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
You say "objectively speaking" which I really take issue with @bondjames. Brings with it a sense of supposed enlightenment as though art can be objectively qualified through some sort of rubric that only the entitled few have access to. The way I see it, most opinions are valid so long as a point can be intelligently and convincingly argued using support from the work itself as evidence.
I think GE is phenomenal. Inventive action sequences, Bond's relationship to the villain actually makes some sense, outstanding use of location to create atmosphere (seriously, tons of post-Cold War murky atmosphere here). The score some hate, so I'll give you that - features maybe the best cast of characters in the series. The Bond girl is both well written and well acted. The cinematography is superb. So "objectively" (although I do resist the word, just using it for the sake of argument) I'd say GE is pretty damn good. Oh, and Martin Campbell knows how to inject a high-octane sense of energy in a film. He has given the series a huge kick in the ass twice. Both of his films just pulse with energy. If I was smarter I'd analyze them as well as their production to try and figure out why, but I'm not that film savvy. They just have a real liveliness and momentum (outside of the script - just in the way the films "feel").
There are whiffs of Fleming, Brosnan is at his most restrained (which is interesting given the later performances), and the way Bond's "relevancy" is worked in doesn't smash you over the head with it like SF, it just quietly sets it up as a small theme and lets the rest of the film answer the posed question.
Don't take my defensiveness here as an attack on your opinion or your intelligence - I just feel like I could definitely argue for GE deserving a place with the "all-timers" on a Bond list, and to just toss out that it's "objectively overrated" and "certainly no classic" bothered me a bit. We've always gotten along so don't take this as any sort of attack on you. This forum is better than that petty internet bullshit. Just saying many of my friends (varying degrees of Bond fan) claim it is one of the best 3 etc, and most recognize it as (somewhat) saving the franchise. I'm not sure what the criteria are for "classic" but given that it is 21 years old, I'd say it's shaping up to solidify itself in the coming years.
However, what I believe is that within that realm, there is the possibility of making an objective argument about the negatives that one sees in a finished product. The original poster has a reason for suggesting that he believes GE is overrated. Those reasons, which he stated, are not without merit. Indeed, many proponents of GE, myself included, tend to overlook such issues. I can appreciate how such issues could irritate others to no end, primarily because GE is a highly rated & ranked film here. If it wasn't, he probably wouldn't be so concerned about its flaws, and I can understand that. The same, applies, to some extent, to SF, another film which I & the majority of others rate very highly, and which receives a lot of criticism from board members, much of it quite warranted if one looks at it calmly and deliberately.
I think GE & SF in particular really show that overall 'sum of parts' assessment of art is subjective at best. I believe that both these films have that 'je ne sais quoi' that only art and design can present to the those who experience it. They are far greater than the sum of their component parts to the majority of viewers (including myself) and elicit a sort of 'adulation'. That is why those who defend these films do so quite passionately, as you just did above yourself. Conversely, that is also why does who don't see what all the fuss is about get as annoyed about it. SP, as an example, doesn't do this in my view, despite it being a superb film on many technical levels. That is why I said that I believe it is 'clinical', after I recently watched it again,.
And even if it was, is that a good thing? I think the embracing of one's personal taste is a key element to film criticism that many critics lack. I want to recommend films to people that I love, not just the ones I respect. Now, the two tend to be synonymous for me, because I respect my own tastes (as everyone should).
I think there is nothing wrong with aspiring towards some sort of objectivity when critiquing art, but I also think there is something wrong with assuming that quality and excellence in art are static and unchanging - to assume something like that is to insult a dissenter's intelligence, even if they argue their personal stance quite eloquently, this "rubric" that I keep mentioning would deem their opinions, taste, and ability to judge art "stupid," in a sense.
