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
It's no coincidence that CR lent heavily on a Fleming novel. Mmmmm....pattern emerges here me thinks!
Every time EON go back to Fleming material, it usually works out well for them...
SF is better lensed than CR and has a better PTS. CR is better than SF in all other departments, script, plot, score, etc.
I disagree, especially when SF has a much more riveting climax than the sinking house nonsense. Had CR been a more tout film without being crammed with the superfluous bomber chase sequences and a more faithful take on the deterioration between Bond and Vesper, it would be a stronger film.
And Arnold has the better score? Not when Newman delivers something as funky as “Shanghai Drive”. CR isn’t even Arnold’s best work (that’s DAD or QOS).
I never said that CR is Arnold's best work, btw. But he has some wonderful cues in there - Vesper theme, City of lovers etc - that I didn't find in Newman's work (which I don't hate like many others here - I just found it mediocre)
The “mommy issues” with Silva is the feature, not the bug. It’s a major part of what makes him the most captivating Bond villain since Trevelyan (certainly a breath of fresh air after the yawn inducing Greene). Easily.
We learn that he is a master hacker, and can plant bombs everywhere. And that he wants to look M in the face or something, which is the reason for not just blowing her up. Fair enough. He lets himself get captured, so he can escape only to crash a parliamentary meeting - like a street thug - to shot her. The scheme fails. An incompetent Bond - who, like Q, fails at almost everything that he is doing - then drives the head of MI6 to an isolated place in Scotland with no protection, only to be attacked by Silva in a chopper with a 20mm canon. After turning the place to swiss cheese - out of the blue - Silva now wants M to help him commit suicide. I mean.... seriously?
I actually like that they made Bardem look like a 70's porn director, and his entrance on the island is grand as it should be. But there are simply too many inconsistencies delivered in order for me to suspend my disbelief. Part of the reason is because SF takes itself so serious.
No way, José.
Your complaints seem to indicate your misunderstanding of what the film is going for, like the bit about how characters failing is something the film did on accident and was unaware of it. Maybe seeing characters fail is not something you want to see in a Bond film, and that’s fair. I take the film on its own merits and think it does all of that in a way that’s compelling. I know I’m not the only one that feels that way given it’s appraisal. It’s not a conventional Bond film, that’s for sure. While you think it takes itself too seriously, I don’t see that. Rather I see itself take itself earnestly.
It’s called an opinion. ;)
Don't worry, I know. ;)
I like SF too, as much now as I did when it came out, but I think CR is rightly held up on its pedestal.
Weird even I have CR above in my ranking still SF has more rewatchabality.
Which is what exactly?
No. I just don't want Bond to be that incompetent. I get it's a matter óf taste, and that part of SF's success is seing a wounded, hurt Bond, unsure of himself, out of his element and played out. Not really for me.
But again, I can see this may not be what certain fans want to see out of a Bond film. I recall certain fans upset with CR because it ended with the Bond girl being a traitor and killing herself. Of course fans that were actually familiar with the novel don’t mind that, as we have all accepted it long ago as part of Fleming’s canon, and we tend to treat everything Fleming as gospel that shouldn’t be questioned or altered (well, not everything ala LALD).
For what it’s worth, I used to criticize TWINE back in the day for depicting Bond as incompetent, but soon realized that the entire point was seeing Bond vulnerable and not seeing beyond the surface because of his injury to him and his ego. It’s something I commend the filmmakers for aiming for, despite how lacking the execution was. With SF I feel the nailed it. Heck, CR and QOS weren’t exactly short of depicting Bond lacking competence, as the conceit for that was it was “Bond Begins”.
It’s not as cut and dry as you put it. He didn’t get to kill M personally himself, hence earlier trying to tell his goons “she’s mine” and how upset he gets when he sees her having a wound he didn’t give her, so he essentially “lost” in never getting to kill the person he targeting by his own hand. It’s definitely a case where both Bond and the villain lose in a sense. But if you prefer Bond films more clear cut like “kills the bad guy saves the day”, then SF is clearly not adhering to your Bond formula.
Which concerned me prior to the film coming out. Thankfully it took ideas that were present in TWINE and improved. On them. But if merely borrowing elements from a previous film is a bad thing, I wonder why you give Lewis Gilbert a pass. For me all that matters is how well a Bond film is executed, no whether or not it reused things from previous films.
True. Ultimately their plan was to draw Silva away from the public and into an area that would isolate him and take him off the grid. I think many Bond fans seem to forget that the film has M actually make a point of how she doesn’t want anyone else involved in this instance. It’s also worth noting that by drawing Silva there, whatever may happen Q and MI6 will be able to zero in on Silva. Since Bond killed him and all his men, that wasn’t necessary and eventually MI6 would came over to Skyfall to collect Bond and M’s body.
You are absolutely right!
I am not arguing that Skyfall is a bad movie, but as a Bond movie I find it weak.
Bond films were always about an attractive, charming super spy who would save the world and always got the girl in the end.
They featured several attractive woman, outrageously over the top action setpieces, unrealistic gadgets, memorable villains and henchmen. They were fun.
Now with the Daniel Craig Bond, and especially in Skyfall here, they've focused more on characters and realism. They served us Bond as a real person, someone who is human and flawed, who had a difficult childhood and has a psychotic foster brother.
In doing that, they took that fantasy out of the recent films that is one of many integral parts of the Bond film formula, and judging from the NTTD trailer I am not entirely convinced that Bond is back in fine form.
Indeed it is. I'd call it exotic, though, not fantasy per se.
Yes, of course there will always be elements of fantasy. Bond surviving the fall after he gets shot, for one.
Regarding NTTD, I've been following production closely. I already knew what was going to be in the trailer, before it went online, because trailers have become highlight reels: several clips from the Matera-chase including the bike stunt, the bridge jump, the exploding boat, the car flipping over from the chase they shot in Scotland. Those are the money shots.
In CR Bond crashes trough a construction site using a New Holland wheel loader, in QoS there's the old plane, a bike, a car, a speedboat, in SF the CAT on top of a moving train, in SP the snowplane on the ground.... but in NTTD Bond is just driving a couple of cars and a bike.
No outlandish vehicles here, no new crazy gadgets. We get a visit to Q's apartment and learn that a retired Bond has more woman issues than seen before.
It looks more grounded in reality than the previous four, which is fine I guess, as long as there's a compelling well-written story where he comes out on top in the end.
Disagree 100%. I don't even rate SF has high as QoS anymore. CR has stood the test of time. SF has not (IMO).
Years from now CR will be fondly remembered as a classic Bond film, in every sense of the word - like OHMSS or FRWL.
It has Arnold's best score (sounding more like John Barry than John Barry himself), and relies heavily on the Fleming novel.
SF in years from now could well end up being lumped alongside that garbage SP, both Mendes films and both with the worst Bond scores of all time (Newman should be ashamed of himself). I can see it being like those Brosnan films, all too generic, not very memorable, and trying to distinguish one between the other, where it all blurrs into one.
I only hope NTTD doesn't get tossed aside and ends up belonging in that indistinguishable generic Brosnan-style canon too (the current signs says it could well be).
You missed the shot of the dudes in Hazmat suits doing whatever the hell they’re doing in what looks like a throwback villain’s lair then?
I think it already is.
I wish that were true.
I wouldn’t bet on it. As for Newman, he has no reason to feel ashamed, as SF was a heavily acclaimed score, at least by those who don’t think David Arnold is some John Barry heir apparent and would dismiss any other good composer just because they aren’t Arnold. If they drag Newman’s score for SF through the mud despite how good that was, then I don’t think anyone but Arnold will please them.