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
Dan would never agree to back to back shooting, that's just nuts for Bond.
2 and a half hours is fine with me, the film just needs to warrant it. The kind of finale I imagine and hope we get would deserve such a length.
I wish the next one would be like QOS again, just with proper editing and all the James Bond recognition marks.
After ever viewing of QOS I think, this COULD have been the best ever Bond.
Spot on.
More than anything it made me realize what a masterful effort the legendary TDK (and by extension its spiritual mini-me successor SF) was. I must watch both again soon.
I get it some people really don't love the movie, and some fair points are made: Madeleine and Bond, or rather Seydoux and Craig do miss chemistry, which makes their interaction on-and-off, and I can understand people therefore beeing put off by their relationship, in whatever form you want it placed. Indeed when she's drunk it works well, but his blunt introduction at the clinic is rather nasty and him saving her from Hinx doesnt't work that well (allthough I blame the scriptwriters more for that one, they got the atmosphere completely wrong). But what I don't understand is why this means that you can't enjoy the film at all and why other's are not allowed to defend it. The question 'will it be more apreciated in time' should let everyone (haters and lovers) give some interesting discussion points as to what aspects of the film might stand out (both positive and negative) and will be more fondly remembered. QoS is aging rather well if these boards are anything to go by, I read more and more positive reviews. Partly because the mistakes are overlooked more now (don't hear that harsh complaints about the shakey cam anymore, people now can see what was going on, after viewing it 10 or more times ;-) ) and the launching of that boat is apparently more a fun fact now, whereas the opera scene already is on it's way to 'key Bond moments' history.
SP certainly isn't the best Bondfilm ever (Hi Thunderball! ;-) ) and it certainly has it's up and downs. Personally I don't like the backstory, which destracts too much as a gimmick to show Blofeld's insanity, I don't like the car- and helicopter chase (the one at the end) where it makes no sense for a speedboat to keep up with a chopper. It's all too easy. And perhaps that's SP's biggest flaw: everything is too easy - from shooting down Blofeld to escaping his facillity or the Rome chase, Bond doesn't have to make any effort at all. Still, there are some gems to offset this: the Hinx fight in the train, the torture itself. The disposal of Sciara at the start and his funeral. The intense meeting between Bond and Mrs. Sciara.
So what is it? It certainly is a 'tick the Craig-boxes' Bond. It misses the continuety of tension of SF, or the intensity of QoS, or the storytelling of CR. And mainly there I find this film to underperform. The storytelling is just not interesting enough. Blofeld's plan, so well- written in the Fleming stories (where Blofeld finds out the power of having information) is completely ignored. Why he wants all the world's intel is unclear, why he is a visionary too, as there's no actual vision. And Denbeigh's role doesn't help at all. Still, it has it's highlights, and it is certainly better made then DAF. It's also not as outlandish and unbeleaveable as DAD or MR. Perhaps it's more in TMWTGG territory when it comes to the story (I find Christopher Lee's Scaramanga far superior to Waltz's Blofeld).
I think it'll be more or less go down in history as one of the more superficial films. A nice popcorn flick, but not one good enough to make new Bond-fans (hi Thunderball!!). The high expectations people had after SF will be forgotten and SP will find it's own spot, just a lot lower down the list.
I have my complaints, but they are only minor in the grand scheme. I think the film is very close to being staggeringly great, if only the ideas at certain places were tweaked or taken a little further. I'd have loved to see a more packed Rome chase, with other SPECTRE agents racing after Bond, or a ski chase in Austria where Bond has to speed down the hill the clinic was sat atop to get at the SPECTRE convoy holding Madeleine on the roadway below in a race against time. The latter really kills me, as we haven't had a nice ski scene in forever and it would've been an obvious continuation of the OHMSS atmosphere of that section of the film. Having a helicopter sequence, then a plan sequence, then another helicopter sequence feels too overdone. We needed more land based action. How we didn't get a sequence like that, I have no idea. I also wish Bond showed more side effects from his torture via Blofeld to give the scene more danger, but I guess we are to assume that the villain missed his mark with the machinery.
In consideration of all this, the worst I could ever imagine calling SP is average, and that may only be on the Craig era scale. Outside the era that has two films that are considered modern classics that neither QoS or it were ever going to match up to, I think SP stacks up fairly well. The cast, led by Dan wins it a lot of points over most other average Bonds, and so I don't imagine in ranking badly with me at any point, especially since it has all the other bells and whistles of a A-class Bond production. Because this is my Bond, and I can forgive a lot. I just want the development in SP to really mean something in the end, with a final Bond film for Craig to really shoot off the series of films triumphantly.
