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
As much as a review of NSNA would likely be highly amusing due to being as god awful as it is (not even Carrera and Brandauer could save this turd for me), as long as you know it doesn't count for anything but pure amusement, go ahead and bring your finest sense of snarky and entertain us! I'm sure your views of CR54 and 67 would be equally hilarious as well if we're going to bring up unofficial entries from the nearest bargain bin.
Ok, I have 3 thesis' ready for MR. I hope I get to do a bunch of them. So here they are-
1. Other than being a popular hangover from Spy, was there any other good reason to bring back Jaws, let alone turn him into a complete buffoon in the end for the sake of outrageous humor?
2. In a movie filled with awful acting performances, name one you thought was actually good.
3. I love the MR novel and rate it among my favorites. Obviously EON felt some updating was needed, yet the original concept of Drax's plans were nicely realized in GoldenEye. Could Moonraker have stood proudly on it's own as a movie based more closely on the novel with the likes of the wonderfully written Gala Brand as opposed to Holly Goodhead?
Yes, I think bringing Jaws back was okay because he was hugely popular and a different kind of villain (similar to Oddjob but just a LOT more of him). I would have been happy for him to be in a second Bond film - but really only if he wasn't written as a cartoon character - if the whole movie was different - then I would welcome Jaws back in it. Because he could bring his unusual presence, near indestructibility, and menace to a Bond film ... again, if the writers and director let him be that way. If they would have used him better. Because he could have been interesting.
thesis#2: A good acting performance in MR ~
still thinking, get back to you ...
thesis #3: In a totally rewritten Moonraker, then YES have Gala Brand in it.
Okay back to thesis #2 ... I liked Roger's performance in MR, actually, out of all of the cast. Not his best but he was probably the best of the lot. Also Emily Bolton as Manuela was fine just underused. Umm. I always liked Walter Gotell as Gne. Gogol, in all of his appearances.
That's all folks. ;)
Remember, I said if it had more closely followed the novel, in other words avoiding the Star Wars outer space train wreck and all the camp and cartoon, more a spy thriller than a precursor to Austin Powers. In that sense I would have loved to see Gala and who they chose to portray her. We saw a similar space based story could have worked in GE regarding electromagnetic pulse. How about #1 and #2?
@chrisisall, how about the same?
I'll give my answers to my questions at another time, for now the floor belongs to others.
What of the missing Soviet factor in this film that was a part of YOLT and TSWLM before this one?
I'm writing a Bondologist piece on said subject matter as I find this issue very interesting.
Tit for tat, what about mine. Your view?
Well, it's interesting that Christopher Wood went into the Soviet factor more in his novelisation of the film, and there he had Drax pin the blame on the Soviets! So I don't know why it was that this ruse was cut from the finished film. My article covers just this ground and a wee bit more. You have to expect this kind of thing from The Bondologist Blog.
I agree with you on the film, though.
Sorry, I'll get back to you on your theory some time tomorrow!
I'm assuming you're referring to the main cast here and not picking on regular supporters such as Lee, Llewelyn and Maxwell? I thought Moore did a good, if not great, job. If I recall correctly, you and I strongly disagree about Lonsdale. I will stick to my guns and say that he did a good job as well. Also, I thought that Toshiro Suga gave an underrated performance as Chang. I suppose that's debatable though because he didn't speak very often.
Absolutely. Perhaps some updating was necessary but not even close to the extent of what the movie did.
It certainly would have made more sense but perhaps that was a deliberate omission to avoid comparisons to the other two films.
I agree with you. Jaws was more than enough in the one film and Roger Moore was fun to watch in my opinion, even if it's hardly his best work.
I did like the PTS and rank it as the best of the series. Of course Jaws flapping his arms and landing on a circus tent was very cartoonish but the fight in the plane, the struggle over the last parachute in mid air scenes are tops.
I never thought of it as an acid trip but I think that analysis is very accurate. At the time I just found it to be a very corny and disappointing film and waste of money. I have a vivid memory of just getting out of that theater so fast when the end credits started to roll ( a first for me because I always sat thru the end credits because I wanted to see the title of the next film )
If I ever get up the courage to watch it again I will have to smoke a couple of joints before I sit down.
PRODUCT PLACEMENT: God, this film is thick with them! Egregiously so, particularly in advertising signage that distracts from the flow of the movie itself. The British Airways sign that one goon ends up sticking halfway out of is the worst, but several aren't much better. The folks that complained about Bond drinking a Heineken in SF evidently haven't seen MR or they'd know better than to complain about that one...
