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 have to say I'm quite surprised there is so much movement but, as I've said before, I have certain watched the movies during this Bondathon much closer. Obviously, the next i feel a Bondathon is in order, it could a change again.
1. On Her Majesty's Secret Service (+1)
2. Casino Royale (+1)
3. The Spy Who Loved Me (-2)
4. Goldfinger (+2)
5. From Russia With Love (-1)
6. Skyfall (-1)
7. Octopussy (Non mover)
8. Goldeneye (+3)
9. Licence To Kill (+4)
10. Quantum Of Solace (+8)
11. Dr No (-2)
12. The Living Daylights (-2)
13. Live And Let Die (-1)
14. A View To A Kill (Non mover)
15. For Your Eyes Only (Non mover)
16. Moonraker (Non mover)
17. Tomorrow Never Dies (+3)
18. Spectre (-10)
19. Thunderball (-2)
20. You Only Live Twice (+1)
21. The Man With The Golden Gun (+1)
22. The World Is Not Enough (+2)
23. Diamonds Are Forever (-4)
24. Die Another Day (-1)
@Shark_0f_Largo, and many thanks to you for being one of the few to participate in the thread! To everyone else who either popped in for a bit or stuck through this thing from start to finish, I more than appreciate it - wasn't as many of us as I had hoped, but some consistent interest in the idea of this thread from a few members was all I needed to fire this up, and it's been a joy getting to do this alongside the rest of you. Perhaps I'll tweak some ideas and come up with a revitalized Bondathon in a year's time, or maybe when 'Bond 25' is close to happening. Thanks again, everyone!
This brings up a real problem that I have with Spectre: important characters that just aren't named for the audience. The worst of the bunch is of course Mr. Hinx. WE know his name because Eon's publicity machine told us his name a dozen times before the movie was ever released. But for the general audience, or those who don't obsessively peruse the end credits? He was never identified by name! It's like Oddjob, Jaws, or Grant was never actually named for the audience! Even Dink gets a "Say Hello to Dink, Felix; say Goodbye to Felix, Dink," moment. Hinx? Estrella? Vogel? They're just, "Y'know, that character who did that thing in that really cool sequence." Eon. Please. Fundamentals of storytelling: introduce your characters to your audience properly, otherwise, how are we supposed to care about them?
Good:
Pts is cool even if it is a little too cgi
Mr white
Plane chase
Mr hinx
Train fight
Some cool moments
In general really cool locations
Bad:
Terrible use of blofeld and SPECTRE
Cringeworthy dialogue
Craig playing bond terribly
Terrible story
Horrible attempt at creating a story arc
Boring when theirs no action because the actual story is nonsense
Same shitty 00 is irrelevant idea which pisses me off so much
In the end it's okay not something terrible but not good either
Spectre - Bond Elements
The gun barrel opens the film (finally) and we head into a PTS with a nice little nod to Live And Let Die . The PTS is wholly ambitious and brilliantly executed. The sweep and scale of the thing, including the now famous single tracking shot (no doubt inspired by Orson Welles magnificent opening scene in Touch Of Evil) is thrilling at every turn.
It deserves to be dwelt on as we see Bond tracking Sciarra through the Day of the Dead celebrations in Mexico City. He pulls a Mexican beauty, only to abandon her, blow up a building, chase the bad guy, jump into a helicopter for a punch up, cause a perfect 360 degree loop and only with the 'copter about to crash into the throng below does he look even slightly put out.
This is what Bond films have always been about, Bond in impossible situations, mind blowing stunts and breath taking action. As it ended I was left rigid with anticipation for the rest of the film.
Bond travels to Mexico City, Rome, Austria, Morocco and of course London.
Another exceptional collection of locations.
The film, as with Skyfall is reliant on large action set pieces, rather than the short, violent sequences littered throughout Quantum Of Solace.
The car chase through the curiously empty streets of Rome is long ( 6 minutes of screen time) and the stunt driving is impressive. But it still seems odd that Hinx makes no real effort to kill Bond (even when the car pulls level he doesn't shoot at Bond, he just stares at him). The chase continues as Bond speaks to Moneypenny. The most amusing moment is Bond's casual jealousy that Penny should have a man in her flat.
It reminds me of the long car chase in The Spy Who Loved Me which was also broken up into mini sections, but in that film Bond has to dodge rockets, gun fire, grenades etc.
It's only the sheer pace of the chase that keeps one watching, and the final joke where Bond ejects and lands in the street and walks past a local is wasted as it would have been a darn site wittier if Bond had said "Buona Notte".
