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
Whatever gave you that idea? ;) I can still get some level of enjoyment out of it to be fair, like I can any Bond film, and I can see why its fans like it. But I just can't see past its flaws and all the potential that it squandered.
I agree that it definitely feels like we missed something. I'm very happy with the way Skyfall and Spectre turn out, I love both, but I think what we needed was a short straightforward Bond film in 2010. Something that didn't relate to the overarching story (so it wouldn't have been tied into SP), just a straightforward Bond on a mission in his prime film to establish that this is where we're at now, the rookie Bond is done, and make the transition to old is he past it Bond in SF feel less jarring. Having said that, the final act of SF (and all of SP) pretty much answered that question with a resounding no, so it didn't matter too much, but I agree the gap between films definitely meant that SF felt a bit disconnected when I first saw it. It was clear a lot of time had passed and Bond (developed now to the point where he's more in line with the standard, Connery esque cinematic version of the character) had been on a few missions, I just wish we could have seen one of them.
I agree this is the films primary problem (I wouldn't forgive all its flaws but I'd find it a lot more enjoyable if it just felt more like Bond) and I think the little hints of this in the script (eg- the brilliant scene where he changes hotels) make it all the more frustrating for me.
I don't think there's anything wrong with a return to a more standard Bond formula film. It's what CR and QoS were building towards and I think that past efforts show that you can keep all the tropes while still making something genuinely original and fresh feeling. GE for instance is very formula driven, complete with the scarred bad guy and secret base, but it felt fresh and modern. It's all about the execution. I think TWINE is another example: could be seen as a box ticking Bond film in many ways but the plot with Elektra and Renard is very original and the series hasn't seen anything like it before. You don't even necessarily have to innovate much at all as long as you do it well, this goes back as far as the Moore era: TSWLM didn't necessarily innovate but the formula was executed really well and it had a lot of iconic moments. OP is, on the surface, a predictable formulaic Bond film, but it contains one of the most original final acts of the series (which is so full of tension that you'll completely forget that Gobinda brings nothing new to the henchman table except a turban, that they've done the ticking clock nuclear bomb thing before, etc, it was well executed so you enjoy it and don't feel like it's dull or derivative).
I guess the debate comes down to whether SF and SP fit that mold. Whether they create their own iconic moments or have enough originality to justify the tropes. Imo, SF doesn't really create any new icons, it looks back at old ones, but since it was the 50th anniversary I can forgive that and the plot (Bond's death and struggle once he returns, exploring his past at Skyfall, etc) was definitely original enough to distinguish it from your bog standard formulaic Bond film imo.
SP, I think, fits into both categories. Tries to create new iconic moments rather than just including callbacks to old ones (the opening tracking shot for instance is definitely going to be a memorable moment, and the DB10, a car that's completely exclusive to the film, is definitely a strong attempt at creating a new icon, even though the gadgets were nothing new the novelty of it being just for Bond and the distinctive design in comparison to recent Astons will make it memorable imo) and takes the classic Bond formula (complete with Blofeld) but updates it to feel fresh and modern (much like how GE was classic Bond post cold war, SP is classic Bond post 9/11, Blofeld's plan to manipulate the world into giving Spectre access to 24/7 surveillance, by praying off the publics fear of terrorism, is not only original but very modern, it was a great plot imo). And then there's the whole Bond retiring angle which is completely new. He's got close before but has never, not even in the books, followed through.
SP and SF also continue the Craig era tradition of subverting the formula. In SF it comes in the form of Q and the exploding pen line (although I've never really liked that moment, feels very smug and pretentious, especially considering how much SF owes to GE), M pointing out how ridiculously impractical the DB5 is for a secret agent, etc. In SP it's the gadgets on the DB10 not working, "we don't seve alcohol", the silent Jaws Oddjob esque henchman speaking for the first time to say oh shit when he realises he's about to die, etc. So I really don't see how these are just dull, TND/MR esque box ticking Bond films.
SF just felt out of place. It didn't have a spark just felt depressing.
SF beats QOS only in two departments: Cinematography and the title song. Also the editing in some scenes in QOS is questionable, without that flaw, QOS would be one of the great perfect Bond movies.
For me this is the main problem with SF. It's not a fun movie to watch. It's a dreary film that never really grips me.
It's a real shame. On paper I think a lot of the ideas are really good, but Mendes manages to turn it into a boring, slightly pretentious snore fest.
+1
A major lack of fun is my biggest issue with the movie, too, and helps make it the hardest to rewatch.
You can see why Skyfall was a huge success as it transcended a standard Bond plot with a simplistic story with which the audience were happy to overlook the plot holes. I'd rather have modern day Bonds in the style of QOS.
Skyfall is fine for me until Bardem arrives to ham it up after which Bond very much plays second fiddle to M and Silva.
And I still maintain the Tennison poem is one of the clunkiest sequences ever committed to celluloid. Like using a yellow highlighter on screen to get your point across.
The Scottish finale could have been amazing - so much potential - but is a disappointment. Ends with cliche and sloppy story telling. like SP to a certain extent, SF is a flabby piece of filmmaking. Too long, badly written, ultimately boring. EON needs to demand so much more of its writers and from its directors. I despair of them ever getting it all right in the same movie.
