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
God that movie is so good. But something still confuses me. When bond doesnt buy back in. He grabs a knife. Whats he planning to do? Then when vesper later leaves dinner after getting a text from mathis, why is that suspicious in bonds mind.
I assume Bond grabs the knife to kill Le Chiffre personally since Vesper refuses to let him buy back in.
As for the text, I've always viewed that as Quantum texting Vesper an image of her boyfriend in their clutches with instructions to confuse Bond over Mathis's loyalty.
As for the text that Vesper gets and why Bond is clued into it-- I always get the sense that Mathis texting Vesper after the game was won, and the job was done, just seemed "off" to Bond. His instinct for danger was triggered since it made little sense for Mathis to contact her.
Yes, and I think what that "off" text triggers in Bond's mind is how Le Chiffre knew that Bond knew of his tell. The only two people he had told were Vesper and Mathis. Hence the sudden look of realization on his face as he says "Mathis..."
Also, and the book is better at explaining this, Bond is caught off guard that Mathis would text (or send a message in the novel) instead of coming himself. It just seems like it has "trap" written all over it to Bond, in addition to the situation of Le Chiffre's tell (although I don't think Le Chiffre needed to be told Bond knew, he just used observation and played him). And of course Bond writes the text/message off as Vesper being foolish at the start, still not able to see her as a possible traitor.
We all know the flaws. Moore, while obviously too old, still gives it his all and you can't help but admire the guy for it. Even at 57, his delivery of the iconic BJB line is smoother than most humans could ever hope to muster in their physical prime. Have you ever noticed that all the henchmen are either women or men close to Moore's age? I think the youngest man he fights is Zorin, and the editing is actually surprisingly good in that last battle.
I think my main criticism stems from the long stretches of boredom I encountered during this watch. Some people seem to find the horse race rigging subplot as boring, but I love the part at Zorin's French estate. Absolutely gorgeous. It's when things move to San Francisco that I started to nod off. It's been said that Glen didn't do the city justice. I honestly wouldn't know, I've only ever been to So Cal, but as a Midwesterner I hope to visit someday.
Speaking of Glen, he is a mixed bag this time around. Some of the action sequences are entertaining enough (yes, you read that right), but sometimes the editing is infuriatingly sloppy. The stunt doubles might as well have had their names in the opening titles. I've always said that OP does a much better job with Moore's fight scenes. It really is night and day. I know this film was rushed due to the burning down and rebuilding of the studio, but still...
A last random note. Stacey asks if Bond knows what she is sitting on and he claims that he's trying no to think about it. Well, it very much had my attention with that closeup. Tanya was hot, but could be an irritant when she opened her mouth. Still not the worst Bond girl for me by any means. All in all, it wasn't the worst way to spend two hours. It may fall a bit in this year's rankings, but it is still a Bond film that is near and dear to my heart. Vive la Bond films.
Just to nitpick: The first four films came out in a timespan of 3 years and 2 months. The gap between TB and YOLT was 18 months.
Absolutely.
I don't see Fiennes being able to do that, at least not with Craig on the basis of SP. Something is missing between the two of them.
It's a movie where the characters are all on edge and quick to temper, largely because their jobs are meaningless and they are being flushed out all at once. Tensions rise and that leaves little room for cheeky banter of the vintage Bond variety between Bond and M.
I'm sure some got that from the latest effort but I didn't and I don't sense the same comfort between Craig/Fiennes. Given that scene opened the film post title credits it set a tone for me. There's just something not there. I look forward to seeing how they work together in the next one.
I think the unintended comfort is definitely a choice that was made between Mendes and Fiennes. This isn't Bond and his regular M, he's in a transition period both emotionally and professionally. It's no accident that in their "briefing" (even though it's post mission) Bond is acting as he was accustomed with his old M, being very bold in the face of the reprimands that his actions were being received with. He's still in his old mode, and doesn't yet know how to deal with a new boss in the way that Mallory expects (ie, toeing the line), and Mallory is awkward in the face of it too, unsure of himself and only willing to stomp his feet and pinch Bond's ear like he's a schoolboy being punished by a headmaster. They are both out of it, and not yet able to have any kind of work related dynamic that suits their personalities.
