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
People will say/do stupid stuff like that. Good example, @Mendes4Lyfe, didn't know about it (I'm not a LOTR guy, though).
I remember when The Dark Knight Rises was coming out in mid-2012, right on the lead up to the election in America, fools like Rush Limbaugh were saying that Christopher Nolan created the villain Bane and put him in the film to slander Mitt Romney, who was a past affiliate of Bain Capital, to further the liberal agenda. It was lost on Rush that Bane/Bain were completely different spellings, that the character of Bane was nearly twenty years old at the time instead of being created for that film, and that Nolan didn't really give a piss about politics.
Always sad to see evolution take so many steps back.
https://s29.postimg.org/a2i6hir4n/vlcsnap-00090.png
It's like a painting... Beautiful stuff. With that lighting, it almost looks like Bond and Severine are standing in front of back screen projection.
A badly scripted movie that looked beautiful but lacked anything interesting. A warning of what was too come in the next Mendes movie of the franchise. What a glorious waste of a promise made with CR with the actor Daniel Craig.
That's some appreciation, there
It's good the filmmakers stepped up to the plate, it served the film to show a higher than usual price paid (this time by folks at the home office) for stopping the bad guys. A controlled exit of Dench M from the franchise was a smart idea and they did it well.
And there's no doubt to me that Bond is successful at film's end. No reservations.
I agree although I personally prefer SP.
But taken together SF and SP definitley represent a squandering of the potential of the Craig era. I was saying that when SF came out.
Same here: Skyfall does not have the substance of "Casino Royale" - but it looks just awesome and (most important) it "feels" good. At least for me. I really don't mind any plotholes or such - I just like the acting, the images .. all of it (maybe I would have wished for a better soundtrack - with rare exceptions like "Shanghai Drive" it's just boring).
Skyfall is highly rewatchable for me even it's not "Casino Royale" quality or does not have the energy level of "Quantum Of Solace".
so say's the guy who had to have Olga Kurylenko's fear of fire in QOS explained to him
To you, maybe. The story about her parents never registered with me, so I didn't readily connect the fear she had in the hotel to a past memory. I hadn't seen the film in quite a long time at that point as well, so my memory of it wasn't as up to shape as it could've been, and I still haven't revisited in a long while.
We watch these films and see different things, or feel certain things about them more strongly. I could point out things in the films you've never thought of, and that's okay, because it's all down to personal perspective and what engages us. There's no reason to be a pissant about it to someone, however.
Let's try to get this thread back on track, on to the topic it was meant for.
do you like SkyFall @double0brady0matic?
Of course.
There are similar thrillers.
For example, if you look at "The American", the plot is simple and paper thin. But the "character arc", the photography, the themes etc make it a cult classic.
I could list some many respected classic movies that have a poor or very simple plot (including holes) but there is enough going on to make them better films and they rise above the plot.
I'm also happy to hear there's another fan of The American out there. Super underrated and overlooked spy film, there.
Some may be satisfied by ropey TV drama tricksyness but when the films just stop being entertaining that's a bad sign IMO. Theme or no theme.
If you want art house cinema there's way better movies out there. Bond should primarily be entertaining.
It hasn't happened yet, but it could if they keep deviating from the mission centric formula. No actor and no one film should take precedence over the series. That's why it's survived so long in my view - because it adheres to a template. I'm not saying it should descend into predictable pastiche like it did in the 90's - just that it has to stay within certain boundaries, and Bond should remain an enigmatic character.
I think the art house style will be gone once Craig hangs up the holster. The eras tend to follow the actor's style. They've had more leeway with him because he is the 'reboot Bond'.
I don't find any of the above elements weak, so the audience for these films fits my own preferences. I don't think Bond films having smart construction makes them something they shouldn't be, however. The 60s films were quite clever, deep and cunning in their use of motif and theme too, while also being popcorn flicks for those that only wanted them for that. It's only because of the artistry of those films that we have what we do now, after all. Most of those scripts played logic olympics with viewers, but their scope and cinematic nature really make up for it and created an escapist world where reality could be pushed out at times. If we rated the scripts for GF, TB, YOLT and OHMSS as we do SF, for example, they'd apparently all be shit. That just doesn't make sense to me.
It's never a bad thing in my view for a Bond film to have things to say or to present interesting messages or ideas while telling its story through the characters. I would welcome it over a more dimensionless film that offers little beyond two hours of lost time, and when the characters are put in the forefront as they always should be, I can't complain.
I don't watch these films for the schemes, I watch them for Bond, and when he's as compelling as Craig's is I'm a happy camper and more invested than I would be if I was watching a film that was great at everything but presenting an interesting Bond. Much in the same way I don't read the Sherlock Holmes books for the mysteries, the Bond films have far more to offer through character than anything else in my view.
Well, just as @Getafix suggested maybe it's not the right franchise for you. Neither literary nor cinematic Bond were ever meant to be multi layered character drama much less melodrama.
@noSolaceleft, what are you on about? Part of the reason why I enjoy the 60s films and the Craig era more than the rest is because they have the elements of the above that interest me. Fascinating and dimensional characters being developed through conflict, plots that mesh reality with high fantasy, and strong use of theme and motif where the camerawork and script meet to comment on each other. In short, smart films.
I think in this way the Bond films do more and service more than many give them credit for. They're not pretensions or too below to be smart or cunningly assembled, and I think that in the original books and the early films there's a surprising amount of depth and art to them, from the stunts to the performances and the writing that gave those performances a source.
If this series wasn't the right franchise for me, I wouldn't be here, now would I?
The fact that SF did so well re box office and critical acclaim raises question re the above statement. So all the people who loved SF - is Bond the right series for them? There is no obligation to stick to a formula that "Bond purists" regard as somehow legitimate when a movie that performs so well by pushing the boundaries re character and depth does so well.
Plus, character arc is something that is not exclusive to art house movies. Die Hard (the ultimate action movie) had character depth lacking in many of the Bond movies. You can have both and many successful action movies have proved this.
What am I on about? Well those 60's films you mention managed to tell tales of espionage and adventure, while looking colorful and exotic, while inserting plenty of witty and dark humored one liners and having a hero who was ruthless when he needed to, but was nevertheless a man of honor and his word. And most of al,l a man who had joie de vivre .
SF manages - apart from looking quite beautiful - none of that. SP doesn't even manage to do that.
You very often like to wax about this multi layered approach of the last two movies. I don't buy that at all! Mendes neither hasn't got the talent nor the ability for such sophisticated interweaving even if his life depended on it. No one, who needs to refer to such of plump and heavy-handed approach when bringing the "the old ways are better than the new ones" theme has. Hell, he doesn't even seem to be able to tell a halfway coherent story. This alone, among so many many other things proves to me that he's just all style - no substance.
Regarding your last line - manny a wife has said the same line about her husband a million times to calm itself, only to find out she was wrong in the end.