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
Oooh - you make Silva sound realllly scary!
If he was so clever why did his plan culminate in spraying a courtroom with machine gun fire (perhaps Silva had been watching one too many Brozza movies)? I'd have bought it more if Silva had held the court hostage and used it for a set-piece confrontation with M - to humiliate her in front of her colleagues and the government. But all he has dreamed up after his years of plotting is this - spray the place with lead and then run off when someone sets off the fire extinguishers.
He should really have got some help to plan that part a bit better, surely? Oh, hang on, he did have help after all - Purvis and Wade.
I'm suprised you enjoyed the hacking aspects of the film - hacking is shorthand for lazy screenplay in my experience. Silva's amazing hacking powers are used to explain practically everything that happens in the middle section of the film. It's lame beyond belief. Fair enough that some people found it entertaining but to claim that the plotting is anything above Scooby Doo level is just laughable.
Which, while not my favourite or arguably not the most interesting, I can enjoy immensely at times.
I see your point regarding accuracy but I think it would have been really unpleasant, as well as distasteful to our British friends given 7/7.
It brings Die Hard 2 to mind, of all things. When the terrorists crash the plane full of innocents it taints the rest of the movie as unpleasant and not at all fun.
If you want fun in a Bond movie, then I suppose you don't want a 'Fleming-like' movie, but a DAF, MR, or DAD.
Death is not and should not be fun, except in an extreme fantasy setting.
IMO, of course.
OMG- my 1000th post! No way!
Not what I'm saying at all. Bond movies at their best have a wish-fulfillment component--think of Bond entering the casino in CR or SF--despite the tragedy elsewhere.
To bring thinly disguised real-life tragedies like 7/7 into it is another thing altogether.
I completely 100% utterly agree with you. Glen is massively massively under rated. He brought a very distinctive and unique feel to his films. It was in an sense the essence of Bondness. His absence was felt immediately with GE, which is such an inferior, drab film. It certainly would have been interesting to see what Glen might have done had he been given GE. That film is terminally awful for me, but I think Glen just might have been able to get something of quality out of it. He'd have needed to whip Brosnan into shape though and I don't know if that was his thing. I get the impression he left TIm and Rog to do their own thing to an extent and because they were so good that worked. But Brozza needed to be taken in hand and told what to do.[/quote]
Campbell was kind of dismissive of Glen when he did GE.
What I dislike about the newer post 80's franchise is that newcomers disparage what has gone before. Up until that point, no one in the Bond crew would say anything bad about a predecessor because Cubby was strict and did not stand for bad mouthing.
When the individual Blu Rays come out next year in the UK, apart from FYEO which I own on Blu, I shall be ordering Glen's other four 100 and 10%.
I think Glen would have done a fine job with Brozza and I mean that sincerely. He is the one who made his screen tests in '86 get Cubby's approval. Glen was a master of making his actors look good.
And I think Brozza would have been more comfortable with Glen to get the job done. If you see the EON documentary when Broz repeats what Campbell said to him : " You better be f'ing good Brosnan!."
Glen would never talk like that to anyone and must have been great to be around.
Broz would have benefited from having a director that stayed on with him for his tenure as Bond.
You can thank studio politics as to why Glen had to move on. Bond needed a huge makeover as directed by the financiers yet we were always told nothing changed. Yeah right! :)
And that makeover is evident with each film moving further and further away from the classic style.
I thought the train sequence in OP was better than SF. It was super dangerous and Martin Grace the stunt double got badly injured. No wires back in those days that could be CGI'd out like today.
[/quote]
Campbell had a few iffy moments in GE but overall I think he is the better director. I like Glenn and think he had some great moments (how can I not respect the man who shot the ski jump scene in TSWLM) but Campbell's direction of the torture scene in CR is inspired and, for me, outdoes pretty much all of Glenn's work as a director. There is also the scene when Bond is healing his wounds after the stairwell fight. These are critical scenes and under lesser hands I don't think they would have worked as well.
While I don't think GE is AS well directed there are some brilliant moments like the Serveneya sequence and the stuff when Bond is walking through the statue park.
As for TWINE, a lot of it was quite poorly directed I have to admit. A few good scenes here and there (Bond's first meeting with Electra, the PTS, the Scottish castle) but Apted is not on Glenn or Campbell's level when it comes to Bond.
Incidently, have any of you seen the interview with all three of them?
[/quote]
The scenes Campbell did with the wounds are nothing original in film whatsoever. Mel Gibson's Payback shows it far better and years ago. Gibson has bullets in his back and is bleeding and having them removed with no anasthetic by a back street doctor.
The torture scene in CR outdoes 5 of Glen's films?????????????? You are kidding?
I agree it is a powerful scene and the acting carries it through for sure. But it's style owes more to torture porn horror flicks than Bond. It is different than the novel's version.
But the torture scene in LTK is more disturbing as Felix is hanging there beaten up and then fed slowly to a shark. It is sinister and creepy. Well ahead of it's time. Sanchez is truly sadistic whilst Le Chiffre just wants the fastest method to get his $115 million.
For it's time, LTK pushed the Bond boundaries super far. CR came at a time when young audiences were used to more violence in films and the censors were more lenient than before. But LTK was a WTF? moment for Bond fans because you were not expecting it.
CR for me has serious continuity issues which are ridiculous. And yes, I know Bond films have strange continuity. But in Goldeneye, M clearly states her predecessor is a male as in Robert Brown who was Bond's boss. But in CR Bond begins with the same woman boss whilst his original boss was a man in Goldeneye as M herself refers. That was the whole point of allusions to his sexism.