Drax to Bond: "Your reputation precedes you." Argh. Yes, BondJamesBond is the World's Most Famous Secret Agent in the world of Moore's Bond. It's one thing for people involved in the spy trade to know who James Bond is; it's another for a industrialist with no ties to the world of espionage to have that knowledge. This is why Fleming had Bond use the name of Mark Hazard in his final Bond novel. I'm not asking for Daniel Craig start introducing himself as "Hazard, Mark Hazard" -- but going forward, please Eon please: can we try to keep Bond as a less than famous operative?
1. The inclusion of Jaws should have been nixed in hindsight. Thus far all but one respondent has agreed with this. The genuine menace he carried at times in Spy was largely abandoned for what @Beatles referred to as basically a stunt double for Wile E. Coyote.
2. As my thesis did not include the usual support cast, Sir Roger all the way for me. We had one vote for Drax as a secondary option that didn't quite count as Moore was the first choice as well. It's only Moore's playful sense of wit, humor, and style that can be consistently relied upon here as a sort of glue. Unfortunately, his actual performance varies very little from Spy with the same director and screenwriter in charge of the rest, so it's also much less remarkable in comparison.
3. Had EON chosen to go that way, the book would have been far more entertaining as a more faithful screen adaptation and would have worked. Elements of the novel were used in the movie such as Bond and Holly's escape from incineration and the leading lady's working relationship with Drax (switched from personal assistant to NASA scientist), but it's just a token reference and not a key plot point. The card game of bridge is nodded to as backgammon in Octopussy. The most obvious reference, and one that is very key in the novel, is the scheme itself. This is seen in GoldenEye, the nuclear armed rocket intended for London becomes an EMP satellite wreaking a different kind of destruction, the revenge plot against the British remains including some Russians as accomplices and the new government as unwitting ones, and the use of gyros to send the rocket crashing into the sea (similar as well to Dr. No's toppling) becomes retro rockets and a satellite burning up in Earth's atmosphere. Since all of these nods worked quite well in different movies, I feel the book was quite valid in concept and drama, and could have been a fine entry on it's own had they chosen this route as opposed to copying the big trend and chasing the big box office yet again. Obviously Cubby got the financial results he wanted, which in Hollywood is the means that justifies the ends, and artistic value went right out the window. It all spelled doom for the screen debut of Gala Brand, and just as well as this is Moore Bond and an engaged woman as the lead who sticks by her man wouldn't have done. Curiously, this concept of Bond not getting the leading lady actually worked as a nice change of pace in QOS, but then that story allowed for it.
4th and final thesis unless I come up with another-
4. My philosophy is that every official Bond film has some character or scene that is redeemable and can be enjoyed, including the worst of entries. We've determined thus far that only Roger Moore fits the bill for this movie as best performance, even if that isn't saying very much because no one is raving about him either. Moonraker is a film that I best remember for certain scenes that made the early parts of the film tolerable. People mention such scenes as the PTS, the centrifuge, Corrine's violent death, and spying in Venice by night. Assuming you find this a valid point, what's yours?
1) The theme song (so lovely!)
2) The PTS (till the final flapping landing of Jaws)
3) Bond shooting the assassin from the tree in front of Drax.
That's all I'm going for. I did enjoy that shot and Bond's retort to Drax's ("You missed, Mr. Bond") -
"... Did I?". :) Rather good Moore, that scene.
You forgot the most blatant - the British Airways billboard when the guy on the stretcher ends up in it head first!
I disagree with the blatant use of the billboards at one point they did use them as a joke when the baddie falls out of the ambulance. I think the productplacement in those years were less than in the current movies. The Ford, Sony laptops and such.
The Heineken product and the fall out over it was rather daft as 007 did have Heineken productplacement in the Brosnan movies before, I still have theset of metal beercoasters as proof.
Productplacement pays some big bills, and I do not mind them mostly. In MR I find far less than in the current 007 movies. But I did find that Glastron boat rather nifty.
;)
2. In a movie filled with awful acting performances, name one you thought was actually good.
3. I love the MR novel and rate it among my favorites. Obviously EON felt some updating was needed, yet the original concept of Drax's plans were nicely realized in GoldenEye. Could Moonraker have stood proudly on it's own as a movie based more closely on the novel with the likes of the wonderfully written Gala Brand as opposed to Holly Goodhead?