A good example is that for every aspect of SP that I have argued is of poor quality, I'm sure there are some that would argue that same aspect is of great quality. Off the top of my head - the humor in the film. Purely subjective at the end of the day. I attempt to evidence my argument by stating that the humor is, often, poorly written, and ill-fitting of the incarnation of Bond that Craig has cut out for himself. Many of the jokes resemble MCU humor rather than 007 humor. My argument is a good one, I feel, but that doesn't mean I am more objectively correct than someone who successfully argues that SP's humor is effective. Now, humor is extremely subjective, so I suppose another example would be the whole matter of Blofeld, or even Waltz's performance (for example, @Birdleson and I agree overall about the film - although he rates it lower than myself - but I believe we disagree about Waltz's performance). Both of us are relatively knowledgeable about film, and both of us could surely argue our points effectively if we needed to. I think Waltz is pretty crappy, and I think Birdleson views the performance as "doing the best he could with what he was given."
For all the people like myself who abhor the direction the script takes towards that final act there will be people who find it invigorating and emotionally rich and rewarding.
Objective quality doesn't exist, but I'm not quite so post-modernist to claim that aspiring to objectively argue a point of view using examples from the text is useless.
I'm not sure if that made a lick of sense. I agree with almost everything you were saying, and when I write film reviews I attempt to be "objective," and work in my own tastes as well, but I also don't like that word because it suggests that there is some sort of "rubric" that all "great" films must check all the boxes of, or else, which I think is silly.
Some of the greatest films of all time are often very messy, and that is part of their greatness (which I think perfectly argues my point here). Some of the "better" films, are really quite soulless (in my opinion) and "clinical," and yet, "objectively," they tick all of the boxes. Personal taste, passion, and acknowledging art as inherently social is the best thing, which is why being a Bond fan is so much fun, because we all have our own opinions, and being a Bond fan on a social forum like this has only enhanced my adoration for the films I enjoy--and there is NO downside to that.
I need to stop typing these long posts, don't I.
PS - All of that said, if someone can't effectively argue their point using examples to back up their opinions I am naturally going to respect it considerably less than someone who can, because they can base their ideas and feelings in something tangible (i.e. the text of the film). Basically, tell me "why" you love something.
Hell, some of you have really got me excited to rewatch QoS, which I have always enjoyed but always sort of resnted as a Bond film. That's a good thing. I'm open, and wanting, to lovig it now.
Haha, I'm an optimist so I often enjoy more films than I dislike, but yeah. Good point about Oz. I do think it's important, though, to entertain intelligent arguments that run counter to our own. It can only enrich our own experiences, as well as stand as proof of the way things change and shift
(just look at, for one example off of the top of my head, the way opinion of Jackie Brown has skyrocketed in the last 5 years or so). That's a good example of a modern film having that sort of social renaissance thanks to some great pieces of writing etc.
Enough of all my pseudo-intellectual BS. Back to Bond.
I like his stuff. I think people were pissed off it wasn't Pulp 2, but now many people are recognizing it as one of his best films (which I think it is as well) whereas it used to be dropped down next to Death Proof on every list I saw. Just used it as an example. It is definitely enjoying some praise in the last few years.
I also believe that the original poster made his comments about GE primarily because of its ranking on this and other sites. Essentially, if everything in art is subjective (which it is) then perhaps it's inappropriate to ever rank art, because it can't objectively be done.
I am currently watching SP for the 2nd time in a week as I type this, and about to get back to it so shall temporarily log off. I have to say that by revisiting it like you suggest above @Birdleson, I'm actually, strangely coming around to it. I'm seeing the magnificence of the production quality in the film as I watch it (almost but not quite up to the standards of TSWLM - a benchmark Bond film in this respect imho). Let's see if I can maintain this unexpected positivity as the film progresses to its somewhat underwhelming denouement that I couldn't even get through (without switching it off) a few days ago.
Yeah, watching the title sequence, there's no way it looks cheap.
