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
Thanks for the link @Birdleson it's funny to see that it's Jase of all people that sums up the mass hysteria over SPECTRE the best.
I didn't know that he loves the film that much. That is actually quite a bit of important information for me as I now plan to play SPECTRE for him on the 25th.
With him on hiatus and @Gustav_Graves who knows where, the SP fans must stick together and celebrate a much maligned Bond adventure that has far more to offer than is perceived.
Fell on an awning, did you? Classic!
I actually died. Ended up in hell and one of my punishments is to continue to log on here and interact with you wankers at least a few times a week for all eternity.
1) CR: superior
2) QOS + SP: not entirely faultless but excellent
3) SF: good film but I can't say it's the "top Bond" that it was called in 2012
CR and SP haven't lost one bit of their magic for me; QOS has gained a lot of praise from me. SF is the one film that has consistently challenged me as a Bond fan; when "everybody" says it's so bloody perfect, and I don't feel that, am I wrong, is everybody else wrong, or what? :)
But at least there is net neutrality in hell, right?
I'm a SF fan while also able to be critical of it, so I get your point, @DarthDimi. I've never been a big Silva fan, for one, but Dan's amazing performance, Judi's farewell, the mythic touches of the film, its visual and thematic storytelling, the finely choreographed dramatic and action-filled sequences and Deakins doing magic all come together to make one of my top Bond films.
I find both Mendes films to be some of the most evocative, moody, atmospheric and cinematic that we've had since the golden days, frankly, and he and his team found ways to bring back the look and feeling of another that is satisfying to me, especially SP which at times feels like it was made 50 years back by how the sets look, the actors are dressed and the mood of the piece. As a vintage fan that pleases me immensely and having a Bond film like SP that feels of another time is a perfect element for an adventure that is all about confronting the forgotten past.
Speaking broadly the James Bond franchise has two main "era's". The classic (1962-1985), and the modern (1995-2019). Notice how they are almost equal in length if we leave out the Dalton tenure due to its popular status as an outlier. 23 years and 24 years respectively. Both eras tell the story of a young agent who gradually matures into a wise older agent, and it's that journey we see in the films. Compare Sean in DN and Rog in AVTAK. Complete opposites personas, softened with time into a caring older gentlemen. That's why the series truly reset with Brosnan, because Bond returned to the state of brash coolness that forms the foundation of the character. As we've already seen the completion of two eras of Bond (the gears are in motion on Bond 25), it seems that a third will soon be upon us, beginning in 2022. 30 years per era, exactly. The first Bond era started with Dr No, and the second with GoldenEye, and coincidentally are both the first films by esteemed directors for this franchise. In 2022 we'll see the release of the third part, which is neither Classic or Modern but something completely different.
GE then feels like more of the same than a fresh new start, whereas after an era of films that were action for action's sake and were filled with some soulless aspects, a slavish relationship with tired tropes and an increasingly level of cringe-inducing scripting, CR arrived to tear it away and reset the franchise as it was to force a reconsideration of what Bond in the 21st century meant and what it could be. We go from DAD pastiche to the roots of Fleming for the kick off, a new era beginning where the source material also leapt off and that for me is very daring, not even mentioning the hit squad that hounded Dan until the release and all the doubts that were placed on the production having any success.
I think the Craig era was what you spoke of, a moment where gimmicks were left behind to an extent and where Bond "grew up" in relative terms because the world had grown up too. It's oft repeated by those attached to the Brosnan era and the Craig era, but in a post-9/11 world things were different and as a result the Bond films with Dan in them reflect the growing uncertainty of the world, the conspiracy and fear of terrorism, the secret elites who control resources from the shadows, the power of hackers to destabilize our lives with a keyboard and wi-fi connection and the increasing danger of surveillance and the Orwellian nightmare state it has the power to create in our first world nations. I don't know how these themes and ideas and how this era has played with them could be more grown up, frankly. All these events, advancements and circumstances are no joke and are all very modern concerns, and the Craig films have found ways to tackle those relevant issues in the same way that Bond in the 1960s tackled the space race, the unrest between the Russians and the west, the nuclear threat and the concerns of bacteriological warfare as a modern weapon.
That's not to say even the more tame films like TND didn't reflect other concerns of the modern age during their time, like the power of a headline and media manipulation, but the difference is that, unlike the Craig films, that movie did it with a wink and a smile and didn't drive home the consequence of the issue at hand in a way that truly feels grown up. I think CR, QoS, SF and SP however have delivered in the consequences department and do treat earnest issues with very earnest concern, showing the truth of the modern age while also tying those issues and advancements into how Bond's own sense of self and worth can be threatened because of them. CR has M wishing for the old days of the Cold War to return for how much more transparent and simple they felt, a clear line drawn in the sand between past and present, QoS shows us first hand how an agent like Bond could be manipulated and framed through widespread and high level corruption in big governments working for secret deals, and SF and SP deal with the possible irrelevancy of human agents in a modern tech obsessed world where Bond's place and purpose are constantly under fire.