====regarding the above theses.
1. Bringing Jaws back was a great idea until things got stupid in Rio, where he found his love. Groan. I could even roll with his surviving the pts airplane fall without a chute, even if it required suspension of disbelief.
2. I approve of all the Bond-girl acting. The movie is a smorgasboard of luscious Bond women, both goodies and the baddies. Chiles shimmers, Dufour oozes French sensuality, Bolton is pure eye candy, and the Drax girls - wow!!! Superb casting. Wonderful performances from all concerned.
Lonsdale did a nice sinister camp job as Drax, the deranged supervillain. Generally I approve of the acting in this film.
3. Yes ,the original Fleming story would have made a great yarn, updated for the time. Much could have been done with that story. But the cat was out of the bag with the previous film. It was now clear to Cubby that the Fleming stories could be very much dispensed with, yet still have a wildly successful original Bond movie.
The lead Bond girl should at least have been named for and modeled on Gala Brand. Holly was sort of, in that she was also infiltrated into the Drax organization, but still, ditching a classic Fleming Bond-girl name for the cheesy Holly Goodhead moniker. :O
Such was the '70s, the tackiest decade in the history of the human race.
Now that I've had time to think about it...if we must have a drug reference that is contemporary to the release of DAD...then DAD is a crack 'ho of a movie.
Sorry about that. Carry on...
So, by far my least satisfying entry to Sir Henry's fine thread. But for what it's worth here we go.
SKYFALL (2012)
Bond
In Casino Royale Bond was raw, impulsive and prone to error. In Quantum Of Solace he was cold, efficient and distant. Now in the new film he is initially world- weary and in his head probably lost. As the film progresses he regains the sparkle in his eye as well as the impulsive nature of his earlier adventures (what would drive him to jump on board Severine’s yacht and get himself deliberately captured by Silva if he was truly thinking his plans through?)
His confidence, shattered early on after being shot by friendly fire slowly comes back, just as M gambled it would. By the time he reaches Scotland he is back to his old self.
We see Bond gambling, ordering cocktails, womanising and taking part in some much needed banter with the old crew. It may be fleeting in many cases, but it’s nice to see Bond indulging in his vices once more.
It’s a measured and clever performance by Daniel Craig. As ever he thinks through Bond’s motives and ambitions and unpeels the inner layers of the character.
4.5/5
Women
Severine, beautiful and mysterious, comes and goes during a half hour portion of the film. Maybe one could argue that Honey received less screen time in Dr No than Severine does here (as do several other Bond girls), but in this film the main Bond girl is M, and Severine dies early and maybe unnecessarily. That doesn’t detract from the overall positive impact she makes. She has certain qualities we haven’t seen (with the odd exception) since the 60s. Pure glamour being the obvious one.
Eve is quirky and lovely. She realises she’s no field agent, even though on the whole she showed competence and was willing to take risks. Of course her eventual revelation as Miss Moneypenny maybe means she belongs in ‘allies’, but we are too short of girls to be picky.
A brief appearance by another girl early on, and that’s that.
Despite short comings in this department the quality over quantity rule applies
4/5
Villains
Silva, wronged (in his mind ) by M years before is a big, brutal man -if ever so slightly camp. His plot to kill M is convoluted and maybe over-thought, but he is arguably the most convincing and memorable villains since the Roger Moore era.
His entrance which is a one camera, one angle shot is a triumph of film making.
The irony here is Silva dies a minute or two before he gets the opportunity to realise his plan has succeeded.
Patrice is the assassin who fights Bond on the train and later in the sky scraper.
There are several disposable henchmen to make up the weight, but as with the ‘Girls’ it’s about quality over quantity, and Silva is a great addition to the franchise. His problem is the age old one suffered by so many Bond villains – the need to toy with his victims, or more accurately Bond.
4.5/5
Humour
Sf is laced with funny and endearing moments reminiscent of different ages. Dry one liners from the Connery era
”Only a certain kind of woman wears a strapless dress with a Beretta 37 strapped to her thigh.” sounds like something Connery would have said.
More blatant jokes, detached from the film and last seen in the 70s. An elderly man at the tube comments “ He’s keen to get home” as Bond leaps onto the moving train.
