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
Action is of course not everything. I just think when it's included, it should be very well done, which I think even in DN and FRWL it generally is. The gypsy camp fight, train fight, and helicopter sequence in FRWL remain pretty fresh IMHO. In comparison I felt the PTS chase in SF was very by the numbers - foot chase, tick, car chase, tick, bike chase, tick, train chase, tick...
Also, for obvious reasons, they aren't burdened by the weight of history and nostalgia. Yes, DN and FRWL were the genesis of the series, but that doesn't mean SF couldn't replicate this on its own terms. To a huge extent, CR did. There's a cohesive, fresh vision on display in DN and FRWL, which is evident in parts of SF, but buried under the rubble in others.
I think Mendes set out with really good intentions and I agree that there are elements of SF that show they were really trying to freshen things up and reinvigorate the series. I just personally think it was done much better in CR and (my personal view) QoS as well. It's almost as if Mendes took something that was already fresh and actually went back and reintroduced a lot of the tired cliches that CR had stripped away. SF had fantastic, big ambitions, but for me it just doesn't convince when taken as a whole. And the reintroduction of old elements just wasn't done with the deftness of touch I'd been hoping for (the MP reveal at the end was pretty lame). 8 out of 10 for effort though - but must do better next time. ;)
I think the intention was there too. I think the phrase that I most often use when describing SF is that I feel like it falls between two stools. It's ambition is to be commended, but I think the general thrust of CR is more coherent, cohesive and more streamlined. That aside, I still enjoy watching SF, but I can't help but feel it could've been better, which I never do with the upper strata of Bond films.
Basically disappointment is my overriding emotion when Skyfall is mentioned. After CR and QoS my expectations were set pretty high, and SF just failed to meet them. Had it come out straight after DAD I'd probably have a higher opinion of it.
;-)
An understandable concern! From the brief glimpses I've caught of SP, I think I'll like it. No more Judy Dench M is a big relief. If I don't like it though, then please feel free to ban me!
I amended your comment slightly.
Joking aside, I will always be happy if Bond is getting an audience as it means more movies.
I think SP will have a large bearing on my overall feelings re. SF. If it takes the bits of SF I found most enjoyable/interesting and fuses it them with the visceral, exhilarating nature of CR then it should be great. If it takes the bits of SF I dislike most, the slightly mawkish nostalgia and the need to 'reinvent' then I will look less kindly on SF for appearing to grant it credence with its Box Office haul.
Quite true.
People harp on about the great cinematographic style and characterizations, but do those aspects really make up for the other shortcomings?
SF possesses nothing from the realm of cinematic Bond to lift it above other serviceable entries. Therein lies the problem.
The film's weak points have been discussed to death in this thread, so I’ll leave them out. But we all know what they are. Which brings me to…
SF strong points:
Character story arc
Decently done, but not essential to cinematic Bond. OHMSS & CR did this far better
Formidable villain
Pretty good show by Bardem, despite the repetitive cyber hacking old hat.
Cinematography
Excellent. Probably best in the series (along with OHMSS & QoS)
Emotional resonance/investment
Yes, SF got this pretty much right. But no more so than OHMSS & CR
There, that's it. I'm done… all out.
Based on the above there is no way SF can be considered a high point in the series for me. And I know for sure there are others who agree.
(Nice to see the author is a fellow GE fan incidently).
When SF was released I had it in my top 3. Since being on this forum, hearing all the criticisms that aren't discussed in the real world, it has slid down somewhat. It's still in my top ten but I have to admit that SOME of what the harsh critics say is accurate, some I will never agree. I would say that people have some sort of vendetta and they comb through this film looking for anything to support they're argument. If you applied the same process to any bond film you'll find them equally 'disappointing'. Just keep trawling through it until you have a handful of negative points (no matter how tenuous) and brush over the positives. LTK and CR are both films where using this method makes them out to be turds.
Very good point.
Nolan's Batman trilogy and Peter Jackson's LOTR's are also examples of this...
Good point. On paper a lot of Bond films should be rubbish - but for me and many others they just somehow work. OP is a classic example of this as far as I'm concerned. Fromage conveyed to celluloid in many respects, but I love it any way. That sense of when something 'just works' is very subjective I guess, and I fully appreciate that many fans think Mendes did an excellent job with SF.
Or perhaps we Bond fans have become spoiled snobs? Are we really that open minded for an influx of completely different fans who don't think as we do on the forum? And isn't THIS the result of the success of SF? Have we become so spoiled that we don't like movie fans who do not think as the typical Bond fan who wants a film by the elements?
It is an unfortune inevitability. These attitudes are at their most pervasive on forums where individuals rewatch a film so they can compile what they dislike about it and portray it as a balanced view. And then to portray the general public as some mindless collective because they enjoy the film...
Perhaps the views of those who like and dislike SF are equally legitimate?
As if I'd ban you for having an opinion! :-)
I still love TDK and didn't join the revision that some did after initially raving about it, maybe the shine might start to wear off on SF with me years down the line but for the moment I still love it and threads like this just make appreciate it more.
I'm not sure this is the case, although maybe a few fans feel this way. I honestly don't believe, save a few individuals on here, Bond fans are generally interested in what the larger audience think, it's largely redundant. I think we just love our Bond films. It's more likely that the discussion becomes polarizing because a fair few fans did and still do hail this film as some sort of work of genius. That is naturally going to get any detractors firing on all cylinders and while I can find lots of positives with the film itself, I don't side with the small cadre of fans who can't stand to see this film critiqued. You're immediately placed in the firing line if you attempt to peel back the layers, told to 'Go and watch Brosnan', or the like, which doesn't particularly do their argument any favours. It's a bit like stamping your feet and putting your fingers in your ears. I've seen the back end ripped out of AVTAK, but it doesn't change the fact I have a real love for that film. People can say what they like about it all day long.
The only people describing SF as such (box ticking) are those who have something against it. I have no idea why SF has been chosen for this kind of treatment. It's some sort of sadistic game.
I was referring to @Gustav_graves comment implying that those who criticise SF must be part of the tick box brigade. I've heard this 'defence' many a time and do find it ironic, given that SF is undoubtedly the Craig era Bond movie that most closely adheres to the traditional formula (not that I'm accusing it of being tick box).
SF ticks plenty more boxes than CR and QoS before it, it just hides them under a veneer of thematics and symbolism and twists them enough to appear slightly oblique. That for some people is tasteful, or even inventive. I'm not convinced by all of it and would question the necessity for re-establishing characters, tropes etc... I don't have to have anything against the film to see this, or feel this way.
Story, Style, Locations, Action & Women it does'nt lack. I have watched it around 45 times I am never left dissapointed. I think some found it too dark, and too far from what Bond was before. But dark worked for me on Skyfall I expect Spectre to be even darker and grittier evoultion not revolution.
Another metaphor would be the restaurant critic who goes into a place and spends time looking for mistakes within a £200 meal. Its his job and they have to use their acquired knowledge and love of food to find fault. When most would just go in and enjoy a great meal and walk out happy.
My big question is, did it need to? Did we need M, Q and MP all in one fell swoop? I'm not sure personally.
Again, I think you're coming at it from a misjudged angle. Popularity in Bond didn't begin with SF. To be a fan of Bond is to be a fan of mainstream cinema. It's hardly a niche interest.