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
Dalton, Brosnan and Craig all seem ashamed to me. As if it's beneath them (particularly Dalton and Craig). Brosnan overplayed it as per usual practice. Self conscious.
That's the difference to me.
Yeah, pretty much this.
That doesn't mean Moore wasn't himself cringey sometimes but that was more to do with his occasional leer-iness rather than awkwardness.
-- it's this contempt that I sense, that has me not warming to Dalton (I feel it carried into other aspects of the character as he perceived it).
DC does have humour and warmth in his portrayal... He is uncomfortable with the one liners because they don't "fit" with his portrayal, and they would be wise to dump these in B25. However...
... DC is great at dry/sardonic wit, not one liners. Is it just me, or are lines like "yes, considerably"; Vesper admitting that he's got a perfect ass, "You noticed"; discussing their cover, how Bond playfully flirts with Vesper, and then tells her not to worry, she's not his type; going into cardiac arrest, "I'm all ears"...; "Can I offer an opinion? I really think you people should find a better place to meet."; "Slate was a dead end"; telling Fields re: her choice in hotels, that he'd rather stay in a morgue; going to a fancy hotel and explaining they're teachers on sabbatical who won the lottery; re: Mathis and Fields' orders, "You see? You've been gone for such a short time and you're already forgotten."
DC does this very well and B25 would be wise to use this type of wit and drop the one liners. It's that humour, and Connery's and Laz's, that appeals to me most (I accept Moore's because it's Moore, and no one will ever be able to execute one liners as he did (early Arnold comes a distant second for me).
Craig should stick to sarcasm and sardonicism. That's where he's best. Some of us knew it before B24 and it's a shame the producers and director didn't.
I'd also prefer it if he watches it with the delivery, because to me he came across a bit bratty in the last one when being sarcastic. He was much better in SF.
I think it's the most underrated film of the series. Sort of a rough prototype for the Craig era and while it might not be perfect it gets points for its sheer originality and all the great ideas and scenes it has imo.
The plot is great, the villains are brilliant have a great dynamic, there are lots of inventive setpieces, loads of brilliant scenes (bankers office, Bond killing Elektra, Elektra taunting Renard, Q's final scene), the theme song is the best of the Brosnan films and the titles are great too. The only downside is it's bogged down by formula in the form of Christmas (because Bond has to get a girl at the end) but I honestly don't mind her. She's fit and she's fun and to their credit they do find a decent reason for her to be involved.
Plus the film doesn't get enough credit for how it subverts expectations imo. Renard is set up as the big bad guy, even when it becomes obvious Elektra is a villain you assume it's stockholm syndrome. But instead it turns out that she's a psycho with Renard wrapped around her little finger. Bond gets back to MI6, you expect him to meet M and get his briefing before maybe popping down to see Q and get some gadgets, but instead a bomb goes off that kicks off a high speed boat chase. Bond is given a gadget filled car but it turns out to be basically useless. Zukofsky actually comes through and saves Bond's life at the end. I think the film does a really good job of keeping the audience on their toes.
I genuinely think that if this was a Daniel Craig film it'd have a lot more defenders than it does. I think that it's in a bad place, unfortunately sandwiched between TND (generic) and DAD (crap), so it gets forgotten about and lumped in with those two as an example of how the Brosnan era went downhill. When in reality it's a really good Bond film that for its time is quite ballsy and clever.
Sadly though I can't see eye to eye with you on any of the other points. I seriously questioned my life long fandom after leaving the theatre in 1999. I realized my advocacy for Brosnan had been a mistake and became quite concerned about the future of the franchise. If Craig had been in it the acting in the 'emotional' moments would have been far superior (imho), but I don't think that would have changed my opinion of the film.
It was a nice idea, but I just feel it was executed very poorly and miscast (except for Marceau). My personal dislike of it has nothing to do with it having been released pre-DAD and post-TND.
Also popped in Diamonds Are Forever to see if it could also elevate my opinion of it. Not quite, but I did get a few laughs out of it. I guess I reflexively don't take it seriously anymore.
