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
It's a figure of speech! I know it's only a film but was really underwhelmed by the final third - Blofeld / Bond personal history, Blofeld's motive being 'daddy issues', destroying Vauxhall Cross, bringing back the DB5...again... First 2/3rds were great but ultimately unsatisfying - for me.
Yes, I have a similar, lingering feeling that Skyfall and Spectre could have been merged together(obviously with some rejigging) and no-one would see the difference. I don't mean literally merged, but they could have been part of the same film or atleast one being a very direct sequel. Well I suppose SP is a direct sequel but hopefully you understand what I am getting at(rather clumsily).
I enjoyed Spectre more than Skyfall but again, Bond films are rarely seemless for me. There are moments in SF which were excellent but as a whole it didn't work for me, and the same can be said for Spectre. If I had my way, it would have been done like this;
Casino Royale 2006
QoS 2007
Spectre 2010
Madelaine is assasinated in between these films.
Skyfall 2014-15, picking up a good 5 yrs or so after Spectre, and it would make much more sense for Bond to be an older, jaded man, having lost Madelaine.
As it stands I believe Skyfall came too early. We only got two films of Bond on form before seeing him as a battered old dog, and even in those two films he still behaved like a reckless, wayward teenager, instead of a (slightly) more intelligent, refined agent in Spectre.
Spectre could have filled that gap. M could have simply sent him to Mexico unofficially and in secret and in that sense we needn't have that Bond gone rogue schlock again, and furthermore it would have created more tension between M and Denbigh and his bosses.
That's how I feel about both SF and SP. There's fantastic moments in both but to watch it from beginning to end uninterrupted is a chore.
In fact SF is great in little chapters: PTS, Bond on holiday, meeting with Q, etc. I didn't feel SP was as episodic but I will enjoy it more if I watch it in parts.
Couldn't this comment have waited another minute or two..?
2. SF
Both films suffer from Mendes's lacklustre direction IMO. He can't do action and doesn't seem to have a good second unit either. And he doesn't handle tension/danger well either. Both films are full of good ideas, but they're often poorly executed.
I have to agree as well that Seydoux and Craig seem to have virtually no chemistry, which is a shame. It looks likely that Eva Green will remain forever Craig's number one Bond girl, in every sense.
I also felt, as someone mentioned above, that despite whatever Craig himself says, he felt much less invested in the role here than he did in CR and QOS. What worked for me about Craig in those first two was this impetuous, rooky, energy-fuelled agent - intelligent but maybe just a little too cock sure and gung ho. As Craig relaxes into the role I actually find him less convincing as Bond - there's less energy and danger about him.
Having said all this, I think SP is a decent Bond movie. Hoping to rewatch it this week. I think it's a lower mid table entry for me.
Which is why Mendes needs to stick to character drama. He cannot handle the scope or style needed for a Bond film.
And I'm not convinced by his 'character' work on SF and SP either - surely it was done better in CR?
Not for the first time as a Bond fan, I'm bemused by what is popular with the general movie going audience.
Still, while I don't really rate Mendes as a Bond director, things could be worse. And even though I really don't like SF, it's nice to see a director return and provide a little consistency for the fist time since Glen in 89. It's nice when you can identify specific periods or styles of movie via the director's touch.
What's wrong with bringing back DB5? It's a wonderful legendary car of 007.
BTW I didn't like Bond/Blofeld connection too.
But somehow they partly did. For the reasons you mentioned.
It's still a much more enjoyable ride, than SF, IMO.
1.SP
2.SF
( very difficult, but I love campy Bond much more than serious Bond. I don't care what Flemings say about it.)
I agree. It's a much more steady as she goes entry to SF, which I think conceptually was quite interesting but failed to deliver. SP is a more straight down the line Bond film, and better for it frankly.
2.SF
I found the stuff about old dog new tricks in SF totally forced and unconvincing. I've never actually heard anyone suggest that we don't need undercover or secret field agents any more. It's all a bit of a red herring. It sort of sets up a non-thesis that no one actually believes in any way and then tries to prove the opposite (which just turns out to be common sense).
And meanwhile the main problem MI6 face in SF is not external threats or political interference but their own complete ineptitude - M's, Moneypenny's, Q's, even Bond - they're all completely amateurish and useless throughout the film.
When I first saw SF I assumed Mendes deliberately portrayed MI6 as useless to make a point but now I think it was actually not intentional. SF is just a narrative disaster - a total mess from start to finish.
Bond needs to modernize to ensure his own survival, but that doesn't mean he can't retain aspects from his past (old office, PPK, MP, male M, gadgets, humour, etc.) You can tear down the old stuff (signified literally by blowing up the DB5 and Skyfall), butt he essence of the character is still there by the end of the movie, just revitalized for a modern audience and whatever political ramifications there are now. Like M says, "Our world is more opaque". Ostensibly straightforward and peaceful, but needing Bond to sort out the mess.
I don't think that MI6 was shown as amateurish; Bond is still a swaggering badass and steps ahead of everyone else. Silva represents the new modern cyber threat. M is trying to survive but ultimately is out of place. Mallory is the old guard that still has a definite place in the world of counterespionage. MP defiantly doesn't belong int he field and can make herself useful in the office being a foil/ally to Bond. The narrative may not be airtight, but how these themes are articulated in the movie are quite cogent and ultimate more successful than SP (though I enjoyed both to varying degrees).
I just felt it was too cheesy. Despite many opinions to the contrary I thought it was great in SF - 50th anniversary and all that... It was a great nod to Bond history. And the way they destroyed it was a great way of saying goodbye to all that history and moving on. It was utterly destroyed, beyond repair. So bringing it back now just feels so fake. SP feels like they suddenly realised lots of things they forgot to mention in the 50th anniversary movie and crammed them in here. Give him Tim's Aston if you want to be nostalgic. Love to see
Well, the second unit stuff and action on SF was woeful IMO. The action in CR was better but I've never been a huge fan of the Miami airport sequence.
The action in QoS, for all its frenetic camera work, is generally better IMO. The opening car chase is better than the one in SP for sure.
But generally speaking I don't think Bond has hit the mark on action ever since Dalton's last movie.
1. Skyfall;
2. Casino Royale;
3. Spectre;
4. Quantum of Solace.
Spectre
Skyfall
Quantum of Solace
In SF it was incidental to the real story which was Silva's revenge for betrayal by mommy. That was the driving force of that film for me at least.
In SP it was incidental to the big reveal that Blofeld had been killing Bond's loved ones for interfering in his affairs and stealing daddy's love.
Both are pure 'Mendes drama' narratives.
The SF drama worked on many levels, which is why many ignored the incidentals. The SP drama did not works so well (poor, half-assed execution.....they backed off at the end during the script rewrites), and so the cyber plot & its weak underpinnings is more apparent imho.