The aeroplane pursuit of Hinx' convoy is even less successful. As with the car chase very little actually happens even though the thumping score seems to be telling us otherwise. The final stunt as the plane crashes through a wood store is too little too late.
The train fight is very good, adding humour to the mix of violence and thrills. Again one is left wondering about the passengers who keep appearing and disappearing in the background, and we are left with that strange feeling of emptiness which we had with the scenes in Rome and later in London.
The climax again is driven by the rhythmic score from Newman, which often disguises the lack of actual thrills.
The film has it's share of good humour. Moneypenny's quiet comment to a departed M about her birthday is nice, as is Q's comment about the Aston Martin "Bring it back in one piece, not bring back one piece" and his lovely chuckle that follows.
Also Q's delight at telling Bond that the Aston Martin is for 009 was palpable.
This was a nice re-imagining of the traditional Bond-Q scene, and all the more entertaining for that as Wishaw and Craig gel so nicely together.
I did like the sofa gag at the start (we have to accept that the sofa had to be somewhere)
Good to see Bond in the ivory tuxedo, echoes of Connery and Moore. And of course the martini on the train.
The plot hinges on the modern phenomenon of mass communication (Elliott Carver would have been in his element had he lived a little longer) with M battling to keep his field agents relevant to a changing world.
The Bond and Blofeld foster brother twist has never really bothered me that much, it isn't the catalyst for my issues with Spectre. I agree that Blofeld's desert base should have served as the climax between Bond and Blofeld with M and co taking care of C at the same time in London.
But it is what it is.
These Bond elements work well in fits and starts, as does the overall production (which I will deal with next), but does it gel together into a completely successful whole? That is the question.
Back to the action, the Rome chase has too much "humour" (I never found it funny), which diminishes whatever tension was left in the scene.
Campbell knew too well that if you're going to inject humour into an action scene, then it cannot be at the forefront and it must not distract from the action. What I love about CR (2006) are the little comedic beats in the action - which take many viewings to notice.
E.g. The telephone ringing just as a bullet hits it (at the Embassy), Bond clumsily falling onto a steel roof and also when Bond gets his face plunged into the steering-wheel during the airport scene and we hear the horn go off. That's how you inject humour into an action scene. I couldn't care less about MP at this stage and I certainly don't want to see her chatting to her partner during an action scene.
Having said that, some of the action scenes are very good. I like the PTS, train fight (CR/QoS flashbacks) and the plane sequence in the alps.
Nearly falling out of a spinning helicopter from hundreds of feet in the air, getting beaten to a pulp by a giant and nearly being vaporized inside a building aren't dangerous?
Yes, I was thinking the same. He also has a building fall on top of him.
But @BondAficionado makes some good points about the subtlety of humour and how it can be used to great effect. However I highlighted Bond's curiosity about Moneypenny's bedfellow as a nice touch, rather than the fact Penny conversed with him during the sequence. Mind you, without that Bond wouldn't know she had anyone there.
In retrospect it doesn't feel like there's danger because of the lack of injuries. Instead of ripping his arm open, he falls on a sofa.
I still like the PTS though. Craig's assurance in the role is what saves it.
Well there wouldn't be any injuries from riding in a helicopter or racing out of a building. He gets scraped up in the train fight, though, of course. He is dirty and sweaty for a good bit of the movie, which is basically how he appears in SF throughout with no real injuries there either outside the bullet he takes. CR and QoS (especially QoS) are the only films that really let loose on showing Bond's wounds.
The Craig films are some of the only ones that actually show Bond being affected in any way, period.
Craig, reprising his role for the fourth (and it has been hinted, final) time, looks more relaxed and at ease as Bond than ever before. While still cutting a serious figure, he can also handle the script's wry sense of humour: this is truly the funniest Bond in decades. He's unfortunately supported by an unimpressive cast: Ralph Fiennes (as M) is ok, Ben Whishaw (playing Q) is limp and Naomie Harris (Ms Moneypenny) is fairly untraditional and pointless.
Léa Seydoux and Monica Bellucci are fine, yet underwritten.
Waltz as the Villain, relishes his villainous role, but he is limp wristed and lacks the visceral impact of Javier Bardem in "Skyfall", he is the worst Blofeld alongside Charles Gray.
Hoyte van Hoytema's cinematography is superb, matching Roger Deakins' work on "Skyfall" by taking a very different approach: shooting on film, van Hoytema brings a sophisticated, classical elegance, capturing the blazing light of Morocco and the shadowy, diffused look of Rome. One of Mendes' key legacies during his tenure as director of the series will be how elegant photography defines both of his films.
