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
I never discounted it, I just didn't see any merit in it either.
To answer you're question, I can see where people are coming from when they say that SP is very liberal in its use of imagery from past Bond films. In fact, you could probably link virtually every scene back to another entry in the series. So I can somewhat see where people are coming from when they say criticise that. Also, I think they could've done a much better job of linking SP to the rest of the Craig era. I personnaly don't think this is a big deal, because its such a small part of the film overall, but still. I definitely think this criticism is valid. And, I have to agree that the third act is the weakest by far. To me the first two are 9/10 and the third is 6/10. So overall, it's a solid 8/10 film. As far as I am concerned, that is still excellent, in spite of its faults.
Seems we are in accord for once.
Although I would probably go 9/10, 9/10, 4/10 for a 7.33/10 overall score.
It seems you are more forgiving and willing to overlook the Blofeld/retconning stuff in the third act.
I can overlook it and not let it spoil my enjoyment of a very good film (as both the retcon and the stepbrother are dealt with in about 2 lines) but I can't forgive it.
F**king up Bill Tanner is just mildly annoying but it doesn't affect anything as he's such a non entity so I can let it pass.
F**king up Blofeld is a whole different ball game I'm afraid.
I kind of feel these days that they need this on a 60 inch screen running on a loop at EON during script meetings as a reminder:
i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03253/alan-partridge-jam_3253103a.gif
Woah! If we can agree on something, then world peace is still possible. :)) :)>-
Oh, come on, he's part of the gang! Kinnear nails it every time.
Oh dear. The shortest truce since the Christmas Day football match in the trenches.
The only time I'd like to see the phrase 'nails it' in relation to Kinnear is if he was playing Jesus and was going down the Daniel Day Lewis method acting route and actually having them driven into his hands for our viewing pleasure.
He got less screentime than Kinnear but he was given lines that conveyed a sense of actual friendship with Bond. He's genuinely worried about his mate in the TND pts, I love that little moment where, after referring to Bond as White Knight (his codename for that mission) for the whole sequence up to that point, he mutters under his breath "jesus christ James" or something like that.
Die Another Day. The exchange scene in Korea. The first thing Bond does? Goes to greet Robinson. In fact it's this that distracts him and allows the guards to sedate him. Then during Qs simulation of MI6 being attacked, he's helping Bond out. Gun drawn, taking on the bad guys with him. Something I can see Fleming's Tanner doing give. his military background. Meanwhile what did Kinnear's Tanner do when shit went down in Skyfall? Cowered behind a desk. Tanner was hiding while fucking Moneypenny was shooting at the bad guys! That pretty much shows how badly they've messed up the character.
The other thing about Robinson how he's the only character in all of MI6 that Bond is on first name terms with. He even refers to Moneypenny by her last name (this might be more playful though given their relationship). But not Charles. He's also someone Bond seems to have genuine respect for.
Basically Robinson is close to Fleming's Tanner in that he's someone I imagine Bond would go for a drink with outside of work, someone he's friends with. Someone who's stuck in an office job but is no stranger to action. Not like Kinnear's Tanner who is written as a charismaless exposition character and nothing more.
In one of the scrapped drafts of SP Tanner basically filled C's role of Blofeld's man within MI6. He was scared of being discarded with all the shaking up that was going on so sold out to Spectre and when confronted about it by Bond, he killed himself. Now that's a million miles away from Fleming's vision of the character but I think it would've been very interesting anyway. It would have also made sense. In QoS, and SF, he's so boring and forgettable and charismaless. The dull background exposition character eventually turning bad because he fears that MI6 will deem him exactly what he is (unnecessary, unneeded) would have been a brilliant twist imo, even if it was a bastardisation of Fleming's character.
Couldnt agree more with the Robinson stuff.
I'm less keen with the notion of Tanner being pushed centre stage in SP as for the plot to hinge on him would leave the audience scratching their heads as hes literally so unmemorable he could be like one of those 'spot the difference' videos they used to have in the Krypton Factor and have a moustache in one scene, a ginger afro in another and all anyone could remember would be a big grey blob in the background. You just couldnt have someone so bland for such a pivotal villain. Denbeigh isnt great but at least Andrew Scott has some screen presence.
Rory is so invisible he has been invited to CERN because they think he may be made of dark matter and holds the key to unlocking the secret of the universe.
I think SF was Mendes trial and error Bond movie. With SP he got it right. Having Waltz as one of the best Bond villains ever helped of course. The only thing Silva will be remembered for is his CGI face and Mommy was verybad.
Even if you love SP so much to suggest Waltz was one of the best Bond villains is just beggars belief. That being said you like the Brosnan era and barring 006 there can't have been a worse run of Bond villains in the history of the series.
Skyfall is the better film overall but Spectre is without a doubt the better "Bond" film.
They are both similar, more than you realize.
If I was to isolate the #1 item that turned me off SP, it would be both the performances and the characterizations. From Craig, to Waltz, to Seydoux, to Fiennes, to Scott. They just weren't compelling to me. It all seemed 'run of the mill'. Pedestrian. There was no dramatic heft to any of it. Nothing to pull one in - nothing credible or meaningful. Only Christensen really aced it and I believe that's why he was used in the trailers.
This was particularly annoying because I felt the opposite with SF. Despite that film's numerous plot holes, I related to all of the characters implicitly. One sympathized with their scenario & motivations. Even Silva. This is what made that film so captivating and engrossing for me and I suspect many others.
Given Sam Mendes is known for this particular element, as a stage director, it was doubly annoying.
----
Whatever one may think of the Marvel group, they tend to nail that aspect of their films, and from what I'm hearing, they've done it again with Civil War, which I shall be watching on Friday. It's especially upsetting to see 'comic book' heroes doing this sort of thing better than beloved Bond. It's an area where the audience expectations have increased as well.
There is a certain coldness about Swann, Hinx, Denbigh.
But I love Q and M and Bond, I find those the best performances for each character since the Connery era.
Fiennes and Whishaw were absolutely wasted in SF.
I will not comment on Waltz anymore though, my view about him should be known by now. :)
I just found Fiennes to be frenzied & 'angry' in SP, while in SF I found him to be a measured leader in contrast to panicky Dench M.
The only one who really seemed 'in the moment' in SP was Christensen's White imho.
Yep. And we knew this two summers ago. Right? Mendes and EON were both unhappy with it, and so substantial revisions were ordered. I think they rushed it. The script wasn't ready yet...like grapes that were not ripe enough to be picked from the vine. But the potential was certainly there: SP has some terrific moments, for sure.
Whishaw was excellent in SP. The best Q since Desmond in his prime.
I dearly hope he stays on during the transition.
Whishaw is excellent. I do think John Cleese is underrated however.
Whishaw was excellent in SP. The best Q since Desmond in his prime.
Totally disagree. In SF I found he didn't quite get the tone right, and I never like it when there's too much emphasis on the IT stuff. In SP Q was much more likeable (as he should be) and they brought back a proper workshop where they make stuff. I was glad they ditched all that nonsense from SF where Q was sniffy and a bit up his own backside. The Alpine scenes with Q in SP were very good - vintage Bomd IMO.
I was very sceptical about Whishaw after SF but now feel he's one of the best things to have come out of the Craig era. Unlike Dreary Kinnear...