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 writing on SP is not outstanding but it's generally a lot better than what we've seen for much of the last 25 years. I can't think of any really poorly written dialogue or clunkers. The story may not be first rate, but again I'd say we've had far worse in the recent past.
It's absurd to say the cast is poor. The cast is impressive. Where I'd agree with some of the criticisms is seydoux's lack of chemistry with Craig, and the misuse of Waltz. That's as much direction as anything else though I think.
Have to admit to doubts about Seydoux from the moment she was announced. Don't like the idea of Bond using retreads from competing franchises. The fact she'd been in an MI movie should have ruled her out.
Purvis and Wade belong on British lunchtime TV.
CR has one of the best casts, as does QoS (and David Harbour is finally getting his due). Hiring Craig did have a measurable impact on the talent that Eon could get.
I have often thought it would be great to have a sort of 'art house' Bond movie that mixed interesting ideas and great entertainment. On paper SF should be exactly that, but personally none of it resonated with me. I find it a very dull, flat movie, and the writing for me is utterly half baked. Lots of great ideas but on screen just feels like Mendes is flinging everything around rather incoherently. After Silva's Island it's frankly abysmal.
Yeah I hated it for a long time and only until my most recent viewing of it was I able to come to terms with the plot being so bad and just enjoy it for what it is which is an ok bond film. I some how think SPECTREs plot is worse just because well their is no plot in spectre
Isn't QoS kind of that?
Reading further into the same chapter there are even more scenes and influences from P&W in the finished film. I'll leave the details for you and others to discover when you read it yourself, but it seems P&W's fingerprints are on a larger part of QoS than some may previously have thought.
Yes, QoS is our art-house Bond and I love it for that. Things could be pushed further I suppose, but I'm not sure I'd want them to. I think QoS had just the right balance of art-house and action flick.
I like the film but it doesn't tick many of the art house boxes IMO.
Forster was apparently going for 1970s revenge thriller, but I don't get that either.
SF is probably the film that works hardest to develop thematic motifs and explore 'ideas'. So I would say it comes closest to exploring the art house end of the spectrum. Just not v successfully IMO.
In general I don't think it's what Bond is about. A great Bond film is almost it's own genre. Front and foremost the films must be viscerally entertaining. That isn't necessarily at odds with an art house sensibility but blending the two is a big ask. Rarely achieved.
Thank you, sir, you have indeed made this Monday a very special one!
Agree about OHMSS. I see where you're coming from with QoS. I suppose stylistically it's true.
Sadly, I think several members here (myself included) found her quite uninspiring & unbelievable in this capacity. Not only was her elocution poor (that's forgivable, especially in a Bond film, where this sort of thing happens a lot with the foreign accents on display), but perhaps more indefensibly, her delivery was completely flat.
I'm quite sure that expressiveness is a requirement even in French acting. Especially coming after the brilliant Eva Green who played the part of the previous love of Bond's life, Seydoux left a lot to be desired. Just one example of the cringe worthy dialogue (and delivery) are below:
"What do you want?" "What are you doing?!" "Can't any of you speak?"
"Argh, don't touch me!" "Get away from me!" "Just get away!" "Did it cross your mind that you led them to me?"
Additionally, her intro scene especially lacks credibility. The way she starts speaking to Bond at the clinic without getting up and introducing herself or greeting him doesn't seem proper.
EDIT: I almost don't blame Bond for not giving a damn when she announces her departure in London. I certainly wouldn't have cared if she left.
But only Eva Green really stands out amongst recent Bond girls are anything special. Seydoux was asked to go beyond the usual banalities and failed.
I agree though that her dialogue and that intro scene were poor.
For me it's been a hallmark of the Mendes era that characters don't act or respond to situations as normal people would. That Lea intro is a prime example. But SF is littered with examples as well. As a result nothing feels very convincing. There's a distinct lack of tension throughout both films.
Whishaw almost seems uninterested by her presence in the hotel, Fiennes seems dismissive, and Craig acts throughout like he'd rather be someplace else. It's all in the chemistry & warmth which is distinctly lacking.
I wonder if there was some tension that we are not aware of.
To be a little fair the relationship is pretty poorly written tho. And if Dan's not convincingly in love on screen, is that her fault as an actress? Both fail to convince IMO.
May be Monica as the main love interest would have been better? Bond seeking solace in the arms of an older woman. Or may be that just screams too much of more mummy issues.
I agree that her part is poorly written, but even then, with a little more effort they could have made things more convincing. Mendes didn't do a good job improvising here in my view.
I get the comparison you're attempting to make, whereas Q is rather warm and chatty with Pam in LTK.
I think a better script would've most certainly helped her out, along with Waltz. Hell, they should've just had Tarantino write him a big villainous speech for the movie.
It's true that I think there are some flaws - Bond/Blofeld's connection feels very contrived and the pace/tone of the film significantly suffers in the second half as opposed to a much more well-oiled first half. Also, there is a strange lack of a stand-out scene if you ask me; QOS, for all the hate (undeserved, I think) it receives, obviously features the amazing sequence at the Opera and the incredible character-defining final scene in Russia. In SP... Bond's infiltration of the Spectre meeting was a highlight - and the action pieces in the PTS and on the train are excellent; however, similar scenes of this nature have been done and, in my opinion, done better in past Bond films (Spectre meeting in TB, helicopter action in FYEO and train action in FRWL/TSWLM). Where is the series stand-out scene in Spectre? As much as I hate to admit it, I'm having a hard time coming up with one....
However, Craig is spot-on as Bond. What a performance - I think we've taken for granted Craig as Bond if we think we weren't gifted a brilliant version of the character (even if the adventure isn't equally as fantastic) in SP. The film is wonderfully scored, edited and especially shot; there's nice dialogue and interesting character moments for Bond. Hinx is a fun henchman. Also - the side-story involving the MI6 crew has said far more about the morality of the current spy state than most other movies around. Finally - has a Bond actor ever been a credited producer on a Bond film? I think there's more analyzing to be done on this film, as far as what it says for its time and how it fits into the series as a whole.
agreed :)
Spot on