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
Another interesting thing, when guards & Silva saw that bond didn't do anything while they kill severine they somehow got relaxed that if bond didn't interrupted in between that, he won't be a threat afterwards. That's when you punch someone when they least expect it.
Make no mistake, Bond is visibly bothered by the scenario--even with sunglasses on. When he first sees Severine, as Silva pours the Scotch, you can see Bond's discomfort (Craig is that good). He looks around, assessing the situation. This is a no-win. Severine is a dead woman, and he knows it and she knows it. Hence why Silva says, "When something is redundant, it is--boop--eliminated." She's a goner.
Then, with the pistol in hand, we can see further that he is rattled by being in this position.
So, no: I don't see a scene that is "tone deaf."
+1
So true.
As Silva goes to ridiculous lengths to prove a point, so does many fans in order to criticize certain Bond films...
I was similarly a bit put off by the scene when I first saw it, and I do think a nod to Severine's death afterwards - rather than a blaring of the Bond theme - would have been a nice touch.
But there's so much subtle stuff going on in the scene between Bond and Silva, just with body language alone, that makes the scene good.
And it should.
SF was not my first Bond film (TSWLM was), but it was the first one that had an emotional effect on me. Context can be everything, and the contexts in my life surrounding the release of SF cannot be understated in my love of the film.
Likewise, while SP is not nearly on the level of SF, it affects me too. There was some sh#t going on in my life at that time (2015) that has made SP a weird viewing experience for me ever since.
Forgot to mention, in regards to this scene, how DC fidgets with his left hand while assessing the situation. It's a subtle cue, that he is uncomfortable. Just brilliant work by DC.
Exactly my feelings.
I rewatched it on flight recently and also didn't find it as jarringly bad as I did when it came out. But I totally agree that while the first hour builds nicely, it then just loses it's way. And yes there are several WTF scenes all the way through for me. I agree the death of Severine is one of them. It's just a very strangely written, directed and acted scene.
I wish I could say I found M's death moving but frankly I'd found her increasingly annoying as a character. Not Dench's fault - she's a brilliant actress. But the writing and characterisation had become tedious and repetitive, with her endless trust issues.
Anyway, I need to give SP a rewatch too. On first viewing I found SP immensely dull. 2nd time around I actually quite enjoyed it and would say I preferred it to SF. Need to see how it works for me now. I generally would also say that the 2 Mendes films sit just above the Brosnan films at the bottom of the table.
I don't buy this at all. Severine gets shot and only then does Bond make his move and effortlessly takes out the entire team of goons (which as we find out later was actually Silva's plan all along anyway). And to show how cut up he is, Bond then makes the lame quip about the "latest thing from Q branch". It just all feels "off". Like a lot of SF, to me at least, it feels like no one has really thought through how the scene comes across. I doubt Mendes meant it to be so tin eared but that's how it comes over on screen. Just awkward and clumsy.
As with the whole of SF I feel there's a really good film there trying to get out but for me it just falls short. I sort of see it as a superior remake of TWINE.
Ironic given that I think Mendes probably disliked the Brosnan films as much as I did, that he was the one who took the Craig era back in a similar trajectory to the Brosnan era.
Everything is just totally off: The lackadaisical attitude the filmmakers seem to have to Severine's death (which might have been a product of bad editing), Craig's smug quip, followed by the triumphant WTF helicopter moment, despite the fact that Bond has just gotten an innocent killed. I mean, what are we supposed to be fist-pumping about -- Silva's capture? We know he's going to escape anyway.
And no, I'm not buying Craig's subtle acting cues. I'm not even certain he knew what he was supposed to be doing in the scene.
Plus, if you're going to get such an awesome location like that island, why not stage a large scale action sequence there and show us as much of it as possible?
You might find this video I found earlier interesting:
Mendes talks of being 'harsh' on action. If it didn't feel real or genuine, he suggests that he wasn't interested in it. Chris Corbould also speaks to it as well.
When Mendes got the job, he wasn't an 'action' filmmaker, that has changed now in light of SF, SP and 1917. Nonetheless, I do recall being excited at a drama director with oscar clout flexing his muscles on a big action film. Though I do confess that when I first saw SF, I did think it was light on action.
I also refute that Bond films are not 'action films.' Action is not a dirty word, in fact the craft involved in putting together a film like SF or any Bond film in fact is outstanding.
Just watch the above video for confirmation of that. The train stunt is impeccable. The Bond films have the best crews and even the worst films (narratively) have A+ production values.
They're absolutely supposed to be action films. People aren't going to these things to see half-baked John Le Carré.
Is there a difference between action films and films with action in them? I don't find Bond films comparable with most, if not all, of the films held up as classics of the action genre.
SF
CR
GE
SP
QOS
DAD
TND
TWINE
I’m not sorry.
To each his own, and it may be a welcome component, but I don't watch a Bond film for the action.
I don't even know how to respond to this. I just can't imagine anyone seriously describing the Bond films as deep. But they're out there, apparently.
Shocked you'd rank TWINE so low if you like SF.
In many ways, they are very very similar.....
I get the same sense. This is really not a great performance from Craig. He's kind of wooden in a lot of the film. Not surprisingly I suppose since he's written almost as a supporting character in a lot of scenes.
There are a few scenes where you sense Craig doesn't really know what the intention is. Him being morose on the beach at the start is okay but strangely flat. There's lots of moodiness and brooding but to what purpose it's never entirely clear.
