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 think he associates it with having his first hip replacement - not a good time.
For my money MR benefits from Rog, Ken Adam, John Barry and a decent creepy villain. I read the book recently and it actually made me understand why EON felt it was unfilmable. It's decent enough book but not great for a film. It is also very camp, which I was surprised by as I got the impression from the book fans that literary Bond is totally different to film Bond whereas I felt the vibe in MR the book is captured perfectly in the early Connery films.
Any way, MR the film is second or third tier Rog but that still leaves plenty to be enjoyed!
I am always happy to throw some love in the direction of Spy. To paraphrase Judy Dench, it would be a pretty cold hearted b*****d who didn't enjoy TSWLM.
Its always been one of my favourite moore bonds only beaten by LALD.
In fact I have spy at no.4 in my top 23
It has great locations and the pyramids scene is great. The music from the show going on adds great atmosphere with a tense feeling.
To top it all it has the best bond theme ever, great lyrics.
Much like Star Trek 2009, it was aimed squarely at non-hardcore fans, and it succeeded astonishingly. IMO, the franchise needs the occasional 'cinema' Bond to stay fresh.
Question is, will the next Bond be big cinema, or small Fleming?
There is a lot riding on whether Logan can produce a quality screenplay. I don't think he can do a worse job than P+W in terms of story but I just worry that the quality and genuine wit won't be there. I hope it is though. He wrote some decent dialogue for parts of SF so that bodes well.
My first Bond film was GF when I was aged 4 or 5, mid 1970's. I know what you mean about MR though. The first time I watched it too was Christmas. Was 1982 the first time it was shown? Wow! Time flies.
That was directed at the cut..
Of course. :)>-
Does this mean we are friends now? :)
As much as I love MR I wish I was lucky enough to have GF as my first tho, You jammy so and so.
oh, fair play. but he has lost hair too lol
He's getting older, after all.
*The critique of why Eve didn't shoot Patrice after she shot Bond? The film addresses this perfectly fine: she is in shock, the focus is on the fact that she just shot, possibly killed her colleague. It was a split second and she couldn't respond. Furthermore, she was as far along as she could go on her Jeep to follow the train. It was her one shot and she missed.
*In response to: how could Bond possibly survive that fall? Well, how did he survive the 30 foot drop on to a metal crane in CR, or any of the stunts in the QOS chase for that matter with no more than a scratch? It's still a Bond film, so one has to still suspend some disbelief.
*Why is Patrice needed to kill the guy in the room across the way? I see where some are coming from on this point. But again, I think that it's not really relevant to the plot. What's important is Bond finding out who has the stolen drive. Bond picked up clues: the Macau chip and Severine, whom he would recognize later. The film could have come up with some explanation: but it would have taken too much time away from the story.
*Q: I like him as a new modern Q. I read one criticism, that he is not a "Quartermaster" by definition: a military officer who provides supplies. But I think, traditional 'titles' can take on new meaning as the world changes. The current interpretation of Q would be a natural progression of what role Q would have in the modern age.
*Severine: Mysterious, sexy, covert, puts on a good face: a great Bond girl. It's still a shame she was killed off. But in order to set-up the final scene, there needed to be closure with M's story line and not randomly bring Severine back into it.
*Silva: I enjoyed his performance even more; love his entrance and the rat monologue. The more I place myself in the mindset that I'm watching a classic Bond film, the more convincing his character is. Sure, if I want to nitpick and treat SF as realistic as possible, his plan is a bit unbelievable. But Bond films have always been a fantasy, and seen in this context, Silva is a great, flamboyant over-the-top villain, with a lunatic scheme.
I do have a problem with the fact that they never address his ethnicity. He's presented as your typical flamboyant Latin villain, like Sanchez, so it was a curveball to learn he was British SS. Some backstory would have helped. How did he end up in England? Was he an orphan like Bond? That would be a nice parallel. Wouldn't he have aquired a much cleaner English accent if he was from England? I think they had an English character written, but once DC asked Bardem to play the villain they had to change his name to something Spanish.
I think overall we could have had more time with Silva - I wasn't quite convinced of his past with M - if they had done a flashback scene of him being handed over to the Chinese, and shown him in prison, we would have sympathized more with his character and really believed his motivations more - the horror movie face twisting scene isn't enough for me.
And finally the last third: again I could nitpick the details of this plan, and I agree to some extent that Bond's plan to go to a remote estate without any assurance of an arsenal is not very smart. But I like that Mendes is going for themes here, rather than actual realistic military science. Bond must used the old traditional means to take out a modern-cyber villain who relies on technology. Again, it's a fictional story, so for me, it's more about the experience of being immersed in this fantastical world. Bond films have always been able to parlay the line of the real world with the fantasy. I think CR and QOS may have verged a bit too far in the realistic end for my tastes, which is why I found SF a welcome return.
