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 read the entire post and think that it's overanalyzing and looking for and finding flaws where they don't exist. All of the enjoyment is just sucked right out.
While I wouldn't say the tone and mood are consistently uneven, I too, was at odds with little touches such as the Aston. It seemed exceptionally lazy to me. I can enjoy the moment on its own, but contextually it's a really very odd moment.
I'm also one of the band who are less than enamoured with the logistics of the plot, but I feel like its forgiveable if you focus on the human story at the heart of the film. As I've said in a previous thread, somewhere, its a work of romanticism rather than classicism and on that level it works. Personally I'd prefer there to be an internal logic, but I'd rather have what was delivered than a logistically watertight plot with no heart.
I guess I'll have to agree to that.
It's just I went into it with an open mind, and by the end I felt just a little insulted. I mean, going into TMWTGG you know it's all fun & games. Going into SF it seems like you're in for a really serious tale, and then... well it just gets silly in spots.
That's an astute observation and well stated. To my mind, all Bond is romanticism, or, to put a finer point on it, aesthetic romanticism. This, not tidy, airtight plots, is what cinematic Bond is all about. If you're hankering after the latter instead of the former, I really have to question why you'd bother wasting your time with Bond films to begin with.
I was the same. My expectations were sky-high given the endless platitudes about the script. I mean, it's obviously the same every film, but there seemed to be a sincerity with the chat surrounding SF and I was genuinely hit for six at the inanity of the hacking malarky. It was a huge gripe as soon as it became apparent, starting with the M/Tanner scene before they reach MI6.
However, like I said, in hindsight it's forgiveable. I'm not going to hold a grudge. It's a film that features many professionals, both behind in front of and behind the camera, who clearly gave their all. And this isn't evidenced through behind the scenes videos or magazine cuttings, you can feel it when you watch the film. It's not a masterpiece by any means, but it is a top notch production and I think once it settles into the cannon it's certainly going to be one of the more entertaining ones to revisit.
Very, very true. Probably explains our mutual appreciation of DAF.
Agreed, hey- I absolutely loathed QOS the first time, now it's fairly high on my list. Second & third viewings tend to even the rough spots out. :)>-
I've seen both upwards of thirty times, I've had SF on a loop in my office today. QoS has dropped in my estimation, while SF seems to maintain a relative level, hitting its stride frequently IMO. I watched a lot of QoS after seeing such enthusiasm for it on here. My conclusion was that people had convinced themselves of things that simply weren't true. Each to their own, though.
I'm not denying it has its plus points. I don't dislike any of the Bond films and there are moments in QoS that I think are superb and highlights of the canon. What I don't believe to be 'true' is this idea that it's somehow a minor masterpiece, that only a few are lucky enough to 'get'. It seems to me like people go out of their way to justify its supposed quality, but end up reeling off endless unfounded, baseless statements. This isn't to say people can't say it's the best Bond film, it's the manner in which people condescendingly imply there's more to it than one might think. There really isn't.
I really do like AVTAK, but I'm not going to try and convince someone that it can be objectively proven. People are accused of being contrarians for disliking SF, which is fair enough, because they exclusively pick at the minutiae of that movie to back up their relatively flimsy arguments. I would say the same could be said for many QoS defenders, reading far too much into the fine details, most of which are borne retroactively, and used by some, as an objective rather than subjective argument.
Bravo! And Olga's character is someone you actually care about. She doesn't steal the show from Bond like Wai Lin or worse Jinx, has some history and an actual connection with Bond on a deeper level than just physical. Such a parallel of Bond. Even the producers have considered bringing her back in the future.
She's a decent Bond girl, much better than some of the rent-a-bird types. I liked the mirroring of Bond and the fact they don't get it on. The moment before she leaves and they share a kiss is brilliant. Negatives - I thought her reaction to Medrano was a little hammy and as such I didn't really buy her 100% of the time. That said, she's a worthy Bond girl. However, I would say she pales in comparison to Vesper. But then I think Vesper is probably one of the best, if not the very best Bond girl ever.
I think I can be called a contrarian about SF here, but I feel it's not based upon some minutiae. If I had to make my point, I would say for instance that this Bond movie has not much real Bond in it, despite many homages to past scenes. It's as if the score actually reflects the movie, there's the Bond theme/the Aston Martin for the sake of it, but apart from that, too much deconstruction is happening. They don't make exploding pens anymore, they don't use trumpet screamers either. In some of the best scenes, Bond's not really here. Like in the Patrice Bond fight, Bond is a shadow. A minute before that, he was even a CG model hanging from an elevator. And where are Bond's wits ? Home Alone strategy ? IMO It would work if he had had 2 seconds to invent them, but several hours ? Etc..
Also, about plotholes that are in other movies too. Well, the problem is that I see a difference between being the luckyest spy in the world (random example : Thunderball : finding the right guy that everyone's looking for just because he feels he's onto something), and being an average guy in a room full of incompetent peers (SF : oops, I thought, after a few days here, that during all these months you didn't analyze the bullets on the scene did you ? well here's one from my wound).
Finally, about SF losing its gloss or not, I feel it will depend on Bond 24. If we get more of the same self-referential stuff in Bond 24, it may be known later as the beginning of the "arty" Bond. If we get something very different, it may be known later as an experimental movie for the 50th anniversary, etc.
This was certainly not directed at you, my friend. I very much enjoy your analyses, always considered and in-depth. I was thinking more of others, in the same way there are clearly QoS fans who speak sense.
In the end, it's mostly about what 'clicks' with us individually. Bond films aren't high art (if they were, Fleming would turn in his grave :)) ).
They are pop culture pulp fiction, sometimes raised a bit by clever or extremely professional direction or dialogue.
I think we are most certainly on the same page.
:)>-
So why you don't tell me about your favorite romantic moment in SF? Was it Bond drilling the girl against the wall of the beach hut or trying to grab at Eves tits when she was just about 2 minutes in his hotel room. Maybe when he was shagging the former child prostitute to which he promised he would protect her, just to complain about the waste of good scotch,when she got killed? I'm really curious which of them came closest to your standards of "aesthetic romanticism".
well, maybe rationalizing about scripts and their inherent logic just isn't your cup of tea?
What a silly little twit you are. And you've sexual hangups to boot. Perhaps you'd better find another shrink because the one the British tax payers are currently paying clearly isn't cutting the mustard.
As for the aesthetic romanticism in SF, it's plain as eggs. It's frequently lauded as the most beautiful Bond film ever made, in large part because of Deakins' work, and I tend to agree with the assessment. But it's not just the gorgeous shots in the Floating Dragon, the mesmerizing fight in the Shanghai skyscraper, the devastatingly pulchritudinous Berenice Marlohe, Bond looking his toughest in the chauffeur rig, the panoramic shots of the Chimera sailing to Hashima, and the windswept beauty of wild Scotland. There is also Adele's powerful title track, Newman's "Shanghai Drive," and the superb deployment of Boum and Boom, Boom.
You tend to miss such things when you've got your ugly snout buried in the loam, rooting about for spent shell casings.
I tell you something. You should - for once in your life - try your sense of romanticism with woman (preferable of the non inflatable kind).You might be in for some surprise.
the reflection, in art, of a late 18th-century literary and philosophical movement in reaction against the intellectuality and rationality of Neo-Classicism. It produced no single artistic style or characteristic but strongly influenced the ideals of imagination, emotion, and the freedom of expression in other media.
Thank you, mate. It's like dealing with a pre-schooler.