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
Woah! :)>-
I remember being thrilled by the Miami airport sequence. In fact when I first got the CR DVD in 2007 that was one of the scenes I often rewatched.
In contrast I can take or leave the sinking house sequence, which has no real purpose as the main villain isn't there and Vesper has already been exposed as a traitor.
Good post. Only difference is that I am not relying on other people's opinions of SF to form my view. I've seen it with my own eyes and formed my own view.
But you're right, we all look for slightly different things in Bond movies, and it's inevitable that someone somewhere is going to be disappointed. I think the Craig era is a huge step up from what came before, so I'm generally happy. I just set my own personal expectations very high, so when they're not met, I get disappointed. I guess a 'grown up' intelligent Bond movie has been a bit of a fantasy of mine for some time, and I expected more from Mendes - like he just drizzled a thin layer of jam over the top of the cake, rather than making sure it ran thick all through the middle. I'm hopeful that SP will for me mark a major improvement on SF.
For me the first 3 Bond films are pretty much perfect. After that up until 1989 you get hits and misses, but generally entertaining films. Then Bond goes through a mid-life crisis, buys a BMW Z3, grows a beard and gets embarassingly emotional at the family get together. Ashamed and rather disappointed with himself he then disappears for 4 years, hits the gym, dyes his air, gets his sh*t together and reappears in 2006 newly invigorated and ready to take on the challenges of the 21st century.
Some films are remembered because of the plots (The Usual Suspects), but generally it's not the reason classics are classics. The great romantic films of the 40s are great because of the direction and cinematography. Otherwise we would remember Randon Harvest, and Casablanca would be some old peice of junk with Bogart.
i don't think Bond films are any different. One of the major reasons we love OHMSS is that it looks so damned magnificent. Maybe Skyfall will fall in to that same categorie.
Re Bond though, I agree that having a really intelligent story is not necessary. - just robust, and workmanlike is usually sufficient. I just thought the way that Mendes talked about the script in advance of SF we would get more. I don't think the SF story is either very workmanlike or very intelligent, so it doesn't satisfy me on either front - it promised much but delivered little from my own personal perspective.
Someone asked me above how I'd make the hacking story fresh and I think the answer is that I would 't - I'd scrub it completely as I think hacking is lame and too often just used to hide the cracks in a story.
I wouldn't have thought many remember the plots of Dr No or FRWL but they do remember Ursula z
Andress and Klebb's poison tipped shoe.
Ideally you need to get BOTH right.
Very true. You need more than just a few iconic images to make a classic movie. The best films have a strong well constructed story and great visuals , characters etc. it's a total package.
Yes I've noticed this as well. I think that's because a lot of casual and new fans actually probably didn't see CR. They've bought into the publicity hype that sold SF as a semi-reboot. Mendes of course is complicit in this, even going so far as claiming responsibility for casting decisions (Rory Kinnear) that he actually inherited.
Also, a lot of people get their views from the press and media. So, just as Brosnan was once the best Bond since Connery, SF is now the best Bond movie since GF, and everyone trots out the current received wisdom, until the next hype-storm blows into town.
I'm tired of being different.
Would have been great if Bond just found Vesper in bed, dead, a la the novel. She goes to the bank (does the deal with Gettler) and comes back to the hotel, a new unsettling attitude about her. Bond receives the call from M after Vesper returns, in private (maybe while he's preparing for their trip alone). Bond then returns to find Vesper in bed, dead. The realization that she's betrayed him sets in, he looks at her phone. "To Bond: Mr. White. ###-####"
Cut to Mr. White's mansion on Lake Como.
I rate them neck and neck.
CR may be the most plausible, reasonable plot in the entire series. Of course, this is due in part to its basis on Fleming's novel. The film makes a lot of sense and is a good espionage story without being full of the typical espionage cliches.
SF is a deeper, more personal film. I find it to be more confident and assured, a thinking man's Bond film. The acting, cinematography, and art design are superb.