One last thing: that Bond-Silva touching scene. It's still a bit strange to me and out of left field. But I do see how it demonstrates Bonds ability to downplay a situation and throw the uneasiness of a conversation back on the villain. Bond proves he can outwit.
I think I would rank SF #9 on my list: I do really like it, but for me it simply cannot surpass the Gold Standard set from 1962-1971. It may eclipse TLD in time though...
1. OHMSS
2. DAF
3. GF
4. DN
5. FRWL
6. YOLT
7. TB
8. TLD
9. SF
10. OP
11. TSWLM
12. FYEO
B-)
:)
@JBFan626, a great post, good points and observations.
A couple of comments...
Spanish? I assume Portuguese. Though I admit I'm a bit confused about the spelling of his real name - couldn't tell from the pronunciation, but is there a reliable source that confirms it as "Rodriguez" instead of "Rodrigues"? The former (Spanish) appears more in texts I've seen, but I've seen the latter (Portuguese) spelling used, too, but I'm not sure it ultimately matters much regarding his origins - could be either variation of the name, anyway.
I didn't think further back story for him was needed, nor a flashback scene you mention - for me what he said and how was enough and I sympathized with him a lot myself. Felt really sorry for him, in fact. I can't imagine showing in pictures what he went through (flashback) would have worked better and had a bigger impact than watching him tell it himself. We saw and heard what M and Bond saw and heard and I felt it worked well that way. Besides, imagining things can be worse than seeing them.
It doesn't sound like there ever was an English character written as the villain. Sam was involved with the story and script from the beginning, and he has said the villain part was written for Javier from the beginning, to the extent that they referred to the character by his name. When Daniel happened to be at a same event as Javier, he then went over and asked if Javier would be interested, and since he was the character was further developed with him. But it was meant for him from the start.
I guess it's strange in some way - in a sense that it's not what one would expect - but that is one reason why it works so well... or at least it does for those who think it's fabulous, like me. ;)
Apart from demonstrating stuff about Bond like you point out, it also demonstrates stuff about Silva - a bit of how he operates, and his unpredictability; there was nothing in what he had done or said before to prepare Bond (or audience) for that, which of course was the point - Silva's regarding Bond, and film makers' regarding the audience. The eyes of the audience are almost the same as Bond's for a lot of the time during that scene, starting from Silva approaching - we see Bond's eyes reacting to the sound he hears before the camera turns towards the direction of Bond's gaze... then those doors opening and Silva coming into Bond's view (as well as ours) for the first time. Silva running his hands on Bond's thighs is seen as Bond would see it (IF he was looking that way - which might be a natural reaction, at least for a moment - instead of Silva's face in order to read him).
That part of the scene also continues the Silva-Bond sparring (verbal and otherwise) that they started (verbally) just a bit earlier, then continue outdoors after that scene, and continue later in London and Scotland (verbally and otherwise). I also like how that scene is similar in some ways and totally opposite in others to the CR torture scene - certainly not a co-incidence.
I guess the assumption is that London is a cultural melting pot, so it's not unusual to have many different ethnicities represented in the Secret Service. It's more a question of the heavy accent for me. One would think a qualified 00 agent would require at least several years of British citizenship as a testament to ones loyalty to Queen and Country. If that were the case, I would imagine someone like Silva would have come up through the British school system. In my personal experience, children from non-English speaking families, usually learn nearly perfect English articulation from going through the public schools. Whereas those, who learned English as a second language in adulthood almost always retain their accent. So are we to assume Silva came to the UK from Portugal or Spain as a young adult and hired as a Secret Servie agent? This is the part that has me scratching my head. It's a question of authenticity for who the character is supposed to be.
Ah, the legendary Getafix wit. Or at least half of it :) Just for the record, I still smoke my stogies and I can still outrun and out hustle my 14 and 12 year old, who are fairly athletic. And I'm 51. Nope, the "old man" still gets around pretty good.
There are a few things to like about MR, just as in any Bond movie. But the bottom line is that by Bond standards it's a half baked Star Wars ripoff with an awful cast better suited for a spoof of a Bond film. Only DAD exceeds it for rampant stupidity. My thoughts and full treatment of the joke that is MR can be found in the originals thread.
