SKYFALL: Is this the best Bond film?

1111214161745

Comments

  • edited March 2020 Posts: 4,400
    Getafix wrote: »
    Yeah, shaky hands and rubbing your shoulder. A masterclass in acting.

    I'm afraid sharing anything with Tanner in it is just going to annoy me.

    Look I like Craig. I think he's a decent Bond. But I don't think he's as brilliant as some people make out. He's definitely at his best in QOS and CR IMO.

    Maybe wooden is a bit harsh, but his performances in SP and SF just don't grab me in the same way.

    Not wooden.

    But his line deliveries can feel a little flat and forced. Examples that come to mind are:
    • "I have to stop the bleeding" to Ronson in SF
    • "Who do you work for?" to Patrice in SF
    • "Back in time. Somewhere we have the advantage" in SF
    • "Mr White, of course!!!" in SP
    • "Take me to L'Americain!" in SP
    • "We all have our secrets" in the NTTD trailer
    • "History isn't kind to men who play God" in NTTD

    I'm really nitpicking though.

    He's fabulous in those moments where he says nothing. No one has shown the internal life of Bond quite like Craig. He can do a hell of a lot more with a look than a line of dialogue.

    Also, in relation to his 'shaky hands' - aren't they just shaking a bit too much.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited March 2020 Posts: 8,009
    Getafix wrote: »
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    They have elements of action, for sure, but to me that's what separates Bond from Bourne and Mission Impossible. The latter is a surface level action film, and it does a fantastic job at it, but to me Bond should run a lot deeper than that.
    To each his own, and it may be a welcome component, but I don't watch a Bond film for the action.

    I don't even know how to respond to this. I just can't imagine anyone seriously describing the Bond films as deep. But they're out there, apparently.

    So Bond is comparable to films like Die Hard, Speed, The Raid etc.?

    I always saw Bond as a subgenre unto itself, with its own set of rules that it abides by.

    Yes I was about to say the same thing. Bond is it's own genre.

    They are a cocktail of different ingredients, blended in a fairly unique way. Yes they contain action but are not strictly action movies. They contain drama and sometimes lengthy, wordy dramatic scenes, that you don't usually associate with action films. They mix in humour and suspense in a way that many others have mimicked but remains distinctly Bondian.

    I agree though that Bond films are hardly "deep". Mendes tried to change that and we could argue endlessly about how good an idea that was and how successful he was.

    Having said this, I don't think lacking depth means the films are not often cleverly written and directed. At their best, they're beautifully crafted popular entertainment.

    We shouldn't forget as well the dept the series owed, especially in the early years to Hitchcock. The 39 Steps and North By Northwest were clearly a big influence on how EON decided to approach the films.

    The fact Cubby considered casting Cary Grant as Bond is also telling.


    I agree with you here, @Getafix. Good points. Thank you for the response.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Getafix wrote: »
    Yeah, shaky hands and rubbing your shoulder. A masterclass in acting.

    I'm afraid sharing anything with Tanner in it is just going to annoy me.

    Look I like Craig. I think he's a decent Bond. But I don't think he's as brilliant as some people make out. He's definitely at his best in QOS and CR IMO.

    Maybe wooden is a bit harsh, but his performances in SP and SF just don't grab me in the same way.

    Not wooden.

    But his line deliveries can feel a little flat and forced. Examples that come to mind are:
    • "I have to stop the bleeding" to Ronson in SF
    • "Who do you work for?" to Patrice in SF
    • "Back in time. Somewhere we have the advantage" in SF
    • "Mr White, of course!!!" in SP
    • "Take me to L'Americain!" in SP
    • "We all have our secrets" in the NTTD trailer
    • "History isn't kind to men who play God" in NTTD

    I'm really nitpicking though.

    He's fabulous in those moments where he says nothing. No one has shown the internal life of Bond quite like Craig. He can do a hell of a lot more with a look than a line of dialogue.

    Also, in relation to his 'shaky hands' - aren't they just shaking a bit too much.

    Gosh I don't think those are 'flat and forced' at all. In fact, when it comes to acting, isn't being 'flat' and 'forced' actually a contradiction in terms?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Ok, so we’re doing Mike/Babs era ranking? Very well!