May I direct you to my list? :)
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/550181/#Comment_550181
SPECTRE
Goldfinger
On Her Majesty's Secret Service
Tomorrow Never Dies
Octopussy
bottom five
moonraker
die another day
diamonds are forever
the world is not enough
for your eyes only
There was a spirited defence here for GE, but I'm afraid I don't buy any of it! Its slow in the early parts, and the humour is strained, Sean Bean must have been an inspired bit of casting, the equal of 007, but his character is so annoying that it drains any kind of tension between them, (I do put a lot of that down to Brossa poor acting though, same lack of spark with leading lady), Gottfried Johns villain starts out well, but becomes a bit of a buffoon later (swigging from a hip flask during the tank chase for example), Famke janssen Onatopp is another that just is too cartoonish to have any impact.The less said about Alan Cumming the better. I don't think the film has any charisma at all, Campbell and cinematographer Phil Meheux showed tons of it in CR, but GE does look rather cheap. Some of the dialogue is really dreadful, The action only works sporadically, the shootout in the archive, the fight with Trevelyan at the end (though having it in a semi lit room was a mistake), the rest, the much admired tank chase, the pre-credits sequence (only the brief moment with the gas tanks tumbling on the guards excites) and the lame ending running around on a satellite dish while Alan is Cumming on his computer never really got the pulses racing. As for the music, well Eric Serra was a disastrous choice, weird, and not in a good way. Who the hell sanctioned that awful end title song, considering that dreadful final scene with Wade, the Bond theme played properly may have given some kind of lift, but no we were subject to this abomination of a song (I remember not even waiting to the end of the movie, which I usually do with Bond!) Anyway, rant over, GE sits at 21 for me, and that's fair I believe!
I agree that it hasn't dated all that well, but the OTT aspect is what makes it endearing for me, like with OP.
@Mathis1 I mean it saved the series in terms of financial success and the way it reinvigorated it. Regardless of your opinion on the film, this is pretty much a fact that GE gave the series a kick in the ass in terms of success and brought public interest back.
Oh, and yeah the final song makes me want to kill myself. @Thunderfinger, I'd say the most it deserves is top 5 (ish). The least it deserves is top 12(ish). But hey, different strokes and so forth.
But hey, can't win them all. I'm just proud in vainly thinking that I helped bring about a slight DAD renaissance on these boards. Difference of opinion is fun. @chrisisall, as the Brosnan Defender of the Realm, likely helped as well.
When in the mood, DAD is always a blast.
=D>
Au contraire, mon ami. That was one of the best set pieces in the series!
I'm off to watch Die Another Day now.
One thing though, apart from the 'anger management' gag, I'm not a huge fan of the PTS... it just goes on a bit too long for my taste.
Also, finally found the line that really pisses me off the most and really ties Bond and Blofeld together - "in a way you could say you were responsible for the path I chose" (something along those lines). It just reinforces that idea of Blofeld becoming the evil mastermind because dad liked James better, which I hate more than anything else in the entire 24 film series. Hands down.
Some will say "well he said, 'in a way,' blah blah blah" but whatever. It's right there in the screenplay. Bond influenced Blofeld's past. I hated the foster brother relationship to begin with, as Blofeld works better as this mysterious force of terrorism and evil genius.
Just think of how angry we'd all be if we found out Joker was Bruce Wayne's foster brother growing up and he went insane because he was jealous of Bruce. I get that it's not the sole reason Blofeld went all crazy (I get the sense that he was just a nut period) but it definitely influenced him. No doubt. It's right in the text. And that angers me even more than the connection to begin with. Would have loved to see Waltz do a well-written Blofeld who was just the SPECTRE leader, and nothing more.
All that said, enjoyed it more than ever this time, which is a good thing. Still has lots I don't like, especially the final act. I really hate how we cut back to "what's going on back at mi6" so often. It slows the whole thing down. All that nonsense with C. I hate that whole subplot (even though it is a big part of the plot..regardless..it just bogs everything down).
Beautiful film aesthetically and I like Newman's score although a few cues are a bit too "fisher price my first action score" for my taste (like "Snow Plane," although it does have that wonderful TB-esque moment, but that only lasts for a second or so).