I just hope for a day when people can start judging the film on its own terms and for what it is, not what they wanted it to be with their sky high expectations a la QoS. The criticism gets downright ridiculous at times, and often I'm puzzled. The distinctly brutal reception it gets in some corners really is perplexing, as I think it does many things better than even the mighty SF, but its positives never get shined on amidst the temptations to riot about it. We'll have to see what happens. If it goes some direction towards how QoS was revisited by the community, I'll be happy. It does too much right to be ignored.
I find that with MR, TND, DAF, AVTAK, DAD, TMWTGG, or QoS (all entries that many of the fandom and general populace don't think too highly of), some of these attributes exist and sometimes in great quantity.
Sadly, I don't see any of that in SP. Therefore it is more than likely going to join TWINE at the bottom of the heap the next time I do my rankings. Repeated viewings are only solidifying my initial assessment that this was an incredible misfire on nearly all levels (there are a few redeeming attributes, but they are rather insignificant in my view).
Those who like the film are welcome to it however. I don't begrudge them for that.
And this is coming from someone who has defended it as being a beautiful mess.
Excellent post.
I'll also add that one of the biggest issues that I personally have with the last few Bond films (SP being the biggest culprit) is that the films as they are, are wholly very much what they're trying to copy (and even fall short in that regard) which makes it so easy for people to identify flaws and come with the criticisms thick and fast.
I've said it many times before but if Bond focused on its own internal universe and played upon what made it so unique in the first place, there'd be little to no complaints; and it's not a mystery that the last Bond film to do that was CR, which is why it's so damn good. Bond knows how to serve up a 3 course dinner that you can get at the Ritz but lately we're getting 3 piece chicken wings and chips - Dixy fried chicken style.
The bloody ejector seat as an example should never have been used again. That was clear to me after I recently viewed (for the first time), Cruise as Powers spoofing it in AustinPussy at the start of Goldmember on the Austin Powers thread here. Why the producers didn't realize this amazes me.
EON should look at what Cruise has been doing with the last two MI's to understand how to evoke past Bond films without it being obvious. There are many Bondian touches in MI-RN in particular, but they are inserted organically/thoughtfully, and so don't immediately appear noticeable. When done well, one evokes the spirit/feeling of the best Bond experiences, without it seeming like a cheap/inferior copy.
Stop aping other franchises and do it's own thing, SF & SP were clearly influenced by Nolan's Bat trilogy, while I really rate SF there is no getting round that Mendes was in awe of Nolan's first 2 Bat films.
Lets remember Batman Begins is definitely one of the reasons EON took the decision to reboot the series and go for an origin story.
I must agree with all of @bondjames views, those rate SPECTRE are welcome to it but for me at least I don't see those that hold in such low regard will be returning to it like some have QOS and reassessing it.
QOS doesn't contain series heresy or lazy story telling, I don't remember one scene that gets near the mastery of the Tosca sequence and the score is infinitely better and I know I'm in the minority but the theme is far more pleasurable to listen to.
It will depend if this is the end for DC or he comes back and brings this story to a close and bow out, if Bond 25 returns to this thread and delivers one of the best of the era and all around think so then maybe SP might look better, although if it gets the things right that SP got so wrong and unlike some I don't see it got much right, the brilliance of the follow up might magnify the inadequacies of SPECTRE even more.
Only time will tell.
This has always been a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario from what I see. If you dare to do something different from what is expected of a Bond film, or deconstruct it as CR and QoS did at times, you take flack for it and are called anti-Bond. If you interject the formula while doing your own thing, the film is called tonally confused. And if you open your arms to formula entirely, the film is called boring, too reliant on the past and not innovative. I've lost a sense of what people want or expect any more.
From the perspective of the Craig era, I've heard for nearly a decade how tired people were of emotional stories that put Bond through the ringer, and in SP they got a more classically realized Bond that wasn't hampered by a gigantic emotional boulder. And they hated it. "Where's the intense, emotional Bond arc," they asked. Considering that the last films depicted Bond's first major betrayal in Bond history that really set him back emotionally, the sequel depicted his trying mourning period and the film after that dared to kill M and crack Bond's heart and mind again, what did people really want SP to be? What emotional arc could be played that hadn't already that wouldn't come off as too much or depressing? We couldn't see more of his past, as people hate that. We can't have the issue revolve around a woman, as that's boring. We can't have Bond down and out, because people think that's what SF was about. So that's where SP stands. It did a lot of what was wanted, then when it arrived it was hated for it, largely because it wasn't Skyfall 2.0. Now the people who hated the emotional Bond want that Bond back, conveniently after the first film to move away from that concept came out. It puzzles me to no end.
Come on, this isn't a fair characterization of anyone's POV. I haven't seen anyone express this stuff. The closest I've seen is fans claiming that Craig is better at the emotional stories than the more "classic" Bond, so perhaps EON should stick to the emotional stories during his tenure. I have seen literally nobody claim that they wanted Skyfall 2.0, either before or after Spectre came out.