Judi Dench was only there to make Craig's transition easier to audiences by keeping a well familiar face. And Bond can break into his boss's house? Considering what Silva was capable of, I do not think anyone in the secret service would feel comfortable if someone could be in their home without consent.
Nolan handled the Batman reboot way better than Bond. At least there is no trace of any previous era baggage. None! New Bond mixed the stale with the fresh.
Yeah, plus it's written for a younger Bond... in hindsight CR is not all that. As flawed as it is, I think GE is a better film. TND and TWINE as well... but then this is coming from a Brosnan fan, so take it with a grain of salt.
1) Reboot/origin story. Somebody explain to me why??? The book wasn't an origin story and they'd done down to earth films before. They could've made CR almost exactly the same as it was but with a gunbarrel, Q and Moneypenny. But no. They made it a stupid reboot/origin story and now they have to waste time reintroducing things. I'm very happy the reboot is over now, even if it took them 3 films to end the thing.
2) Craig is a rookie. He's pushing 40. And he's a rookie. Again, this is just another reason why it shouldn't have been an origin story. This came back to bite them with SF when they went straight from rookie to older more burnt out Bond.
3) Some of the Bond/Vesper dialouge is terrible. Nothing as bad as Jinx in DAD but still fairly bad.
4) It's too long. Towards the end I think it starts to drag on a bit, the miami airport chase could've been cut down, or the finale cut down. Speaking of the finale
5) Sinking house. I thought the finale looked fake and, since the film up until then was realistic, it was too OTT.
6) Misleading ending. This is more Quantum Of Solace's fault than CRs but it has the ending that lets you think "that's it, Bond has become Bond", even Martin Campbell said so. But that was thrown out of the window for the sequel.
I am doubtful because after CR and QOS I thought "yes, reboot over!" but it didn't happen.
Still, Dench is gone, Q and Moneypenny are back and even M's old office is there. It gives me hope that they really are trying to get things back to normal.
Q should be played by an older actor period. Just like Bond should not be a teenager. I thought the new Q cannot even be compared to the magic of Desmond Llewellyn.
I agree, Q should be older, but I didn't mind the new Q. Not as good as Desmond or even Cleese imo, but he had some fun lines and worked well with Craig.
Back in the mid eighties EON toyed with the idea of a rookie Bond and possibly going with an actor in his twenties. But in the end they felt Bond should be a veteran and went with Tim.
But Craig being almost the same age as when Connery retired after DAF, it was not believable at all that he was new to it.
Had Cubby been around then Henry Cavill who was 22 in 2005 would have fitted the rookie age way better.
Daniel's face says seasoned and not fresh.
Hello @TheLivingRoyale I agree, Q should be older, but I didn't mind the new Q. Not as good as Desmond or even Cleese imo, but he had some fun lines and worked well with Craig.[/quote]
Hello @TheLivingRoyale The comedy of older Q was funny because Q was like Bond's dad telling him off. I mean when he visits Bond in LTK it is hilarious and one of the finest Q moments ever. It is the generation gap that makes the chemistry work.
But an almost teenage looking Q telling Bond how it is just does not work. I am sure that on a planet of 7 billion, EON can find an older actor to really bring back an essential component of the series.
I agree with you on LTK, the Q scenes were great there. I think LTK had the best Q scenes of the series.
They are trying to relate to teenagers and hence the younger actor.
Super right! Q and Bond in LTK are killer! I find it so funny and it is classic Bond! Dalton plays it so well by not smiling but clearly knowing it is a laugh.
Come to think of it, I think Ralph Fiennes should have been M in CR. That would have been cool and make more sense since it was a start from scratch.
True.
@thelivingroyale : You're just alright. DAD's dialogues were at worst, but actions at that time (and mission's story) at best. I hope well the reboot is very over ! I can breathe. Personally, I don't expect DAD at any release (I point out the fact it was FOR anniversary) but something more "dreamable" may I say should come out. Neither too unrealistic.
Indeed, the Brosnan begin trio would make me happy at anytime. :)
Granted, CR is not the most evenly paced film. As much as I like it... I have to say the first half is kind of boring as well, but not nearly as unbearably as TND. This is all personal opinion of course. Brosnan did a decent job but for some reason I prefer him in GE. Perhaps I need to rewatch both films one after the other, but that's the way I feel right now. I think GE is simply GREAT, TND is... ok-ish... TWINE is alright-ish (I do love the PTS and the title theme). I still need to rewatch DAD because it's been forever and a lifetime since I last saw it.
When Bond saved Wai Lin at the end of TND, that was the epitome of Bond caring for someone almost as much as Tracy. Stamper became no more an adversary and just a roadblock to be removed ASAP. Honestly, there were tears.
Please stop being Donnie Downer already. I miss the fun loving bloke who used to trash Brosnan ;) Those films by far deserve more of a whipping than SF.
I prefer TND Brosnan myself. TWINE, if one calls his "definitive" characterization, was definitive of the worst kind of "tick the box" characterization. He regressed if anything.
He still trashes Brosnan (for some reason :P ). SF is just discussed more on here, good and bad. It'll die down once it leaves the cinema.
I'm mad at you after seeing that new ranking list of yours.
You know, DAD actually had lots of potential. The first half of the movie is just great, the sword fight being one of my favorite fights in the series. When they arrive Iceland however, that's where it starts to go downhill... extremely fast.
You mean my film ranking? Is it because TWINE is rated highly or is it because GF isn't in my top 10? Those are the two things that seem most likely to piss you off ;)