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 true - that one scene was sort of the culmination of a series of scenes that Mendes used throughout the movie to effectively forge credible relationships between new (or at least re-imagined) characters which he re-introduced here but that we the audience have known in one way shape or another for many years through their previous incarnations. It was very well done and likely comes from his mastery of stage.
Don't get me wrong I love CR but that is the worst part of the film for me, the sinking house sequence which I've always liked is so much better.
As for Silva being foiled by the fire extinguishers to me it makes perfect sense, he's so enraged and obsessed with killing M that he's not thinking straight and by this time Bond has got his A game back and we see Craig finally the full article, not gadgets, no elaborate tricks just some quick thinking and using his surroundings to his advantage. It illustrates a great Bondian moment and the wink to Mallory is pure Craig, he's always been able to sell these subtle humorous asides from the moment we heard him say "I know where you keep your gun. 'Suppose that's something"
As for QOS being better than SF, I just don't see it, SF is far more rewarding watch, I don't sit there thinking what might had been. I like QOS and maybe it's plot does make more sense but to me it's the most flawed entry of the Craig era, the PTS is great but that chase through Sienna is far too fast and edited ridiculously, the boat chase is uneventful and that plane and sink hole sequence are unforgivable, yes Bregenz is brilliant and I like the climax in the desert and Bond confronting Yusef at the end but it's too inconsistent.
SF in comparison doesn't have me thinking this at all, I always feel thrilled and moved by it's experience, I'm not sure I understand the criticism of the dialogue, I think it's got some of the best dialogue of the Craig era. I think Mendes has set out the stall and potential for SPECTRE to be one of the best Bond films of all time and this is thanks to SF.
-Campbell's was to reintroduce Bond credibly and in a new universe closer to a reality that we had with Connery's earlier films - check
-Forster's was to develop his character (while unfortunately contending with an unexpected writer's strike) and give us an action packed book-end to CR's unfinished story- a frenzied speeding bullet of a film according to his own words, in a way echoing Bond's chaotic state of mind during it - check
-Mendes' was to introduce new characters, kill off old ones, forge relationships between all of them, while acknowledging & reminding us of the 50 yr anniversary (the old ways are best) & providing further insight into Bond's character & relevance in a fast changing technological world - check
I'm not convinced you can call 'lack of explanation' a strength. Decent film making relies on the strength of it's internal logic. If that is robust the audience can join the dots without the film maker having to signpost everything along the way. This isn't always easy and to make it foolproof isn't always totally necessary, but it is achievable and will allow for the audience to buy any stretching of that logic. If the base logic isn't robust it simply exacerbates any shortcomings. It doesn't have to play by strict rules of reality, but must work within the world that is presented to us and if that world calls upon something not immediately cogent, it needs at least some explanation to bolster its inclusion. Sometimes it may just be a single line of dialogue. For this reason I have a real problem with the over-reliance on hacking and computer wizardry to mask necessary exposition.
I think his has been discussed before, but at Silva's Island when he talks about 'destabilising a multi-national by manipulating stocks' or 'rigging an election in Uganda', that makes sense within the world. You don't have to know how, but you can join the dots logically. It's something tangible, you'd read about it in a broadsheet, it adds to the feel that this world Bond is operating in is one couched in reality, not fantasy. Then Bond replies 'Or a gas explosion in London?' And now we're in fantasy land because there is no tangible way a man can blow up MI6 using a computer on the other side of the world, otherwise every terrorist on earth would be blowing up government buildings globally. This feels sloppy to me, it satisfies the themes Mendes builds, but it doesn't satisfy the logic. A similar thing happened in White House Down IIRC. If you're going to wow me with the thematic resonance of this whole picture and build multi-layered characters don't insult my intelligence with random instances of computer wizardry to get you from A to B without any explanation.
