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 was happy to see Craig ride off into the sunset with the leading Bond girl.
This little formulaic item has been so missing from the Craig films. I made comment a while back about how Criag's bedmates always end up dying. I was glad that they did not kill Monica Bellucci...I was so sure she was going to be served up as the sacrificial lamb but not!
=D>
I agree.
Mendes is far to keen on his nods and winks to the past as it is. This would have been awful.
I'm glad they didn't use the line, that would be too obvious.
I thought when I saw the film that many people would be very happy here: gunbarrel, the lovely ladies alive, and well, Driving off into the sunset was one cool scene indeed.
It's a homage to Orson Welles. It's not only Touch of Evil that has the iconic opening tracking shot - Citizen Kane does something similar.
Well, I respect your feeling like that, @Birdleson. Especially as you found the film unsatisfying. I get that it would have been meaningful to you. But personally, I do relate more to chrisisall's reaction. I would have hated that being said at the end of the film. Not just disliked it; it would have been a big mistake, in my opinion. My reaction would have been pretty strong against that being said.
First of all, it would totally, instantly take me into OHMSS and the tragedy of Tracy's death. And to do that (which is one of the things I disliked intently about OHMSS anyway; ending the film with that) would be a huge disservice to the entire rest of SPECTRE that we had just watched. For me - this is just my opinion, how I would have reacted to that. It would also immediately say to us that Madeline would be killed off, just not on screen in SPECTRE. Well, how happy an ending is that, to put that in our minds as they were about to drive off happily? Oh yes, the main Bond girl lived and they are happy - but do realize she will get killed most assuredly. Eh? Is that the most appropriate ending to an upbeat Bond film? No.
Secondly, SPECTRE was deliberately a lighter tone, fun adventure, and Bond ending up with the girl at the end NOT killed is something so many of us wanted - @OHMSS69, yes: I think that is one thing the majority of us wanted for this film and it was mentioned often since Skyfall.
If the producers, writers, and director choose for Madeline to be killed either on screen or off at the beginning of the next Bond film, that is something I can deal with separately. But I did not want it glaringly telegraphed to us at the end of this upbeat, no angst, fun Bond film that SPECTRE intentionally was.
I'm also quite glad it did not have Monica's character, Lucia, get killed! So easily they could have done that; I was rather expecting it, in the back of my mind. Always a sacrificial lamb. But no - and I was very pleasantly surprised by that. They didn't go that route for once, and I think that was also a very good decision.
I'm going to find the Sony leaks script thread(s) and read thru them over the next few days, but probably cannot do much of that until later Sunday. It will interesting for me! I stayed ignorant of all of that, thankfully.
Meanwhile, we can discuss any and all of SPECTRE here. Over to you ... :)>-
CR had a reasonably decent script based on Fleming gold, and a great director. The result was rather stunning.
QOS had a good (unfinished) story idea fleshed out on the fly by Craig & Forster as best they could. Forster himself is a fine director. The result was raw, imperfect, yet undeniably intense & riveting.
SF had noble intent, but recycled ideas from GE & TWINE as a vehicle to say goodbye to Judi as M. It was Mendes' first foray into action/espionage. The result was a satisfyingly emotional film despite its flaws.
SPECTRE was meticulously written by committee (& re-written after Sony leakage) as an homage to Bond of old, with attention to Craig's take on him. Director Mendes, by either mandate or self reflection, brought Bond back from the dead(ly serious) to make him the bada*s agent of absurd confrontation that we (mostly all) love. The result was a good & enormously entertaining balance between nonsense & gritty 'realism'.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :))
My take (briefly, off the top of my head) would go like this:
CR - was blessed with coming along at exactly the right time for this kind of Bond film. And also blessed with a great director, the right actor who totally went for it, one of the best acted lead Bond girls (I put Eva right with Diana Rigg's Tracy for excellence), fine writing, gutsy move from the producers all around to want this to be this stark, gritty, and realistic a story - a near perfect Bond film.
