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
That's what I love about the Zorin character. He will nonchalantly point a loaded Walther at his head for a dramatic gesture with no worry it would go off. Even if it did go off he'd probably cackle about it.
It's no more believable than TWINE, it's just that the script is much better written and Bardem is so magnetic that you forget about the inconsistencies.
I do always wonder what the Cigar Girl is doing in the boat on the Thames? Why is she shooting at Bond through that little hole?
I caught the beginning of TWINE on the telly last week, and I think I'd just watched a bit of TMWTGG that week, and I'd never spotted how dry and dead-feeling TWINE is in comparison to the old Bond films before (and I'm not a massive Golden Gun fan!). But they open the film in that banker's office scene and it's just... dead. There's no sparkle or wit.. it doesn't even look nice. Sorry, it's off-topic, but it just really surprised me.
Actually, the banker's office is a highlight for a lot of fans, me included. There's at least inventiveness in Bond's escape and I would've been just fine with that as the entire teaser, but the filmmakers painted themselves into a corner where they had to have a huge action scene to start the film. CR would come along and show a small-scale beginning can be just as effective if not more so.
Instead, with TWINE it's time to recreate the GE tank chase on the water. On my most recent viewing, I noticed just how much danger Bond puts innocent people in and needless destruction he causes. Cigar Girl would've eventually been caught and there could've been a creative way to do it opposed to what we got. That scene really drags rather than excites for me.
I can poke holes in TWINE all day long, but don't want to distract from the thread, just to hammer home although I am not a big fan of SF, it dwarfs that film on all levels.
Why? Because it says so in the script, obviously ;)
True but when people say "SF is overrated" - I would say that Statement is a bit overrated.
It always made sense to me - an assassin being nearby to make sure the bomb went off according to plan; her being on a boat offers a quick and easy means of escape; and as for attempting to kill Bond - perhaps she was ordered to take care of him if he didn't also perish in the explosion. It's not really that much of a stretch, imo. It's certainly no less believable than Silva's London antics, which as shown above require a lot of "well maybe he knew this" and "perhaps it was one of many options he had" in order to smooth over any cracks.
TWINE has plenty of issues undoubtedly, and it is a lesser film than SF, but the logic in the PTS is sound. I always enjoyed that action sequence very much.
Hmm. Yeah okay, I'll go with that! :)
It's still a bit of a weird position to be hoping to snipe someone from inside a building, and I am always left with the question as to why Bond is peering out through that hole as if he's expecting someone to be hovering out there(!) in the first place, but I guess I'll go with it!
Bond looking out through the hole is certainly the moment that requires the most suspension of disbelief, I'll grant you that. Though I guess he is prone to sticking his nose where it's not welcome! :P
The order was to kill King, not Bond. If they wanted Bond dead, trying to shoot him through a hole in the building at MI6 has to be stupidest way they could possibly go about it!
There was absolutely no reason whatsoever for her to remain outside the building and shoot after the mission was completed. The only thing it would accomplish was to significantly increase the chances of getting caught herself and perhaps even give up important leads.
(Would it have killed them to give her a name? :) I feel a bit sad for the actress!)
The first deleted scene from the film shows that she was ordered by Renard to kill Bond, as he could identify her after the banker's office debacle. Bond was a loose end. And she was obviously never going to allow herself to get caught, as the actual film displayed pretty clearly.
My point overall, irrespective of the above, is that it's not really any better or worse than any other plot contrivances that were used solely to engineer more excitement or drama in the rest of the films over the last sixty years. I'd never claim it to be wonderful screenwriting, but it's not that far beyond the realm of believability that it deserves special criticism, in my opinion. TWINE has plenty of other, actual issues.
I think Raymond Benson gave her a proper name in the novelisation, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was.
Oh definitely. If I felt compelled to make a list of "50 reasons why I don't like TWINE", listing plotholes would not be among them ;)
Yes, the plot is fine as I remember.
It's funny really how plots are generally unimportant to Bond films! I agree that Skyfall has very fuzzy narrative logic (and Bond loses!) but i think it's a great Bond film! Likewise Casino Royale's is a load of old nonsense about gambling a man to death, and I'm not even sure what happens towards the end with which of Vesper or Mathis is the traitor, but again: brilliant film! LTK on the other hand has a rather excellent plot, all driven very well and with a central action sequence that the whole movie hangs off... and yet it's not one of my favourites. Likewise, TWINE has a good story in it doing lots of new things and with decent twists, but I find the movie rather flat.
