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
Like me ;-)
Perhaps it has to do with the more exotic locations and production design. For instance the interior of both the Bahamas Casino and Casino Royale were dropdead georgeous. Expensive looking. And very comparable to the casino's in TB and OHMSS.
Macau, Bond's hotel in Macau and its casino looked perhaps more "colonial", less "classic". Also, Scotland and London aren't exactly the must sunny places on the globe.
Still, production-wise, both SF and CR to me look equally expensive. And not only that. The clear and crisp digital cinematography of Roger Deakins actually made look Turkey, London, China, Macau and Scotland quite "exotical" and breath-taking.
No, for me, SF and CR are like twin brothers, in both style and substance. Now what do we say when we bring in QOS? That movie for me looks like a cheap Jack Reacher or Jason Bourne rip-off......compared to both SF and CR.
QoS certainly has lots in common with Bourne. Not a bad thing in and of itself. Bond has always copied/borrowed from the latest trend and it would have been odd if one of the Bond films hadn't referenced Bourne. In a sense, all the DC Bond movies are in response to the Bourne movies. I'm pretty sure Babs and MGW have said as much. SF was a response to the Nolan Batman trilogy and it will be interesting to see what Mendes is riffing off of on B24.
For me, therein lies the rub. Through OHMSS, all seemed original to me. DAF opened the door to silliness, copying, parody, and the Moore series of films walked right through that door.
The series has always been at its best when it believed in itself rather than sniffing about for the latest trend. Of late the series has felt as if the writers spent a lot of time studying the Bourne films, but the Bourne films were hardly original. One could argue they were influenced by the early Bond films, especially FRWL.
CR & OHMSS now top my list of favorite Bond films. These are the two that stand up after repeated viewings. For me, it's about story and character, not explosions and caricature.
I like Skyfall, but not anywhere near as much as CR. A primary consideration is the fallibility of LeChiffre. He's smart, but makes mistakes. He's not a hundred moves ahead of everyone like Silva. I really dislike the genius villain who knows how everyone thinks, knows what they'll do, knows precisely when Bond will slide down a ladder in time to be surprised by a careening tube train.
My least favorite part of CR is the airport sequence. It's "the we need a really intense action sequence here" part of the film that somehow always feels more video game than film. In SF, it's the crashing tube train that--pardon the pun--derails that part of the film.
Throughout CR & OHMSS, I feel a continual connection with Vesper and Tracy. Severine is too distant and we're really not that connected to M until the final part of the film.
While CR is definitely at the top of my top 10, SF just squeezes in to the top 10.
As for IMDB, the voting there is manipulated by fanboys and as such rarely to be taken serious.
Always in play is the future...
CR is Craig's GE, QoS is Craig's LTK, and SF is Craig's TWINE.
It's all good. ;)
It's for me a choice between:
A) Creating a real threatening villain, making his actions sometimes lack good explanation, BUT the actions in itself are deadly, horrific and really dangerous?
B) Creating a villain with flaws, some mistakes, as if he's an equal to Bond, making the villain sometimes bit boring too, but resulting in better explanations for his actions.
For me, saying the "Best Bond Villain" needs to be like Le Chiffre, is merely a matter of taste. I am very happy that after many years of "forced equals to Bond" -from GE to DAD, perhaps QOS included too-, Bond got to fight a real psychotic menace. I really think, and that is my opinion, that Silva has been the best Bond villain from the past 7 Bond films. Yes, he's a genius. But so where Blofeld (the 'masked' one in FRWL and TB and the revealed one in OHMSS), Goldfinger, Scaramanga, Stromberg and Zorin. I think Silva can be added to that list as well.
The crashing tube for me meant "real danger". Like Bond chasing the atomic bombs in TB, OP & CR, I equally found that a gripping peace of believable terror in a Bond film. In case you forget -and we don't see it- perhaps all people in the metro were smashed down on the floor, with many of them severely injured or killed. It's not just a "cheesy" scene for me.
Yeah well, I find the comparisons between Tracy/Vesper on one hand and Severine on the other a bit unfair. Severine was written as a small part, in the veins of -let's say- Scaramanga's mistress Andrea Anders. Tracy and Vesper were written as big character roles.
You can not ask Severine to be a new Vesper or Tracy. I personally think that she was as afraid as Vesper. Just remember the "tatoo on your wrist" scene. Wunderful, enigmatic and very believable. If Vesper gets the Oscar for "Best leading Actress", then Severine deserved the Oscar for "Best Supporting/Small Role".
And that's the nice thing of "Skyfall". We don't know that 100%. We can not say for sure, because it's not part of the story. The same thing with the policemen helping Silva. Apparently, there must have been quite a crisis within the Metropolitan police. In a similar fashion to events in 'The Dark Knight'.
Does it make Skyfall's story bad? No, we only wish these kind of elements were explained better to us. But for me it doesn't matter. The fact that you can start guessing can be sometimes an asset to a movie too.
Saying that "it's impossible that Silva could have done that" is too easy. We can not confirm nor debuke these things. The thing is, we fans, sometimes want too much explained to our Bond-plate. Leave some stuff over for your imagination. It only enhances creativity and makes a movie more exciting for me.