QOS- was handed to a director who either was a mistake or who was simply allowed to take his vision too far. The writers strike can only be blamed so far seeing as the director himself said the script given to him by the writer(s) was pretty much complete. His decisions for editing, pace, and camera work definitely flaw the film. Some sequences are excellent (the opera house; Bond & Camille in the desert; Bond with Mathis), the acting by Craig, Giannini, Dench, and Kurylenko is all first rate throughout. But most of the film lacks a coherent, or even just gripping story, as well as feeling shortchanged visually. For me, it is definitely the least satisfying of Craig's 4 films.
SF - another superb Bond film, one that takes a different, strongly British centered tone. I like Mendes' direction very much. It is visually sumptuous, and unusually patriotic, while still showing Bond in the throes of recovery (physically, mentally, profesionally). Stunning cinematography, superb acting by Dench in particular as well as Craig, a memorable villain, and a story that is well rounded and achieves its goal of bringing Bond through that cycle that started with CR - and bringing back Q and Moneypenny in satisfying ways. I find very little wrong with this film. It is also extremely well paced.
SP - launches this Bond into being at last the fully formed, in his prime, 00 agent that is a key part of this series. Mendes does not like to repeat himself, so I felt sure this one would have a different tone and approach. Indeed Bond finished Skyfall at a crest, a launching off point. Poised so to speak. SPECTRE delivered that next step in the process of Bond becoming Bond. It is lighter in tone throughout. It has a good story, very well directed and paced, more stunning cinematography, with excellent acting from all leads. This film gives us a touch of the previous Bond magic from the older films - without going overboard into camp or making the nods too obvious or annoying. A fine line that this film manages well. A delicious adventure, without angst - a very entertaining Bond film that actually seems refreshing coming off of the previous 3 with Craig.
If someone would like to discuss other parts of SPECTRE during this time, that is fine also. Dive right in. B-)
Very fair summary. I'd be less generous about SF but otherwise I agree. SP does have a little of that 'by committee' vibe, but it's a better script than SF as a result. Unless you have a genius like Maibaum on scripting duties then it's better to have a committee style approach.
Casino Royale
A refreshingly mature and well written film, which succeeds in presenting a classic Bondian thriller, with a twist – Craig's more earnest, and visceral interpretation of our man, which breaths new life into a character that's been in the pop-Zeitgeist for more than half a century.
No matter how many times I've seen it, it grips me, with it's fantastic performances, brutal action and relevant plot. (I like that Bond is the reason that Le Chiffre has to set up the Texas Hold 'Em at Montenegro, and opposed to the book version)
I think it was a good idea to have the first half of the film, so action orientated – it lets Craig really shine, and I still love the Madagascar sequence. Really one of the best set pieces ever to be captured on film. Moreover, the action in the film, is brutal, bleeding and visceral, and is a counterpoint to the stylised action, that has been the bread and butter of the Bond series since Goldfinger (With the exception of TB, OHMSS and LTK), and harks back to the earliest Bond films.
What else is there to enjoy about CR? Well, an excellent cast, sophisticated and mature humour, and a very good script, superb main titles, and the accompanying main title theme, sumptuous cinematography, first-class set design (Peter Lamont's swansong perhaps?) and great music. I just love the way that Arnold's incorporates the main title theme; top notch. In fact the main titles, and Arnold's subsequent using of it, is really like a proto Bond theme.
Martin Campbell's direction is brisk, bruising and very effective, and belies the film's marathon running time. Campbell's shot selection is really good; think of the PTS in grainy black and white, the "dirty Martini" sequence, and when Le Chiffre's goons are picking Bond out of the wreaked Aston Martin. Most unusual for a Bond film, but most effective. (By picking Craig, the innovative way in which the film was shot, it's accent on bruising action, the producers really gambled on Casino Royale, and won, after the safe "by the numbers" films that preceded it...)
