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
All the production qualities are top-notch, indeed. If anything, the atmosphere of the film might be its strongest point, but then again, it's hard to say what is the film's strongest point, because it's kind of a pastiche. It's got several strengths, no doubt, but it's hard to say what is it's strongest point.
I see no boredom from DC. If you want an example of bored Bond, look no further than Seanery in YOLT.
If indeed, SP lacks energy and inspiration, it is probably in the inscrutable alchemy that is filmmaking. So many factors, large and small, go into a film that it is often difficult to put a finger on why one film succeeds while another fails. That is why good film criticism is rare, and good film critics are worthy of respect. As regards SP specifically, there is a lack of gestalt, perhaps. All of the tasty ingredients are thrown into the pot, but the resultant soup isn't as savory as one would expect. Please pass the salt.
I think you've really hit on something here. SP has a certain coldness to it. Almost as if it's a museum piece under a fluorescent light rather than a flesh-and-blood entity that you can hug or punch according to your disposition. For anybody who's familiar with the music of Ferruccio Busoni, SP reminds me of his music. SF, on the other hand, feels like Anton Bruckner.
:P
Blofeld and Bond are not even step brothers!!! :(( :(( ;)
Ok just for you - I hereby state that I accept that Bond and Blofeld were not step brothers, foster brothers or any other type of brothers. Bond and Blofeld once lived together after Bond's parents died when Bond was under the guardianship of Hannes Oberhauser but they were never ever legally step brothers in the conventional sense.
Does that make you happy?
You can call it what you like but it oesn't make it any less shit though does it?
Bond isn't really meant to be such a personally explored character. I think that's what's putting some fans off.
Don't mix all these arguments together. I don't think that anybody has a problem with a black Moneypenny or a nerdish Q as nobody had a problem with Judy Dench playing M. The main problem is that meanwhile the writers try to connect everything with Bond or the MI6. I don't know why this is necessary because it reduces their opportunities to write a really good story. Why does everything needs to be connected with Bond? There is no reason for this, it feels extremely forced and makes the plot predictable. The other problem is that because of that, the villain and his actual plan (sub plot) have very little screen time. It is all about the personal relationship between Bond (or M) and the villain Just look at the last 9 Bond films and you will mostly find a motivation for the villain or Bond to take revenge for something that happened in the past. This is not a bad thing but I really think we have had enough of that.
What on earth are you talking about?
MI6 is not an organisation that was setup to sort out Bond's family issues. How much damage has he indirectly caused them? They would fire him on the spot lest he has upset anyone else in the past who has then gone on to be a supervillian.
Amen to that brother.
At least QoS has a decent score, and is only disappointing, and SF is frustrating
You should probably check out until a new actor is confirmed.
But the majority who are disappointed with Craig's last 3 liked Casino Royale. It's not Craig that's the problem for most folk.
If you were disappointed with the follow-up, frustrated by the third and disappointed, frustrated and deflated by the fourth I wouldn't say the odds of number five being a 'hit' for you are particularly good without a changing of the guard and direction.
It is certainly not his fault. He is indeed a very good actor. I also liked Skyfall. I found that Javier Bardem was great and giving M a bigger part was also cool. I also think that it was a very sad and emotional film. There was also a personal relationship but it was much more deeply rooted and explained better. The reason for revenge was also at least plausible.
I did. Worst M ever.
You sexist pig...
Interesting combination of words.
So I've been very slow going with this random Bondathon (that I hope to finish up in the next few days), and after that, I'll probably do another one, from DN to SP, in hopes of finally being able to properly place SP in my rankings list.
And yeah, what @Birdleson said earlier. I'm so done talking about it. How can people not see the connection they were trying to make?
Why is it bad? It waters down Blofeld as a character, it waters down his motivations, it makes him look like a pathetic child instead of a creepy and intimidating genius presence. At the end of the film I almost felt "poor little Blofeld" which is terrible.
The dumbest thing in the entire franchise, bar none. Worse than the floating gondola and the CG tidal wave.
Bit over the top. The tidal wave is the one thing in the series I don't think you can justify. It's an abomination. The Oberhauser/Blofeld angle is just a different take on the source, the sort of thing you see all the time in comics (yes, I know Bond isn't a comic). I see it as an experiment that won't be repeated, but it isn't enough to make me loath the movie. I see it as a creative decision that was made for valid reasons in the mind of Mendes, something that cannot be said of Tamahori's decision making.
I also don't see the watering down of Blofeld's motivations. As an entity and organisation they are exactly what I would expect. Blofeld's thirst for power is not motivated by anything other than his psychopathic tendencies. For Bond the events of the four films comprise his world, for Blofeld, they aren't. Bond represents the proverbial fly in the ointment whose destruction is serendipitously personal. The reason it is front and centre is because this is a series of Bond films, not Blofeld films.
Totally understand why people wouldn't like this angle, it's very obvious to me why.
Blofeld was already watered down in his original run. Too many recasts and his appearence in Diamonds Are Forever was the final nail in the coffin for old Blofeld. And of course this.
His origin may be different in this reboot but he's still a better character than his lame appearance in DAF.