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
He does a LOT of spying in it and he plays it very straight.
I am not too keen on his performance in AVTAK though. Most of that is down to his age (he's just not credible to me in the role) but it's also because I think he overplays a bit. That smirk in the getaway vehicle in the PTS for instance, or his greasebag St. John Smythe character (which I can't stand) take away from the performance for me.
In terms of MR, I liken it to last year's Thor Ragnarok. Hemsworth and Hiddleston had been quite dramatic in prior installments, but Waititi went for a very different tone in this third outing and it's a credit to both of those actors (and to a lesser degree Hopkins) that they seamlessly switched it up to accommodate the lighter film he made. Kudos to them and kudos to both Sir Rog and Sir Sean for that skill.
He is just too good of an actor and way too versatile to get pigeonholed in his prime. His Marvel contract will soon by up and if I was him I'd take on more critical roles and try to bag that Oscar, like his contemporary Etonian and Cambridge mate Eddie Redmayne has done. He has it in him.
My aim is to watch this, YOLT and DAF today. I've got about 45 minutes left of this film.
Had to decide which order I'd watch these. I chose the order of release. But I kind of hope I would have gone down the yolt-daf route and watched this one another day as a stand alone film.
Mendes is quite arty and theatrical and he said that SF was about mothers while SP was about brothers. So I think he pictured it as some big shakespearean (says the man who remembers next to nothing from English in high school and didn't study it past then so might be talking out my arse there) tragedy where fate led two brothers went down very different paths before meeting again. But it was just too contrived imo, too big a coincidence. I find it downplayed enough to get past though and SP ticked so many of my fanboy boxes that I still really enjoy it.
Piz Gloria does go on a bit imho.
I don't think OHMSS fits in well with YOLT/DAF. I agree that those two work better together, and OHMSS is better as a standalone.
They've got two left to deal with then before Craig signs off. Maybe Boyle's 'golden idea' combines sisters and fathers in one. Too good to pass up on.
That is kind of how it played out in way. Pretty pathetic, but I could have lived with it if it was better realized on screen. The whole thing just fell flat without consequence. Craig played it as though it meant nothing so there was a mismatch between the premise and the reaction.
I love it as well. Makes me feel like I'm in Jamaica.
The main "criticism" I hear is that "oh all the films after that have more action and more everything". No. Young's films have this subtle attention to detail and character touches that no other Bond films (aside from Campbell) possess. It's not an accident that Young and Campbell are highly regarded
I'm going to side with @bondjames when it comes to Rog's MR performance. I think it's great, and I can't say I see him coasting at all. The aftermath of the centrifuge in particular is some of his best Bond work.
I think this is right. On the surface the two films seem similar, mostly for their fantastical plots. But they are different. TSWLM operates at a higher pitch throughout, and Rog plays to this. I'd actually say that TSWLM asks more of the audience than MR when it comes to buying into its central conceits—an underwater city and a tanker that swallows submarines over space shuttles and space stations. "Bond in space" sounds more overtly ridiculous, and I think it's for this very reason that Eon very deliberately tried to offer more ground for the entire premise to hold onto. Remove the easy silliness from the picture and, until the shuttles launch, you have a Bond film that features a solid bit of spying and detective work. An additional part of that grounding is Rog's performance.
I see definite shades of early Roger in MR. It won't beat TMWTGG for faithfulness to the Fleming character, but there is some of that going on, and I'd actually like to watch LALD and MR back to back soon with an eye towards Roger's performances and see how his work in MR fares.
Yes. There are maybe many reasons why those two are tops, but when you boil it all away things might very well just come down to their versatility. It frees the production side of things so much and naturally fends off staleness.
I still find Rog solid. I can't honestly say I've ever found Rog to come across as not credible or, especially, to be coasting. I think the St. John Smythe character is evidence enough against the latter. As to the former, I think he's good as ever in the more dramatic moments and his age factors only into the aesthetics of the action, never into its credibility. Though I might feel as though I'm watching Old Bond, I never feel like Old Bond couldn't be doing the things he's doing, in the way he's depicted doing them.
Same. And I also agree about the action. One of the things I liked about SF actually was that it scaled the action back a bit in comparison to Brosnan and early Craig.