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
I like QOS a bit more than I used to but it does feel messy in places. It sort of feels like it want to be an "indie" Bond film in some places with its fancy shots of random objects.
CR, SF (and LTK for that matter) have a more conventional style of filmmaking.
I admit i may not always be an expert when reading body language but please don't make your criticisms of me sound so personal next time (I understand you may/may not be joking but nonetheless it's pretty harsh language).
Dalton is Fleming's Bond and that was his aim. He captures perfectly the different traits in the novels of the character ; and Dalton expressed so many emotions in his films that Bond has. That is why I find new things in the layers he presents.
Craig has a lot of that one-noteness which by a third film is getting tired for me. He is still a Bond in assembly, so, the more complete aspect does not wash here.
I actually miss the Brosnan style of Bond in Goldeneye which was so original and a great portrayal. Brosnan admitted Dalton was brave for being so close to Fleming, and he could not do that. And I respect him for that! He is honest. And Brosnan was so witty in Goldeneye. He does not try too hard. The tie straightening just after Brosnan's tank stops, urinates all over the handcuff adjustment in the SF PTS.
I think it shows how fickle people are to abandon Brosnan so quickly with the advent of Craig. Me, I need more time to get used to a new Bond. Even Christopher Lee who is Fleming's cousin said Brosnan was close to what Ian intended. He never dismissed Dalton either or Lazenby for that matter.
But, I will be the first to admit that DAD especially over-did all the things that Goldeneye got right on the whole. I would have loved to see Brosnan do a dead serious Bond and leave on that note. Shame in a way looking back.
In truth, in retrospect, I appreciate Brosnan's contribution in Goldeneye more and more. He was a great all-rounder, if, we are talking about the Bond outside of the Fleming image. And he was tough when he needed to be. But he also had huge charm and that train scene when he rescues Natalia was an excellent showcase of the tough Bond. He captured that chivalry Bond has so well.
And I hated how Bond allowed Severine to die. Brosnan's Bond was more the gentleman, and another reason why I rank him way higher. Even the classic Bond would never allow that to happen to a woman in front of his eyes. That was cowardly of Bond in SF. He made sure to save himself first which was unmanly. Go Brosnan!
GQ Magazine very well pointed out that Craig's Bond is mostly the blunt instrument but little else ; and praised Dalton's adherence to Fleming. The character has more shadings in those novels which Dalton conveyed so well.
And sorry, but in seeing that shower scene in SF again made Bond creepy knowing she was sexually exploited since the age of twelve. Bond could not find another woman, but, a woman that has been abused and used by many men before him? Here is a link which echoes my thoughts :
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2012/11/09/james-bond-in-skyfall-hero-patriot-and-exploiter-of-sex-trafficking-victims/
In view of the above article, may I ask why Craig who has some sway over the direction of the franchise did not see anything wrong with this scene in the shower? Even Dalton told John Glen that he would refuse to have a love scene with Lupe in LTK, because he felt she was too psychologically damaged, and therefore no challenge to Bond as a seducer. Glen compromised the scene by making Lupe seduce him. But the original script was to have Bond do it.
It is high time that women are not shown as throwaways in 2013. Bond needs to mature. It seems any woman who is sexually powerful dies! I guess the world of men is still threatened by a very sexually aware woman who also happens to be beautiful.
With all due respect to Bond fans, but I do not see a major difference between Craig and Damon in the Bourne films. Damon too plays the character as a one-note expression for most of the films.
And no matter what anyone says, Bourne ushered in that style and to me, Bond has those elements in the re-boot. Hollywood unfortunately these days goes where the proven success is. It is all about bottom line and box office. Bourne made it safe for Bond to venture in there.
Thats a little unfair don't you think? Agreed her death is a little abrupt but Craig couldn't really do anything to prevent it. He'd have been shot himself if he tried to make a move and Severine would have ended up dying anyway. In GE he didn't have a second gun being pressed directly against the back of his head.
Brosnan did indeed praise Dalton.
The quote I read was from James Bond Unmasked: "he played it to the f***ing tee". Haha.