Finally, Tomorrow Never Dies. Only got up to the scene where they escape from Carver's tower, so the worst is yet to come, but so far it's been refreshingly good. It is a fairly generic affair but still at least about average for me. Jonathan Pryce is just too much fun.
and it had Miss Funbags as the lead Bond girl. Classy!
(go on YouTube to see what I mean as it won't let me post it here).
Charlie Sheen knew what her strengths were. It's a shame Apted didn't.
The more I look at SP, and the more I see production stills from it, there's something a little too loosey-goosey about the proceedings; almost as if everyone went on set believing their own press, that they could do know wrong, that they had been here before, so...
It already feels as if B25 has much more at stake, starting with DC's own words about going out on a high...
I see NSNA as basically Carry On Spying but not as funny.
That's fair enough @bondjames. With the TND/DAD comment I was referring more to fans who just accuse the last three Brosnan films of all being cut from the same generic box ticking cloth. Which I don't think is fair because while TWINE does stick to formula in some ways (gadgets, cringey puns, Bond in bed at the end) it also goes out of its way to defy it at times. This is clear right from the PTS, you'd expect it to cut to titles after the bankers office but instead London? Where are the titles? You know something is off, and the tension builds up until MI6 is blown up.
I think another issue is as you said, it all doesn't seem like anything special because the Craig films have hit all those same beats time and time again (MI6 being attacked, trust issues, a more emotional relationship than your run of the mill Bond girl, M and a poor decision from her past driving the story, etc). But for its time it was groundbreaking. I came out of TND a bit disappointed. But by the end of the PTS of TWINE I knew they'd turned it around.
It's a bit more rough around the edges compared to the Craig films but I think this was definitely their first attempt at breaking the mold and doing that sort of film. And I prefer it to a lot of the Craig films. SF is basically TWINE 2.0, a remake righting the wrongs of the original but even though SF is clearly a much better film, I actually prefer TWINE. I find it more enjoyable, more daring/original and less pretentious. I also prefer it to CR (which I've always really admired but never really loved) and QoS (my least favourite Bond film).
I agree that it was a far braver and more creative attempt than the generic, by the numbers TND. I thought DAD was also quite brave, but it lost its way somewhere about an hour in.
I think you're correct @bondjames in the physical sense — as in, body for body it was definitely the closest thing we've had since the DAD pre-titles when Bond did in fact go up against an army.
How I'm coming at it, though, is less literal (or "Rambo" as you phrased it @Birdleson) and more Bond coming up against a sense of scale. Using the sweeping shot in YOLT as my initial example conveys the physical aspect but in the context of the film it also conveys the more grand atmosphere I'd like to see.
Despite the finale, SF in general is focused mainly on the Bond and Silva, not Bond vs. the network of villainy Silva has created. Silva has men, but I never had the impression that any of them offered a challenge to Bond, aside from existing aesthetically for Bond to defeat, if that makes any sense (which is no better than the body count Brosnan racked up). Maybe because we don't get to know any of his men as characters? In the Connery films, the villains have multiple henchmen, and in those SPECTRE films we actually get to meet #2, #3, etc., and we get to see their individual conflicts with Bond, which builds up the sense of force overall.
To be sure, Bond going up against an overwhelming force of assailants factors into this sense I'm getting at, but it's not the end of it. I think a return to the 'army' battles of TB, YOLT, OHMSS, et. al are a much better alternative to a literal Bond vs. an army.
I think it's a fair criticism of SP, actually. The whole thing was supposed to be about SPECTRE but we learned almost nothing about it.
I thought we learned a great deal. Just the Rome meeting alone underscored the worldwide impact of SPECTRE and ran us through their operations in major industries, including how they have monopolized vaccines to bleed the sick dry and how they have brought women into a massive prostitution network for profit while teasing their Nine Eyes interests. Those details immediately allow us to know exactly who we're dealing with, and colors the SPECTRE organization as one that is above the law and acts in a fashion that could easily be called inhumane and barbaric.