That's not to say, however, it's a perfect film. It lacks the delicious surprise "Skyfall" provided, uprooting so many of our assumptions of what a Bond film was; "Spectre" is far more deliberately traditional. Worse, the screenplay, by John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Jez Butterworth, introduces a subplot about the potential closure of MI6. While it helps make the film feel very contemporary, the chief component, Max Denbigh (played by Andrew Scott), is disastrously underwritten and frankly, uninteresting, lengthening an already long film. The script also, mystifyingly, constructs a two-part climax which feels unnecessary. It under-utilises a fascinating location in favour of an overly-familiar one and try as Mendes might, he can't pull the broken-backed finale off. The Step brother angle is unforgiveable crap.
Still, Thomas Newman's score is a slight improvement over his music for "Skyfall", introducing John Barry-esque strings and horns, while Mendes displays his panache as an action director with a number of thrilling sequences. It's a ferociously entertaining, unrelenting film, and questions of plausibility aside, it's an over average watermark for the James Bond series.
I like the titles with the octopus crawling over Bond and Blofeld. More focused than the Skyfall designs.
Sam Mendes seemed to be going for a sense of epic grandeur here as scenes are given some movie making trickery to help them stand out. The single tracking shot in the PTS, the use of Vivaldi's Nisi Dominus as Bullucci walks slowly to her fate (Godfather-like in it's ambition), the beautiful shots of Rome (complete with heavenly choir as the Vatican approaches) and Austria.
Almost a suggestion that the film tries to be bigger than it actually is.
But these moments are sublime and welcome all day long.
Some scenes are unnecessarily long. The Spectre meeting takes up over 5 minutes of screen time. The scene in L'Americain is also long. More successful is the meeting between Bond and Mr White.
Long scenes are not the issue per se but the quieter non-action scenes aren't imbued with any real spark. The dialogue is low key, the actors speak slowly and quietly, there's no crackling banter (apart from when Bond is with Q), so these scenes become maudlin, and the film's pace slows down to a crawl. The anticipation though is all the more heightened that something will happen and indeed, at the end of the Spectre meeting we get Hinx killing his predecessor, Mr White's suicide punctuates that scene, and the L'Americain scene ends with Bond finding the hidden room.
The first scene of quiet, slow reflection is Moneypenny in Bond's flat but of course the scene has the appearance of Judi Dench's M which really is quite moving, especially Penny's reaction to seeing it.
The film may have benefited form tighter editing and maybe the loss of ten minutes here or there (easy for me to say I know).
The film is shot in that strange yellow tinge. Or at least I think it is. After a while you become used to it and don't really notice it.
The music is built along a rhythmic, incessant drum beat, all the more noticeable when it is interrupted by quiet moments of the Bond theme played on a saxophone or clarinet (?) The first time is when Bond removes his mask in the PTS, but it crops up several times more.
Sudden moments of melody stand out all the more because of this musical score eg Sam Smith's theme music on the train, Vivaldi at Lucia's home.
The script seems obsessed with death and resurrection. Judi Dench's M making an appearance, the Oberhauser/Blofeld scenario, Mr White and of course the opening Day Of The Dead scenes preceded by the caption about the dead being alive (or whatever it is).
So the overall plot is studied with these visual motifs, for want of a better word.
Craig has gone for the tighter fitting suits again, but he wears a lovely full length overcoat in the Rome scenes (he wouldn't have done if these scenes had been shot in August I can tell you). His casual wear is very nice as well. And Seydoux looks stunning in the shimmering, clinging dress on the train.
Some of the sets are magnificent. The Spectre meeting hall is vast. designed so the less important members stand around looking down on the boardroom meeting.
M is back in the wood and leather office setting which gives a sudden emotional rush of deja vu. Lucia's home is magnificent and we have Blofeld's lair, typical of past Spectre lairs - sparse and spacious.
Final comments on Craig as Bond. Early on he is given a couple of lines which stand out because they are so similar.
"That all sounds lovely" (to C) and
"That sounds marvellous" (to Q)
One presumes it's to suggest that Bond is being flippant and hiding his true thoughts behind a couple of bland platitudes. If so it's a shame they didn't carry that on throughout the film as a sort of running gag.
Finally Bond shows a more human side to him (unlike the cold exterior we saw when Mathis died) when he clearly flinches at the uncomfortable site of Mr White's suicide. So much better than a blank, unflinching stare.
Spectre seemed a triumphant return to old values when I first saw it. My opinion has deteriorated gradually with each viewing, and has now levelled out somewhat. Had it been a tighter 130 - 135 minutes, complete with a climax at Blofeld's desert lair then I feel it would have hit the mark more sturdily. It is however a Bond film that I like, just as I like Tomorrow Never Dies. A case of overlooking it's short comings and accepting it for what it is.