The movie also makes a conscious effort to show the weak morale Mallory puts out, and how he is a bad fill-in for the old M in some ways; he can't handle Bond the right way and doesn't know his mood yet, he is forgetful of his workers and is very scattered and unfocused outside of his work and feels the strain in a way that kills his energy. Just look at the scene where MI6 is being shut down and all Mallory can think to do is bumble about and repeat a tired French proverb. If Dench's M was in that situation she'd have called all of the people marching in on her territory to belittle her pricks, and would've needed to be taken out by force for the firecracker she was. Mallory in comparison is limp and lets the situation steam roll him instead of taking initiative; he's imperfect and not yet struck with a need to speak out for his stake in his job. His leadership in many ways is intended to have visible holes in it, to come off as not quite right. Mallory makes for a very unassured leader, and like Dench's M before him he has to grow inside the job and learn it his way. He's also a different kind of man than Dench's leadership, and the awkwardness and discomfort is very much a function of that delineation.
It's very much like what EON chose to do in casting Robert Brown following the end of Lee's M. In TLD and LTK Brown's M in comparison to Lee's chief are day and night. He's bumbling, awkward, can't handle Bond and is a poor leader, planner and rationalist. His first thought when Pushkin is suspected of being guilty isn't to take some time to investigate to prove the suspicions, it's to shove a sloppy kill order on Bond and ignore his warnings that they are being played. In the same token his response to Felix and Della's deaths and his handling of Bond in his period of mourning are beyond forgiveness and rather callous. The intention (I think) was for Brown's M to contrast with the M we knew quite starkly, who would've been much more sensible, diplomatic, level-headed and altogether better in his handling of the situations than his predecessor.
But like Dench and Fiennes' Ms, the Ms of Lee and Brown are different people with their own unique leadership flaws and what results is another situation where Bond is again caught between his transition from one leader to the new. That Daniel has seen two different Ms in his era in a way only Roger had before him is even more interesting, as we know this Bond and who he is which gives more meaning to his transition from one M to the other.
I'm interested to see how this develops in B25. Hopefully to a stronger level of trust and comfort.
TMWTGG is actually the only performance of his I don't like. LALD for all its flaws did a perfect job of establishing this fresh new take on Bond. Then for some reason in TMWTGG they decided to have him try to be Connery. He isn't bad at the harder edged stuff but it's just jarring to me, doesn't really gel very well with his other performances and I don't think it suits him anyway. He comes across as cruel in a way that Connery never really did in this moments. Luckily they seemed to realise that wasn't who his Bond was and he nailed it in TSWLM.
His best performance for me is OP. He gets a lot of brilliant Roger Moore moments but also a chance to actually act. His confrontation with Orlov on the train is so good. And he seems genuinely panicked when the bomb is about to go off (that whole sequence is brilliant). He's brilliant in TSWLM too but he gets a bit more to sink his teeth into in OP. Very underrated, just like the film itself.
EDIT: The scene
Think watching that again is the first time I've seen him as Bond since just after he died. Still feels a bit weird that. Such a legend, I think it'll always be him and Connery that the public remember and hold the others to.
I don't agree on the Connery thing re: TMWTGG though. They may have been trying to make him more like Connery (in fact, I think Wilson acknowledged that in an interview) but to me that scene with Andrea is all Moore. Connery would have indeed come across a bit too rough (like he did in the PTS of DAF with Marie). Moore on the other hand, while being suitably tough, was quite smooth and applied the necessary pressure (literally) only until he got what he wanted before moving to a glass of champagne. I truly think it's a classic scene of his, and the same goes for the Lazar sequence.