    SF
    CR
    GE
    SP
    QOS
    DAD
    TND
    TWINE

    I’m not sorry.

    Shocked you'd rank TWINE so low if you like SF.

    In many ways, they are very very similar.....

    There’s similarities for sure, and I actually like the ideas that TWINE has. However, it’s such a dull slog of a film purely on an execution level that I have it even ranked down #24.

    When SF was on the horizon in 2012 I was actually pretty worried of what sounded like another attempt at TWINE. I DREADED IT. But to my surprise, the filmmakers pulled it off in such a big way that it’s been in my top 3 ever since (with FRWL and GF above it).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Ok, so we’re doing Mike/Babs era ranking? Very well!

    SF
    CR
    GE
    SP
    QOS
    DAD
    TND
    TWINE

    I’m not sorry.

    Shocked you'd rank TWINE so low if you like SF.

    In many ways, they are very very similar.....

    There’s similarities for sure, and I actually like the ideas that TWINE has. However, it’s such a dull slog of a film purely on an execution level that I have it even ranked down #24.

    When SF was on the horizon in 2012 I was actually pretty worried of what sounded like another attempt at TWINE. I DREADED IT. But to my surprise, the filmmakers pulled it off in such a big way that it’s been in my top 3 ever since (with FRWL and GF above it).

    Yeah, they're tonally similar maybe, but Skyfall is just so much more watchable and well-paced, and TWINE is a real dull old slog, comparatively.
    They do both feature Vauxhall Cross exploding; M and Bond in a big remote Scottish house; and Bond receive a shoulder injury though :)
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    Ok, so we’re doing Mike/Babs era ranking? Very well!

    SF
    CR
    GE
    SP
    QOS
    DAD
    TND
    TWINE

    I’m not sorry.

    Shocked you'd rank TWINE so low if you like SF.

    In many ways, they are very very similar.....

    There’s similarities for sure, and I actually like the ideas that TWINE has. However, it’s such a dull slog of a film purely on an execution level that I have it even ranked down #24.

    When SF was on the horizon in 2012 I was actually pretty worried of what sounded like another attempt at TWINE. I DREADED IT. But to my surprise, the filmmakers pulled it off in such a big way that it’s been in my top 3 ever since (with FRWL and GF above it).

    I can only imagine the feeling of relief, as well as just straightforward happiness, that you must have felt coming out of the screening.

    I hope those wary of SP part two going into NTTD have the same relief.
  • edited March 2020 Posts: 11,425
    I was kind of dumbfounded when SP sort of recreated the TWINE boat chase. Was Mendes aware of what he was doing? I would have thought referencing one of the worst Brosnan films was the last thing he would consciously do. Esp. as the boat chase is arguably the best bit of TWINE and pointless to reference or imitate

    Kind of sums up SP though. Out of ideas and reduced to canibalising Brosnan movies.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Ok, so we’re doing Mike/Babs era ranking? Very well!

    SF
    CR
    GE
    SP
    QOS
    DAD
    TND
    TWINE

    I’m not sorry.

    Shocked you'd rank TWINE so low if you like SF.

    In many ways, they are very very similar.....

    There’s similarities for sure, and I actually like the ideas that TWINE has. However, it’s such a dull slog of a film purely on an execution level that I have it even ranked down #24.

    When SF was on the horizon in 2012 I was actually pretty worried of what sounded like another attempt at TWINE. I DREADED IT. But to my surprise, the filmmakers pulled it off in such a big way that it’s been in my top 3 ever since (with FRWL and GF above it).

    I can only imagine the feeling of relief, as well as just straightforward happiness, that you must have felt coming out of the screening.

    The same is true in as far as it came just after Quantum of Solace, which for my money is actually probably the weakest Bond film of the lot. I find it quite funny that Craig has had two of the very best Bond films and one of the very worst (in my opinion, obviously).
  • Agent_47Agent_47 Canada
    Posts: 330
    Remington wrote: »
    1. GE 10/10
    2. CR 10/10
    3. QOS 9/10
    4. TWINE 9/10
    5. TND 9/10
    6. DAD 8/10
    7. SF 8/10
    8. SP 4/10

    Beautiful, absolutely beautiful.

