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
None of that bothers me too much either; it's Jinx that affects my experience watching the film the most. I mean, the CGI moments are over in a flash. That character is there all throughout the film. If they've written the character better it would have helped, of course.
CGI surfing is bad, but the VR nonsense is worse. Other than that, nothing annoying.
Just finished the Brosnan part of my Bondathon with TWINE. I've always had a soft spot for this one. Despite some flaws, this is a very entertaining film to watch – with several highlights.
The PTS is one of my favourites. The part in Bilbao is especially entertaining, with Bond having to use more than just his gadgets to get out of trouble. The second part of the PTS also delivers; I know many have issues with the length of the PTS, but in this case, I think it works just fine. It's the sort of mixing up thing I don't mind that they do.
I find that the films slows down a bit afterwards. It's understandable given the amount of action you're served early on, but it drags on a bit until the paraglider part and Bond's visit to Zukovsky's casino (which I find very dreary looking for some reason). The following sequences are a bit of a mixed bag. Bond posing Russian nuclear scientist is equally entertaining and silly, and the introduction of a totally unbelievable nuclear physicist in Christmas Jones even more so. Looks aside, I wonder what made them think the audience would buy Denise Richards playing a part like that. surely they could have got someone else?
The development of the plot, Elektra's involvement and M's kidnapping is alright, but I feel there's something missing there for it to become a great story. It's an "almost" film in terms of the plot. Waaaaaay better than what we got in SP though.
Of all the Brosnan films, I think this is the one he's at his best as Bond. I love his delivery of every line (even the Christmas jokes), and he's top notch in every action sequence. Shame he only got one more film.
An entertaining viewing this afternoon makes it easy to rank TWINE over TND and DAD, but it doesn't reach quite "Goldeneye standard". I've put it behind LTK and above AVTAK, but that might change as I'm likely to rewatch more Bond film throughout the year.
1. Thunderball
2. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
3. From Russia with Love
4. For Your Eyes Only
5. The Spy Who Loved Me
6. Goldfinger
7. Octopussy
8. Live and Let Die/Diamonds Are Forever
10. Goldeneye
11. Dr. No
12. The Man with the Golden Gun
13. Licence to Kill
14. The Living Daylights
15. The World Is Not Enough
16. A View to a Kill
17. You Only Live Twice
18. Moonraker
19. Tomorrow Never Dies
20. Die Another Day
21. Casino Royale (1967)
Personally, I enjoy the VR scenes for some reason.
Sat down this afternoon to watch SP, for the first time since 2016, I believe. This is a film that disappointed me at the cinema (my friends were notably unimpressed as well), and following viewings only reinforced that impression. I was curious to see if time would make me view this film in a more positive light, and I decided to take notes underway to see which elements bothered me, and which elements were good.
The first issue is present already in the PTS. As good as it might be, the tracking shot isn’t doing anything interesting. Bond sees villain, goes to the room with his girl and out the window. Something that takes way to long, IMO. Eventually you get to the helicopter fight, which kinda makes up for the slow first 4-5 minutes – before the title sequence begins.
My second issue is the colour filters. It’s like they decided to turn it up to eleven, making a lot of the film look unnatural and odd, IMO. I wrote in my notes that the yellow filter of the PTS would have looked more at home in a 70’s set period film or similar. It’s also very present in the following London sequences where everyone’s skin tone look unnaturally grey.
The film moves on to the Rome sequences, including the SPECTRE meeting (and that horrible Mickey Mouse line) and the car chase that doesn’t feel like a proper car chase. At this point I stopped taking notes because something was really putting me off – a feeling that would last throughout the entire film. I couldn’t really put my finger on it until much later, but it became obvious to me that SP doesn’t feel like a Bond film. Between the gun barrel and Bond driving off with Madeleine, there’s nothing there that makes me feel like this is somehow related to the previous films. It’s like they’ve dropped the character of James Bond into a world closer to that of Batman and Gotham than the world of Bond – if that makes sense. Adding to that you get the horrible plot development tying the previous villains to SPECTRE and Blofeld – and of course the shared past of Bond and Blofeld/Oberhauser. It’s a soap drama plot twist that on no level works.
