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
Where it does fall a bit short is on the villain front and a rushed pace.
Comparing it to CR is a tough one, but I do think it's the best post-1990 non-Martin Campbell Bond film. At least until NTTD come along.
Agreed. I also prefer it to GE.
The Fleming novels have reference to Vesper in DAF (as sequel 4th book). So I see the ‘heart’ of the film as very Bondian indeed.
You can have references to Vesper without it being a core feature of the film. You could ask why would Mi6 send an agent so personally involved in the events he is investigating?
Anyway, I prefer watching it to GE because GE is the most overrated one of all. Both bottom 5 for me, though.
But M believes that Bond is cold and doesn’t care about Vesper (at first).
Also, he’s still on a mission (it’s just connected to his vendetta).
GE is overrated though. It’s solid mediocrity.
I too rank QOS top of the Craig era.
It really is after the tank chase that it goes completely downhill. And all that Boris stuff is embarrassing.
In fairness to Brosnan, he kept the series going and they are mostly entertaining enough. And each of them has some fantastic scenes - the PTS of all four are great, for example, especially TWINE. But they are a victim of their era I think.
I mean he didn't mean to get captured or embedded. Only because he crashed the DB5 is why he became a prisoner
Considering all the flack Skyfall gets for having a villain's plan that doesn't make sense, I wonder what people think of the pts in Goldeneye... ;))
True, but he did get himself off the table.
... Not that I *really* understand why Goldfinger didn't just kill him, but still... ;)
I just chalk it up to Alec and Arkady waiting for the right time/mission to enact their plan. That may be being to generous, but it's enough for me to enjoy what I'm watching.
One thing I thought was really funny that I saw in Cinemasins "Everything Wrong with GoldenEye" was that starting from the very beginning of the PTS, Bond and then later Alec only ever travel downwards, and then suddenly end up on the runway on the top of a mountain :)) Bizarre stuff.
With regards to Skyfall, I sort of figure that Silva learns about the NATO list and decides it would be a great opportunity to humiliate M, so he steals it and attacks MI6, knows there will definitely be a parliamentary hearing about it, and sort of improvises from there. I'm not smart enough to keep track of the timing of everything, let alone let it take me out of the story. I don't think it would be hard for him to figure out that they'd move into Churchill's bunker/isolation and stuff.
Q getting "hacked" when they plug in SIlva's computer and the like is honestly just stuff you have to gloss over I feel. It's not great but it doesn't have a huge affect on my enjoyment of the film. The bit of the film between Q and Bond going through SIlva's computer, then the chase, leading up to the parliamentary attack is the worst part of the film for sure. The Parliamentary attack is great, and I like everything else afterwards (even if it drags a bit towards the end).
Similarly with the Skyfall finale, they could have brought an army of commandos to meet Silva and end it there, but M specifically said she didn't want anyone else to die because of her. I really have no problem with a majority of Skyfall.
Good post. Bond was already Bond by the end of CR. QoS is superfluous. And while I like Forster's dramatic scenes (particularly the one with Mathis on the plane), Forster failed to ask himself a primary dramatic question, which was: how has the main character changed from the end of CR to the beginning of QoS?
At the end of CR, you could leave the film confident that not only did Bond get to recover the money that Mr. White stole, but that he's fully formed into the Bond we've known before. But then along comes CR, and Bond is still conflicted over his feelings, and worse, he never actually recovered the money from Mr. White as it ended up being spent hence the tracked bills.
I would add the characters and direction. Campbell knows (cinematic) Bond and how to tell a great story. And all characters, major or minor, feel like they are part of the world rather than simply filling in a background
Agreed. They didn't have to remove all traces of Vesper.
Also, and this is my important point. DC could have played it the same, and we would have known he was mourning Vesper without any of the explicit, awkward references to her. His performance could have carried that.
They're implying Gillette products featured in Spectre, but I'm not aware of any. I have the Flexball razor promo, yet it's not seen in the film.
100% agreed. That’s another thing to change when DC leaves: bring back montage posters!
The references are necessary to help those who didn't see CR undrstand what's going on. So it's either going for a full stand-alone film, which would dissapoint fans (like DAF following OHMSS) or reference enough so casual viewers understand it too. I disagree with your assessment that Bond is suddenly all soppy, whilst he didn't give a rat's bottom about what (just) happened and was full blown Bond as we know him.
Yes, he looks cool as a cucumber standing there, and the BOnd, James Bond line is uttered, but you can't expect him to be all happy and cool hours after the love of his life killed herself (for him).
QoS picks up hours, minutes (?) after CR. Either that or Bond has been driving around with White in his trunk for a couple of years. So yes, it makes sense that he's still shaken. And yes, it makes perfect sense she's referenced to. Even more so as M clearly states she has her doubts as to Bond can keep beeing a professional (as she states directly after the titles) but she has no grounds to stop him from doing his work. He's not asking for leave days. But she's confirmed in her suspicions (unfounded, as we learn) by his killing off of 'every lead' to the point the CIA tries to interfere. That's why she cancels all his cards, and wants him send back home.
It's only in the hotel she realises Bond has been on track, not on a revenge mission.
So yes, Bond is still very much Bond, it's M who has her doubts.
As has been stated earlier, Dench's M, especially in the Craig era, has been, let's say unlucky in her assessments of situations. It get's worse with SF though.
John Terry should have come back for LTK. At least he would have had something more substantial to do in his second appearance as opposed to what he was given in the first.