Also I really don't see all that much difference between what Severine did in SF, what Lupe did in LTK and what Tracy did in OHMSS. All three were damaged, independent women and all three effectively offered themselves rather than being coaxed by Bond.
Its funny how you refer to Bourne btw. Recently I was listening to an audiobook of YOLT. At the end Bond is pulled out of a river and looses his memory which is of course how Bourne starts. It made me wonder whether Ludlum was partially inspired by Fleming.
Anyway, back on topic
Severine was the most damaged. No comparison whatsoever. God knows what kind of abuse she endured from the age of twelve and that leaves for a disturbing implication which I shall refrain from going into. She was a sex worker since a young age. A woman who effectively was put into the trade against her will through sex trafficking which is a huge issue today. Bond knows this, but, with his superhuman willpower and discipline cannot control his you know what.
Maybe Le Chiffre was right, or onto something with the above paragraph in mind ; when he asked Bond a few questions in the chair. Boy, did he remind me of Marilyn Manson, and I know where the producers got that idea for his image and style. But I shall keep that to myself and my lady! :)
So effectively, Bond went to a prostitute who is terrified for her life. Perhaps he would have shown way more class that befits the character by abstaining and instead, helping her in the real sense. I saw a great film about prostitution where it shows how a woman who has done this for a living, knows how to fake it and is numb to the act to deal with it psychologically. So why then, Bond would want that is beyond me. Surely a man of sexual experience would know this and see it as pointless.
By the way, I am in no way denigrating prostitutes. In this world, it is very easy to get into through being manipulated for a turn for the worse in circumstance. In a way, I admire them. There was a great George Clooney film called The American where he falls in love with one. But, love is the operative word. I doubt that applies to Craig's Bond in that scene.
Lupe was Sanchez's lover and he punished her for cheating on him. Tracy was a different type of damaged than Severine. Tracy is more confused with what she wants out of life until she meets Bond. She is the product of being spoiled.
But Lupe comes onto Bond by sneaking into his bedroom. She is the one asking for Bond despite his reservations. Whilst SF Bond just strolls into Severine's shower and goes for it. In LTK, Bond does his best to say no, but, it is her who persuades him it is fine and that is what she wants. Surely a major difference?
Why that scene in SF with Severine is particularly bad, for me anyway, is the recent BBC presenter scandal with Jimmy Saville, who got exposed by the media for his sex crimes. And he took advantage of vulnerable people. Had this scandal with Jimmy Saville come out a year before SF, then that scene would have not have been in the film. The film came out just as the scandal broke big. And unfortunately, the Jimmy Saville issue applied not just to him, but many in the higher echelons of the British entertainment industry. And NO, I am not equating Bond with Saville. Just that Saville went for easy sexual targets.
The Forbes article I highlighted previously is a damning verdict. Sadly, women still have a long way to go to get true equality.
Bond should always be a class above the rest. I mean, isn't Bond a man who can get any woman he wants, yet, in SF goes for the woman that has been with how many men over the course of her life? How is he any better than them. They used her for the same thing, did they not?
I know in LALD there is a scene where Bond tricks Solitaire into bedding him. But, LALD is a sophisticated comedy. You take none of it seriously. The film is so spoofy that it gets away with it. And even that was not classy. But Solitaire at least gets to live, so that takes some of the sting out of the tail.
But, SF is a dead serious film with all it's themes. And the one liner along the lines of "What a waste of a perfectly good scotch!" or thereabouts was poorly judged just after her death.
It is amazing with all the money they put into SF, that there are some issues which just should not be there in 2012 when it was released.
That was the most amazing counter-argument against me I have ever seen. How old are you? You are more than welcome to challenge me properly. But a simple symbol won't do, and whether you like it or not, I do best to back up what I say.
On another forum, I had a man who tried to cut me down with a few words, and did not come out of it looking too good.