We get to see how the organization reaches out for jobs from its agents, how the jobs can be taken with force (as Hinx shows) and we ultimately get to experience how the members act underneath Blofeld's order, which we rarely ever do. How the room dies to a quiet when he enters, how he commands an uneasiness and sense of fear, and how his agents turn like drones to him when he spits an order. We saw the relation of a king and his subjects, and also how these men and women were not just intimidated by him, but terrified beyond belief. I think it was a beautifully crafted scene from a dramatic and visual perspective, but also from a sound design point of view for how the Rome meeting was able to establish how the organization works, operates and runs under Blofeld in the span of minutes. It was refreshing to see SPECTRE agents collectively frightened by a man they served, and later at the Morocco base, how other agents could be robotically ordered by Blofeld to do anything, as if he'd strapped them all to his torture chair and destroyed every part of their brain that can deny a man's commands. We got the full picture, and saw all the different faces that SPECTRE would reach out and enlist, from languages experts to straight up killers, even down to government puppets and influencers in the major fields and industries they want to control, from pharmaceutical to the leisure sector. It felt like a living, breathing organization that has always been out there, acting in silence, and we haven't see that level of depth and consequence before in relation to it.
I think what we learn about Blofeld also informs what SPECTRE is in the film and in this modern period of films, as he is the leader who sets the standard. He thirsts for knowledge, because knowledge is power, in the form of bribery, or counter-intelligence, or simply a piece of data or line of text that can send a nation's interests crashing down. With secrets and information you can do anything. The perfect plan for Blofeld to be involved in is a surveillance one that gets him and his associates free reign over the globe and dozens of nations' intelligence streams, giving him a full view of the world through which his operations can continue to run at maximum efficiency with little counterattack. To get the Nine Eyes plan to go through Blofeld knows he has to rain down terror, and that's exactly what he does in bankrolling Silva for his London destruction and for all the international bombing plots he orders like in Hamburg and Africa; he knows he needs the threat of terrorism to make Nine Eyes a worthy proposition for C's voters to swallow, so he creates the terror. The actions of the villain and his organization inform his motive and the ultimate plan he wants to achieve, and that tells us so much right then and there.
I don't think SP tells us anything less than what other SPECTRE featured films do, and it certainly tells us more in other ways or equal in some respects. DN only mentions the name of the organization and its main goal of being a nationless body, FRWL shows them in action from behind the scenes and TB gives us a peek at their meetings, but SP does all those things in one package already and vastly improves on the meeting of the organization from my view. In YOLT there's nothing new to learn about SPECTRE, and in OHMSS and DAF the organization isn't even broached as Blofeld becomes the main focus so there's nothing to learn there either. In the latter two films it's as if SPECTRE isn't even there because the villainy is laid at Blofeld's feet and neither Bond or the villain make mention of the shadowy group of agents under the bald one's command as a result.
I see. Well, I have no problem with the jokey lines from TWINE you quoted before, and I must say I've grown to like Brosnan more over the years, especially after Craig, whose charm is perhaps a tad too subdued for my taste, even though he was quite terrific with the humor in Spectre.
I agree with your description of Moore in Moonraker. When he cuts off Goodhead mid-sentence while she's describing the shuttle, I also get that feeling of self-satisfaction from him. But interestingly, I enjoy his performance very much, and I think it's perfect for the film. He is so charismatic that things like that become strenghts rather than weaknesses.
We see the same things but feel differently about them.
As you've described, there's plenty we get to know about Spectre in the film, but I think there's a feeling of disconnectedness in terms of how the organization is portrayed. We understand how it works and what it's got its hands into, but in terms of what we are shown, we see Blofeld mostly by himself (he barely has a conversation with another Spectre member), the other Spectre members are barely fleshed out, and the connection between C and Spectre is not felt too strongly. It doesn't feel enough like an organization integrated by criminals and headlined by Blofeld; it feels more like Spectre mostly equals Blofeld, and Blofeld just happens to have a bunch of henchmen at his service. Apart from that, for me at least, Blofeld and C's motivations are muddled. Blofeld speaks of visionaries, but he's the head of a criminal organization. What is his endgame, anyway? Is he out to make money, to become powerful, does he think he is doing the world a favor?