I personally much prefer his performances in CR and QOS where he still has that energy and oomph. Without that punchyness his incarnation of Bond can fall a little flat.
For me Craig's Bond is almost a different character by the time we get to SF. It's like Mendes reset the whole Craig era. Not in a good way from my perspective. But obviously commercially it's been a huge success.
So Bond is comparable to films like Die Hard, Speed, The Raid etc.?
I always saw Bond as a subgenre unto itself, with its own set of rules that it abides by.
Yes I was about to say the same thing. Bond is it's own genre.
They are a cocktail of different ingredients, blended in a fairly unique way. Yes they contain action but are not strictly action movies. They contain drama and sometimes lengthy, wordy dramatic scenes, that you don't usually associate with action films. They mix in humour and suspense in a way that many others have mimicked but remains distinctly Bondian.
I agree though that Bond films are hardly "deep". Mendes tried to change that and we could argue endlessly about how good an idea that was and how successful he was.
Having said this, I don't think lacking depth means the films are not often cleverly written and directed. At their best, they're beautifully crafted popular entertainment.
We shouldn't forget as well the dept the series owed, especially in the early years to Hitchcock. The 39 Steps and North By Northwest were clearly a big influence on how EON decided to approach the films.
The fact Cubby considered casting Cary Grant as Bond is also telling.
SF
QOS
GE
TND
DAD
TWINE
SP
There might be similarities between TWINE & SF but I know which one I'd rather watch. SF maintains its tone and has superb acting throughout despite having some flaws.
TWINE is all over the place, one minute it is trying to be Brosnan's OHMSS ( I believe his intention) the next it is as goofy and cheesy as TND, at least that film seems to have an even tone.
I love SF and that feeling was amplified when I saw it in concert at the end of last year. It's no. 4 in my rankings.
SF and SP might be from the same director and follow on from each other but they are night and day to me.
One shows everyone involved believes in what they are doing, it has suspense, it is thrilling and hits on many emotional levels, the other just feels like an afterthought.
It's director seems to have given up and the script is an utter mess, preferring SP over SF I can only draw the conclusion you just like Bond films because they adhere to a certain type.
I like my Bond films to step out of the box, not be confined by tropes and have to tick boxes.
For instance if you are going to be a gritty revenge thriller own that idea, maintain the tone don't just bring in a series regular to make everyone feel more comfortable. Yes I am talking about LTK, that film should have owned its convictions rather than just ticking boxes.
I'm pretty sure Dalton would have preferred to go it alone rather than have some pensioner turn up with a stupid bag of tricks, kind of takes the edge off want has gone before.
QOS is a much better example of the Bond goes rogue, it might not be one that the public embraced but it sticks to its guns and maintains its tone throughout.
To me SF is one of the most individual Bond films of the series, not it shouldn't be attempted again but I admire for going where it does. SP in comparison is just lazy and tries to crowbar Craig's Bond into something that would have been better suited to Brosnan.
Craig might not be phoning it in but he is arguably his least engaged here, you just need to look at the trailer for NTTD to see the differences when Dan is motivated by the material he is given.
I also would rather watch SF over TWINE, but my distinct feeling after seeing SF was that it could also have been taken straight out of the Brosnan era. SP just reinforced that sense that Mendes had taken the series in a backward trajectory.
Even Timonthy (my favorite bond) and Mr Connery (whom i always admired) isn't capable of delivering something without dialogues which Craig did in those marksmanship Scenes.
The SPECTRE script might be a bit of a mess, but at least Mendes was fully committed to style and atmosphere, so that we get superbly creepy sequences like the boardroom meeting. I would also add that the film is about something: the duality of Bond, with his immoral side appearing in the form of an evil doppelgänger, a foster brother. I would never call that deep, but it's something. SKYFALL just seems like a muddle of themes and ideas, with Mendes never committing to any.
I'm afraid sharing anything with Tanner in it is just going to annoy me.
Look I like Craig. I think he's a decent Bond. But I don't think he's as brilliant as some people make out. He's definitely at his best in QOS and CR IMO.
Maybe wooden is a bit harsh, but his performances in SP and SF just don't grab me in the same way.
2. CR 10/10
3. QOS 9/10
4. TWINE 9/10
5. TND 9/10
6. DAD 8/10
7. SF 8/10
8. SP 4/10
It's actually weird when people compare SF with TMWTGG & TWINE but forget that SP is basically a combination of the whole bond series without any single vision behind it.
Was SP about spectre?
Was SP about bond and Blofeld?
Was SP about bond and Madeline?
At least with SF we know it was about M & Silva.
Mendes actually wanted to leave SP while in production i believe and i don't blame him because he wasn't invested in it completely.
It's not just shaky hands and rubbing shoulder but also the expression when he failed to take a shot. It's called being human rather than a superhero. I still feel everyone was really invested in that film more than CR & QOS. If you had problem with Tanner then i don't know how you actually enjoyed QOS & SP because he was in it and will be in NTTD as well.
Yes it seems like ultimately everyone just stuck around for the money with SP, which is a sad state to be in.
It always seems to come back to these ropey scripts that EON land themselves with. Had SP had something stronger maybe Mendes and Craig would have been more enthusiastic.
Although Mendes I think insisted on the 3rd (4th?) act in London which is clearly an abysmal idea.