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
But, of course, these movies are not examined like this within the mainstream. Punters turn up, pay their money, buy their popcorn and get onto the dramatic rollercaster. IMHO, success rests no how high are the highs, how low are the lows and how much the audience is emotionally invested in the experience. They know instantly when the lights go up if they enjoyed it or not.
I agree with so many of the comments re the faults of SF. It's impossible not to agree with most of them. But, as an art form, there has to be more. In contrast, it would be possible to create a perfectly formed plot with zero holes and 100% logic. But it could still be a dreadful movie. I love SF despite all of the obvious faults.
It is still, IMHO, spiritually a Bond movie. Is Bond a professional killer (for good)? Is there a mad villain? Is M the boss?, does Q supply gadgets? does Bond bonk a girl or two? Does the villain die a death at the hands of Bond? Is there a big, violent climax? Has it got a PTS? Is there a gutsy, big theme tune? Is the Bond theme played? Is it patriotic ?, does Bond flirt with MP?
SF clearly gives mainstream punters, as a trend, what they want even if it does upset some of us fans. Surely, we should all agree with that. And, as such, it does get much more attention than other movies. When will be the next time that a Bond movie does such a good job in this area? Future directors would dream of making a future Bond that combined such critical success with box office BIG success. SF should never be taken for granted.
Well said. It was a mistake going down that route in SF (which I think is a mess anyway) and SP only compounded the problem.
You see, that's what I wrote the 'or to fool yourself' part for.
Especially in the pts it becomes evident.
It also is way too loud in many places throughout the film. Same for SP.
With another score SF could well be higher in my Top 10. David Arnold is a second John Barry.
There are scenes where Newman works, not saying it's all bad. But that's just not good enough for Bond if you ask me.
There's also nothing memorable or Bond-like in Newman's sound. Could well be the score to any other action film.
I have to watch SP a second time, but isn't the score in it absolutely the same as in SF?
Which is why his ost for SF earned him a Grammy Award and an Oscar nom?
Awards are not a guarantee for quality. As proven countless times.
I did genuinely think until recently I preferred it to FRWL previous no. 4 and SWLM previous no. 5 but SF has moved down to five while the others go up a place.
While I have issues with it, yes the plot hole of Silva supposedly having planned everything years before highlighted by Wishaw's Q's dialogue. I do like him in SF but this moment irks me and as much as I despise SP he all around comes across better, one of the only plus points of that travesty.
Also I do love the end of the film in Scotland and the whole Apocalypse now tribute that some seem to hate but the origins of Bond skims too close to Batman and you can see the writers were trying to replicate that vibe with Bond. That being said I don't think the deep water comment defuses the scene that follows and Dan & Judi knock it out the park.
In hindsight I would have preferred it not, digging into Bond's and M's past I liked but they dug a little too far, P&W & Logan with Mendes being a little under the spell of Nolan's Bat trilogy and the whole Batman back story.
That being said I love the PTS, not my favourite of the era that is still CR but definitely 2nd best and one of the best of the series for me. The opening titles while not scaling the heights of CR and the Adele song not on a par with Cornell's & Arnold's YKMN are great. That being said I think Adele's song lives within the confines of the titles and is great but stripped of this the song is a bit of dirge and unlike the classics it now seems to get held with due to it being her and the worldwide smash it doesn't really survive on it's own the way everything up to AVTAK ( with exceptions) does.
I like the story for the most part, I've mentioned my issues above and I think the performances are great, yes Harris does sound awkward at times and Wishaw gets those awkward lines at the Silva breakout segment but the flim really belongs to 3 actors.
Bardem now I prefer Mads subtler take on a villain but Bardem is the best throwback villain in years and he's clearly having a ball with the role, is intro will go down in history as one of the most memorable and acclaimed. Also the way he winds down at the moment he catches Bond on the frozen lake and mentions that he must be exhausted with all the running about. You can see he's had enough and maybe Bond getting him out of the way of technology and stripped back to the bare bones he realises he's lost and he won't succeed as he wanted.
Bond getting him there shows that Silva is out of practice working in the field, going back to the scene with him criticising and ridiculing Bond for being old school when they are first introduced.
Judi Dench is superb, I've liked her more in this era ( I know many haven't) and yes having her pedigree has made the writers take the character far more and put much more meat on those bones than some would like but it's a great swansong but it was time for her to go.
Though last but not least and for me the standout and so it should be Dan himself. No it's not the intense performance of the previous 2 films but he still continues to dig into the psychology of the character and I love how he's pretty much washed up when we meet him after the titles but undergoes a transformation when that beard comes off as he is literally reborn as he glides to that Macau casino dinner suit and all.
Thought it's success has led it to be the most dissected and talked about film of the series, as I said before it's reception had led those that have a problem to treat it in a way that wouldn't see any other entry subjected to, if you don't like it you'll see all the bad there is and for some there is plenty to stick your fork in
Though those of us who do like it might not be willing to see it so critically, I think I've done my most honest assessment here and I admit it's far from perfect but even OHMSS my favourite is not free of it's faults.
Mendes has his faults here, no gunbarrel, the issues I've mentioned above but he's served beautifully by Roger Deakins who makes the film at times look like a work of art, the Shanghi/Macua sequences and also the big climax for me at least look extraordinary.
Newman is never going to be my favourite composer, he has his moments but I definitely preferred what Arnold had done with DC's first 2 films QOS in particular.
That being said both director and composer are at least making an effort, for me both are barely bothering in SPECTRE, Mendes issues are well known but Thomas Newman's copy and paste SF effort for his attempt to score SP rank as one of the very worst scores of the series.
Skyfall is indeed flawed but for me is still top 5 of the series.
Well, those who voted for him disagreed with me.
They're a pretty good measuring stick for some sort of quality. Yes. That, and the number of a-list directors and productions that have hired him as composer. Taste is like anything else: one person's nutrition is another's junk food -- and vice versa. But there's enough evidence that Newman is much more than a "run-of-the-mill" composer.
Newman has no say in what music Mendes uses or doesn't use. The use of SF music in SP was 100% his call and Newman (likely) had nothing to do with it. Even so, Newman had over 60 minutes of material for the soundtack release: that's nothing to sniff at.
I disagree, but fair enough. This criticism makes more sense.
M was also a catalyst in TWINE's plot as well and there seemed to be several parts of that thrown in SF.
Those two aside yes I wouldn't say any of the others have been concerned with the idea of theme.
The "old ways are the best" in SF that you mentioned is certainly the more 'complex' (relatively speaking) of the two. It's presented in such a way, I think, that really leaves open to interpretation whether or not the old ways are best—i.e. I think you can see a lot of the film as a critique of how old ways have failed.
Edit: To elaborate a bit-- Field agents are still needed; technology can't do the job all by itself. Technology is useful (DB5, radio, breadcrumbs for Silva), but also a threat (MI6 bombing; modern cars with trackers in them).
1.It had the original working title of Nothing Lasts Forever.
2.The metro crash was going to be Barcelona not London.
3.Mallory was going to be named Mallender.
I knew of 1 and 3, can't say I had heard of the second before. I wonder why the change from Barcelona to London; does that mean the train crash might've been a separate action sequence then, unrelated to M's hearing?