MR better than SF? Absurd =))
It was a pleasure. :)
I know you were speculating, that's why I mentioned it was written for him. They were surely very, very happy he accepted the role (eventually). If he hadn't, I don't know, but I don't think they would have had to rewrite the part (maybe just tweak it a bit somehow). It was still a work in progress anyway at that point, and was developed a lot by Javier himself, and in collaboration with him (some dialogue, some of what Silva does, Silva's looks). They had the script to give him to read, then he and Sam discussed the character and Javier went and thought what he could do with the character - Sam said he was surprised by some of Javier's ideas - and liked them. Javier was given a lot of creative freedom, apparently. (Not ONLY him, of course.) He even mentioned himself he didn't expect so much creativity and freedom with a huge production like a Bond film and was pleasantly surprised and really enjoyed the experience (and loved the people he was working with - according to him Skyfall was in top3 film making experiences in his career, and that ultimately it comes down to the people). Considering Javier's own considerable input the character would have been very different anyway if someone else had played it, even without any rewriting of whatever the form the part was like when first presented to Javier.
Silva was from Portugal (the Azores, in fact... he still makes a remote island his home base), not Spain. ;) Sam and Javier have both mentioned it. Not that it matters in the story, so it's not that important.
Anyway, I don't really know enough to be able to make comments on the points you bring up in your second paragraph, unfortunately. But... just a vague idea: citizenship and place of residence when learning the language don't have to match, I assume, even for MI6?
***
Btw, just pondering the places... Silva was from Azores - an autonomous region of Portugal. Macau was administered by Portugal until 1999... a former Portuguese colony, while Hong Kong was a former British colony. From late 90s onward both Macau (where Portuguese still is the other official language) and Hong Kong have been administered by China. Now, umm... no idea where I'm going with this, just seeing if there are any roads to explore... :P
:))
"Old dog, new tricks." B-)
"If you want to run with the big dogs, you better get off the porch"
Right! He's from Azores, I forgot about that (but I think the movie should have mentioned this!)
I suppose this is the piece I have trouble with. I guess for me it really boils down to believability. While I think Silva's character is great, I would have had a better time believing that Silva is ex-British Secret Service, if Javier Bardem spoke with an impeccable English accent. Or the other alternative would be if the movie gave more explanation of his background in Azores - this wouldn't have required much, simply M describing how she came to recruit Silva, "He grew up in the Azores as an orphan, studied at University in London, aquired British citizenship in 1995, entered the police force in 1996, and I recruited him ias a 00 in training in 1997." --I'm making this up off the top of my head just for example's sake. Something to that effect though, I think would have aided the story and his character more.
If so, then his credibility is now shot totally to pieces. Comparing SF to Dalton's films is one thing, but comparing it to MR, he is now in hoppinmike territory.
=))
MWTGG and AVTAK would be a different matter.
For me Dench's sombre delivery of the line "orphans always make the best recruits" as well as a certain scene at the end automatically make it better than all three of those films.
Watching MR now btw. Its not that bad. A bit silly to say the least and Moore isn't playing Bond...he's playing Roger Moore.
The first half of MR is not bad, but once we've seen the double-taking pigeon and Jaws falling in love, the film turns crazy, with Close Encounters and Magnificent Seven nods abound. This is the closest the series ever got to being Austin Powers.
("Now there's a name to die for baby!")
Although MR certainly wasn't far behind (I actually like the Magnificent Seven music, it sounds epic and fits the imagery of Bond riding along the landscape. California Girls in AVTAK is MUCH worse IMO as is the use of Tchaikovsky when Jaws first meets Dolly)
Actually Sir Henry, didn't you read where I say that TWINE and DAD are the pinnacle of movie making excellence and I love Sheriff Pepper - why didn't they use him more...and Halle Berry is greeat etc?
No? Oh yeah, that's because I didn't say it, just as I never said MR is better than SF, although that ' a fun debate if you want to have it.
You really need to stop making stuff up. You accused Hoppimike of saying he loves DAD (he said it was mediocre) and baronsamedi of being arrogant and rude when he's actually been the one on the receiving end.
You need to lay off the weed for a day or two and actually pay a bit more attention to what people actually write instead of constantly making stuff up.
But do you think MR is better @Getafix? Just interested and I won't judge you if you say yes.
My memory of it is of some yawn inducingly bad cheese which I hated even as a kid, but also some beautiful Ken Adam sets, amazing music and a scattering of genuine Bond moments. For me Ken Adam and Barry and Rog's presence all make it a more valuable Bond movie. Everyone raves about Deakin's work on SF but my understanding is that the camera work on MR is objectively of a very high standard. I think Newman's score on its own condemns SF to mediocrity. That's not to say MR's a 'better film' - just that there is IMO more in it to value and that is of interest to a Bond fan than a dreary and depressing film like SF. I'd say neither of them are very good and I generally find it hard to rank the bad ones, apart from DAD, which is obviously bottom of the pile.
For the record I don't think SF is "dreary and depressing" despite its sombre, bittersweet scenes. The film ultimately ends on a positive note regardless of the death of a hugely significant character. They even manage to relieve the depressing nature of M's death a minute later by having her leave the model bulldog to Bond (a moment I always found quite sweet and funny).