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
Why do you feel the movie should have mentioned him being from Azores? It doesn't matter to the story or his character, does it?
Why it would be necessary for an ex-British Secret Service agent to have "an impeccable English accent"? If his job as an agent doesn't specifically require an English accent (that would depend what he'd be doing - his job might indeed require some other accent... or indeed other languages), it doesn't have anything to do with how capable he is in his job.
Silva didn't grow up in England, and he lived most of his adult life outside of England. To me it would seem less believable if he had "an impeccable English accent" and I would need an explanation for that. His accent not being an English one seemed natural to me.
Citizenship is a whole other matter, obviously, and nothing to do with accent.
(Btw, he mentions he was an agent in Hong Kong from ´86 to ´97. ;) )
It was 86 to 97, actually.
EDIT: @Tuulia beat me to it. :\">
Then he comments about how that's when he has her (M) favorite and how he was better than Bond could ever be or something to that effect. :
Wow, I guess he would be! Maybe he was recruited from university? He may have been a field man but he seems like he many have spent a while doing tech work for MI6.
He could have been a bit older, too - twenty something. Your second point would still stand.
I remember when Alias first premiered there was a story about how the show did get one thing right - the CIA does recruit agents when they're still in university or college. Sydney was, IIRC, a state level track and field champion, had shown the ability to learn several languages (showing that she could become fluent in them with further study), had to deal with emotional trauma (the death of her mother at a young age), and had a higher than average IQ. Apparently this was based on some of the real life criteria that the agency uses.
(Of course, as the show went on it was revealed that she was "destined" to be an agent but at least they made a passing reference to real world believablility in the beginning)
If any want to hate on Brosnan, NOW you have to hate on Craig as well.
But I like 'em both. :)>-
This moment could have been achieved too under Brosnan, but it just felt to me that the tie-straightening looked slightly silly and forced the way it was filmed, especially accompanied by Arnold's comedy cue theme.
The tie-straightening moment could have worked, but unfortunately didn't for me.
Completely different, exactly. In SF, Bond had jumped onto the train and was making himself presentable and comfortable again. Adjusting a tie underwater is nothing short of useless.
Watched SF for the second time last and for me it was much better than my first viewing.
As I am more a fan of the older Bonds maybe I was expecting the movie to be something it wasn't ever going to be. I think that SF deserves to be put into the 'unique' Bond category along with FRWL. I would still rate FRWL much higher than SF however.
There are still parts of the movie I don't like, such as Monnypenny being an agent in the field, Bond surviving that fall and the new Q. that being said I think with the exception of FRWL, GF and CR you would be hard pushed to find a Bond without some flaws, or lots
The acting in SF is top rate Craig, Dench, Bardem, Fiennes and the rest are all great in their roles, especially Bardem as Silva.
SF is still not what I would essentially call a 'Bond' movie, but as a stand alone Bond,which is what it is imo, it is a solid film with great character interaction.
Waiting for Bond 24 with a bit more enthusiasm now, which is great.
:)>-
That's lovely to hear. :) I loved it the first time - or I'd never have gone to watch the second time... but found I enjoyed it even more the 3rd time and after that, which was sort of weird for me, but I certainly didn't mind.
"You would be...?" ;) That's obviously totally subjective. Personally I don't think there ARE exceptions. I haven't seen FRWL in ages, gotta do something about that, hmmm... I've never liked GF much, and while I love CR to bits I could make some minor complaints if I was so inclined, which I'm not, really. (Ok, the airport scene is far too long.)
It sure is.
Oh, good. :)
Yeah, the tie straightening in GE was much better and a really cool moment.
I don't mind the underwater tie straightening much but I agree the one in GE was better.
"Oh and I suppose thats completely inconspicuous"
"Oh go on then eject me...see if I care"
"Orphans always make the best recruits"
Her delivery of each is spot on! Sometimes I wonder whether she is the star of the film instead of Craig.
I respect this post, and not just because you see SF in a more positive light. It does take something to be honest with yourself and admit if you've made an error in judgment.
