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 would say the first act adds very little to the film. I've often thought if you wanted to do your own homemade edit of CR, you could splice the end of the opening titles into the train ride with Vesper and have a much more potent, more streamlined film. There would be a couple brief scenes I'd miss in there, but you'd get rid of a lot of drag.
They also ooze Fleming. A little indulgence and time spent building atmosphere. Nothing about Fleming was streamlined. He went to great effort to coax the reader in, without it being over as quickly as possible as some seem to require.
That's true, the scenes with Le Chiffre were good.
I guess I just don't agree that anything in the first act sets up anything that happens latter. Well, except for those couple of short scenes with Le Chiffre.
When you boil it down, the first third of the film equates to this - Bond foils Le Chiffre's plan. We see all that play out in the Miami section, so it makes what comes before kinda redundant.
If you're asking what I would replace it with, my answer would be set up which better matches up with what transpires later on in the film. Once Bond meets Vesper, the whole subplot about him being fresh in the field is basically dropped. As far as she is concerned, he's a functioning agent like any other she might be chosen to work with. Bond's true arc in this film has nothing to do with him being a fresh 00 agent, that was just something they added to make a splash in the media, and shake up the snow globe so to speak. The real arc is how someone who has no problem being emotionally detached ends up fall in love, and how it turns his world upside down. That's the kernel of the story, the part people can relate too. Bond was happy until he was with Vesper, and yet something about her made him want to quit it all. That's the part that needed exploring more in depth. Instead, we have endless scenes about whether or not M can trust Bond or not, which ultimately doesn't leave an impact.
Where do you get that idea? CR was a pamphlet. There might well be more pages to the script than the book itself.
As Bond, I would say it is.
Narratively. By and large he eschewed brevity in favour of a little embellishment and indulgence.
If Fleming can eschew brevity and still write something using roughly as many words as a Agatha Christie whodunnit, then EON should be able to produce something that manages to eschews brevity without including copious amounts of filler. Pretty much all of the psychoanalysing by Dench in this film could have been portrayed through her tone of voice and through her facial expressions during a M scene, just like the other films.
How would we know what kind of blunt instrument Bond is, and how emotionally detached he can treat women (solange, allthough you can see he isn't that detached when he sees her body) without the first part? It's because of that we know he's willing to risk live and limb for the mission (the amazing crane-jumping chase) and set aside his own pleasures (champagne for one) to get the job done. Because of the first act we know who he already is, nad what he still has to learn (i'll shoot the camera first next time, half monk half hitman). It isn't about trust-issues, it's about learning the job. And yes, in intelligence, trust is a part of that. The whole latter love story, and mission story, rely on this.
It's nuts, I know.
Auch.
Sorry, couldn't resist a joke that would go balls up.
1) Judi Dench is the worst thing to happen to the Bond series
2) The time has come for the Broccoli's/Wilson's to leave the franchise - they've simply run out of steam and good ideas
3) Goldfinger sees Bond, the character, at his worst - he spends the majority of the movie as prisoner!
4) For Your Eyes Only Blofeld is better than Spectre Blofeld - such a wasted opportunity and very rushed (see point 2)
5) Octopussy is the most serious and tense Bond movie of the series - the whole Germany sequence is exquisitively tense!
6) With each new Craig film, Die Another Day gets better and better
7) The emotional, Bourne elements of the Craig era will eventually kill the franchise. Has been done to death now
Agreed with everything except 1 and 2. Though, with regards to point 2, I do wonder sometimes.
I can't say I agree with any of these. 1, 2, and 4 are ludicrous, in my view.
This is the 'controversial opinions' thread. You're looking for the 'Broadmoor potentials' thread.
Haha brilliant comment that RC7
Not really. The mistakes he makes with Vesper are because he's a rookie agent.
I don't know if he would have been perfect, but I'd agree that he would have been very good.
I think a young Craig would have been perfect for that. Not in 1969 obviously.
Interesting thought. I think you're right. Moore was a far better actor then he gave himself credit for.
You came to the right thread! It's quite the opposite to me, gives the movies a sense of wonder and scale