We've never seen more grown up takes on the Bond mythos for my money, and as far as gimmicks are concerned the films also found a way to drop a lot of tropes and tore away the craziest gadgets to give viewers Bond films that still had a Bond essence, but that were able to stand on their own as films of their own making while stripping so much back to ground what we see in more reality than we've seen since the early, early 60s films. No other films but these would allot the entire runtime of a feature towards showing Bond going through the grieving process step by step over a woman that broke him (could've had if for DAF, but that was dashed), nor would those films before have dared to clip Bond's wings and make him climb back up the ladder through symbolic resurrection, nor would any of the other films have ever tried to kill off M. It's clear that the Craig films have stepped into uncharted territory and mixed things up while setting back the clock and reigning things in. Not moving away from being Bond films, but being more than just standard Bond films with standard content or expectations. An attempt to rattle the cage, so to speak.
I guess I'm just confused about your opinion on all this. I don't know your opinions on the movies outside the current ones very well, but I sense that you enjoy the traditional films with all the bells and whistles, Bond with a capital B. If that is true you could perhaps imagine my surprise that you seem to be advocating for a new slate of Bond films that move away from what people consider Bond films to be, something "neither Classic or Modern but something completely different." Is that something you actually want? I personally don't know how the films could get more grown up without becoming tonally problematic (basically, too super serious or dreadful), as the Craig era hasn't shied away from modern concerns and doesn't downplay any of it with tropes or one-liners or anything of the sort while still being entertaining films.
It's just that when you say that you want Bond to truly grow up, I get the sense that you want the baggage of the past to be thrown out in favor of more stripped back and adult films that pave new ground, whatever that new ground is. The big issue from my side being that Bond has been criminally opposed to letting anything go for so long, such that old scripts like GF kept getting remade with fresh paint, basic elements (cars, women, one-liners) became tired tropes and clichés that were inescapable, and there are noticeable complaints from fans even if Bond doesn't say his greeting every movie or order a vodka martini. Tradition is everything to this series, as it has been constructed from the start to fit certain patterns (A PTS, a title design, key tropes of villains, babes and Bond, expectations of story and style, etc) that moving away from what people know of Bond could be a concern. I read all the time from members here who want the old Bond back, which tells me that they think the Craig films have been a step in a new direction irrespective of qualitative opinion, and that the series needs to be more traditional again. Hence, the franchise would chart the opposite direction that you seem to be advocating for to reignite what people feel has been lost.
I can't say I have an opinion either way, as I'm not going to be so presumptive to say where Bond films will go post-Craig or what the tone or mission statement of those films will be or what path they'll chart. I'll be more concerned with reengaging with the franchise again whenever a new set start up (I don't think it will be a swift or easy process post-Bond 25) simply because I've been so attached to Dan's films and what they've offered; I'll have to adapt and readjust to a new guy and new approach. I think it's perhaps quite right to say that the next set will differ in some way from what EON have done this past ten years, they have to, but I can't yet say how that may be. I can only argue for what I'd like to see. At the very least I hold bigger hopes for this current incarnation of EON as they seem more willing to take risks and change when needed than Cubby's old guard did (remaking films/reusing old ideas, not letting go of Roger), and that will always be a positive to me. I have much faith in them to do what needs to be done, though this community is often very vocal and sometimes nasty about EON's contributions and accomplishments in recent years.
QoS is good but it doesn't come within a galactic mile of OHMSS.
As for SP it's somewhere in my bottom 4.
Brady, what a powerful essay. I wish I had mastered English already so I could reply with a vocabulary that I don't still lack.
Casino Royale was the 18th Bond film I've seen and the first with Daniel Craig. I admit I was a bit thrown off by the pre-credit-sequence, no gun-barrell opening and then it came out of the blue at the end of it and looked wrong and just awful.
But besides that Casino Royale felt like a fresh start and it is executed so beautifully I never even noticed that Q and Moneypenny are gone, or should I say, not there yet, until the end credits rolled.
The film leaves me in awe of the accomplishment that it is for EoN, Martin Campbell, David Arnold, Chris Cornell, Peter Lamont, Stuart Baird, Phil Méheux, Daniel Kleinman.
And then there is Daniel Craig who after seeing the film feels like he is the next best thing to Sean Connery.
He is supported by a cast that is beyond stellar. Eva Green is a Goddess and she commands the screen and shines so bright she's even elevating the acting skills of others including Craig.
Since then it has gone downhill. I am very surprised at that to be honest and I admit, QoS, SF and SP were quite a disappointment for me afterwards. Skyfall not so much, in retrospect I realize that it is one of the better Bond films, even worthy of a Top 10 placing maybe and I'm sure my second viewing of it will confirm that for me.
As for SPECTRE: It was one of two films I saw last, the other one being Licence To Kill.
After SPECTRE I felt let down, as I believed up to CR that this franchise is flawless.