If MI6 is a forum where we talk about Bond simplistically then fine, I may as well quit. I am just not one for the "What Bond film did you watch with your grand-mother" type of debate which seems to be popping up frequently here. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
The Forbes article I highlighted previously is a damning verdict. Sadly, women still have a long way to go to get true equality.
Bond should always be a class above the rest. I mean, isn't Bond a man who can get any woman he wants, yet, in SF goes for the woman that has been with how many men over the course of her life? How is he any better than them. They used her for the same thing, did they not?
With respect @accopola I think you may be looking into this a little bit too much.
Personally I got the feeling Bond himself had somewhat questionable sexual morals at times. True he wasn't the worst of the worst but he wasn't exactly past sleeping with vulnerable people to satisfy his own desires either. In the GF book as I remember he sleeps with Pussy Galore at the end AFTER he finds out she was abused as a child by her father. Likewise in the Thunderball film Bond knows Domino's brother is dead but still chooses to have his way with her. There's also the LALD scene you refer to. I'd say that scene is played relitively straight despite the silly moments later on in the film.
Bond is sexist and he is mysoginist.
Perhaps this was because I had friends to watch it with, but I was entertained a great deal with DN on this viewing of it! As always, there is not enough action, and the soundtrack is possibly the worst in the series, but when it comes to flaws, that's about all I can find. The story is very compelling, and I'd venture to say that's probably because of the fact that it's so simple and easy to follow, with a driving force that moves things along, leaving hardly any "filler" scenes- everything seems to fall in line with getting the plot where it needs to go. In addition, the acting is superb- Connery, Wiseman, Dawson, Kitzmiller, Lord, and the usual MI6 staff of Moneypenny and M were all in top form, which is always a necessity to make a movie truly enjoyable. Ursula Andress wasn't half bad, but gets on my nerves at times because of her almost useless place in the movie. Nevertheless, she's quite the looker, so that's enough for me, haha! I've always enjoyed how tough Connery is in his first appearance as 007- whether it is eliminating Professor Dent in cold blood or punching guards around in attempts to locate Honey amongst the chaos at Crab Key, the point is, he gets it done! Certainly a lot more enjoyable than I had expected!
Current Ranking in my Random Bondathon
1. GoldenEye
2. License to Kill
3. SkyFall
4. A View to a Kill
5. Tomorrow Never Dies
6. Live and Let Die
7. Octopussy
8. The Living Daylights
9. The Spy Who Loved Me
10. From Russia with Love
11. Thunderball
12. Dr. No
13. The World is not Enough
14. The Man with the Golden Gun
15. Casino Royale
16. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
17. Quantum of Solace
18. You Only Live Twice
19. Moonraker
Misogyny is defined as the hatred of women. I never saw Bond as a hater of women. A sexist, absolutely! Bond's attitude to women is formed by his past betrayals, and so his morals with them are affected as such. Although, he does come across very cold in CR when Solange dies, yet, isn't he supposed to become like that after Vesper betrays him? He is a bit of robot there. Connery's Bond looks ultra warm in comparison.
In past Bond films, the women he treated worst were usually because they were a lover of the villain ; therefore Bond would accord his treatment to them, because of who they were with. So, if they were working for the villain, he would be more of a bastard. Take the woman in the PTS of Goldfinger, or the woman who sets him up in Doctor No. Let's not forget Scaramanga's lover in TMWTGG. Even Lupe is treated like dirt by Bond initially because of her closeness to Sanchez ; that scene where he grabs her hair and puts the knife to her throat highlights that perfectly ; and he means it when he says : "Make a sound and you're dead!". No mercy!
The controversy of Pussy Galore in the novel, Goldfinger, is that Bond changes her sexual orientation from a lesbian to a heterosexual. But she is a strong woman, and though her past is unfortunate to say the least, she is nothing akin to Severine.
In fact, had Bond paid Severine for the sex, then that would have created the uproar. I did mention the George Clooney film, The American : Well, in that film he starts out by paying and then falls into a relationship with her. Now, we know for a fact that the Bond producers would have not entertained that idea with Bond.