I think that gets harder and harder to do the more actors there are to be fair. I'm not sure there are any really distinguishable, easily summed up approaches to the role left that'd still be recognisable as the same character. I think Connery, Moore and Dalton are the only Bond's with completely original takes, the rest all channel at least one of them to some degree.
I do think every actor has bought new elements to it and done at least a couple of things to set themselves apart, which is good. But I'm not sure any Bond actor will be able to escape the shadow of those three Connery, Moore and Dalton. Not in terms of quality, I've always loved Brosnan and I think Craig is getting closer and closer to becoming the best Bond (apart from Dalton of course), just in terms of originality. To put it very simply: Moore was fun, Dalton was dark, Connery was effortlessly both. That doesn't really do any of them justice as there's obviously a lot more layers to it than that (especially Dalton) but I think that's why all the others will be compared to those three to some degree. Because they came along first and grabbed those different sides of the character while they were still unused. There's lots of other stuff actors can bring to it (Lazenby's humanity, Brosnan's emotion/vulnerability, Craig's physicality and character arc), so it's not like they've run out of new ways to play the character, but there's nothing as distinguishable as "the funny Bond" or "the dark Bond" left to do, so it's tougher to get out of the shadow of the past imo.
As an example, if the script has something in it that's difficult for an actor to deliver well and genuinely, then they should get it changed rather than attempt to do something because it's expected.
I think it would really help if they don't try to put the actor in situations too similar to his predecessors either. Sure, we'll inevitably get casino and Aston scenes for example, but it's critical to continue to shake up the narrative and the environment. Create new memorable moments like the CR train scene.
Not really what I mean, to such a degree. I simply mean actors playing their Bonds with a level of commitment and authenticity as Sean and Roger did. It's what sets them apart and why (I know this doesn't register for some) Brosnan especially came off as playing Bond and not actively being him. A Bond actor needs to have certain pre-requisites and the ability to be all the contradictory parts of Bond (cold/compassionate, tough/vulnerable, sharp/flawed, etc.) in the most natural way possible, with their own flourishes coming in.
I don't like to use "originality" as a gauge for Bond performances, as that begins and ends with Fleming who created the character and who all the others play from. My interest is in seeing the James Bond on the screen, and in the back of my mind I like to see hints of the original character in there, meaning that the actors are playing to the role as crafted in the books. Because when we get right down to it, much of what Bond is known for in the films from the escapist nature of his image, his toughness, lust, appeal and heroic status are played up in the books quite beautifully and were slightly exaggerated for the screen. It's why I rate Sean highly as the initial Bond for just how much of the literary character he nailed (something he sadly doesn't seem to get much credit for), and why I don't Brosnan as authenticity is lost.
So for me it becomes less about an actor trying to wrestle one "unique" idea of Bond, it's taking inspiration from Fleming who created that playbook and manifesting a sense of genuine energy in their performance to realize who James Bond is by emphasizing certain parts of the true original. All the actors realize some of that idea of Bond, like Sean's essential full picture recreation of the character or George's fallibility and vulnerability and Roger's roguish hero of Britain, but of course others do it with a wider range that accomplishes a fuller picture than the rest.
Sean and Dan reach the most and tick the most boxes for what I expect, but that's just my interests. I know a lot of fans don't even know the books exist or don't ever care to read them, so they have no expectations and don't care if a Bond actor doesn't feel natural in the role in the face of the source material. And that's really why I try not to get into debates where performances in particular are being debated or compared, because they are too different in some ways to bother and each actor has different strengths. At the end of the day there's no talk of originality when each actor consciously or not has been bringing out the character Fleming created, either in a great range of ways (Sean, Dan) or in a much lesser way or in a fashion that focused on particular aspects as opposed to a wider variety (Moore at times, Brosnan). It quickly just becomes a question of which actor played the most to Fleming, and realized a greater sense of authenticity inside the role as opposed to which were most original in inventing the character's traits; they were all there since 1953 so no invention was needed or expected.