You're right in that the other films fall short in this area as well. Spectre is perhaps a step forward, but shortcomings remain.
Blofeld's motivations have never really made sense to be fair. It always seems to be money he's after but he probably wouldn't need to keep holding the world to ransom if he didn't keep splashing out on extravagent lairs and private boiler suited armies. If he can afford to hollow out a volcano and turn it into the heavily fortified base of a private space program then surely it'd be easier to just retire and live luxuriously off the money he already he has.
I don't find the lack of talks between Blofeld and his agents strange, really. As top dog he'd have people below him to take his words to their ears, and that helps to keep him more in the shadows. He is concealed and largely silent in Rome for a reason, not giving too much of himself because that would crack the myth he has created out of fear for his many members or risk exposing him too much.
As for Blofeld's motivation, I think he is all about the ego. He grew up feeling the need for attention and validation, but never got it. As an adult he wants to be part of something that is truly powerful, and that shows him as the ultimate leader he sees himself as, but nobody else to that point had. He keeps the meteor from the crater that made his base for a reason; like himself, the meteor hung in the shadows, waiting to strike with all its power at the right moment. He wants to be top dog, bend the world to his whims and show what he's made of, etc. This is a common Blofeld trait, best eclipsed by the beautiful interaction Tracy and he have in OHMSS where she quotes some poetry that labels him as the "Master of the World" who owns and controls all, and who is served by all. She plays to his deluded fantasy to distract him, as Bond and Draco fly towards them, but her words do feed into how Blofeld sees himself: the chosen one, meant to rule. The Blofeld of SP is in the same fantasy, seeing himself as this great being, this chosen one destined for so much, and his acts serve as a means of attaining that power he feels he has deserved and earned through his delusion.
C's Nine Eyes would give Blofeld that power, wrapping his fingers around the globe and into the pockets of dozens of nations and their secrets through the surveillance initiative. He could use any means open to him, bribery, blackmail, counter-operations, to make anything he wanted come off. Power, in the palm of his hands. In the end I think C was truly motivated by a desire to protect the world from terrorism, and so he allowed Blofeld to either knowingly or unknowingly perpetrate enough isolated terrorist attacks to allow his plan to go through. C would get his "baby" and dream of a gigantic surveillance arm, and Blofeld would get the knowledge and, yes, power.
C is the next in line of men who SPECTRE and Blofeld have gotten their hands on and manipulated, but C is far more steadfast and ruthless than the past associates SPECTRE have had. Dr. Kutze ultimately couldn't stomach his part in the nuclear game of TB, just like Osato and Metz had second thoughts in YOLT and DAF, respectively. C however is willing to allow a little bloodshed to get what he wants, and is motivated by the failures he sees in men like Mallory to never solve the big problems the right way, showing that he is more unscrupulous than we're used to seeing in a non-SPECTRE member. Through the death and destruction Blofeld wreaks, C finds the perfect pathway for his surveillance plan to become justified, and in his mind he may see himself as impacting the world in a positive way to stop greater terror from going on in the future, if not at the time of inception. We can't say if C understood how Blofeld wanted to use Nine Eyes (for more evil), but I think by that point C was so deluded in his own race for victory and the promise of Nine Eyes that he didn't see the full picture or didn't want to. It's quite possible Blofeld lied to him and promised to get Nine Eyes passed without mentioning how he wanted to use it, lying to C to get him where he wanted him and in a position where his plan could positively impact SPECTRE's own needs.
That's what I'd figure, but Blofeld's words about his being a visionary and that a terrible event can lead to something wonderful, as well as C saying that he made an alliance to put the power where it should be, because politicians are spineless to do the right thing... they seem to me like they're hinting at something beyond pure moneymaking, but it's never really made clear.