But, I say what is the major difference? Isn't it hypocritical? Because both men in those films respectively know her trade and what she is really there for. But, the prostitute in the Clooney film is not forced into the trade, but, does it just make ends meet and wants out. Severine is ultra vulnerable and to boot, she is terrified because she sees no way of escape.
But in 2012, knowing how prolific sex trafficking is, why did they even put such a character into the film, and just to tick the sex scene box? She was heavily exploited, and to all intents and purposes, she gets used by Bond one last time, and then ends up dying an undignified death. That looking back is one of the worst moments of Bond.
In fact, some go as far as saying Bond essentially raped her by coming into her shower unannounced. It is sadly made into a joke, but, some women will have sex against their will for fear of male violence. I know someone in the legal profession that tells me this happens a lot in the real world. So, perhaps my take on that scene is different with the knowledge I have.
With the above in mind, I can tell you that they would not have written in such a character in the 1960's or 1970's Bond. Because it would have jarred immensely. And those films had heightened sexism, but, that was in the culture and seen as normal.
I am not the only one, who is looking into this too much. Many women see it the same way, and though Bond is no saint, there easily could have been a better written script with many better avenues than what ended up in SF.
You have a point here. I find Severine an interesting character due to her backstory and don't even mind Bond sleeping with her (I don't think "rape" really comes into the equation - she's more than a willing participant and looks disappointed when she thinks he won't show up, I think she actually liked him if anything because he saw through her act in the casino). However, looking back, her character is kind of forgotten about after her death and not mentioned again which is a shame.
Btw I've seen The American, very good film with great cinematography.
The setup between her and Bond was way too short. A woman like her would be way smarter than just to trust a stranger just like that. She knows what Silva is capable of and why would she cross the line so stupidly?
She was actually very interesting in how she came across, and a huge opportunity was wasted by her fast exit from the story. She for sure was one of the most interesting Bond women in terms of presence.
As for willing participant I am not too sure. She is just particularly used to be taken advantage of.
And you are right, she was forgotten way too quickly. But given her past, Bond moved in way too quick. A desperate Dan as they say! :) I mean, in QOS, he does not bed Camille because of her back story. And that would have worked way better in QOS compared to Severine in SF. And the sex trafficking past of Severine, means I am unable to alter my opinion. Glamorous it was not of Bond.
I think the love scene is so ambiguous, and her being a prostitute, means that maybe Bond thought it was perfectly fine to come into the shower. It leaves for many interpretations which I don't think was the producers intention. Only desperate men do that. I have a friend who slept around a lot, and even he would turn down women if he knew their past was very troubled. Because the blow-back, he said, could mean you end up with more problems than you bargained for.
SF's weakness is that it so badly wants to be a classic Bond film, and in some parts suffers from the anniversary syndrome, as did DAD. QOS just took the bull by the horns and to me, succeeds by not pleasing the audience. There was none of the blatant tick-boxing, and therefore it worked. It also was not shoved in your face by the mass media, which meant I could enjoy it without the hype. Same as LTK in a way.
Here is a satire of SF, where they critique the films shortcomings
It does mention the shower scene too at the 3:31 minute mark! If Bond has a sense of humour, then, I am sure he would laugh too at this less than reverential perspective. It has to be said, that Bond is the easiest character to satirize given his history.
I saw QoS a few weeks back and I'm still underwhelmed by it. Style over substance is always the first thought that springs to mind. Having said that, there are still some good scenes in the film but given it's status as a direct sequel to CR, overall it's disappointing.
I happen to think Marilyn Manson is very interesting as a person. But he is a similar thinker to Mr Dalton. No, not exactly the same, but both share a similarity in going against what the public deems safe or acceptable.
Ignore the image, it is the mind that counts. Both got huge backlashes from the public, and yet they carry on strong as ever! I can see why Johnny Depp is friends with him!
Mr Dalton is the Marilyn Manson of the Bond franchise! :) How cool is that?
I was 13 when it was released and I remember being desperate to see it. Must've tried four or five times to get into the cinema but was always refused entry. I had to wait to rent it on video.
