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
Yes, that was very cheap.
I can understand feeling this way but I can also see where it may have been felt that there were more than enough action set pieces within the film. The way it was done leaves it up to the viewer to employ there imagination to fill in the blanks. I never felt cheated. The thrill of this sequence was the getting into then out of the building.
It's just that if you tease a sequence as "the big one," then never show it, it comes off as cheap.
I can't agree with your assessment here.
First of all, Bond is a very different character and has a VERY different personality to Hunt. Bond's approach to interacting with people, especially with women and when it comes to personal stuff is again VERY different.
This clip shows a scene between a man and wife and it's somewhat off to me because I feel it's trying to convey some sort of forced deep moment coming from Ethan who wants to share the problem of the matter but concurrently doesn't want to either because he needs to look deep and "kewl".
With Bond, the one time he did get married was to a woman who was all too familiar with the shady, dark and murky world he operates in and so he was free to just be himself, no "I want to tell you but I can't" bullshit. With Paris Carver, she apparently got too close and Bond just upped and left never to be seen until he was forced to have to make contact with her years later. Every time Bond has an emotionally personal moment, observe how he handles it. Bond with Domino telling her about her brother, Bond and xxx, when she alludes to Tracy, the same thing with Elektra when she asks him if he's ever been in love...with Vesper the situation is somewhat different but still in line with who the character has always been given his personality; also consider that you're comparing Hunt a veteran agent to a rookie and not quite there Bond at the time of CR. Bond still remains Bond and has been quite the a-hole at times throughout CR and he's simply flirting and just having fun with Vesper before all the shit goes down and realises that he's actually falling in love with her; but the difference here is, when compared to Hunt and his wife, Vesper is similar to Tracy and every other Bond girl for that matter who knows who and what Bond is. Bond is a killer, a hitman and operates in a very messy and bloody world and Vesper knows this and loves and wants to be with him regardless. Hunt at least at this point is lying to his wife about who and what he is and so can't broach the discussion in the same way Bond has his own similar personal moments. For all of SP's problems, they at least to a degree got this right with Maddy. She's like a hybrid of Tracy and Vesper and served as Bond's way out of MI6. Because of who she is and the world she ultimately comes from by way of her father, again, her interaction with Bond is going to be very different to that of the clip above. Now that I think about it, Bond to a degree has a type and the only person who Bond hooked up with and didn't disclose or broach the subject of the truth of what he does was Sylvia and guess what, she showed up twice at the beginning of the franchise only never to be seen again.
I know some aren't happy about how Madeleine was used in SP, but she and Bond fit this same model. Bond ends up with her and feels more comfortable around her because she can understand him after dealing with her father her entire life. She gets the danger and darkness of Bond's world, and because she despises it she gives him a way out of it beside her. They have more of a connection than a deep love, but the way Bond acts is the same. He could only pick someone who knows his world.
"I never miss" is trying to sound kewl.
"Do I look like I give a damn" is trying to sound kewl.
"I have no armour left" is sentimental.
If we wish for a Bond that is less action man and more just man, its scenes like the one above we should be aiming for. No quirky dialogue, no crazy circumstance, just grounded interaction. When you're having a conversation like that with someone close to you, there is no hiding place, no alternative to honesty. The not finishing sentences, repeating yourself is authentic and demonstrates that his guard is lowered better than "I have no armour left" or whatever.
Craig nails the scenes Cruise as Ethan can't. It's Dan who can use just his eyes to hide Bond's pain over Vesper in QoS, who never makes a show out of grieving, but does it quietly as a man in his position would. It's Dan's Bond who can convey those feelings extremely viscerally, as when he raises his voice in the hotel scene where Fields is found dead, or in his talk with Yusef. There's no overacting, just very natural reactions from a character that feels real. His performances are largely a great blueprint for how subtlety in a performance can be expressed, just as Sean's early films are. They're acting, but you don't feel like they are.
Ethan just isn't written that way, which is fine. He's more like Bond used to be, a guy who goes on a job and works to beat an enemy with all the danger brushing off of him in most cases. He feels it more than the Bond of some eras do, making him less of a superman, but there's no real emotional core or resonant depth with him. I don't leave a MI film wondering about what Ethan was thinking in one moment or another. I do with Craig's Bond, and have written endlessly about his subtle performance because it does have those layers.
Some may see it in Cruise's Hunt, but clearly I and many others do not, and certainly not in the scene above.
Also, script writers work very hard to get as far as possible from "on the nose" dialogue as possible.
So the line "does it look like I give a damn" is not Bond being cool. It's subtext to how pissed off he is with himself. At that point in the film he just lost everything. He is hurt and wounded and humiliated.
And it leads to him almost finishing the job with a knife...
So, once again, other than to get in a few swipes at DC, I'm not sure where you are coming from?
It's why he takes up a knife to kill Le Chiffre right after.
I think context needs to really be applied here.
Bond from the very start is a man that knows how to turn a phrase and make a quip here and there even in the most deadliest situations. "I never miss" wasn't about trying to sound cool, it was an F-you to Elektra for making him do something he didn't want to do and it was genuinely a good line.
"Do I look like I give a damn?" again wasn't about trying to sound cool but Bond was legitimately pissed. He had just lost all that money and then Vesper pretty much neutered him verbally. All manner of pleasantries went out the window when he was approached with if he wanted his drink shaken or stirred. Anyone can see that was the least of his concern.
