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
I'd put it behind LTK, CR, QoS, GE and OHMSS. Primarily because I feel these films balance character and plot with more skill, something I think is key to a two hour movie. SF feels like it tries to deliver a character arc you'd find in a six episode tv series. Some of it works great imo, while other elements don't necessarily fire. It's certainly above some of the more plot heavy, character light films in the series, just by the nature of it's story.
In the film I feel he does. It's only in the Craig series that they've really attempted to have any kind of explicit character progression across films. GE delivers a Bond that goes from a care-free, effervescent man of action, to a man betrayed, utterly undone by the revelations of Trevelyan/Janus. Peppered throughout are great shades of character when he plays against 'M', Wade, Tanner and the rest of the principle cast. The Bond of the final hour is a different Bond to the first. The face-off with Mishkin is particularly thrilling as is the ensuing escape. The denouement, "For England James" is the perfect capper on what I think is a great journey of plot and character. I just think this film gets the balance of both better than SF. There are character moments in SF that work better in isolation than GE, but as a package I'd go for GE.
Really? Can't see much of that myself...
That is precisely why I like GE so much. It touches on it but does not delve too deeply into it. It's superficially touched upon, so the general perception left is that it's an action adventure. After the long 6 year gap, and particularly after LTK's deviations, in 1995 I needed exactly this.
I think there's more than enough conflict and drama within the dynamic to avoid it becoming staid. It doesn't descend into the three-way psychological war of SF, but balanced alongside the plot and in the context of the film I think Trevelyan is far from generic. In many ways the two films have a similar trajectory and elements, I just prefer the pacing and balance of the component parts in GE. Where it can be argued that the dramatic weight of Bond and Trevelyan's relationship is not front and centre for the duration, or as you say is not as fully explored as it might be, SF, in quite the opposite way, wanders into melodrama. I can see why one would prefer SF, but as a Bond film I would take GE.
Fair enough! However, if there is one word I would use to describe Goldeneye, it is "melodramatic". But that's me, of course. And I'll retire now before the "Brosnan bashing allarm crowd" enters, and we have a character driven melodrama of our own... ;)
But for me that film has substance and quality which I think will stand the test of time. It will be interesting to see how Spectre does when compared to Skyfall, I'm guessing it wont do as well at the Box Office (how can it?) but hopefully it will be just as acclaimed critically.
I think the performances are great. The dialogue, music and cinematography too. I love that this is a film with a broken Bond - one who is not at his peak (this idea was visited in TWINE but rarely did it trouble 007. In SF he takes his time getting back to a professional standard).
I think this was a perfect anniversary film, but I won't want them to repeat themselves in Spectre. We are allowed to look back from time to time but I want the next film to look forward (even as, ironically, it is bringing back Bond's most famous foe from his past).
Why? We had some spectacular cinematography (a burning Skyfall lodge)
That's actually pretty funny :))
I personally liked it as it was turning the traditional climax of an old school entry on it's head. Rather than Bond confront the villain in his lair and destroy it, Silva tracks Bond down to his childhood home and demolishes it, with Bond's help of course.
SPECTRE though has upped the action considerably and it looks like we are going to get at least 4 big set pieces, the PTS, Rome car chase, Austria and of course the big climax of the film.
Upon re-watching it though I do think that Dench's line "I never was a good shot" sounds more ridiculous than it did before.
Reminiscent of Goldfinger ( see "The Goldfinger Phenomenon" documentary on the DVD/BD). Just imagine if a London train had gotten a Goldfinger treatment like they did for Skyfall. The idea is just delicious. :)
It occurred to me when I watched it, but didn't bother me too much. What I did like about the ending was the attempt to subvert the classic finale, the cinematography is brilliant at points and Bardem is excellent. The thing that disappointed me most was the trite nature of the narrative. The whole new vs. old is really hammered home here, with a sledgehammer. I feel like the bulk of the Scotland scenes are basically there to service the thematic content of the film, rather than to progress the narrative in an exciting way. It all plays out in pretty linear fashion, with the only twist being M's death, which isn't really too shocking and loses the emotional impact for me when Craig tosses off his Moore one liner. I don't dislike it, but I'm not massively keen on the familial angle. It's all very convenient. I do give it Kudos for doing something genuinely different, though.
The problem of Logan is that he relies so much on turning stuff on its head...
Agree with both of your comments here. SF is a glorious failure in my view. I have always appreciated a lot of what Mendes was trying to do. I love the idea of inverting the tradtional ending and having it on Bond's home turf, but throughout the film, the story and execution just let it down for me. None of the action stands up very well for me. I'm not even a fan of the PTS, which feels boringly predictable - like they're just trying to throw everything at it and seeing what will stick - 'we'll have in one foot, then in a car, then on a bike, then on a digger, then on a train...' Yawn... There is nothing clever about the PTS. No little twist of grain of intelligence. Just a pounding generic chase sequence, with perhaps a bit of sillyness (the digger) thrown in for some old-school Moore era vibes (doesn't work IMO).
I prefer both CR and Qos and am really hoping that Mendes has made sure the SP story is a lot better.
One recurring problem seems to be the plot. Silva’s plan is too convoluted and too convenient. That may be true it’s not new for the bond series. If you apply the same scrutiny to CR and LTK (two fan favourites) they don’t make much sense or are reliant on an equally unlikely set of circumstances, yet they don’t get the same criticism.
Another problem is that SF doesn’t innovate or provide the series some fresh and iconic imagery but instead leans too heavily on established hallmarks from the days of yore. Again, this is true. I can’t think of original ideas, scenes, stunts in skyfall that kids will be talking about twenty years from now like the bungie jump from GE for instance. But you have to remember that SF is the 50th anniversary of the film series, it’s providing what we expect from a bond film but at the same time subverting our expectations. The hot chick you think is just there for eye candy has a dark past. The villain’s lair, not a hollowed out volcano, is actually just ranks of servers on an abandoned island. Instead of bond on the heels of the villain, he’s the one on the run.
It’s just copying TDK. Yes, in the same way LTK copied Lethal weapon, CR copied Bourne, Moonraker copied star wars etc.
How does Bond get the car from Goldfinger? Really? Ok it’s pointless nostalgia but what effect does it have on the plot really? it shots a couple of goons, thats it.
My point is if you go through SF with a fine toothcomb you are going to find things to complain about. But there are issues that exist for other films too.
3:-O
I see it like this:
--> "CR" and "SF" basically get the exact same kind of praise from ordinary movie lovers (people who are NOT Bond fans), journalists and critics
--> But within the fan community that's entirely different. On here obviously "CR" gets more praise than "SF".
It really is. I was saying the other day, by the time the Scotland finale kicks in the narrative is really quite linear. The bulk of it is used to service the themes of the film in really overt fashion.
I don't know anyone in my wider circle of friends/family/colleagues who prefers SF to CR. I know some who like it a lot, but not enough to budge CR. I do actually have two mates that spring to mind who prefer QoS out of the three.
Exactly!
You hit the nail on the headhead.