    This is a ranking I can get behind... because it is objectively correct =D>
  • edited March 2020 Posts: 613
    1. CR - although overlong (I'm not crazy about the Venice climax), CR is close to a perfect Bond film and usually sits in my Top 5
    2. QOS - unfairly maligned, this is a lean, intelligent, muscular action thriller with one of the best Bond girls (Olga)
    3. SF and SP are tied -- neither of these films have decent scripts and they are almost suffocatingly pretentious, but they have great cinematography and some fine action scenes and performances
    4. GE - assembly line Bond, passable but too corporate and soulless - way overrated by the fans
    5. TND - bland, uninspired, indifferently directed, badly photographed - it's made worthwhile (somewhat) by Michelle Yeoh and the remote control car chase
    6. TWINE - starts off well then heads into Dullsville, though Sophie Marceau's character is a welcome novelty for the series
    7. DAD - I remember this being completely unwatchable after the first half hour, though admittedly I haven't bothered to sit through it since 2002
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    mtm wrote: »
    Ok, so we’re doing Mike/Babs era ranking? Very well!

    SF
    CR
    GE
    SP
    QOS
    DAD
    TND
    TWINE

    I’m not sorry.

    Shocked you'd rank TWINE so low if you like SF.

    In many ways, they are very very similar.....

    There’s similarities for sure, and I actually like the ideas that TWINE has. However, it’s such a dull slog of a film purely on an execution level that I have it even ranked down #24.

    When SF was on the horizon in 2012 I was actually pretty worried of what sounded like another attempt at TWINE. I DREADED IT. But to my surprise, the filmmakers pulled it off in such a big way that it’s been in my top 3 ever since (with FRWL and GF above it).

    I can only imagine the feeling of relief, as well as just straightforward happiness, that you must have felt coming out of the screening.

    The same is true in as far as it came just after Quantum of Solace, which for my money is actually probably the weakest Bond film of the lot. I find it quite funny that Craig has had two of the very best Bond films and one of the very worst (in my opinion, obviously).

    Fair point. I remember waiting in anticipation of Kermode's review, and was instantly put at ease by his opening line....

    "...and, we're back."
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 776
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    4. GE - assembly line Bond, passable but too corporate and soulless - way overrated by the fans

    Yes, this. As I said I still have great affection for GE as it was my first Bond film, but every time I revisit it, after I get past my nostalgia and get to the meat of the thing, I find it rather lacking. It doesn't really do anything new or interesting, instead sticking to a rather ordinary, cookie cutter recipe. And the movie doesn't seem to make up its mind about what the main villain's motives are, first it's revenge, then it's money. The villain of the previous film, Sanchez, is way more interesting and he remains consistent with what he's all about throughout LTK. The best Bond movies typically feature very memorable, cool main villains with grandiose plans that they'd stop at nothing to accomplish. And speaking of villains, one of the best things about GE is Xenia Onatopp, and though she's fun to watch, she's still mostly one note. Give me TB's Fiona Volpe any day. She often has as good or better dialogue than even Bond, she's even a smarter, better baddie than the main villain, Largo! Trevalyn and Onatopp can't compare to these two, who are far more deadly and memorable. Plus, the filmmakers of GE don't give Bond himself a lot of fleshed out character. He doesn't have the swagger or the charm seen in even weaker entries in the series from before and his dialogue just isn't very interesting.
    I don't know. On it's own, I guess GE might entertain, but compared to the rest of the series, it's vanilla.
  • Posts: 613
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    4. GE - assembly line Bond, passable but too corporate and soulless - way overrated by the fans

    Yes, this. As I said I still have great affection for GE as it was my first Bond film, but every time I revisit it, after I get past my nostalgia and get to the meat of the thing, I find it rather lacking. It doesn't really do anything new or interesting, instead sticking to a rather ordinary, cookie cutter recipe. And the movie doesn't seem to make up its mind about what the main villain's motives are, first it's revenge, then it's money. The villain of the previous film, Sanchez, is way more interesting and he remains consistent with what he's all about throughout LTK. The best Bond movies typically feature very memorable, cool main villains with grandiose plans that they'd stop at nothing to accomplish. And speaking of villains, one of the best things about GE is Xenia Onatopp, and though she's fun to watch, she's still mostly one note. Give me TB's Fiona Volpe any day. She often has as good or better dialogue than even Bond, she's even a smarter, better baddie than the main villain, Largo! Trevalyn and Onatopp can't compare to these two, who are far more deadly and memorable. Plus, the filmmakers of GE don't give Bond himself a lot of fleshed out character. He doesn't have the swagger or the charm seen in even weaker entries in the series from before and his dialogue just isn't very interesting.
    I don't know. On it's own, I guess GE might entertain, but compared to the rest of the series, it's vanilla.