For me the last movie where everything 'clicked' was OP. That film was firing on all cylinders for 2 hours, IMO.
I think QoS has a lot of strong individual points, but the overall story I find frankly not that compelling.
When I was ten years old, I remember seeing Rog on his water-bike, off to save XXX, and I thought he was the coolest thing ever. And those cheesy 'heroic moments' kind of got left behind in the early Craig Era. The Tennyson bit though, with him running down the street, worked well, (though I did cringe at M's defence being a poem). That bit made you want to go "yea, go Bond!". That sequence, with the court shoot-out, works great. The we see the Batmobile, sorry, Aston Martin, and it's like "YYeeaaA!". And you're on Bond's side. QoS didn't have any of that boyish hero stuff. In fact, I'd say QoS features the most unlikable Bond in the series.
I'm not sure how you can all use 'lack of fun' as a stick to beat SF but not QOS? Where is the fun in QOS? The feeble 'teachers who have won the lottery' gag?
Thats pretty funny to be fair.
Ditto for 'The Dead Are Alive' subtitle. Shock reveal: Franz isnt dead after all do you see what Sam did there?
Do we really need to be spending stupid money on pretentious directors like Forster and Mendes when all we get is film student rubbish like 'speeding bullet', 'elements action sequences', endless homages and wasting time on convoluted tracking shots and the biggest explosion in the world when the script is in a shocking state.
We did better with journeymen like Glen or Campbell who just tell a no nonsense story and know how to film a decent action sequence.
Good points.
The Vesper thing is the story yet apart from the scenes with Mathis (the highlight of the film by far) this is forgotten from the first scene with M to the last scene. Whats at stake here? Bolivia hasnt got any water to drink? Sorry but if the villain's scheme was to obliterate Bolivia with nuclear bombs who actually cares? General Medrano might think his country is not a 'flyspeck in the ocean' but in Bond plot terms its pretty damn close.
Have to agree with you. There seems to be a growing band of hardcore QOS supporters who see the disappointment of SP as somehow proving that QOS is therefore now a good film.
The bottom line is that after CR the Craig era has been disappointing. Yes there have been excellent moments in all of the three films but all of them are flawed to varying degrees.
The psychologist scene
The lines by Judi Dench ("well you're bloody well not sleeping here")
The bulldog ornament
Silva coming onto Bond ("what makes you think this was my first time")
Q and Bond meet in the museum.
The reveal of the DB5.
Kincade and "welcome to Scotland"
"well then we're all buggered"
All these lines and moments were well received by the audiences I was with.
I also think there are as many funny lines in qos as in Sf.
I agree that the Craig era has not lived up to expectations.
In terms of 'fun', none of them are very fun tbh.
For some reason though I find there's a lightness of touch with QoS and brevity that makes it feel less yawn inducing than SF and SP. It's lightweight, but some nice dramatic scenes spliced with a few energetic actions sequences makes it work better as pure escapism IMO than either of the last two.
I also think the Tosca scene is amongst the best bits of any recent Bond movie.
For me, Forster was overall more on track in terms of where i think Bond should be. That's not to say I think Qos is a classic - it just seemed that EON were heading in the right direction.
Then Mendes blundered in and I felt he didn't really 'get' what had been achieved with CR and just started mining the old cliches again. Freshness was sacrificed for reassuring coseyness and lame references to the back catalogue.
SF is at #7 while QOS roared up my list from #16 to #4 recently...its one of my 'go to' Bond films now.
It has it flaws and I certainly wouldn't love it unconditionally but it remains in my top 5 easily.
To think the same director and team with some adjustments made SPECTRE.
great post. my thoughts exactly.
'dour' and 'turgid' are two great adjectives for SF.
two things you never want a bond film to be.
skyfall falls further in my estimation with every viewing. to be fair, everything up to the appearance of Silva is pretty darn good.
QoS:
Excluding the insane editing I overall love this movie: The characters (Mathis, Felix, Camille, Beam. Many awesome scenes (Tosca, the plane, Mathis' villa, the party). The soundtrack. A re-cut slowing the pace just a tiny bit would help the movie in my opinion since you lose to much of the locations and the action scenes in general but that's all I would change about the movie.
SF:
I find it extremely stylish, I love it's pace (slower) and I can root for the motifs of Bond. I sincerely enjoy the movie every time I see it. Great characters again.
For me, Craig made 3 of my favourite Bond movies (the 3rd being CR of course) and I very much appreciate QoS and SF the same way - because they are so different and both approaches work great for me.
Agreed...I like both films as well.
Skyfall on the other hand is nice enough on the surface but delivers nothing more than an anti-Bond with Joe Everyman being depressed and traumatised about his youth.
Also Roberto Schaefer's cinematography for QOS is on par with Roger Deakins' work in SF in my book. David Arnold's score is a million times better than the elevator music Thomas Newman spits out and not a single character in SF comes close to Giancarlo Gianninni's Mathis.
Skyfall has gradually got better with each rewatch. I love the first half of the film and Craig again delivers a great performance. The film still suffers in the latter London scenes and the film takes the mick with its convenient inconsistencies. But I really like the Scotland climax and enjoy seeing the DB5 driving down New Cross high street near where I used to live!