watched it for years I seem remember a few nice little touches and scenes such as the soundproof room fight. I even the Michelle Yeoh - for my money there's better on screen chemistry between Her and Brosnan than any of the other Bond girls in his films. Wish they had cast Bellucci instead of Hatcher. Get the sense Brosnan much happier working with a mature actresses than some of the numpties they cast in his other films. It all felt much more what Bond should be doing at that moment in time. The film looked much better than GE. And for the first part of the film at least I found Brosnan less bad than in GE.
Regarding SP yes its also a wannabe homage to Past films and not very original but anyone who seriously would prefer to sit through GE over SP must be crackers. The latter film, while far from one of my favourites, is superior in pretty much every area.
I really don't like SF at all. For me Mendes began a slide back towards a lot of what was wrong with the Brosnan era (this also applies to SP). But I'd still happily choose SF over any of the Brosnan films any day of the week and I'd most definitley rank SF above GE. Again it's superior in pretty much every area.
SF for me is a noble failure. There's a decent film in there trying to get out, but it's hamstrung by abysmal writing, sloppy plotting and stodgy direction. You could say the same of SP and I wouldn't disagree - I just personally prefer it to SF.
Ultimately the fact SF and SP have Craig means they're always going to trump GE or any other Brosnan entry.
Blimey. You're obviously a bit of a masochist. Each to their own.
Campbell had his time. He's a workmanlike director who had one miss and One very good hit. I don't sense he has the ability or consistency to make me feel confident that a third film is likely to be a good one.
Perhaps with a decent script and good Bond it would all work out.
I find both GE and SF compelling entries, with enough style and flair to keep me hooked. The plotting in SF is wayward, but it works on many other levels. Films work in different ways for different people. If you don't find either of interest that's fine, there are plenty of entries that tick your boxes.
Bond films follow a certain logic, where the audience doesn't require witnessing every step on Bond's journey. And this is the only franchise that follows these special set of rules, but people understand that Bond is really about sheer enjoyment. I just don't know why they don't use this more often, such a strong tool that it is.
And I also agree it's about enjoyment and entertainment at the end of the day. These aren't supposed to be great works of art. But even on this level GE and SF disappoint for me. Just have no desire to rewatch either of them!
I think Bond had already admitted to Goodhead that he found out where she was staying. No idea how he knew that though.
"Wayward" is a very interesting way to put it, to say it mildly.
Still, is there anything that prohibits them from striving for both, an intelligent story and personal drama?
I think these 2 + original and exciting action are what makes a movie smashing in my eyes.
You see, my main problem is that especially in spy movies from a certain point of illogic on I'm very much taken out of the experience. By the way I happen to love TSWLM so it's not that I am into nitpicking when I go and watch a Bond movie. As I wrote in my introductory post a few weeks ago I'm most of all a lover of tales of espionage and therefore I need at least a minimum of logic to delve into the movie.
No. But it's done. It is what it is. I've poured over the issues I have with SF in detail, but those issues aren't enough to detract from the elements it gets right. The same goes for GE.
Can't disagree with that.
Not least being able to film Fleming source material like Casino Royale that establishes the Bond character. Martin Campbell did a great job with it, but still.
That's life.