    Yep. Agree with all of this.

    And yeah, LTK is a solid entry in the series with one of the best baddies. None of the Brosnan- or even Craig-era villains have come close, in my opinion.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    1. CR - although overlong (I'm not crazy about the Venice climax), CR is close to a perfect Bond film and usually sits in my Top 5
    2. QOS - unfairly maligned, this is a lean, intelligent, muscular action thriller with one of the best Bond girls (Olga)
    3. SF and SP are tied -- neither of these films have decent scripts and they are almost suffocatingly pretentious, but they have great cinematography and some fine action scenes and performances
    4. GE - assembly line Bond, passable but too corporate and soulless - way overrated by the fans
    5. TND - bland, uninspired, indifferently directed, badly photographed - it's made worthwhile (somewhat) by Michelle Yeoh and the remote control car chase
    6. TWINE - starts off well then heads into Dullsville, though Sophie Marceau's character is a welcome novelty for the series
    7. DAD - I remember this being completely unwatchable after the first half hour, though admittedly I haven't bothered to sit through it since 2002

    Thanks for writing this for me. Saves me the bother!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    GE “corporate and soulless”? I can get the other three being that.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    Yeah, I'm not relating to any of these arguments at all. GE is, and always was, a top tier entry for me. I feel similarly but not quite as strongly about SF, which lingers around #7 or #8 on my lists, usually.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Can’t give Dalton’s usurper an inch I guess.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    Yeah, I'm not relating to any of these arguments at all. GE is, and always was, a top tier entry for me. I feel similarly but not quite as strongly about SF, which lingers around #7 or #8 on my lists, usually.

    Exactly, GE was awesome. I actually never said SF is the best film of the series but it will remain in my top 10, funny GE is 6th & SF is also 7/ 8 in my ranking as well.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    @Resurrection @CraigMooreOHMSS I’m with you both on that.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 776
    GE “corporate and soulless”? I can get the other three being that.

    Oh, definitely. TND, TWINE and especially DAD are soulless. GE has some spirit about it, it's way better than the other three. But it's lesser than Dalton's two and Craig's four, so far. Yes, I like SP more than GE (not a ton more, they both have their problems), I guess that immediately invalidates my opinion.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    I’d say one of Dalton’s. TLD is as solid as it gets for Bond, but LTK feels cheap and amateurish compared to GE. I like SP, but not enough to say it’s better. As for QOS, it’s neck and neck with LTK just below the middle of my ranking.
  • Posts: 3,273
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    I watched SKYFALL for only the second time just a few weeks ago. The good news is, I didn't find it appallingly bad as I did in 2012 (would probably place it about 2/3 of the way down my Bond rankings, just above Brosnan's four films). The first hour or so has some GREAT stuff -- particularly the pre-credits sequence.

    It starts to fall apart when Bond has to shoot the bottle off Severine's head. This is just an amazingly stupid and tone-deaf scene. Any writer worth his salt would have designed it so that Bond deliberately misses Severine and then, when Silva moves to kill her, Bond overpowers him and his two goons, thereby saving Severine. THEN the helicopters arrive. The scene as it plays out is a giant WTF, one of the worst missteps in the Bond series.

    There are a couple of great moments after that -- the destruction of Skyfall has a kind of hypnotic allure -- but there are too many stupid things that keep it from being a classic. But again, I would much rather watch it than ANY of the Brosnan films.

    It's still better than Licence to Kill.

    Nowhere close.
  • Posts: 3,273
    peter wrote: »
    If I only had the Brosnan and Craig films on a deserted island, this is how I'd rate and watch them (which is slightly different how I rate them against the entire series-- i.e. Spectre doesn't fall behind any Brosnan films with this ranking):

    CR/SF
    QOS


    SP


    TND
    GE

    TWINE

    DAD

    I'd pretty much go with that too, though CR first then SF second.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 776
    ☝️Licence to Kill is a damn fine movie. Better than GE though not quite better than SF.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Bless your heart
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 2020 Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    Ok, so we’re doing Mike/Babs era ranking? Very well!