However, the only thing I can reproach this film with, is the scene where Bond breaks into M's apartment. Fleming's 007 would never have been so disrespectful, and as Bond is a military man, he wouldn't have lasted long in the military. I can almost overlook the scene, I suppose that Bond is allowing M to follow him, through her laptop, but it's a tenuous link at that. (I don't mind the Venetian climax, but I wish it was per the book, btw)
So, to the romantic angle of Casino Royale, both played superbly by Craig and Green. Previously, I felt it was a little too rushed, perhaps, but on reflection, I think the filmmakers got it just right; there is time enough for Bond and Vesper to fall in love, and for Bond's wounds to heal up, and you can see the passage of time. As Fleming said, "hard men have a tendency to tip over into sentimentally" (or words to that effect...), as so it is with Craig's Bond; I can believe that Bond loves Vesper.
Quantum of Solace
Quantum of Solace has a bleak ambience which makes it unique. Forster delivers a very slick film, where the drawbacks are the much maligned hyper-editing, and that's only prevalent in the first third-ish. I particularly like Forster's shot selection, in regards to the transitional scenes; think when Bond is entering Slate's hotel, and the scene in at the desert hotel, when Greene etc. are meeting. He uses quick, short shots, in order to get to the next action scene/dialogue exchange, very quickly. It reminds me of Fleming's writing; short, sharp sentences – both Fleming and Forster use speed. There's one directorial decision that I think is wrong for 007 – during the car chase, Marc Forster takes us inside 007's mind, depicting 007 as slightly frazzled. I always imagined that Bond's mind, especially if there is action involved, to be an oasis of calm – Bond is a man of action, after all.
The production design and especially the cinematography is top notch. I love Roberto Schaeffer's colour palette; the contrast between the blacks and whites in the Opera sequence, or the blue and browns at the Atacama Desert Hotel scene, for example. Very crisp, suiting the bleak ambience of the film. Other than that, QoS is a very effective, 70’s style thriller.
A quick comment on the political overtones; I like ‘em. Helps make the film seem more plausible and credible. The speech from the Foreign Minister is a great little scene which explains the stance of the British and Americans. “Right and wrong doesn’t even come into it.” The world is not as black and white as Bond would like it. As for Greg Beam, he's an oily, slippery little bugger, isn’t he? David Beam excels as Beam. I wouldn't call Beam a proper villain, per se; he's just doing what's right for his country, which places him in the "grey" world; I find that QoS is a film, that is made more diverting because of it. People exist in this "grey" world, as Mathis (or Fleming said), "when one grows older the villains and hero get harder to tell apart".
On the acting front, Daniel Craig presents a subtle character study of 007, a highlight of the film. General Medrano - typical South American dictator there. Complete with nasal voice! The one misstep with casting in an otherwise excellently cast film.
Through Mathis and Camille, Bond learnt some valuable lessons, in which he demonstrates in the final scene. M is shocked that Bond didn't kill Yusef. In this scene Bond is completely in control of his emotions. The similarity between Craig's Bond and Dalton's Bond, when he is interrogating Pushkin is uncanny. Bond had found his quantum of solace.
Skyfall
Featuring an excellent cast, great script, gorgeous cinematography by Roger Deakins, and inspired direction from Sam Mendes, Skyfall is one outstanding Bond film. Skyfall trades the soundness of the plot, in order to be thematically strong, which is a minor flaw in this 50th Anniversary treat.
The casting (especially Silva, who is, quite simply fantastic. Camp, unerring and quite, quite mad), cinematography, the direction - Mendes' does an excellent job of directing SF, despite it's running time, I was engrossed throughout are just great. Indeed, Mendes got just the balance just right, between action, romance, violence, sophistication, style, humour, tension and intrigue. Pace is good throughout, and he lets the characters breath, and to the editing, Baird does a very good job; quick and efficient. In fact Baird and Mendes reminded me of the dynamic that Terence Young and Peter Hunt used to have.
Although Skyfall is slightly superficial. Well, that isn't fair. Maybe I was slightly disappointed that I saw everything on the first time; on the second time I was expecting to go deeper in the Bond psyche. Like QoS; I discover something new each time I see it, whilst with Skyfall it doesn't happen.