I was hopeful that my impression of SP would improve given time, but I’m afraid that I’m yet again only reminded how much I dislike this film. Nothing works for me with this film - at all, and the execution of the personal angle alone is reason to place it all the way down at the bottom. I still question how this film could have been produced, and watching it again this afternoon, I’m starting to worry how the hell Fukunaga can elevate Bond 25 into something other than Spectre 2.0 – having to handle the baggage of the previous film (and the inclusion of the character of Madeleine Swann).
Updated ranking, including SP:
1. Thunderball
2. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
3. From Russia with Love
4. For Your Eyes Only
5. The Spy Who Loved Me
6. Goldfinger
7. Octopussy
8. Live and Let Die/Diamonds Are Forever
10. Goldeneye
11. Dr. No
12. The Man with the Golden Gun
13. Licence to Kill
14. The Living Daylights
15. The World Is Not Enough
16. A View to a Kill
17. You Only Live Twice
18. Moonraker
19. Tomorrow Never Dies
20. Die Another Day
21. Casino Royale (1967)
22. Spectre
Can't argue with that. I enjoy the train fight and the first 45 minutes but that's about it.
Rosie Carver was such a dissappointing Bond girl, at first the deer in the headlights thing is amusing, but when it turns out she's actually working for Kananga it seems like it is heading somewhere interesting with it all being an act, but she gets offed, so in the end it's like eh.
It's obvious Moore's tenure truly found it's groove with TSWLM. I rate most of his movies after that highly.
J.W. Pepper is hilarious.
Yes, the train fight is decent. Not so much the awkward scene that follows…
I might be in a minority, but I never got the sense of "audience-pleasing fun", unfortunately. There were a few attempts, but as a whole SP felt like a dreary experience, with a few laughs thrown into it – all which unfortunately fell flat (as @Birdleson put it).
I'd second this, I'm not saying this is the case for all PB fans but it does seem a good few of them seem to give this film a pass.
Whereas fans of this era not all mind are the ones most horrified by what we got in 2015.
My thing about this film is I went from being one this era's biggest advocates and liking to loving it's output to being one of the most vocal enemies of this film on the forum, to me that has got to say something.
Liking this over Skyfall to me is nuts as some seem to but to each his or hers own.
Well @peter and I are working on it, so watch this space at some point, our reworking of SPECTRE is gathering speed and what started as a bit of a polish has turned into a whole new beast.
We hope to share it with you as soon as it is ready, although that could be sometime yet but to say I'm excited with what my friend is doing to my initial idea would be an understatement.
Other than that, its boresome. The whole C subplot is annoying and I still despise again Bond not being trusted and having to go rogue. Hell, just tell M about the video from Dench's M and went on a hunch instead of beating around the bush. Make the mission to Rome an off the books one from M.
"I'll give you 72 hours to follow up on this. After that you are on your own and you will have to answer to the PM about Mexico City."
Just this little bit here would have been a massive improvement, @Last_Rat_Standing!
It's a simple fix. It would get rid of the whole rogue subplot and have M on Bonds side the entire time. Which would have gotten rid of Q showing up in Austria. Q could just feed Bond the information like Moneypenny did from England. If you keep the C subplot, then have M vouch for both Bonds mission and keeping the service afloat.
Even better, the folder that is handed to Bond at the end of Skyfall contains information about Sciarra. However it escalates to the damage in Mexico City and M has to trust Bond to finish what was started, hence the 72 hours. That eliminates the Dench cameo and he receives the Skyfall personal effects in the mail.
Yes, that little fix would go a long way improving on the plot. All those thing you mention here would have been preferable to what we got.
Definitely!
______________
Skyfall
After watching SP yesterday, I thought it would be a good idea to rewatch SF too. I was – as with SP, curious to see what impression SF would leave, not having watched it in a long time.
The last viewing didn’t really make much of a positive impression, and unfortunately this one didn’t either. As with SP, the plan was to take a few notes, but as I pressed play I decided to just watch through it and take notes afterwards. The only note I could write down though, was that I struggle with this film.
And I really do. Having just finished it, there’s a similar issue present as the one I had with SP. I never truly get the feeling of watching a Bond film. Sure, there are a few scenes and moments that provide some Bondian elements (most notably at the very end), but as a whole, I feel like I’m watching something completely else. And I don’t know why. It may be the direction, the fact that Mendes is making a go at exploring Bond’s past (which I find unnecessary), or the overall (dreary) look of the film. It’s pretty dark, and I feel Mendes is providing us with a character exploration of Bond more than a Bond adventure. There’s little of the exciting escapism that I always expect from a Bond film. SF is for me entering some sort of Nolan-esque territory (in feel more than plot development), and being someone who has no time for Nolan films, SF just doesn’t sit well.