Don't make me decide. LOL
I rate it higher than CR because while CR is good, I think it's just more flawed than SF overall. I think CR is a bit overblown and bloated, and that after the torture sequence it takes a pretty rapid nose dive, turning into a cringey romance film. I thought the Bond and Vesper relationship felt rushed and unconvincing, I found M's death more effecting because I actually bought into the whole maternal relationship, with Vesper it felt so rushed, it just felt like all of a sudden Bond was deeply in love with this girl he'd known for five minutes simply because the plot demanded it. I also thought that Skyfall had a better villain (although I do like Le Chiffre), better dialogue, better cinematography, a better Bond girl (Severine gets a criminally little amount of screentime but in that short time she became one of my favorite Bond girls), and it's just a more traditional Bond film, there are some gadgets, there's more quips and humour, it's a more traditional cinematic take on Bond, which I like. CR has Fleming's Bond, who I also like, but when I go to the cinema I do want to see the cinematic Bond, the type of Bond who jumps onto a moving train, adjusts his cuffs and makes a quip about changing carriages. That's why I like Dalton, he was close to Fleming sure but he wasn't that far removed from the cinematic template (still quipped, still had gadgets) and I prefer Craig in SF to Craig in CR for these reasons. CR also suffers from some cringe worthy product placement, SF has obvious product placement too but it didn't stick out to me to the extent it did in CR.
I mean CR is good, better than SF in some ways, I just prefer SF overall.
Having said that I confess that I prefer watching SF to CR (and I'm not sure if that's just because it's the newer movie and I've not seen it so often). I also agree that it is the more entertaining movie (as I said elsewhere, SF to me is like a music video - I don't watch it for the themes that others talk about or even for the splendid characterizations - I watch it because it's jolly good fun and a great cinematic ride with amazing visuals).
I also agree that the Vesper romance was rushed in CR - but I don't see how they could have done it any other way (the pacing of the casino scenes were excellent imho, and really established Craig as Bond, so I wouldn't have wanted those cut out). Perhaps they could have dispensed with the lousy Miami sequence, which I didn't really like and seemed superfluous.
I was never a fan of Dench's M, so didn't feel any connection to her - I actually experienced a tinge of joy/relief in SF when she finally 'bit' it because I knew I wouldn't have to see her any more on screen in a Bond movie. My reaction to Vesper's death was the opposite, even though the romance did seem forced.
My biggest issue with CR is that it does feel a tad bloated and the pacing slightly off but other than that I find it to be a superior film to SF in every way bar the cinematography, which doesn't matter much as the cinematography in CR was still pretty good just not great as SF'S. As for the quips, for me there's quipping and then there's having a general relaxed attitude. I thought Bond's disposition was far more agreeable and relaxed in CR than in both QoS and SF. I found him to be enjoying himself far more on CR. I agree that SF felt more like a traditional Bond film but to me that doesn't necessarily make it better. CR had more than enough of the traditional elements incorporated into it but were used unconventionally. The locations were better, it was a more glamorous film, better action and I personally found Eva Green to be a far more engaging Bond girl than Severine. In fact, I find both Severine and Silva to be criminally Overrated, especially the latter.
SF is definitely more thematic and layered and nuanced and Mendes capitalises on his strengths with the drama and considering his usual body of work SF is definitely ambitious and Mendes is to be comended for his stewardship of the movie but as overall complete pieces of work; CR wins as a better and preferable movie for me.
That being said i'm really stoked for SP because it feels less like SF2 and more like the best of all 3 of Craig's Bond movies. I feel like Mendes hasn't let the success of SF go to his head and has genuinely observed the flaws of SF and acknowledged the critical wow factors of the Craig era, combined with the tradition and heritage of the series in general and will give us something truly worthy of the title Best Bond ever but we'll see.
Right? Being different is for squares..and triangles...and octagons. @chrisisall, I'll join you in this new lifestyle change of ours, a...period of enlightenment, we'll call it.
First off, Dan's Bond is just a blonde, blue-eyed moody teenager trapped inside the Hulk's body. He's not interesting, he's not captivating, and he sure as hell can't wear blue swim trunks correctly; quite pretending that he can.
Casino Royale is to the Bond franchise what Eva Green is to my eyes; something so gruesomely ugly I wish it would just go away. I've seen more attractive meth heads, honestly, and they don't have any teeth.
And please, don't even get me started on Skyfall: pretentious, empty filmmaking, an arsehole of a Bond that puns about women getting shot, a director that makes Michael Bay look like this generation's Orson Welles and Judi Dench playing a role she'd been attached to for 17 years too long.
And what about Sean Connery as Bond, you ask? Heh, I've been more charmed by a piece of rotting wood with a face sketched on it. Get over the hype, simpletons.
WHEW! GLAD I GOT ALL THIS OFF MY CHEST. It's true what they say, you know: the truth sets you free.
For a Bond fan maybe but these films aren't made for a select little group. I think this is why I have less of a problem with these Craig films than others as I realise they can't made like some fans dream entry.
If they made the films like some Frankenstein fan wet dream like some of you suggest the series would have been dead years ago. This isn't your own little sand pit to play in, this is hugely popular and long running franchise that needs to cater for more tastes than yours.