As for no armour left, I can see why people don't appreciate the line but it doesn't bother me considering this is a rookie Bond we're dealing with, he's fallen in love with this woman and was willing to die for her earlier. Earlier to avoid running her over he spins out of control and flips his car over multiple times and later has his balls bashed in...I think it's safe to say he could have been speaking poetry in Klingon to Vesper and it wouldn't have mattered considering what he had been through and what he was feeling.
I agree with parts of this and disagree with others. The thing is, when some people are genuinely in love they say and do all types of things that just seem breath-takingly crazy. On the other hand, you get people that claim to love someone dearly but come off treating them like they're a non-entity and of course you have actions in between. That's life. There's no one way or rule to navigate being in a romantic relationship. However, in CR Bond wasn't just talking like some glossy-eyed, loved up sucker, he was actually following up what he was saying by his actions; sailing around Venice, lounging on the beach, having lots of sex with this fascinating woman who he was in love with and went as far as to type up and send in his letter of resignation in 8 seconds flat while on a boat. He didn't even wait to get to shore to really think things through and carefully choose his words...he might as well have just sent her a text message saying, "M, I quit. Thanks bye".
Yes, @DaltonCraig007, I think that's what we're trying to get at. I think Hunt is more "complex" than a lot of the requisite "action heroes" and Tom plays that part well, but when compared to the character study level of introspection Dan has given to Bond, I and a few others just don't see how a comparison can even be made.
As you say, they're just too different. It's like trying to judge a comedy by the same rules you would a drama; it doesn't work because they are very different beasts.
"Just saying, this simple scene beats any of those shared between Bond and Vesper. Two individuals sharing a real moment.... Better than
"I'm the money." "Every penny of it!"
"How was your lamb?" "Skewered!"
"That's because you know what I can do with my little finger!"
When a person says one thing is better than another, you ARE comparing them to each other.
Now you're saying you weren't comparing? I'm confused.
Comparing the interactions is comparing the characters, though, as Bond and Ethan have different reactions to things. @doubleoego pointed that out above. Ethan has to lie, while Bond never hides.
You can argue that the scenes were written or acted more convincingly, but that's the end of the argument as going any further would just be discussing the reactions of two characters who are too dissimilar to compare.
In that line of thinking, I still find CR superior. The moment in MI3 is just awkward, and there's a lot of words spoken with nothing actually being said. There's a lot of random pausing and mumbling, then "trust" is said ten times before the scene ends. Not very entrancing or compelling. The dialogue doesn't have a strong function, really, whereas in CR Bond's talks with Vesper always tell us about how he views his life and job, as when she addresses guilt and if he feels any of it. In that way, the script moves the story along while also building the character of Bond and those around him. It works on numerous levels, without desperately trying to seem deep as MI3 can force.
This also bugs me, as well. Could've been one of the bigger action sequences in the movie, but having them shy away from it all was pretty disappointing. In hindsight, though, I guess they didn't want to dedicate TOO much time to Ethan retrieving the MacGuffin, since it was just that: a MacGuffin.
@Creasy47, I think you and I have discussed this before, and how annoyed we were that the purpose of the object Hunt is getting is never really explained.
A common theme with MI3, though I enjoy it, is that we're fed things that the movie never wants to explain, and we're just supposed to accept it. Who's this Keri Russell character you ask? Oh, she's an old student of Hunt's we'll show to you in a minute long flashback, so be sure to care about her when she dies. What's that? You want to know what the object does that Hunt so desperately needs? We can't tell you that, sorry. Please don't ask why though, that's very annoying of you.
I agree, @bondjames. That moment had payoff from an earlier dialogue, just as the last section of TDKR does with Bruce and Alfred. Katie Holmes gets a lot of hate, but I found her Rachel heads and tails above that of Maggie's take, and I believed Rachel and Bruce were connected when she and Christian acted together. Maggie's performance in TDK is literally the only weak element I could even point to as not being near perfect in that film, and I wish Katie was in it instead. I'd care more for what happens, as the Rachel from BB would be consistent.
But that's real life. When people open up to one another, not everything they say will elucidate on another facet of their being. Real life isn't played out as if an audience is watching, where characters exchange snappy barbs back and forth, or break out into symbolism at the drop of a hat. Not everything is designed to have a specific purpose, a specific function. I thought you were arguing for doing away with prefunctory formula and going about things in a more true to life manner?
That's certainly not life all the time, and hasn't been for me. If all of life's interactions were as awkward, aimless and inconsequential as the one Ethan and Julie share, we'd never get anything done as a species. The Craig films' interactions can have that feeling of genuine reality without feeling so cobbled together or poorly structured. When I open up to people I don't do what Ethan does, I actually address my point and get things done.
The formula I want to axe away is the Bond formula, as there's no other one at work here. I don't know what you mean when you say taking things back to a true to life manner. For a film to work, you need the escapism and the stakes. CR has that balance, with enough things grounded to a story that could only happen in Bond's world. The movie realizes it's a film and can't be 100% real, but it simulates that reality very effectively, just as DN and FRWL do in their larger than life universes.
Movies are fiction, it's impossible to capture reality. The only thing that could come close is documentary, and even that genre has fictionalizations. If you aim for making something feel real, you have to lean on the story and actors to try and simulate it the best they can. It's why, for all the crazy action and drama, CR is able to feel grounded. The cast take a script that could've failed with the wrong team and trick you into thinking these characters are real.
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't even know what the hell we're arguing anymore.
And of course it very much depends on the global execution wether character depth is an asset or a failure. Deep character can be very satisfying, but a well-made film can also be very satisfying without much deepness of characters.
Yes.
Yeah, it's frustrating. Imagine if in MI2 for example, they kept all the stuff about Chimera a secret?