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
She's awesome an actress in 129 movies and she certainly is an original.
Something I can rarely say about the recent 007 movies. ;)
My point has to do with Bond's body after the PTS, not how it was set up. He was wheeled out of there and then what? He ended up being thrown off ship in a funeral service. WHY? There was no reason whatsoever to place Bond in a water coffin just to have to be retrieved. If they had him in hiding, there was ZERO reason to go through that.
There was no reason for anything. The whole film is quite absurd.
Sums it up in a nutshell.
I too prefer to watch a proper art house film rather than pseudo nonsense like SF, which falls between two stools - neither entertaining nor genuinely interesting/thought provoking. Just overlong, dull and pretentious.
I'm moderately excited by Fukunaga though. I think he will inject some much needed energy after the coma inducing Mendes films.
SF on the other hand doesn´t make any clear Point what it is.
I can't believe I am having this argument. Nobody on that Naval ship would ever know Bond's body was actually in that coffin. They'd toss it overboard being told it is the body of Commander James Bond, no questions asked. And that's that. There was no reason to actually put James Bond in the coffin. None. LOL
But that's Bond. Every film is full of bizarre plot lines. SF is no different.
If only could bring something new to the discussion but no it's the same old boring rhetoric from the same old crowd.
@SaintMark & @Getafix haven't you both exhausted your dislike of this film by now?
It's like listening to a broken record, go an spend sometime in a thread of a film you like rather than all this constant criticism with no insight or originality.
And trust me. I'm not complaining. You're right: it's pure, 100% Bondian filmmaking at its best (along with the volcano). I'm just pointing it out as an example: in reality, it makes no sense whatsoever.
The same applies to anybody in this thread I have not read anything new in this thread for ages except the same poor excuses for liking this movie, so every few months I lend my opinion again.
And as forums go I believe anybody can write what they want, I do believe you are just as guilty on such matters as anybody in these forums, giving the same opinion various times.
So I find SF vastly overrated but I am not allowed to say so, are you sure you are not a friend of the US president. I have to ask as I do not do twitter?
That is interesting. I've been a Bond fan all my considerable life and the one thing that pulls me back time and time again is the way the series evolves and changes, adapts to new audiences and alters its own boundaries.
Yet, despite that, the series somehow remains fundamentally the same.
The fact that 10 years after OHMSS we had Moonraker, and ten years after that we had LTK shows that Eon don't really want to stand still. They want to adapt to new audiences. But when fans have sulky strops because a film (one as successful as SF) doesn't meet their own vision of what a Bond film should be? Well all I can say @SaintMark is au revoir old friend.
If you think Mendes was trying to make an art house film with SF then you really need to check out what an art house film actually is.
For so many people SF was the most entertaining Bond film in decades. Horses for courses @Getafix . You really need to move on as @Shardlake says, you aren't convincing anyone to see the world through your eyes ;)
That's a good point. I'm not sure whether they would or not. They certainly would initially.
Cubby was never sure. He always said that each film had to be bigger and more spectacular than the last. Was he right? In the end he did mix it up a little (FYEO was more grounded and far less expensive than MR), but the need for Bond films to be the big action event of the year never went away.
And don't forget, in 1963 FRWL was not a low budget film, it was the big action film of that year.
So, as an experiment, if the script was right, a low key Bond film may do ok, but the Bond films' DNA, their very essence, is so well established that people would expect something more spectacular.
Either way I'm good. The history of the series holds so much interest for me that I would never in a million years say 'If the next one is like the last one I won't go to see it at the cinema'. If you feel that way then do what I did with STAR WARS after I watched the original trilogy - I gave it up and never watched another one again.
Fact is I want to love every Bond film. Mendes is giving me a hard time, not because he is good or bad, but because he somehow doesn´t touch me easily. I Keep my hopes up that that changes in the future and I find better Access to his films. I love Forster´s Bond film, and I don´t worry About Bond 25.
As for Budget, Cubby might have said the next film has got to be bigger than the last one, but he also knew that can´t go on indefinitely. He re-started that process several times himself, after YOLT and MR most noticably.
As for People expecting something more spectacular, I´d say especially since CR and the whole out-of-the-comfort-zone craze in the superhero area, People expect all Kinds of Things. And SP showed masterfully that high Budget is not the same as spectacular. The stunningly visceral car crash in The Raid 2 cost probably not more than a Minute or two of SP´s cars chasing lifelessly through empty Rome.
I always noticed that shift in tone during the Brosnan era. Pierce himself seemed not to be too concerned about how Bond changed from light and frothy to deep and thoughtful within the space of two minutes. And often the direction followed suit. It may be the problem of trying to make the Bond films all things to all people.
SF? I didn't sense that shift in tone as much. I hear what you are saying, but I personally didn't get that tonal shift as much as in previous Bond films.
I remember the first time I saw SF. I didn't know what to make or it. I wasn't sure if I liked it or not, because it didn't feel like a Bond film. My wife felt the same. She still doesn't like it, but by my second viewing I loved it, plot-holes aside. And I have loved it ever since
That MR moment you mention, reminded me of the scene in SF with the old couple watching Bond jump on the train. It didn't fit, but it was Mendes trying to capture a bit of Moore/Bond. If it's funny stick it in, whether it cripples the film or not.