Bond is joyously bantering with Eve and Q and Kincade. It’s good to see him so quirky and quick witted. Nods to Goldfinger, Casino Royale and Live And Let Die amongst other films lightens the mood further. These moments are smart and funny, rather than clunky and tiresome as we had in Die Another Day.
5/5
Action
There are three major sequences taking up the beginning, middle and end of the film. Yet SF doesn’t slow down nor does it lose it’s momentum. The plot drives along thanks to it’s good humour, great photography and pacey direction. So maybe in this instance excessive action is unnecessary.
The PTS is stunning in it’s invention and excitement. It’s breathless pace reminds me of Casino Royale’s opener (rather than the style adopted by Marc Forster in Quantum Of Solace). It’s the best action scene in the film.
Bond’s later pursuit of Patrice as he goes about his business of assassinating the unnamed man in the next building is possibly diluted by the photography as we find ourselves staring beyond the action at the beautiful images.
The fight in the komodo pit is wonderful.
The chase through the tunnels leading up to Silva’s attempt on M’s life works to a degree and the climax in Scotland feels strangely alien to the world of Bond. So how can we mark a film up for it’s action when the action doesn’t tick all the boxes? Maybe because the whole film feels like a roller coaster. Deprived of action, yet moving at a terrific speed. Sometimes Bond films drag along between action sequences, filling in time before the next big expensive sequence. Not here
5/5
Sadism
Poor Severine is ridiculed and taunted before her fate is sealed. In her eyes one can see that she is resigned to dying. The look she gives Bond is helpless and hopeless.
Earlier a henchman ends up as dragon food, (nasty nasty).
There is a nice moment of implied masochism when Silva talks of his cyanide pill and shows M and Bond the results.
The sadism is not excessive but it is striking.
4/5
Music
I believe that Bond films have a duty to give us certain required ingredients, and to tick those boxes whilst still offering original and clever new ways to present them. The music of Bond has always been a huge selling point for the series, and whilst we still tend to recall more clearly the resounding and gorgeous music of John Barry, we also remember fondly other themes, especially those by Paul McCartney and Marvin Hamlisch.
So whilst the debate about David Arnold continues to split the community, we now have a new name in the frame. Thomas Newman has a sound reputation but his work in SF simply doesn’t stand out. Occasionally my untrained ear may pick up a strand that is interesting, but there is nothing particularly intoxicating about this mix. The theme song however goes some way to rectifying this.
2/5
Locations
The grey beauty of London and the misty beauty of Scotland’s Highlands are beautifully recognised. Turkey, Macau, Shanghai. Regardless of how or where these were filmed the locations require top marks especially as the photography of Roger Deakins captures it all so splendidly.
5/5
Gadgets
Jokingly dismissed early on. Nothing more than a radio is provided by Q branch. But technology is in abundance and the climax sees Bond, M and Kincade designing a few home made gadgets
2/5
Supporting cast
Judi Dench’s swansong as M and the introduction of Ralph Fiennes as the next M is an original and exciting idea. Both actors are outstanding, as are Rory Kinnear and Ben Wishaw (the new Q)
Albert Finney appears as Kincade to assist Bond in the final 20 to 30 minutes. An icon of British cinema in the 60s (and probably short listed for Bond when Connery left), Finney doesn’t appear to be in top notch health, or that may be in keeping with the character he is playing.
Helen McCrory is sadly underused.
It’s a great cast on paper but not quite the sum of it’s parts when the film comes together.
4/5
Overall impressions and memories
I was a little unsure that a film as long as this would hold my attention or be a totally satisfying event. Casino Royale had run out of steam in the last 15 minutes and the worry factor was still there for SkyFall.
Although I was never bored and the film trotted along briskly I almost felt the finale belonged to a different franchise.
Ultimately I couldn’t decide whether this was a good thing or a bad thing, so I was left with the one unassailable fact – Skyfall is ultimately one of the most watchable Bond films in the franchise. Even my favourite films in the franchise can not lure me in when I’m in the wrong mood, but Skyfall has the same sort of re-watchablity factor as Live And Let Die and Octopussy (and yes I know there’s no such word as re-watchability).
Some outstanding performances, terrific photography, lovely humour and the sort of ‘iconic’ moments that have been lacking in the series since the 70s. Apart from Craig rising from the sea in his speedos 21st Century Bonds haven’t given us those ‘moments’ that people talk about for decades to come. Skyfall at least tries to achieve this. Severine at the shattered window, Bond’s entry to the casino, Eve shaving Bond and probably most stylistically of all the single shot of Silva simply walking towards Bond.
