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
Agreed 100%.
I do love those scenes. Quantum has quite a few of them. Which I why I'm so fond of it. Craig is brilliant in it. One of those movies that ends too soon.
Take notice, please. Most of the times when Bond and Madeline are together in the film, there's barely another soul nearby. The clinic feels all but deserted, 'l Américain (delicious scene!) feels like the scene takes place on another planet, the train car looks quite empty, the desert is--uh--deserted, even London by night looks almost completely in lockdown. These two souls are both furthermore parentless, disconnected from the world, adrift. Some have argued that these two have no chemistry. I disagree with that. I see them as introverts (it takes one to know one, I guess ;-) ), insulated and alone but not necessarily lonely, who have found each other. The connection that these two have is not foreign to me personally.
We are treated to several quiet moments in SP, with Bond and Madeline at the heart of it. Even the score chooses a quieter, more ambient style in those moments. I am absolutely delighted to have them in the film. I find them quite frankly to be very romantic. Of all the "passions" Bond has had in the movies, this one may come closest to my deepest romantic fantasies, not merely because of Madeline, but also because this passion seemingly exists in a world devoid of prying eyes. That's my world. ;-)
100% agree. You’ve outlined perfectly one of the strengths of Spectre, and why some (me, for one) defend the film.
'Quiet moments' they may be. But unfortunately with subpar dialogue.
There are definitely a number of individually strong moments in the film. I wouldn't say they have no chemistry - but the idea that she falls in love with him is a hard sell for me. If they omitted the love bit and just had them grow together as partners without the declarations, it would have been much improved.
One moment in SP that I absolutely adore is Bond dispatching Lucia's assassins. That's a fantastic scene. The setting, the lighting, the music choice. All great.
This is Forster's strength as a director. If he had leaned into those strengths, like Mendes did in SF, the film would have benefited greatly. QoS needed more Mathis, more Bond/Camille, more Leiter, and even, more Fields or Beam. He could have jettisoned some if not all of the generic action in favor of these characters.
SF does not have a ton of action during its runtime, and the dramatic scenes always come first. Even in scenes like the attack on Parliament, Mendes manages to infuse the action with character.
While I think GE has an overall good sound mix, every explosion in GE sounds very puffy with no real "blast" to them (particularly when Arkangel'sk blows up and when the explosive pen takes out the fuel tanks in the control room). Unfortunately also agree about TWINE having a poor sound mix.
What's wrong with their dialogue? I don't know if lines like "I have no armour left--you've stripped it from me" are considered good by some, but I like the way Bond and Madeleine talk like human beings.
I love CR, but I agree, @ProfJoeButcher, that Bond and Madeline talk like grown-ups. It's not as if the Bond films have a great tradition in dialogues between Bond and the lead girl. (That's not a complaint, by the way.) I fail to see how the childish interactions between Bond and Honey, or that "lovers' lesson number X" thing in LALD, or Bond lecturing Melina (and so on) are so much better. I'm not saying the dialogue in SP is the best thing since The Usual Suspects; I'm saying I don't really think that is the ultimate criterium by which to judge a scene.
There's just something about SP, I don't know what it is, that forces people to look for the negative when there's so much positive. ;-) But hey, that's just me. ;-) ;-)
Is it possible that the Stepbrothergate taints people's perception of the rest of the movie? I mentioned the destruction of Spectre's base in Morocco: sure it's done ridiculously easily, but isn't that the case of most of the destructions of villains HQs?
Almost every Bond goes wrong here or there. Usually, we can give a film those one or two mock-ups. Of course, every fan has to consider for himself how annoying a certain mistake really is. ;-)
SP doesn't deserve to be the longest Bond movie.
They bring back Mendes - even delaying the next one to get him - and then SP is... ... not SF II. It definitely has it's problems, so it just drops like a stone in people's estimations and they (we, honestly. I do the same thing.) start going through it with a fine tooth comb, looking for reasons to justify ranking it in the bottom three of the entire series and forgetting, overlooking or unjustly disqualifying the good parts it has, which usually are cherished and championed for the other low-rated Bond films.
To be honest, they really could've done with Phoebe, maybe then we wouldn't be hoping for No Time to Die to be Madeleine's saving grace.
Looks that issue is soon to be resolved. ;-)
Well put, sir! I fully agree.
See, that's the thing. SF is a very good Bond film; to me it just never was that shining diamond the film seems to be to others. In fact, I somewhat resented its fluke success, as I felt most if not all of its "medals" (bar theme song) should have gone to CR, a film that was very well received, but somehow not as celebrated. Either way, with SF a good but not "superawesomefantastic" Bond film, I found elements in SP that I rate higher than in SF. There wasn't a drop in quality, at least not for me. So I guess that explains why some make certain claims such as "NSNA > SP" in their good and respectable opinion, while I find said claims nevertheless outrageous. ;-)
If you like TSWLM and not MR, you don't like the space stuff: it's very simple. They didn't "ruin" the always-silly Jaws. If you don't like Spectre, it's most likely Brofeld. It's not the color filter in the PTS, or "subpar" dialogue between Bond and Madeleine.
If you like a movie because it clicks with you, say, Goldfinger for its iconic moments, or Casino Royale for delivering the dark, gritty, tortured Bond you think used to be there, you don't get bent out of shape about this stuff. You tolerate rear-projected hotel backgrounds, two minute car-crushing scenes, Le Chiffre's actions not making any sense or Prague doubling for Miami (!). (what's with that--is EON banned from Miami or something?!)
I think a great example is QOS. It's totally fair not to like the movie because of its editing in a few places. But people pretend that the movie is poor as a result of the writers strike. It has one of the most complex plots and likely the strongest character development of any movie in the series though, and without reports of Craig and Forster working on the script, we'd be none the wiser.
All very good points.
I think SF is overall the better movie, but I enjoy SP more. Also I think SF in some aspects makes more sense with SP following it than at the standalone it was intended to be.
There are many reasons I don't like SP. The brother angle is just one of the many flaws that infest the film. IMO.