It's an interesting point of observation when it comes to what people deem as "Bondian", as diverse itself as all the various lands and languages our readers speak. Having been introduced to Bond when Sir Sean WAS him, in 1968 as a boy aged 7, I was so thoroughly immersed in tradition that I've really had to sit back at times during the Craig era and wonder what exactly had happened to it. Some fans have said CR and QOS didn't feel like Bond movies without Penny and Q, which I can understand, but I see it a little differently. We still have the Broccoli family (the ultimate factor there, no Bond movie made without their stamp can ever be considered a true Bond film like the 23 they have produced), a double O named James Bond, an M, and MI6. We see a Bond dumbed down in many of the character traits that made him Bond, yet along the way we see him progressing under M's ever watchful eye and regaining those traits. By the time QOS ends, I had fully expected Craig's Bond to be fully normal in all ways Bondian the next time, which I mostly got, but the problem of the beloved, original characters remained, and of course I knew this would be Dench's final hurrah in the role.
So the producers and writers in my opinion had two options when they announced the re-introductions. Do they just bring them in cold as they did from 1983 with a new M in Robert Brown, in 1987 with Caroline Bliss as Moneypenny, and both Dench and Sam Bond in 1995, or do they give them the same sort of back story they had been giving Bond himself in the prior two films? As well as introduce a new M in a similar manner? In this case, Barb and Mike made a decision to humanize these characters past being merely bit roles, and show us how these people came to be involved in Bond's business world. So I was very OK with how Moneypenny had a story with Bond that made her realize that field work was not for her, and now when we see her sitting behind her desk flirting with Bond in 2014 or thereabouts, we will know how she came to be there and future transitions need never be explained again. And it was properly accomplished as opposed to the alien Sam Bond was playing, one who would have jumped Bond's bones on the spot in Macao. Somebody must have missed the sage proverb regarding work place relationships- "never s*** where you eat". Hopefully Harris' Moneypenny will never be written to those lowly depths ever again and have the proper relationship with Bond that both Lois and Caroline had.
So now that we have the characters back, there should no longer be any controversy that we weren't seeing a proper Bond film compared to CR/QOS, but that problem somehow didn't entirely go away in SF. No gunbarrel in the beginning for me lended to that. My boy and I had this discussion last night, he thinks it's not as important where it is as long as there is one. I countered with that while I could understand it's placement in CR/QOS, at the same time the gunbarrel in the beginning is the sign that what you are about to see is a genuine Bond film, and what separates them from the competition. As a child, this meant "go time" and I feel that is one aspect of SF that threw the normal Bond notion off a bit for me. No girl in the end is another. To me it's those little touches that were more important for me in defining my feel for the film and where it might rank within the 23 for enjoyment. There were a few other minor points I will eventually get into in my originals review that also made me pause for reflection, which I recommend to everyone if you want well balanced and in-depth reviews of all the Bond movies as well as learning about the prevailing public atmosphere of that time, to learn why we say and post the things we do.
Bond's survival of the bridge fall is very unwieldy and the only part of the action that I have real trouble with as far as rationalization. But considering we had Jaws, and Bond chasing and catching planes and people in free fall, it's still far more plausible than those situations. If people can go over Niagara Falls and survive, why not Bond once in awhile since that bar was set in 1979 and 1995? As far as Whishaw as Q, unlike Fiennes and Harris who I've fully accepted since my first viewing, he'll need to grow on me a bit. I see the potential there for exciting new gadgets and some good repartee such as in the art museum, but Desmond will always be the hardest support act to follow. Now they've reversed that much like they did with M and Moneypenny in 1995, and it will take a little time yet for me to adjust.
So while I see SF as more Bondian and truer to character in SF, which I wanted, the reintroductions here plus M still exhibiting a bit of distrust of Bond, and some absence of tradition make SF feel like a movie with one foot still partially in the CR/QOS past. It's not a perfect film by any means, not one I would remotely consider the very best in the series, but one that stepped back towards the accepted norm and one that overall I felt was successful in that despite my occasional misgiving.
Good point. One of my favorites as well was when Craig said he'd go find a hotel and she responds with "well you're bloody well not sleeping here".
