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
That's my main issue with it too (seing Spectre's plan). In other Bond films it's cool to see him playing the detective and figuring things out, in TB it doesn't work because the audience is two steps ahead of him, we have the answers he's looking for and that makes it boring. The book has the same issue but for whatever reason it works better in print than it does on screen imo.
For some reason though the tension disappears in Thunderball. I have often asked myself why that is, but I have never figured out exactly what about the pacing that is not working. People complain about the underwater battle and the preceeding action, but truth be told it all starts dragging long before that. All the elements are there for what should be a suspensefull investigation. It just doesn't come together for some reason and ends up like a disappointingly mundane sequence of potentially great scenes with no real build up between each other...
... ... ... could someone remind me why she was killed off in SF? Talk about wasted casting.
Fleming have mercy. This is why I don't want directors of Mendes ilk anywhere near Bond.
I disagree. The tension is there throughout the movie: in the veiled hostility between Bond and Largo, in their rivalry for Domino, in Shrubland as well. I
I feel that too...both men BLATANTLY know who the other is ,and Domino is the key for both of them to annoy the other,its a chess and bluff game to see who cracks first ,Bond or Largo...
I suppose perceptions depend on whether one buys into the narrative and the characterizations, which is normally what it always boils down to.
Now that we have had an official "re-boot" in the series, I don't think it is possible that a new actor will be able to continue the DC timeline; I don't think it can be well executed, and I don't think the contemporary audiences will buy it...
Agreed.
I think the reason FRWL works so well and TB doesn't (even though we know the villains' plan in both) is down to the scale of the villains' plan. In FRWL, the plan is relatively small, plausible, personal. Steal the Lektor, disgrace and kill Bond. We see the plan carried out with deadly precision by Grant and Klebb.
In TB, the plan is massive: steal two atomic warheads and threaten their detonation for ransom. Well, do we really believe the destruction of a major city will happen in an action-adventure movie? Nah. And the villains don't even come close to detonating the bombs at film's end (compare with GF).
So what might happen? That one British guy sums it up: "The Prime Minister and the President have talked together over the hotline and have agreed that unless the bombs are recovered, payment will have to be made." The stakes are big, sure, but it's hard to get invested in it. Loss of money isn't very exciting.
I also find the dynamic between Bond and Largo rather strange. They clearly wanted to repeat the dynamic between Bond and Goldfinger, where Bond and villain meet in social situations and needle each other, but it doesn't suit the situation IMO.
Agree with both of you @Milovy and @Jobo. The interplay between Bond and Largo is a mere shadow of the dynamic between Bond and Goldfinger and, as noted, the stakes aren't nearly as tangible as in FRWL. They attempted to combine the best qualities of each of those movies and came up short. That, for me, is why FRWL and GF remain superior - they have a distinct identity, where TB is an amalgamation of what has gone before. A sort of buffet of elements.
It is undeniably beautiful, with great cinematography and some wonderful dialogue, but it is the first 'greatest hits' Bond - combining elements from its three predecessors. The first three are simply more distinct.
Horses for courses.
I feel the same about the novel (and film). It reads like a procession to an inevitable conclusion.
It's all about the atmosphere & effortless style with this film, and that's why I think it's unique. One either buys into it, or one doesn't. It's still reasonably grounded.
Where you see relaxed pace, I see lack of direction. The opening 30-45 mins are excellent, but as @jobo suggested it doesn't seem to build to a climax. I don't mind a film taking its time to get from A to B; it's the way it does it I have a problem with.
I don't think it's much to ask to have some sense of a climax building.
I can see the appeal of the leisurely nature, it's certainly one I enjoy watching after dinner on a Sunday and snoozing.
Like I said before TB's slow pace works really well and many Bond movies and movies in general would benefit from such pace.
It does the opposite of QoS, for me. That film doesn't allow itself to breath sufficiently, while TB struggles to get off its, albeit beautiful, arse. This simultaneously is why they're unique and I won't denegrare them for that (I'd far rather the spectrum than every film be the same and I know both appeal for those very reasons to certain fans). My outlook is in response to the initial claim that it's the perfect Bond film on every level. I don't believe it is, from a critical standpoint, because of many of the reasons outlined.
I don't think a countdown is needed. In fact there is one, there's just no need to dwell on it. In any case, the bombs are an Apocalyptic sized McGuffen. Just like many villains' Doomsday devices and nobody complained about them.