My girlfriend at school had a birthday party around that time and her parents treated me and a few of her friends to the cinema to see Batman. When her dad asked me afterwards if I enjoyed it, I told him I'd seen it several weeks before in Edinburgh. He said to me he wish he'd known that before because he would rather have seen LTK than Batman and he would have took me in with him. I was absolutely distraught! :((
Sleek, explosive, hi-tech and pacy. Pierce Brosnan cements his role as the legendary 007, giving us a more complete, and composed performance. TND has a good cast, namely Michelle Yeoh, who is the best of Bond's "comrades in arms", although Teri Hatcher was disappointing - stunt casting.
Roger Spottiswoode does well in the directors chair; one can tell he was an editor, not one wasted shot. Other strengths include the plot, reworked from You Only Live Twice and Spy, but giving it a more modern twist to keep it relevant - more so today methinks- and the music by David Arnold. If there was a caveat to Arnold's work, is that he over-scored them, but not on TND; Arnold was almost perfect, and I was left humming the score for a while afterwards, especially "Surrender".
This is the perfect film for the 90's; superficial, and proud of it - not a scrap of pretentious anywhere.
Interesting to read your review. Thank you @royale65!
Great start for Daltons short tenure as bond.I absolutely love the car chase sequence in this movie... now on to watch licence to kill.
Strange how this film so completely runs out of gas. Up to the parking garage chase sequence, TND is smashing, absolutely classic Bond. Easily top 10 material. But then something mysterious happens--the film simply ceases to be engrossing. It's almost like TND is a bona fide Bond film for the first half with a generic actioner tacked on as the second half. Odd how this film so thoroughly loses its way.
A greatest hits Bond film that launched our venerable hero into the nineties, and just what was needed after the long hiatus - all the classic hallmarks are there, but given a modern twist. There really is a lot to enjoy with this one, namely a superb primary cast and a very strong script; indeed this script helps anchor GoldenEye’s more fantastical elements, allowing for some rare moments of introspection (think Bond and Alec in the graveyard/underground lair and Bond and Natalya on the beach.) The script also cleverly asks Bond to validate himself in the post cold war era, something he achieves with aplomb.
Despite his nerves, Brosnan came up with the ideal blend of humour and steel, with a little bit of dramatic stuff to keep things interesting. The script helps a lot with this; Brosnan would never get a script as strong as this in his subsequent adventures. Indeed I was quite impressed with Brosnan's performance in GoldenEye - more quiet and unassuming, than his later ones, full of the self confidence, the sense of purpose, that defined Fleming's Bond. I think it has something to do with Brosnan's nerves; it gave his performance a kind of "flinty" quality, which is somewhat lost, as Brosnan got more comfortable in the role. Think off the scene where Mishkin interrogates Bond and Natalya, where Bond is quiet and subtly menacing, as opposed to the scene in The World Is Not Enough, where Bond confronts Elektra, where he is too animated.
The Brosnan era always suffered from weak climaxes, but not in the case of GoldenEye; the film reached a crescendo - in fact both Campbell and Brosnan got more assured as the film went on.
There are a few quibbles, however; the music is distracting for a large part of the film; Campbell's direction during the tank chase - some scenes required a bit of trimming; Boris gets far too much screentime, especially for such an annoying and superfluous character, and the screenplay was too erratic, at the beginning of the movie, flitting between the MI6 gang, Severnaya situation and Natalya's escape to St Petersburg. (Now then, when ITV used to have the rights to show Bond films, they used to edit the bit out where Boris, Natalya etc. are mucking about in the Severnaya control room. Instead the film picks off with Boris outside having a cigarette - I prefer this version, much more efficient.)
All in all in was rather pleased with my latest viewing of GoldenEye. It was most gratifying to see Brosnan's Bond walk off into the sunset, with Natalya in his arms, (Brosnan and Scorupco have great chemistry, and Natalya is such a resourceful woman, and such a survivor), as opposed to the ending of Die Another Day with him and Jinx, and some cringe-inducing dialogue.