I have struggled to rate Skyfall as it’s less than a year old. 40/50 is probably mean and not in keeping with my overall positive comments, but the film has to live and breath for a few years before we can hold it up to the great films of the 60s.
I think one of my memorable moments even before seeing the film was getting the initial reactions, sans spoilers or other major details, from you and @Lancaster007 upon witnessing it 2 weeks before I did. My anticipation went up a few more notches than I thought possible. And I agree with Sam, while not particularly original as far as a storyline, with Skyfall we once again have a Bond film for Bond fans that doesn't dwell on the cartoonish CGI of DAD nor a rookie trying to find his way back to being what we knew him to be. Not that I minded the latter at all, if they were going to do it then it was mostly done very well. But Craig really brings it all full circle here including addressing Dench M's unresolved issues with him, ones he thought were moot after QOS. Death has resolved those once and for all. Let's all hope next time M as in Mallory will treat him as he should be, MI6's most valued asset, without questioning his methods or demonstrating a lack of confidence in them. Gun barrel in the beginning and sacking whatever babe they choose as his leading lady in the end will also be most appreciated.
Bardem and Marlohe are simply awesome and more than hold their own with Craig and Dench here. Bardem the classic, manically quirky yet highly intelligent, throwback to a long gone day when the magnificent Chris Walken gave us Zorin. They missed the mark a bit with Jonathan Pryce as Carver, I appreciated the attempt at the retro villain portrayal but it didn't have the emotion stirring juice or on screen magnetism that Bardem brought to us. That for me was perhaps a casualty of the known scripting issues. And Marlohe, well she's right there with the women of CR as far as the combination of sex appeal and acting chops. I could barely take my eyes off of her even in her scenes with Craig, which was how I also was with Green and Murino, the casting choices have generally been absolutely top notch during the Craig era and continue to be so.
The new support cast of Fiennes, Harris, and Whishaw did mostly a fine job. I think there's room for improvement with the latter two. They need to make up their minds regarding what role Moneypenny is going to play. A secretary to M or a part-time field agent there to assist Bond, which one is it? I'd prefer to be introduced to a one-off character in succeeding films as a field assistant, it's a better idea and always fun to see what kind of person we're getting. And our new Q was done no favors, yes he may be new to the position but for a computer genius and innovator who invented certain protocols he was a bit overmatched. I didn't expect that from Q but do expect this and MI6 security protocols to be up to par from here on out. Either way, their banter with Bond produced some truly funny moments (especially Q's perhaps coy reference to Bond in his current state possibly fitting the picture of the ship they viewed, ignominiously being hauled away for scrap, that fit the theme Mallory was insinuating) and of course Moneypenny's interactions were playful, flirtatious fun and back to the normal standards of decency and class. Fiennes was right on point from the very beginning, immediately setting the tone for their working relationship, and the background they gave him made it clear that he's all about the business at hand and expects the same from Bond during "working hours". He expects total professionalism and results, he's not a shrink nor is he interested in being one. No complaints about Finney or McCrory, not under nor overdone as far as performance nor screen time.
You are so right about the watchability factor. Part of it at the moment may be the novelty of it being a new film that we aren't so familiar with by now, but it's mostly a joy that is perfectly paced and provides lots and lots of the moments and situations we expect from a Bond film. The acting performances and cinematography simply cannot be done any better than they are here. Yes, there are plot holes and the script is not as original nor as good as I'd expect after a 4 year period to do so, but when you overly dwell on that, you miss the rest of the scenery and mostly very Bondian themes throughout that make it a joy. For those reading who have an issue with this statement, PLEASE do not respond as I'm sure we've discussed it elsewhere and you simply don't get what the rest of us see the film as being wonderful for what it is. Your ultra negative Nancy input nor argumentative nature is not welcomed here. If you've nothing nice to say, please say nothing, accept that others don't share your views, and move on.
By the way, I found the Bregenz opera house in QOS to be iconic then for it's originality and brilliant contrast of Arnold's music sharing equal footing with Tosca as anything in CR or SF, and still do.
I thought the 7 UP was probably the most 'in your face' plug, just awful. Much like the film really - which is a shame as Moonraker the book is one of my favourite Fleming novels. Great structure, nice 'evil plan' by Drax and Gala Brand is hot!