I would love to be one of those who find SF great entertainment, but for me, it isn’t cinema Bond. At least it’s better than SP. Updated ranking with SF included:
1. Thunderball
2. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
3. From Russia with Love
4. For Your Eyes Only
5. The Spy Who Loved Me
6. Goldfinger
7. Octopussy
8. Live and Let Die/Diamonds Are Forever
10. Goldeneye
11. Dr. No
12. The Man with the Golden Gun
13. Licence to Kill
14. The Living Daylights
15. The World Is Not Enough
16. A View to a Kill
17. You Only Live Twice
18. Moonraker
19. Tomorrow Never Dies
20. Die Another Day
21. Skyfall
22. Casino Royale (1967)
23. Spectre
I'm curious to see where QOS will land.
I am too; it's been a few years since I watched it the last time. One thing I didn't mention in my SF or SP review, is the runtime. They both feel way to long for my liking, and could have been cut at least 10-15 mins shorter. QoS certainly doesn't feel too long.
The runtime of SF doesn't bother me. SP on the other hand? The shorter the better. I used to think QOS was too short but now I actually appreciate it after the latest films. The pace is like a bullet. I still would've made it a few minutes longer in order to have a couple scenes with Guy Haines and the original ending.
The runtime is definitely most noticeable with SP. That film could have been a full 30 min shorter for all I care. As for QoS I agree that a few minutes longer to include the scenes you mention would have been great. Still enjoy the runtime as it is though. Some films just benefit from being shorter.
You really don't like the Craig era do you?
This is how I felt with the Pierce era, yes he looked liked Bond and he was given every element to convince you of it but you know what I never fell for it. I've Never been a fan of window dressing personally.
Maybe you'll get your wish with the next Bond.
Although anyone expecting returning to Moore/Pierce type I think is going to be disappointed but I guess we'll see.
@Shardlake and i have embarked on a little experiment/fun journey together... One may call it fan-fic... and I suppose one wouldn't be wrong in saying that. We are fans, and this is our fiction...
However, the effort that we're putting into this has been genuinely sincere and as professional as we can execute.
And, I will note: Shardlake is not a trained writer, but this guy has come up with such amazing plot points, it's made my job that much more exciting and fun-- it was a no-brainer for me to join him on this journey. Shardlake has a great imagination and I would say this guy was born with a creative-side brain-- and he has let it pour out over many emails, notes, scripts pages and Skype!
P
@peter looking forward to reading this.
@Remington — so nice to hear! @Shardlake is so very mindful, and I know from the care of his work, his priority is to entertain our friendly members. When it’s posted, my sincere hope is that you enjoy the read!
I like Nolan films. I would say that like Skyfall, they are introspective and have a fair share of drama, but unlike Skyfall, they can be quite heavy on plot. They have busy stories, while Skyfall is a very "breathy" film. Many scenes are given ample room to develop.
Without meaning at all to come across as judgmental, I'd love to understand just how you (and well, anyone else) has this opinion. I feel if I asked the right questions I might understand it, but I don't know what they are! It's not so much about story, characters, cinematography, but about how one feels while watching a certain moment. In fact, I'd love to step on your shoes for a few hours, give these films a watch and personally understand how you feel about them.
I wouldn't necessarily go that far. It's just the two Mendes films that I really can't take. Neither of them provided enough moments to get really excited about (none at all for SP). I've never had any big issues with CR/QoS.
The big difference is how heavy the plots are for sure; SF is lightweight in comparison. It's the overall tone and feel that I never manage to enjoy. It's to bleak for my taste.
It's a difficult thing to explain. As I wrote in my review, I never truly get the feeling of watching a Bond film. @Birdleson mentions the Scotland sequence. That's not Bond for me. If someone told me that this place would be the finale of a Bond film before 2012 (and the Aston wasn't pictured in the lower left half), I wouldn't have believed them. Some sort of Batman hideaway sure, but not Bond:
And I'm not ignoring Bond's Scottish past or anything, but looking at the lodge; it's belonging in a horror flick more than a Bond adventure – at least the way it's presented and shot (IMO).
I guess SF is just a too dreary film for me to truly enjoy.