No, thank you @Dragonpol ;-)
Tomorrow Never Dies is kind of like GoldenEye's stupid little brother. Nowhere near as smart but with plenty of boom boom to make up for it.
Goldfinger was the last one I watched, doing a second Bondathon, this time with my girlfriend who's never seen the Bond films before (she loves the ones she's seen so far). Still probably, for me, the worst good Bond film.
This was the one I watched most recently, too. I hadn't seen it in a long time and the film is better than I remembered, for my money better than TND although not quite up to GE.
I don't see that scene as Bond trashing Severine or belittling her death at all. I see that line as Bond pretending that she meant nothing to him so that Silva doesn't know just how much he is getting to him. Reading the scene in other ways just doesn't seem to make sense. Since their first meeting Bond and Silva have been competing for supremacy, and Bond doesn't want Silva to think for a second that he is making him vulnerable or affecting him negatively, giving the maniacal madman the upper hand. As Bond and Silva go out into the courtyard to find Severine tied up, Bond has yet to get the full idea of who Silva is, and just how mercurial his nature is. He can at times do the unexpected, whether you are prepared for it or not. Going into that scene with this in mind, Bond had no idea that Silva was just going to shoot Severine dead in seconds. It literally takes just a few seconds after Bond purposely misses his shot at Severine for Silva to raise his gun suddenly and coldly end her life.
Then that "scotch" line of Bond's comes, and my opinion on its meaning stands. I see it not as Bond showing little care for Severine's death (again, that makes no sense to me), but instead it is him trying to act like he is unmoved by Silva's sudden and vicious killing of her so that he doesn't know he is getting to him on a mental level. Because Silva is very much a mental attacker, as this scene highlights. Just as he taunts M, Silva constantly feeds Bond words that try to make him see that M is betraying him and sending him to death, as well as how the intelligence agencies of the world are all ruins. Plus, just looking at Bond's face as he states that scotch line easily tell you how he feels. His tone and expression show his disgust at what has just happened, as he wasn't unaffected and uncaring towards Severine at all, though some may try to argue otherwise. That's just my two cents on that.
Seriously, mate, cut out the childish behavior. Complain all you want about people's opinions, but when you insult members openly and attempt to assume personal things about them that aren't appropriate for the forum environment, that isn't okay. I don't think it is too much to ask for everyone to respect one another here, though we may not agree on many topics that come about. If you don't like the debate in the community (which does go very deep into an analysis of the characters and films, actually), then leave and take your apparent precious time somewhere else if you feel it to be wasted around here.
I think maybe a close up of Bonds face or something would've helped the Severine death bit greatly. That way it'd be clear if Bond was showing any regret or sadness.
Another solution would be for them to actually mention her later on. A few a small lines of dialogue at MI6 afterwards, where Bond talks to M about her and shows regret over her death, could've worked wonders for the film.
As it stands, I think it does seem that Bond doesn't care all that much.
@acoppola I agree completely on Brosnan but I wouldn't use GE as an example. I think his best performances are Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day, there he played a great cinematic Bond with a few great moments where he got to show Bonds darker side.
The reason I gave Acoppola this X_X was quite simply because his comment required no other response.
When you start comparing a scene in a James Bond film to this:
"Why that scene in SF with Severine is particularly bad, for me anyway, is the recent BBC presenter scandal with Jimmy Saville, who got exposed by the media for his sex crimes. And he took advantage of vulnerable people. Had this scandal with Jimmy Saville come out a year before SF, then that scene would have not have been in the film. The film came out just as the scandal broke big. And unfortunately, the Jimmy Saville issue applied not just to him, but many in the higher echelons of the British entertainment industry. And NO, I am not equating Bond with Saville. Just that Saville went for easy sexual targets"
then I'm sorry, but you've really lost the plot. In fact, I find it downright disgusting that someone would even attempt to bring a serial pedophile, who was known to have abused hundreds of people the vast majority of whom were children, into a discussion about a fictional character. It is pretty shocking to try and justify this inclusion irrespective of whatever point you are trying to make.
Hope that clears this up.