Are there many Bond films where the plot makes it better? I think on the whole it's not the most important thing.
+1
Silva said it himself. He creates his own "missions." Just "point and click." And to a degree, he's right. He's the perfect villain for our times. Not only does technology give us "on the fly" options; it allows us to manipulate the possibilities.
When we are in a film, we give in to a story, and almost every story is full of implausibilities. My favorite film of all time is Jaws. Is it gritty and real? Yes. Is it full of plot holes and implausibilities? Yes. But the catch is this: when good characters are written, they create their own realities. Would a fisherman really bust up his own radio with a bat? Not ordinarily. Would Quint? Yeah. And because we have had clues at how unstable the guy is, we buy into the contrived plot point.
Same with Silva. I love that there is ambiguity in terms of what he planned, how much he planned, and when. That makes it even more compelling.
+1, Very well said.
Yes, I'd go with that. As well as the character stuff and real emotional tension, I'd say it also has oodles of style and just feels rich and sumptuous in a way that perhaps TWINE and even CR don't quite manage.
And I've said it before, but it even manages to be a modern Bond film and have barely any action sequences in it!
This, SF might be the only bond film after FRWL with barely any action scenes in it, prioritizing narration over action.
Indeed. The appeal of the Bond novels is not the stories. It's the mystique, the characters the action, the romance, the insight into Fleming's peculiar mind and life style and, most importantly, the excellent writing. FRWL is probably the only plot of his I would value as particularly clever.
Having just finished a re-read of it the other day, I would agree with you. It's a proper cold war plot, with relatively low stakes and a greater focus on spycraft. The fact that Bond doesn't appear til halfway through, when everything is already in motion, is a choice that pays off really well.
True, although OHMSS has more action than DR no , most of SF action take place in PTS. It's the most grounded film after FRWL ; or as you rightly pointed out OHMSS.
I watched Dr No again the other day, and there's that weird bit where they're all hiding in the reeds from the guards passing them in the river, and then, just to give the film a bit of action I presume, Bond decides to randomly murder the next one even though he hadn't spotted them! And then tells Honey that 'he had to'!
He seems rather psychopathic in that moment!
:D
Mind you, his next decision is to try and and attack the dragon tank using only a couple of pistols and that gets him and Honey captured and Quarrel killed, so I wonder if there isn't some sort of evidence for Bond being out of his mind from heatstroke or something when they get to that island!
I will agree here. A techno villain could very well have ended up being awful and it comes off quite well. Silva is the best Bond villain in years.
This is where SF loses a lot of points for me in that there is little memorable action and much of the character stuff, Silva aside, isn't strong enough to satisfy me as it was in OHMSS, FRWL or DN. The former two have the right blend. The Grant fight STILL stands as one of the great cinema fight scenes and OHMSS is still the standard for ski action.
But these are different times and the Bonds have become a hallmark for great action and have to compete with things like the Borne series, so there needs to be that balance of memorable action with the other aspects. Like with TWINE, the action in SF seems an afterthought compared with everything else and it suffers for me as a result.
He didn't just decided to kill the guard, remember when honey said 'why' bond respond 'i had to'. If he didn't kill that guard, they all would have been caught by then.
About getting quarrel killed and getting himself and honey captured. He specifically asked honey to stay behind but she refused, and he didn't ordered or asked quarrel to move so far ahead to shoot the tank, it was split second decision he had to take but it was a poor decision nonetheless.
I understand what you are saying, bond needs at least one action scene which looks completely fresh and new but SF has second longest opening of the series after TWINE and it's far more engaging, it set's the Film's plot right from the start, ronsan got shot in the shoulder and bond finds himself in the same position later while getting shot twice by Patrice and MP.
Very few time we see M in PTS as well from Grand bazaar car chase to bike chase on rooftop and then fight on top of a train, in my opinion one of the best of cinema history, cinematography here is just brilliant.
Agent down, hard disk get's stolen, it was catastrophic.
Sure, but that's not true! The previous three guards went past without them catching them- this one had pretty much gone by too. Bond just decides to kill him for no reason!
:)
Taking on the tank at all seems a rather bad idea! :)