I like the sinking house bit, I really don't mind the romance at the end of CR as well, they couldn't make it like some book written in the 1950's and anyone thinking that they would deal with Vespers death that way instead of what they went with, is to say the least a little naive.
As for the Miami bit it was just a lazy ROTLA rip off, yeah it was well staged but couldn't they come up with something more original? Maybe we were a little spoilt with that terrific Madagascar parkour sequence at the start that I expected more. The sinking house sequence is just far more inventive and to kick off your reboot a simple suicide at the end would have been so underwhelming and only Bond die hards would of appreciated it.
I'd agree with @TripAces I just find SF more engaging, the plot is full of holes but after that I really don't have a problem with it, the dialogue is better than CR and it doesn't have any sequences I find as lazy as Miami in CR. The PTS is one of the best of the series. The whole London sequence after Silva escapes I find thrilling and don't have a problem with the so called Home Alone ending maybe the deep water quip is a bit jarring in the context of such a serious scene but the whole way they deal with M's demise is done incredibly tastefully. I don't have a problem with Bond showing emotion in that scene it makes sense.
I'll say one thing about the Craig films each one of them including QOS as some of the greatest sign offs of the series, CR Bond confronting Mr White and saying that line, QOS Bond confronting Yusef (I never left) and of course Bond meeting his new boss and getting back to work at the end of SF.
Just check this topic: http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/10170/bond-polls-2014-let-s-rate-the-bond-films-from-goldeneye-until-skyfall/p12
Here the last visual results:
And here the very latest up-to-date results:
Is Skyfall losing its gloss and appeal? Well, if you think you answer this question with "yes", then ask yourself why, on average, this doesn't show in the above Poll-topic. And why especially such a huge variation of forummembers visit the above poll topic (79 members voted!) and why the variation of forummembers in here is much more limited. Because I tell you this, many of those voters don't bother posting in this topic.
Totally agree - far better than flopping back under a parachute/duvet/shower etc triggering a girlie giggle and a bit of brassy music in a "Carry On 007" style.
May I ask what about the Miami sequence did you find lousy?
Woah! It's so refreshing to see someone actually criticize CR for a change. I thought I was the only one with something even remotely negative to say, but I can see we share a very similar opinion of this film. The sappy romance tacked on to keep up with the events of the novel is the worst film the crime commits. Vesper was basically a run of the mill bond girl up until that point, suddenly she is the central focus with no explanation. The scenes of them in love are laughable to say nothing of the dialogue. Best to just turn the film off when he wakes up from his injuries, you can some the last half an hour up with two words. Vesper dies.
For me the opening chase is overrated and overlong, the Miami sequence is generic action, and the ending both rushed and protracted at the same time. The film hangs together on the central casino section which admittedly is some of the best stuff you will ever see in a bond film. But a stellar half hour can't make up for a mediocre hour and a half.
The parkour scene in CR bothers me more than the Miami airport scene. And it has nothing to do with the parkour itself, which is well done. Rather, it's the climb to the top of the construction crane, which makes zero sense. Once Mollaka climbs up that thing, he's trapped, doomed. There's no reason for Bond to go up there. All he has to do is wait. Bond may be stubborn, but he's not dumb. And that was dumb.
The train scene in SF is also full if "huh?" It's almost laughable that Bond and Patrice have been having a shootout, have disconnected cars, and when Bond jumps into the passenger car, they're all just sitting there calmly. Plus, at some point, the conductor would have stopped the train, knowing full well what was going on.
But WTH...it is a Bond film. So sometimes you suspend your disbelief and just go with it.
From my point of view it just felt like a tacked on action sequence without much tension - something thrown together just to get some fisticuffs in there before the film shifted to the real business of introducing Vesper and all the fine Casino stuff.
After the brilliant pre-titles (short, sweet and incredibly effective) and the African rundown and parkour sequence (I have yet to see parkour used as effectively), the Miami airport sequence reminded me of late Brosnan era TWINE Michael Apted-lite action filler - to showcase Craig's running skills in particular. I admit that I enjoyed the twist at the end and Craig's smirk, but if there's one sequence that I'd shorten or cut out entirely so that more attention could be focused on the Vesper romance (which I admit did seem forced in the film, probably due to lack of time), then this would be it.
Agree with @bondjames sentiment above, especially regarding the PTS.
I was going to quote it and say that your resulting list is the same as my ranking, but it seemed like a pointless thing to post :P
It didn't, and your point is valid. There comes a point where those who love a film like SF (the majority) simply walk away. It isn't worth the hassle.