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
How is it used in the plot other than as a purely incidental fact?
What is the resolution other than we can assume Bond carries on as usual?
Why was it made a part of the story at all?
It seems that the premise offers all kind or potential that simply is not explored.
I did feel sad when she died but that was because I felt sorry for Bond, not because she was dead. If Bond didn't give a crap I probably wouldn't have either.
I was rooting for Silva at some parts, especially during the bit where he's captured and we find out why he's evil. Bardem was a great villian who was really evil, best since Sanchez, but I did feel bad for him. I felt sort of the same with Le Chiffre in CR, he was a decent villian but I felt sorry for him because at the end of the day he didn't want to be doing this, he was driven to it. Same with Silva really.
"When he came out, he was not a child anymore"
So, you want a psycho study? i am sure, you would be the first to complain about taking it too far. i think, this is an uphill battle, you can't win.
And M was not a bitch for me in SF...
Also it doesn't matter to me if the film is gritty or light hearted there is just a certain escene to a great Bond film that no other films can match, I just didn't get it from this particulary entry, which I really wanted to love.
But I preferred Dench in this one to CR/QOS. There's less stupid trust issues, and more comedy with her and Bond which I liked.
I think you've summarised in essence the problem. None of the plot would matter much if the film simply carried you along on the ride. But it didn't.
I always preferred Dench in Craig's films.
I'm so glad Dench is gone. best thing about the film. I like the look of Fiennes as M as well. Promising. I loved the fact they brought back the old office and padded door at the end. I'd like to see Cambell return for the next film with a decent script.
I prefer her in Brosnans films (Goldeneye especially), but I liked her in SF. Wasn't big on her in CR, hated her in QOS.
There is no such thing, if you didn't like this one. Of course, none of the involved KNOW, what a good script for a Bond film is. Babs really needs to consult you first next time.
I've pointed out that they took the story beyond a mere reference to Bond being an orphan and I corrected you regarding the first film that made an acknowlegement of this fact.
I can't argue with some of your points about the lapses in logic, convoluted story of SF but I flatout disagree about the action not being exciting. I thought it was exciting and - unlike QoS - well put together.
What tells me in Fleming that this is a classic Bond movie. Well for one the picturesque settings. Fleming always spent a lot of time describing the various settings in great detail. Richard Deakins offers some of the best cinematography in the series and I can imagine Fleming having a field day describing the dark mysty moors of Scotland or the glitsy lights of Shanghai.
Another is the exotic women. Especially Severine. True she got killed fairly early but I can imagine Fleming taking great delight in describing her beauty and the way she grips her cigarette.
Third is the fact that Bond - early on in his adventure - is not fit for duty. His aim is off key yet M still sends him on an assignment. This happened in the YOLT novel when M still sends Bond on a mission despite the fact that the grief over his dead wife made him a security risk. That premise was in Skyfall. M still had faith in Bond despite him not being in the best shape.
He then takes his Aston Martin and drives to an invisible hideout somewhere on a tropical beach, but not before the bangs a chick who actually works for the villain (and who's name is Tanya Kissmequick).
You get access to the secret hideout by dialing a certain number on your Ipad.
The villain, who's also a woman and who Bond also bangs (of course) and is played by Megan Fox, poisons his Wodka Martini, but not enough, as Bond is very strong. He makes a quip before going after her.
She hides in a huge underground cave with lots of poisoned tea. He burns it down using a hidden flamethrower (part of his PPK) and kills her by shooting a dart of her own poison.
He saves M in time who's about to drink his tea. The end.
Exactly! Hell, even with what we got with SF, you had people criticizing the movie for bordering over into sentimentality-ville and personally, I think Mendes did a great job taking us as far as he did without lingering and wallowing in it. That scene where Kincade says to M about how Bond hid in the priest's hole when he was a boy, was over and done with rather quickly, as to not make the mistake of wallowing in such melodramatic sentiment. Honestly, Mendes and every one involved did a fine job and obviously NO movie is perfect but SF is an amazing movie first and foremost and is a top tier Bond film.
Kind of like FRWL. The action was spaced out and only occurred when it needed to, as opposed to having it for the sake of having it. This is called, professional film making as opposed to the amateurs camouflaging an inadequate screenplay with explosions and spraying bullets.
As for M being a bitch, technically, someone in her position would have to be. It's the nature of the job. This isn't about personal feelings, it's about getting the job done at any cost. Her decisions aren't always going to be looked at favorably but for the sake and interest of the mission, one's got to do what they've got to do.
Its not for the sentimental...yo have to be tough to do that job and this is, how they showed her. She has to look at the bigger picture - but, of course, will make mistakes along the line. Silva probably was not such a mistake, but a victim to his own doing,.
I think he was literally a rogue agent, who had embarrassed her more than enough. Hence, he obviously knew about their relationship and so in that light I also see it as him wanting revenge on Bond.
Because no matter how annoyed she was when he shot that "terrorist" and broke into her house, no matter how hard she regretted promoting him, she really needed him. And he felt like she was his mother figure.
He was greedy and M had to set him up for it. This reflection is lost on him, so hate can just creep in...
Kind of like FRWL. The action was spaced out and only occurred when it needed to, as opposed to having it for the sake of having it. This is called, professional film making as opposed to the amateurs camouflaging an inadequate screenplay with explosions and spraying bullets.
As for M being a bitch, technically, someone in her position would have to be. It's the nature of the job. This isn't about personal feelings, it's about getting the job done at any cost. Her decisions aren't always going to be looked at favorably but for the sake and interest of the mission, one's got to do what they've got to do.
[/quote]
Yes, but is it necessary to be utterly incompetent as well?
And why doesn't she TRUST Bond
And you might find this strange, but...
I felt ZERO sympathy for Silva. For some reason I sometimes root for villains (Hopkin's Hannibal Lecter, Ledger's Joker - why did you have to leave us so soon?), but not "like this. Not like him."
As much as I didn't like NCFO (and I do admire the Coens), he was brilliant in it.
my feelings excatly, long ponderous film but cracking performance from Bardem!