It is quite hard to say IMO that 'Casino Royale' is better than 'Skyfall'. But please note that these review results are from both critics ánd cinema audiences, and nót just from Bond fans. Let's see the situation as of Monday September 13th 2014:
CASINO ROYALE:
Tomatometer:
95% out of 100%
7.8 out of 10.0 ----> Average rating
222
> Reviews counted
210
> Rated Fresh
012
> Rated Rotten
Audience:
89% liked it
3.9 out of 5.0 ----> Average rating
696,865
> Number of user ratings counted
SKYFALL
Tomatometer:
92% out of 100%
8.2 out of 10.0 ----> Average rating
295
> Reviews counted
272
> Rated Fresh
023
> Rated Rotten
Audience:
86% liked it
4.1 out of 5.0 ----> Average rating
364,646
> Number of user ratings counted
Also interesting are the ratings on Metacritic as of September 13th 2014. Really makes it harder to say which of these two is better no?:
CASINO ROYALE
Metascore:
81 out of 100, based on 38 critics
37 ----> Positive reviews
01 ----> Mixed reviews
00 ----> Negative reviews
User Score:
8.0, based on 0787 ratings
0676 ----> Positive
0029 ----> Mixed
0082 ----> Negative
SKYFALL
Metascore:
81 out of 100, based on 43 critics
36 ----> Positive reviews
07 ----> Mixed reviews
00 ----> Negative reviews
User Score:
7.5, based on 1296 ratings
1078 ----> Positive
0092 ----> Mixed
0126 ----> Negative
And lastly, the ratings on IMDB:
CASINO ROYALE
8.0 out of 10.0 from 360,314 users
SKYFALL:
7.8 out of 10.0 from 403,812 users
Well, I think you are exagerating. But then again, you love me ( :x ), so usually that's resulting in counteracting everything I'm stating with my arguments by your remarks. Something I'm used too though ;-). Anyway, let's have a look at 'Quantum Of Solace':
So your opinion holds better if you compare either 'Skyfall' or 'Casino Royale' with 'Quantum Of Solace'. Yes, looking purely at the numbers, even 'Casino Royale' scores better than 'Skyfall'. But the percentage-point differences in ratings on RottenTomatoes, Metacritic and IMDB is neglibile.
So what's the point? Well, the point here is that you are slightly overreacting :-). On the whole reviewers from newspapers and other media sources ánd those movie watchers who are rating on RT, MC and IMDB think that 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall' are of similar quality.
Perhaps the greatest difference in ratings between 'Skyfall' and 'Casino Royale' solely exists among the real Bond fans, the die-hard Bond fans who have profiles on Bond forums like MI6community :-). Including you @Suivez_ce_parachute.
But please know that I still love you :-P.
Also, if you want the best experience of a "James Bond Trilogy", you could see DN, FRWL and TB in a row. Butttt, for the first time since the 1960's I must add CR, QOS and SF to that rare category of "James Bond Trilogy". Perhaps it's one of the reasons why you can also buy the "Trilogy" on BluRay.
Also, "Casino Royale" is the first Bond film to hit a full 8.0 on IMDB. Not even "From Russia With Love" and "Goldfinger" managed to do that.
Huh? Why do you say that. On RT Casino Royale gets even higher ratings among audiences, an 8.9. That's considerably higher than the audience rating on IMDB.
I think @chrisisall is referring to the fact FRWL and GF get less than 8.0. It shows the people who vote on these things are idiots.
You need to see things in perspective here I think. Nowadays, in the era of social media and internet, people simply tend to vote more online. The people who voted for GF and FRWL are mostly fans, whereas the newer Bond films, CR, QOS, and SF, have been rated heavily by every kind of movie lovers on the internet....non-Bond fans included. And those general movie audiences tend to vote much more with their hearts. Given that fact, it is even more remarkable that audiences vote CR and SF so high.
Well that would prove the point that websites like these are reliable in terms as statistics as there are several influences at play that have nothing to do with the film's quality. IMDb, in particular, has a serious studio plant problem that has yet to be addressed.
All you need to do is look at the voting for Interstellar, which has a 9.2 rating yesterday with nearly 30,000 votes despite the fact it only came out today. If they're voting with their heart, then their heart is in the wrong place.
Exactly. These sites tell us absolutely nothing about the quality of a film and @Gustav_Graves's arguments would come over much stronger if he didn't keep on making reference to them.
Wowow, easy now. You are twisting my words here a bit. I have not said that these rating sites tell us a lot about quality of the film. Those are your words.
I just said that they are what they are: "RATINGS". People rate them. That's it. And certain people rate it high, certain people rate it lower. Directly it does off course not tell us about the quality. But it does tell us something about "what percentage of voters liked the film". And INDIRECTLY you can draw some mild conclusions on that. Even arguments that are about the subjective "quality".
But please...be careful in what I'm saying @Getafix ;-). If my arguments come across as black-and-white justifications for quality, then I'm sorry to say but that's not the case.
how is that in any way inaccurate?
Tell me ;-).