Anyway, the reason I enjoy Skyfall so much, was the fact that Ian Fleming's spirit haunts the film, which is surprising, as they have no Fleming material left to work from. Consider, the opening speech by Silva, like the backstory to Fleming's villains; Bond not on his best form, i.e. FRWL, TB, YOLT, TMWTGG; Bond's apathy; the Komodo Dragons; Skyfall Lodge seems to be something Fleming imagined. In fact didn't Fleming grow up in a house, similar to Skyall? Also the combination of Adele's Skyfall, and Daniel Kleinman's fantastic title design, makes it quite possibly my favourite one-two of the series, only rivalled by CR, Spy, YOLT and OHMSS in the quality stakes.
In the PST, Bond is at the height of his powers, until M orders the “bloody shot”. From here, Bond is trying to “resurrect” himself, into the formidable agent he once was.
We see Bond next in a beach hovel, and his apathy and pity are rather rampant. It's only because MI6 is under attack the Bond returns home. The first half of SF is especially good, at delving into Bond's psyche. The second half of SF, however, is gives us more an expositional take on Bond – the deaths of Bond's parents for example. The film makers got it just right – delve too much into Bond's back story, and you lose that mystique.
Bond's journey in SF was a hard one. He had to “resurrect” himself. But he did it. By the end of the movie, Bond was back. The beginning and end of SF see Bond at the height of his powers. And Bond's struggle in the middle third was quite diverting. Bond is a fighter, and he made it. It's a similar case to LTK in that regard. In the beginning and end of that film, Bond is typically cool, composed and charming. But for the majority of LTK, Bond fights with his heart, making his aim sloppy. It's only after he discovers about the Stinger Missiles, that he's able to treat it like any other mission.
Spectre
At the end of SF we had Bond complete his journey. And we had the MI6 cohorts. So, what would Spectre have in store for us?
Top ten Bond film. I got caught up with the story. Despite it lasting 2 and half hours, the film flew by. Great cast. Spectre is a proper full on Bond film, in the same vein that Thunderball, Spy and TLD are. All supported by Craig's fantastic performance as 007. He is Bond like Sean Connery was in his first four films.
Thank you and goodnight.
:)>-
And at 2.5 hours it has passed OHMSS as the longest running Bond film (correct me if I'm wrong). and I was not bored and did not notice the long running time.
I also have to a certain unease with the entire concept of bringing back Blofeld. Sure, we all wanted to see Spectre return…but now that our rebooted Bond has met a rebooted Blofeld, complete with white cat and facial scar, does this mean that the way is open for a rebooted Goldfinger and a return visit to Doctor No? Now that an “All the Time in the World” scenario is on the table for future use (and Lea Seydoux is reported to be eager to reprise her role as Madeline Swan) does that mean that we’ll be seeing her inevitable swan song early in Bond 25? I’m really of two minds on this whole business. From one perspective, I might appreciate having the next Bond film be titled “Shatterhand” and having a large proportion of the plot concern itself with Bond’s stealthy invasion of Blofeld’s Castle of Death…but on the other hand, I think we’ve all had just about enough of “Bummer Bond,” and putting 007 back into the frame of mind he’s in circa Fleming’s original novel version of YOLT really isn’t my idea of a good time for the James Bond franchise. Perhaps if Craig’s Bond hadn’t been so morose for so much of QoS and SF, I’d be more open to a replay of the death of Mrs. James Bond at this particular point in time. As it is…I think another Fun Bond is still in order for Bond 25, but that isn’t the way the cards currently being shuffled seem to be stacking up. While I’m all for keeping unused Fleming material in the mix as much as possible, I’d also like to see this series pulling a surprise out of the deck once in awhile!
I understand that Foggerty a cute blond from Downton Abby was a top contender for the role. Do you think she could have pulled off the role of Swann?
I like that each Bond girl for Craig has been so unique, not just a bunch of pretty airheads.
"Love. Who can explain it?" -Dawg Brown
Moore seemed to do very well in the chemistry department even in later films when he was so much older than his leading ladies.
;))