This is a great post. This is also how I view the Craig era as Bond as being a work in progress, and I expected the more fully formed Bond in SF. I know many don't like the idea of rebooted material, but just because something is different than the first time doesn't mean that it's not valid or bad. It's just different. The only problem I have with the current era is that I don't feel that this point is driven home enough, leaving some people to forget that CR was the beginning of a new series. The more they introduce new/old characters the more I feel that older Bond fans may swing around and accept the current era as a new continuity. I love Craig but I also wish he was a bit younger to further emphasize that he's a young 00 Agent then make his age a factor in the new series.
I expect to write a complete and thorough review soon, I will give the film another look and write my opinions along the way, there is simply too much in it for me to remember. It will take a while since I'll be moving to a new flat this week and will probably be MIA for a while but this is a promise.
@SirHenryLeeChaChing interesting post as usual. A comment about the scene where Bond falls from the train. That didn't bother me at all for one thing only, I've heard too many real stories about people who fell from bridges and the like, sometimes even higher, with no fatal injuries. I once posted a piece of news in another thread about a girl who was bungee jumping in such a tall bridge, her cord broke, and she fell in a river infested with crocodiles. Left with only minor bruises. Sometimes real life is stranger than fiction.
FINALLY! Glad you saw the utter ridiculousness that is Drax's speech to Bond. Its obsurd and clearly not meant to be taken 100% seriously. You should read YOLT, thats pretty ridiculous too in places - the villain walks round in a suit of armour for christ sake.
Skyfall is pretty camp in places too btw ;)
@ Ultrabox- thanks for the nice words and support for my statement. I come down in the continuity phase rather than the reboot. I tend to be more comfortable viewing CR/QOS as an origin adventure and SF as a continuation following DAD and the Brosnan era, because there are elements that tie SF not just to CR but to GF, LTK, etc. Others see these 3 films as a reboot of the series. There's good points for each argument, and you can't go by what Wikipedia says when it calls CR a reboot, so it's all really opinion and what makes sense to you. No one can win that one ;)
@ Sandy- I find myself feeling the same way regarding your bolded statement. I just watched it for the 5th time yesterday and am discovering new things that I'd missed. I really feel this is one of those films that, while not perfect, is not one that deserves such harsh opinion as we've seen. It's one of those that will grow on people who are down on it, provided they watch it enough times and don't dismiss it based on one or two views, I think it needs at least 5 views for one to really get the full scope of the story and a lot of the plot holes will disappear.
Sometimes, I think some of this is just the type of pure backlash we sometimes see when a movie is runaway popular.
I'm kind of glad that he eclipsed Connery (for me that is) because watching Everything or Nothing again today I'm now convinced (me that is no one has to agree) that Connery was and is still an ungrateful prick!
Yep, this is something I'm well used to from my theatre days. Pretentious artists would have to put down any piece of entertainment (movies, TV shows, music, books) that were popular as being either "beneath them" or "pandering to the mainstream". It took me a while to realize what they were doing. Mostly it's a way of elevating themselves and making themselves one of the "special few". They were basically saying that because they're so much smarter than everyone else - or have better taste than everyone else - they have the ability to see through the "hype" and judge a piece of entertainment on its merits, which all of us common people were too stupid or brainwashed to do. Or that they were so talented that they expected a higher standard than those of us who didn't know what truly well-made entertainment was.
I then saw this with people on the internet, and it makes sense - it's a way to stand out from the crowd and be noticed. And most recently I see this with hipsters who eschew anything "in style" (although they follow their own rigid rules just like everyone else).
Now, for some people who dislike something popular or well made they may have their reasons and there are those who articulate them well. But I always get a kick out of those people who use the same tired catch-phrases over and over again, or repeat the same point even after it's been explained to them several times that they're wrong (such as deliberately misrepresenting a scene or line of dialogue).
Skyfall is the Bond equivalent of Trek's Wrath Of Khan. REALLY good movie, but not the be-all end-all, and, like most movies, full of flaws .
Well, I expected to love Skyfall, then hated it lol
Conversely, I expected to dislike QoS, then loved it!
So.. yeah o.O