You hit the nail on the head. We all have our own definition of what a Bond film is. There is no dictionary definition. There is no doubt that SF is a very different film. If it is so different for some fans that it no longer is a Bond film, then its not surprising that it's not liked by many fans
Others, including myself, have a wider, more flexible defintion. So it never crossed my mind that it did not feel like a Bond film.
Our defintions can and should be flexible so second and third viewings can see us re-appraising movies and, perhaps, accepting the changes and seeing the positives.
SF has lots of classic Bond elements, up to and including the showdown and explosive finale. That's normally at the villains lair and it's a great idea in SF to flip it on its head and have it be Bonds home ground instead.
@NicNac it's art house Bond in the sense it introduces themes and bigger ideas in a way that I don't think any previous Bond film has.
Ageing. Loss of empire. The value of Continuity, Perseverance and Tradition. Redemption and rebirth. Etc.
I think you know fully well I'm not a Trump fan or one of Brexit as well and I don't do twitter as well myself.
So fill your boots spending time on a film and an era you so obviously dislike some nearly 6 years later.
I'm done mentioning it you and @Getafix you can slag it off to your hearts content, I'll get on with my life instead while you waste yours on something you so vocally dislike.
I don't think Mendes was trying to make an art house film - he's far too vanilla and middlebrow for that. But SF is definitely the closest Bond has come to an art house sensibility. It's the first Bond film that's actually "about something".
I never objected to that. I've also said many times I like a lot of ideas in SF - on paper at least. It's just that for me the film itself is mediocre and rarely hits it's intended target.
Tho' much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
(yes - I know what I just typed!!!!!!!),
which is a masterpiece in its handling of its true content. If you're up for it I can go on, but its not easy or quick or immediate to go into. I can testify to a lot of work in getting there.
I'm no orthodox student of films in the way other people are but I'm a life long fan of Bond films, and there's some crazy deep stuff happening in these last two films that elevate them light years to whats gone before, and I still love OHMSS as my favourite film! But the themes were building from CR and maybe QOS it seems. Mendes and the gang are playing some very deep stuff. When you start to see it it makes these films more than works of art, it surpasses the idea of a work of art. I do reckon this is what they intended us to appreciate!
I don't know how to play this but its my starter for 10 !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I suppose the poem has some of it. Isn't it odd M mentions lines which strongly hint we (humanity or...?) were that strength a long time ago that could move earth and heaven? Then the lines tell us that apparently we're strong in will - to strive, and seek, and find, and not to yield? To strive and find what? There's stuff in these films that makes them worth the effort to find. These films do hit the intended target.
You don't mind if I set it out like detective homework? Maybe that works! Its a look and you find kind of thing. I've watched these films more times than I've had hot din dins and I luv em more and more each time.
.......d'you think May was the real M all along?........
I'm glad to hear someone with a passion for these two films, because they grew on me more and more as they appeared to show more of their underlying themes. The more that shone through the more intelligent and honest the films became. They obviously decided to go the next level up in terms of depth, and its testament to the producers as you rightly point out that they chose someone that could do it, and then do it again in spadefulls. Don't get me wrong I have surface criticisms of SF and SP in places but thats normal and thats life. Perfection is boring, and the act of creation is so exciting and challenging it should always be praised. I don't have the skills to make a film, and certainly not a good one. Its way too easy to dismiss others efforts.
My interest was first aroused when I noticed the ending of SF. Its really strange. Symbolic deaths in films I understand are portrayed in a very small number of ways. 1 a bloodless death, 2 a death on or around that character's family/parents burial site, 3 a death on sacred ground. Skyfall has all three, 1 the knife in the back is sequenced to show no blood when noticeably M's spilling hers, 2 Bond's parents are buried in the chapel grounds, and 3 Silva is killed in the chapel. Thats the full whack - 'overkill?'. But Silva's death is symbolic for Bond (and us) not Silva. Mendes went out of his way to weave a story based on Bond fighting with himself and winning. Silva is the representation of all the darker aspects of Bond's character or self, what Carl Jung called the 'shadow' we all have - a kind of personal recycle bin you'd find on a computer where we put our yuck we can't face. This seems to be the story driving the whole show and most of whats in it is determined by it, from colour and tone to dialogue and events. Its really really rich, And - when has Bond ever really faced up to himself? That is one of the reasons why I think it feels like a personal film, almost intimate and that chimes with some people.
So I completely agree with you - SF and SP represent a new era in the Bond genre, I also feel these elements were hidden away in the books too, waiting to be tapped into. And they did it.
By the way - for anyone reading this - watch the title/song sequence again with these thoughts in mind and it should leap out at you even if the symbolism doesn't make so much sense. But try this one - you see the small figure of Bond with arms and jacket up falling down at the beginning and then you catch a gimpse of the same figure this time going up the way again at the end! Normally you think thats just Bond credits stuff - its just all 'stuff' - well its not, its all very specific. He's gone down into himself, confronted himself, and then come back up a changed man - job well done. Bond went through a symbolic death and rebirth.