Maybe it's my dislike for current cinema in general, but I feel EoN has lost its ways.
How was something like QoS even allowed to hit the screen? Skyfall corrected most of it but should have been so much better considering it's only Craig's third film and he was a potential new Connery. Still it's one of the better films for me as I said.
SPECTRE though, as fun as it is to watch in many parts, feels more like a desperate try to evoke the old times. Christopher Waltz does a good job but that's not the Blofeld I would have liked to see in a modern Bond film.
The train sequence is probably the high point of the film but even there it's like a variation to a theme better done in FRWL, TSWLM or LALD.
What elevates SPECTRE for me is the technical standard of it. I don't think any other film looks that good, the cinematography and the sets are stunningly beautiful. So are all the clothes, the cars, etc.
Some parts are that great, it could very well be in the 60s. The train station in the desert, the Crater hideout, the train, L'Americain.
About how a new Bond film is putting everyone in heaps of joy at first I can't say much.
I never seen one before last Spring.
DAF, TSWLM, DN and many others made me an (obsessed?) fan as well though.
@Mendes4Lyfe
Really like your take on GoldenEye. It simply is one of the best films but like with Craig, what comes after the first film isn't exactly as good. There isn't anything as bad as QoS in near sight luckily but still.
I can see how GoldenEye feels like the true reboot for you. In a way it is, it's very different to what came before and much better too as anything that was in the 80's or even 70s.
Pierce Brosnan from the outside is maybe the definite Bond for me. I guess looks count for something and it seemed to work perfectly for him and EoN if I look at the success the four films brought them.
I haven't seen the films in order but when I think of DAD and then CR, there are so many similarities that CR doesn't maybe really feel like a reboot, except the fact it is a Bond origin story of sorts and it lacks many of the things that made Bond so famous.
In DAD we already see Bond in crisis, captured and tortured and he is at odds with M, the same M (Judi Dench) that then is there again in CR. There's even the MI6 female agent that comes to his aid with the twist that she turns out to be a bad one.
DAD is quite dark and gritty in places, maybe not that obvious to viewers. The director made DAD into a more action-driven over the top fun project, that's probably the main difference to Casino Royale.
I like DAD a lot for what it is, of course it is not nearly as good as CR.
I can't really comment on a possible future for Bond as I still have a lot to learn about the background of Bond productions. If I could wish for something then it would be that Bond 25 will go back to combine the old and the new, as CR did so perfectly. The story may not be that important even, Bond has never been about logic and plot consistency.
Bond is fantasy, it is fantastical, it's mystery, action, fun and most importantly entertaining.
To finally answer the question of the thread. I put SPECTRE at No 18, just below DAD and above all of the 80s films. QoS is dead last...."Do you mind if QoS sits this one out? It's just dead."
I'm sure you're a closet QOS fan.
2. Skyfall 8.5/10
3. Quantum of Solace 7/10
4. SPECTRE 3/10
Because spoiler, Spectre is shite
Ha ha...that's funny!
Although I'd say SPECTRE is middle of the road.
Here's MY Craig rundown, objectively (well, not really, but you know...):
CR- I'm not this film's biggest fan, but it's probably the best made Bond film since FRWL. The
QOS- I AM this film's biggest fan, but the lightning editing is confusing and even headache-producing for many (not me), and the script was produced by Dan & Forster on the fly, so it's a bit lightweight as good Bond scripts go. Still, a fantastic coda for CR IMO.
SF- the film's story just doesn't make any sense from a number of perspectives. IMHO the movie strives to be more serious than the story structure deserves. But it looks beautiful and it moves briskly. Dan makes it worth watching, and
I has spoken.
(Though the sparse dialogue to QoS works to its advantage. Less chance for the writers to muck it up ;) )
- only after you've watched the movie enough times;
- only after you've de-constructed the film with the help of critical voices, websites and other sources deliberately looking for faults;
- right the first time.
In my case, I've discovered flaws in all three of those categories. But then, it comes down to
- how forgiving you can be or how willing you are(n't) to be forgiving;
- how much the good stuff can compensate for the lesser bits;
- how much of a party pooper the flaws really are.
I must say that SP's "flaws" can easily be overlooked by me. They represent no inhibition to the fun I have with the film. There's more than enough good stuff in it to keep me from tearing it apart. The latter counts for every Bond film, but quite a lot for SP. I have a lot of love for that film. Perhaps this is because I wasn't overly excited about SF and recognised my type of "freshness" in SP.
If Sam Smith was the worst thing for you in SP, I do expect you to find B25 a better. Smiths performance was excellent even if perhaps not quite the thing for 007. But it was by no means the most terrible thing about this Craig - Mendes vehicle.
Better...
That version makes me cry it's so good....
Only marginally better imho. The lyrics are pretty sparse and Yorke resorts to falsetto here too. I suppose they wanted a ballad for some reason.
I just hope the B25 track is killer to make up for SP.