I don't find it strange either; not in the Rome meeting, at least. But I think the film would have benefitted with a couple of scenes between Blofeld and one or two underlings, in a private context (not unlike with Osato and Brandt). As it is, in terms of logic, what's presented in the film makes perfect sense, but it feels incomplete.
Once again, what you say makes sense. (My take is that C deluded himself into thinking he was doing the right thing, but ultimately wanted to satisfy a thirst for power, and Blofeld kept him in the dark about his true intentions.) But once again, I feel the film doesn't really tell us this in an adequate way-- the fact it can be deduced doesn't make it good exposition, and with this being a reboot, they really should've taken the time to establish Blofeld's intentions more clearly. Basically all we get from him to help us understand his motivation (rather than his actions) is the dialogue about the meteorite. If this a way of saying he wants power, he wants everyone to bow to him, etc., it's too roundabout to be effective, both in terms of exposition and in terms of emotional investment on behalf of the viewer. I'm all for not beating the viewer over the head with exposition, but there's a difference between being subtle and being almost opaque. I really missed a line or two that alluded more explictly to the place he presumably expected to occupy in the world order, or something. In terms of motivation, they don't tell us enough, or don't show us enough. Stromberg is another villain that has this problem (even worse, in fact).
I can definitely see that we learn about this SPECTRE in the Rome meeting. What I attempted to say initially however—re: Bond going up against an enemy with a sense of scale and where SP went wrong in this regard—would seem to lend itself less towards criticizing what we learn and more towards what we are shown.
For instance, you go on to describe...
Which is valid, and would serve to counter any point that we are only told things about SPECTRE and not shown them in action. However, each of these things above—though they reveal the extent to which the members of SPECTRE are 'terrified' of Blofeld—serve to demonstrate more about Blofeld than they do about the organization itself. This goes to @mattjoes point that —
To be fair, however, as you said—
Which is definitely, for me, the best part of a scene that, on the whole, I do like more than I dislike. I agree with you that it hits some good dramatic beats and the cinematography is pretty great.
Where we are fundamentally going to disagree is in the result of the end product.
That's not how it comes across to me, and I'm trying to pin down why.
Maybe it would help to compare SPECTRE with Quantum—ignoring for a moment that it is apparently a branch of SPECTRE. Quantum feels like something which "has always been out there, acting in silence." I gladly prefer the Opera meeting in QOS to the Rome one in SP. Perhaps I like the build up through CR and the early parts of QOS ('We have people everywhere.') Perhaps the menace comes from the facelessness of the organization? Maybe the SPECTRE meeting is set too soon in SP, and the organization could use a bit more building up? Maybe if we had had a film focusing on SPECTRE operatives beforehand the organization would felt more threatening? Perhaps the problem is Blofeld himself? After all...
Again, focusing away from the learning so to speak, I agree that the SPECTRE of OHMSS and DAF feels noticeably lacking in the menace I'm speaking of. Those two films are also the ones which feature the most Blofeld screen time (as you say, Blofeld becoming the main focus). Maybe doing the organization justice with him as the central villain is a tough task inherently.
Comparatively, per your recap, we have DN which...
A statement with which I agree. DN almost doesn't deserve its status as a 'SPECTRE' movie.
Though, crucially, what it lacks in SPECTRE it by far makes up for in No's omnipresence throughout the film (again, kind of holding back on the villain works here), which is where the real sense of scale of the enemy comes from (imagination, in large part).
Yes, and in addition it presents us the maneuverings of Klebb, Kronsteen, and Grant -- windows into the types of individuals within the organization.
SPECTRE island also does some good world-building.
As I mentioned, I do like the SP meeting (up until Blofeld mentions James at any rate), but I adore the TB meeting. As with SP, we get a glimpse into SPECTRE's dealings, which is nice, but what I particularly enjoy is the operative who winds up getting electrocuted; via his demeanor he comes across (before his untimely demise) as someone who could be a Bond villain in his own right.
And rather than acting fearful, Largo is in the following minutes confident and relaxed. I much prefer it.