One of the key factors that I think effects the way some fans and viewers perceive SF is thus; EON pulled out all the stops to hire top talent, not just in front of the camera, but behind it. That is something that has continued with SP. This immediately changes the critical parameters. To give you an example, take Real Madrid. They continually spend huge amounts of money on individual players to try and guarantee success. Sometimes that ethos has worked, at other times it hasn't. One thing is for sure, though. If Real Madrid bring in 'the best talent in the world' and they perform only as well as their neighbours, who've spent considerably less on 'stellar talent', the fans feel short-changed. Particularly if the Chairman, manager etc insist what they have in place is absolutely top notch. People will begin to question this ethos if it doesn't unfold in the way they'd imagined. It's why I don't quite see the argument of 'well silly things always happened in Bond films', firstly that's not entirely true and secondly, it comes across as a poor excuse for what is essentially a team including several individuals who are Academy Award winning. If you're going to spin all the plates I mentioned above, you're duty-bound to keep them going. Just because you're spinning the 'thematics' plate at full tilt, doesn't necessarily mean you can put down the 'logic' plate for a quick breather.
This will clearly come across as critical, but that is the level of expectancy I have with these films nowadays. That in itself should be seen as a massive compliment and why I don't really have time for arguments such as, 'Oh the DB5 was just a 50th anniversary nod'. I don't care for it. Give me stuff that the other films haven't, tell me a cracking story and leave all the little nostalgic flourishes to one side, particularly if you're going to short-change me with the logic of the plot, something that is tantamount to making an engaging caper.
A lot of what I feel is good about SF has already been mentioned on here and I'm not one of those fans who hates it by any means, I watch the film as a romp primarily, rather than the complex, multi-layered epic that some fans consider it to be. I find the themes do have resonance, but they're often hit home a little heavy at times and on one or two occasions with a wrecking ball. It's a film that's made with heart rather than head.
One key problem I have is that it flirts with a lot of ideas, which is commendable, but it's overly dense. The characters are richly painted and Craig and Bardem, in particular, are totally on top of their game. Craig is wounded, yet charismatic, while Bardem is electric. He'll probably go down as one of the best. But again even with this it does too much, too many characters vying for screen time. I can appreciate Mendes wanting to cram in as much as he did, but I personally think it's overkill. Too many ideas competing with and against each other and not enough time to service them all.
I find SF to be an enjoyable film, it's a good ride if you go with it, but that for me is almost solely down to the characters, the visuals and the crafting of the shots, not the story. If the story was as gripping then I'd rate it much higher than I do, but it is relatively linear without any real revelatory twists and turns. I think of the Bardem cell scene, 'Say my real name', it's articulated in such a way that you feel something gripping is about to come to the fore... Nah, actually he was just an agent from Hong Kong, the same thing Tanner said an hour previously, 'Probably someone from her Hong Kong days'. Just not enough genuinely thrilling plotting in my eyes. In CR we lose the supposed villain well before the end of the film and we haven't even got to the Vesper revelation.
Yes it plays in areas previously unreserved for Bond films and I do commend that, but it still covers it's arse with a veneer of familiarity and nostalgia. I don't buy the 50th anniversary as an excuse for this. Who did actually decide that the film series' had to honour their own existence every ten years?
Verdict for me (which hasn't change since I first saw it incidentally): Enjoyable, but disjointed. CR still the benchmark.
The WRITING is important.
Otherwise just give us a funny and/or action filled Bond.
DAD is better than SF because it's ENTERTAINING, QOS is a better & GREAT Bond film.
end rant
:))
How can a film be 'mass appeal nonsense' but not in the least bit entertaining. Surely the mass market is looking to be entertained?
CR is the benchmark for a strong plot? :)) If it weren't for that 'your friend Mathis' line the audience would be left scratching their head for the next 30 minutes. Why does Le Chiffre say that again? To throw bond off the scent? seems pretty strange, he really More like the script writers desperately scrambling for a way for bond to suspect someone other than Vesper so they just have the villain incriminate him for no reason. That way Bond (and more importantly the audience) doesn't suspect Vesper and they can have their little romantic interlude. Now that's what I call a plot convenience!
3:-O
Well, he did have Osato Chemicals to do most of his grunt work. But that's somewhat beside the point. In a film that's deliberately OTT there's no point in asking such questions (and I doubt it even occurs to anyone to do so). When I saw Kingsman, I never questioned why Samuel Jackson was able to build a lair into the side of a mountain that a plane could land in. Absurd yes, but it's not that kind of movie. SF was mostly played straight. It's not Bourne or the Tailor of Panama, but it takes itself seriously enough that people are justified in asking pragmatic questions.
On an unrelated note, apparently when SF was released here the scenes in Shanghai and Macau were heavily censored to the point of making the plot very confusing. I'm hoping that doesn't happen with SPECTRE.