People's opinions are a lot more nuanced than you are giving them credit for.
The Skyfall 2.0 comment is a subjective one, obviously. I think many subconsciously wanted Mendes to do the same sort of thing as before, and were angry when the feeling of SF wasn't in SP to every degree despite them deserving to be two different films. Few will even note the improvements Mendes and co. gave to SP in reaction to some of SF. His second film has less emphasis on the presence of the Bond team, and they don't follow Bond across the globe to each location from Istanbul, Macau, London and Scotland to help him on his mission. Mallory even makes the point that the fight is Bond's and not theirs, Mendes' message to folks that Bond will largely do it on his own this time. SP also doesn't jam a lot of the anniversary spectacle down people's throat. There's no scene where the DB5 is paraded around for the audience's entertainment in such a heavy fashion, or any obvious references to the past films in lines of dialogue or action like the pen line in the museum or the komodo dragon leap in the casino scene. There's things that could be taken as homages in SP, but they are there for you to figure out on your own if you're really knowledgable about the series and the film doesn't linger on them to show off. These moments don't take it upon themselves to scream, "Hey, look at this past Bond film we're from!" as SF can at times.
People seem to hate Blofeld and his personality in the film, but they were able to suck up Silva like he was the greatest villain in the series, despite the fact that he says "mommy" or "mother" nearly every second and has more "mommy" issues than Blofeld ever could have of a daddy. People like to make a big deal about that aspect of SP, but it's brought up twice in quick flashes and never brought up again. In SF that aspect of mommy issues is the entire plot, but people love it. SP also doesn't have particular moments of plot inconsistency or holes that people say SF has. No moments in SP match Bond surviving that train fall or Silva's seemingly omniscient plan and the fact that he purposefully gets captured as part of his plan like every villain from that year in film. Things are played relatively straight in SP and there's little to ponder over the sense of as it goes along.
It's fine not to like SP or any other Bond film, I just like consistency. When I see SF being praised for things the same people hate in SP (despite many elements being better approached there from my perspective) I get very confused. I'm a debater and know that nuanced opinion exists from rubbing shoulders in that environment, so this isn't a slant against anyone. I'm just trying to figure out what about this movie brought out all the incessant hellfire and made so many forget that it's just a goddamn movie.
Not for everyone who happens to dislike the latest Bond film, but I don't think the same scrutiny is applied to films 1-20. Isn't that criticism more easily applied to films that came before Craig?
@RichardTheBruce, I was going to post the same thing, but didn't want to get into the same rubbish again. Post 60s the formula was nothing but shoehorned, misused and trivial with very cheap fanfare. The 60s did all the work, the rest of the series lived off that for a long time without daring to shake anything up. That's why even today we have people moaning that Bond doesn't got to M's office, then Moneypenny's desk and Q's workshop, despite the fact that we can watch over 18 films where he does just that. Why not actually try to do new things?
This has always been my point of formula becoming chains. People can shoot down the Craig films all they want, but the movies did a good job of using only what was needed and not relying on the same old structure and aspects of the formula like the films post-OHMSS. In short, it was an experimentation. And of course, an overwhelming amount now want the old way again.
Only speaking for myself, SP didn't connect on any level. It has the distinct whiff of a novice's attempt to make a Bond film. Everything appears just so procedural & clinical. In a word, the film has no soul, and that's why Mendes's Dead references are quite apropros imho. I feel as though a computer could have generated it.
SF may have been guilty of all these things you mention, but the film has that special magnetic component that made so many around the world connect with it viscerally and loyally. That's the sign of good film making in my view.
Same flawed ingredients perhaps, but a completely different and far more human and loveable result.
If you can't understand why some of us were so frustrated fair play but don't just use it's just a movie as defence and frankly I don't know anything that SPECTRE did better than Skyfall but I'm open for you to share it with us.
I'm a defender of SP, but with full knowledge that it failed in the grand scheme: it had amazing scenes, but none of it tied up as a great film. The sum of its parts, and all of that...
The film committed the greatest sin: it bored the general public.
Craig is not to blame, but the rushed script and the director who seemed under the spell of his own genius, covering up the fact that they had a script with zero stakes.
The film was a beautiful mess.
Craig is fit and strong and a great actor; the producers are responsible for now sending him off in the proper way; a way that fits what he brought to the role in his first three films. Give the man his teeth back, and stop being so stylized (as ppl said in other threads: the stylized strut from SP, and the attempts at Moore humor).
Craig is special and played the first three films as no actor before him can play. Lets get back to his gifts as the lead actor in this role (ferocious, passionate, a rebel), and close off this chapter with the respect that they brought this era in on (heavy Fleming influence, and the creative team falling behind that, and bring it to life in the modern context).
Completely agree with this!
Except that Tim was A+ also...