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 remember when the title was revealed at the press reveal and I was so excited...then the movie came out 11 months later and I was and still am beyond disappointed.
So he saved the girl, escaped the explosion, gets out on the water, sees the villain, gives chase, fires on the chopper with available weapons, shifts to the PPK, keeps firing, and brings down the dragon. I mean, chopper.
Bond film. I can rationalize the effect and the possibilities of a bullet entering the turbine exhaust from the rear and the result as seen on screen. And it's a Bond film. [It's also classic storytelling for action films and even legend, myth.]. It's wrong to apply new limitations to the Craig Bond films based on real world criteria that will never be applied to 1-20.
Could have used an arrow or small sword. Here it was a bullet from a PPK. So I don't have any problem with it.
And he got his Spidey-sense back in SKYFALL.
All those Morocco sets they built felt really underused. A waste of money and opportunity.
Regarding the bullet thing yes it's far fetched but not impossible. Planes and helicopters have been brought down by a single bird in their rotor and sometimes a single bullet from a rifle. It's rare yes but less so than stopping your own heart willingly, driving an invisible car, or a submarine one, or even using an explosive pen.
Well either that or FYEO.*
*Okay, the suspense when Bond is climbing is great but after that nothing interesting occurs and that makes up 10mins.
All those who hate SP should have seen the warning signs with SF.
SF is the most overrated Bond film in recent times, and SP one of the most unfairly criticised. Neither are masterpieces. They're probably both mid rankers with low rewatchability
I thought we were talking about the weakest climax, i.e. the least exciting one.
I've just ordered SPECTRE on Blu yesterday for just over £5 on Amazon market place, it's been over a year since I saw it, I'm perversely looking forward to it.
Biggest disappointment of the series.
The thing about SPECTRE is that I had invested in this era, a big Craig advocate. Some were wondering how Craig would fair in a Brosnan like adventure well now you know, not well.
My frustration hasn't been more obvious than it has with this film, used to think if only with QOS but SP shows what a decent entry that was.
I ask because Spectre's ending - the stuff on the bridge - makes me feel very uneasy. The film establishes over and over and over that Bond cannot protect Madeleine. Letting Blofeld live basically seals Madeleine's fate. IMO, the ending makes Bond look like a fool and puts a portentous rain cloud over the whole film (not to mention the series' future).
Emotionally I feel irritated by the whole ending,hence when I created this thread I mentioned I wanted Blofeld to get away,it would have been totally appropriate.
And this is even more in focus when the key ellement of the Bond legend is the license to kill. This is what makes him exceptional. In the modern World of risk assesment, health and safely, etc , he is a man who can travel the planet and kill the bad guys (on our behalf) , he takes us back to the era of the Western, where a man could carry a gun without filling out forms etc, kill and walk away, no questions asked.
So, as others have said, with the movie at an ending and the audience wanting, hoping and expecting resolution...Bond has THE bad guy in his sights, he changes his mind!!! (he has been trying to kill him).
I am still in shock that this is how the writers thought it should end. I'm shrugging my shoulders right now.
I'd say that it would've been a good surprise had he killed him. Better than arresting him, anyway - he should've been an elusive figure for a few movies, like he was in the past.
just to add, we live in an era of high tech and suicide killings. We know that when the police chase a terror suspect, they rarely arrest as there are too many variables. The safest thing to do is shoot to kill. If anything, a cold execution is more warranted in this era than any other.
I don't particularly see why SP is a Brosnan like adventure. It seems superior to the Brosnan films on almost every level.
I know I'm in a minority but it was actually SF that reminded me most of the Brosnan era. I remember sitting there watching it and thinking how all the nostalgia, backward looking and nods and winks gave me this sinking feeling, like we'd gone back a decade.
After SF, I sort of new what to expect from Mendes. I didn't go into SP with high expectations, which is probably why I enjoyed it more than most. The PTS alone lifts SP above its predecessor.