Did you....quote only that sentence? Or did you also read my entire post @RC7?
R7: don't you know that in movies computers are magic? They can do literally anything. ;)
Oh God help us! It's bad enough GOLDFINGER was used as a template for Bond films. Now SKYFALL? Oh God!
From Russia With Love Worldwide Box Office Gross: $78,900,000
Goldfinger Worldwide Box Office Gross: $124,900,000
Percent Increase: 58%
Casino Royale Worldwide Box Office Gross: $599,045,960
Skyfall Worldwide Box Office Gross: $1,108,561,013
Percent Increase: 85%
It's not by chance they were deliberate in waiting for Sam Mendes to return to the helm to up the ante in a follow-up adventure. While SPECTRE will likely bear little resemblance in plot to Skyfall, many of the essential elements introduced in Skyfall will be present, such as exploring another childhood backstory of Bond.
It raises a few questions: Was Thunderball's financial success owed primarily to the quality of the preceding film Goldfinger? Why wasn't more of Thunderball used as a blueprint for following Bond films, or was it?
As far as @NickTwentyTwo's question is concerned: Yes, Thunderball's financial success is partially attributable to the popularity of Goldfinger...but it was also a function of the full scale media blitz given to TB by the studio and Eon Productions. It's hard to remember unless you lived through it, but TB was literally on the cover of every magazine in America for several months when it was released. If it was a magazine on photography, it focused on the film stock used to make Thunderball; if it was a magazine on sports then the cover article that month was on scuba diving in Thunderball. The effect of a promotional campaign that widely spread cannot be underestimated. Credit the success of GF if you'd like but at that point in time James Bond was a cultural phenomenon in full sway.
I quoted your opening gambit and then tried to explain why people may or may not judge SF on different terms. I also hinted at aspects we agree on, but if you want a more thorough response, see below...
I agree that the acting on the whole is great, as I said in my previous post, with Bardem being a highlight of the film. Severine's scene is also a really powerful moment. Harris delivers the weakest performance in my eyes. When you say, 'Does it belong in a Bond film?' Are you referring to Silva's facial deformity?
This is first and foremost a film, it should therefore service a decent story across the 2+ hours I'm watching. That's the least I ask for. SF has a story, but it's a little disjointed in my eyes and relies too much on the crash, bang, wallop, to mask any deficiencies or oddities that are presented. Silva's omniscient manner doesn't help this. In a TV series you can get away with certain episodes that maybe don't progress the central narrative because they are taking a breather to build characters or their backgrounds. Film doesn't allow this in the same way. You have to progress the characters and the story at the same time, something I'm not sure SF always does. It doesn't not do it, but I think it could be better balanced. The fact we're talking about this regard a Bond film is a positive, though. The character work on the whole is great, with the exception of MP. Her whole arc doesn't satisfy me in the slightest. I wouldn't have included her. Another side note on character - every time they gave DC a Moore-esque witticism it diminished the overall feel of the character. It didn't suit him. I don't understand how Mendes can show attention to detail with the dramatic aspects, but then think it's equally fine to throw in one-liners here and there which are completely off-kilter. Bond doesn't do this in the previous two outings, he's more sardonic.
I like any dramatic weight that can be added to these films. While we have DC in the role we might as well make the most of it. The most powerful moment in the series is, for me, is Vesper's death. More so than Tracy's and definitely more than M's. There are also some brilliant bits of drama in QoS, but they seem few and far between in the mire of action. SF brings it back round again and allows for time to breath. I do think Bond's return to London is quite quick, I'd actually like to have seen him spiral even further and take much longer to get his shit together. The trajectory is a little off to me. Yes I agree that the question should be always be 'Why?' Why a character does something is key. It doesn't always make complete sense, though. Silva's actions aren't ever fully explained, I still don't know whether he intended for everything to fall into place, or whether it was a combination of planning and chance. The fact this wasn't explicitly clear on first viewing was annoying. I just got the impression that whenever they'd written themselves into a corner, or needed to get from A to B, they'd fall back on computer wizardry to allow them to do something dramatically interesting but bereft of logic. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Linking to that is the notion of 'why' Bond would take 'M' to SF. Because it's the only option, or because it neatly compliments hi-tech/low-tech themes? My instinct says the latter. It's just a little trite. How do we get there, Q lays some electronic breadcrumbs. What is this? Bond using his credit card in a shop in Scotland? Or is Q trying to lay a fake trail elsewhere to keep Silva at bay? I'd quite like to know as it means nothing on the surface. It feels like this is a moment where Q should be operating at the top of his game to lure Silva, but we just have to assume he does it. Strange, given he's been screwed by Silva at every turn up until that point. It's all left unexplained because we're straight into 'childhood drama' by then. Something I'd have happily seen scrapped, or at least stripped back.