But Mendes trades realism for "humour" in SP. That's the issue.
Bond's scrappy look in QoS is what I love about that film. Bond doesn't give a damn about his appearance in those scenes. He's focused on his 'mission' and getting the job done. Just look at how boldly he confronts M at the hotel, even though he's drenched in his own blood and sweat.
I don't see this humor issue in SP. It's no more or less funny to me than any other Bond film. CR is probably the most humorous, or the one that gets the most laughs out of me. But I laugh at QoS all the time too, as I have very dark humor. People act like Dan just ups and plays Roger Moore in SP, which is just hilariously untrue.
I think people are simply caught off guard by Dan playing a Bond that isn't suffering from some existential crises. He gets criticized as Bond for not being as traumatized or troubled and intense in performance, when this is exactly what an overwhelming majority wanted the films to stray away from. They wanted a more glamorized, more unflappable and far less emotional Bond and they got it after three films of Bond getting his heart and body destroyed to an almost meta-sadistic level. The more overt ways Bond acts in SP and how lovably roguish he can be, like the sarcastic quips and waves he gives to henchmen who want to kill him are a clear and logical development for his character. Ever since CR's wounds healed he's become a far more peaceful and in control man by the nature of maturing. By SP, he's done this for so long and faced so much that things roll off of him, and he is so confident he doesn't mind playing games with his enemies. He's overt in how much he despises or disrespects them, such as in his interactions with C, Blofeld, SPECTRE henchmen and on. This is very much a "Conneryesque" performance at times, but this is also the kind of man Dan has played all along. His Bond is unapologetic about how overtly he lets people know he hates them, and he doesn't play any games with M, his villains or anyone. So while becoming more unflappable and professional, he still keeps his stubborn and uncompromising core in tact.
I don't think Dan is actually capable of giving a bad performance; he's just too good and committed to it in a way even Sean couldn't be bothered to be at times. SP is probably his weakest performance of the 4, but it's not because it's bad, it's just because one of the films has to come in last and the others are just so heavy on the meat. CR is a rare script in the Bond canon that allowed him to play every level of Bond's character in a way we've never seen before or since, save for maybe OHMSS in some ways. QoS was written specifically for Craig to play a grieving Bond, full of very subtle but rich moments where we peer into his heart as he overcomes Vesper's betrayal and finally learns the ultimate truth about what happened. SF is the grand, mythic phoenix from the ashes story with Bond as a fallen knight getting up again, with obvious meat for Dan to play with. In SP Dan still gets interesting things to play with, like Bond's development to be something other than a spy, his reunion with White, his unexpected dynamic with Madeleine and his condemnation of Blofeld, but of course he's never going to surpass the unreachable highs of the last three films that were the craziest films performance-wise of the series save for a few exceptions. Dan deserved a film where his Bond wasn't constantly being emotionally drained or physically battered to hell, and largely SP is that film. He's more in control, less hampered by his own mind and the acts of others, and on the whole just gets along with it.
I don't know what people wanted as an alternative. The previous films explored every level of Bond you could want (and a lot some didn't), so I think a more in control performance as in SP was warranted and goes a long way to showing that Bond has truly grown as a man and agent.
He has truly thought it through. the character of Bond has evolved.
His Bond always had a sense of mischievous fun (his first meeting with Vesper a prime example) but in Spectre the humour is veeery slightly broader, and sometimes it wrong foots Craig as an actor. Like I said before, he is good in Spectre, he was great in his earlier films.
I was going to do a final overview of the films and then the Bond actors. But you know what? I can't really be bothered. ;)
So, apart from joining in on the final thoughts and conversing with this sterling bunch of Bondies I'm all done.
Have I learnt anything? Or have I altered any of my opinions over the last 5 months or so?
Probably not. I have though looked closer at the actual production values of the films, listened to the music with open ears, taken in the costumes, picked out minor points of interest, noticed acting quirks. It all makes for a more enriching experience.
And I still maintain that a franchise like this with over 50 years history, where every single film has been a financial success thanks to the producers understanding of what to give their audience, is a truly extraordinary achievement.
The series has waivered from it's Fleming roots, ventured into comedy/drama, occasionally cranked up the violence, and re-invented itself over and over, out of necessity. I've been there for a good deal of that journey, and even when I felt a degree of panic (after Moonraker's release for example) I always knew the series would bounce back.
And now, as we enter another period of uncertainty for Eon productions, the only definite, guaranteed thing any of us can say is that James Bond will return.
Some excellent points made there. Well said!
I look forward to a repeat sometime soon, and good luck to those who press on with the books.