[/quote]
I don't think people are actively seeking plots that are lacking, but I think SF does enough to keep the film ticking along at a decent pace, with enough smoke and mirrors that you don't start to question the motives and actions of the characters too heavily. I think this is why this topic has arisen. Because some fans, after multiple viewings, are starting to question whether this is actually a brilliant story or just a mediocre, but lovely looking one that is well executed? As I said in my previous post, I've had problems with SF from day one, so I'm not someone who has retrospectively downgraded it. I have some small issues with it, some large, but for the sake of simplicity the 'hacking/computer magic' to use a catch-all term, and 'The omniscient Silva' are my two biggest problems. They took me out of the movie on my first viewing at the premiere, a place in which I could be forgiven for wearing rose-tinted glasses. It left me scratching my head and that's a shame, because a lot of it is brilliantly done.
I have always thought about this. TB was the film that was released when Bondmania peaked. GF was the film that wowed the audiences, and TB benefited from that. YOLT fell away a little - maybe due partly to TB and partly because that mania simply had to die away a little at some point.
GF was a blueprint, due to the Aston Martin, Oddjob and other iconic moments.
People have to realise that in 1964 this was an all action movie, a real treat for thrill seeking audiences. It's no good comparing GF to later Bonds or later action movies, you can only compare it to pre-1964. And despite the accusation that GF was boring and Bond was a prisoner for a large part of the film blah blah it is still the film that really got the movie series to where it needed to be for longevity sake.
"How to Tell the Difference Between Criticism and Hate"
http://www.dangerandplay.com/2015/02/15/tell-difference-criticism-hate/
;-)
Good points on SF @RC7. I can't disagree with anything you've said and you're absolutely right, but like @Gustav_Graves I am not bothered by any of it - to me it's just a very entertaining, well acted movie (plot holes and all) with some interesting thematic elements thrown in - nothing more. If dissected, its flaws are readily apparent and you've noted them well.
These type of posts are worse than all the 'haters' in the world.
Part of his uniqueness as a character is his (partial) rejection of postmodern society and life. He's very old school, and without that characteristic he becomes just another action hero. SF brought back Bond, I thought, and has the most Fleming in it of any of Craig's films while still embracing what makes cinematic Bond so spectacular.
Bottom line: It's a classic Bond film for the 21st Century. It understands the character and how to lay that groundwork for the character, and then brings him into the 21st Century to move the series forward. I love that balance of "old school" and "looking forward."
Whenever you have too much of either you either A) fall into a rut creatively, or B) Lose Bond as a character, I think.
Oh? Why? At least @Zekidk has something to offer in response, and thanks for that, @Zekidk!
3:-O
Because it refuses to acknowledge that anyone might have legitimate points of view or concerns, instead labeling everyone who doesn't think Skyfall is the best Bond film ever as a "hater".
The DCINB crowd are haters. They'd decided that Craig couldn't be Bond from the moment he was announced and there's nothing EON could do to dissuade them. Saying that SF has plot holes that detract from the enjoyment, particularly on repeat viewing, is not mindless hatred. Particularly people who supported Craig's first two outings. I think relatively few of the people who don't think SF is the be all end all of Bond hate it, I certainly rate it much higher than DAD.
While I don't necessarily see @Sark eye to eye on our opinions of Skyfall, I agree with his latest sentiment 100%.
Yes 'haters' is wrong, and I used the word myself - but only because I couldn't think of an alternative at the moment I wrote the post. It seems an easy word to adopt. :-)
Also, that MI6 explosion scene was a joke. Terrible filmmaking, I could have filmed a better scene than that. I don't know what Dench was thinking, her acting was reminisnt of a high school play.
Then you must really dislike the other 18 films in the canon...
Ok, I can tell this isn't my thread.