    SF
    CR
    GE
    SP
    QOS
    DAD
    TND
    TWINE

    I’m not sorry.

    Shocked you'd rank TWINE so low if you like SF.

    In many ways, they are very very similar.....

    There’s similarities for sure, and I actually like the ideas that TWINE has. However, it’s such a dull slog of a film purely on an execution level that I have it even ranked down #24.

    When SF was on the horizon in 2012 I was actually pretty worried of what sounded like another attempt at TWINE. I DREADED IT. But to my surprise, the filmmakers pulled it off in such a big way that it’s been in my top 3 ever since (with FRWL and GF above it).

    I can only imagine the feeling of relief, as well as just straightforward happiness, that you must have felt coming out of the screening.

    The same is true in as far as it came just after Quantum of Solace, which for my money is actually probably the weakest Bond film of the lot. I find it quite funny that Craig has had two of the very best Bond films and one of the very worst (in my opinion, obviously).

    Fair point. I remember waiting in anticipation of Kermode's review, and was instantly put at ease by his opening line....

    "...and, we're back."

    Ha! That's quite good. It's certainly a return to form and feels like Bond in a way QoS doesn't quite. It hits that sweet spot of tone between serious and glamorous OTT that my other favourites like CR and TLD hit. Or rather I guess you could say it treats silly material with a serious tone- so very much the cinematic equivalent of Fleming, really!
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited March 2020 Posts: 6,759
    In my opinion LTK blows everything out of the water that came after it.

    That being said, QOS is by far my favourite of the post-1990 Bond films. It's a classy, tasteful and intelligent thriller, much overlooked by the average moviegoer unfortunately.

    Both Martin Campbell contributions are fine additions to the franchise too, even though they tend to be a bit overrated here or there.

    TWINE is a special one for me, as it was my very first Bond film. A missed opportunity in many ways but I will always appreciate it on some level.

    The other four of the 'modern' era are not entirely my cup of tea. TND is too generic, DAD is entertaining in places but in the end it's utterly ludacrous, the Mendes double bill is beautifully shot, but they are also overly pretentious, uneventful affairs full of deliberately un-Bondian touches in an attempt to make them stand out as 'Bond done different' .
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 2020 Posts: 14,861
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    4. GE - assembly line Bond, passable but too corporate and soulless - way overrated by the fans

    Yes, this. As I said I still have great affection for GE as it was my first Bond film, but every time I revisit it, after I get past my nostalgia and get to the meat of the thing, I find it rather lacking. It doesn't really do anything new or interesting, instead sticking to a rather ordinary, cookie cutter recipe. And the movie doesn't seem to make up its mind about what the main villain's motives are, first it's revenge, then it's money. The villain of the previous film, Sanchez, is way more interesting and he remains consistent with what he's all about throughout LTK. The best Bond movies typically feature very memorable, cool main villains with grandiose plans that they'd stop at nothing to accomplish. And speaking of villains, one of the best things about GE is Xenia Onatopp, and though she's fun to watch, she's still mostly one note. Give me TB's Fiona Volpe any day. She often has as good or better dialogue than even Bond, she's even a smarter, better baddie than the main villain, Largo! Trevalyn and Onatopp can't compare to these two, who are far more deadly and memorable. Plus, the filmmakers of GE don't give Bond himself a lot of fleshed out character. He doesn't have the swagger or the charm seen in even weaker entries in the series from before and his dialogue just isn't very interesting.
    I don't know. On it's own, I guess GE might entertain, but compared to the rest of the series, it's vanilla.

    It's funny: I know what you mean but I kind of had that in reverse! I was hugely hyped for GE (I was in my teens so pretty much at peak Bond audience!) and absorbed every bit of material about it, went to see it about five times I think, and bought every magazine with Brosnan on the cover. But I do remember my feelings after watching it for the first time and, although I enjoyed it, I could only really describe it as being like a Bond film. It feels like a standard Bond film: a sort of Octopussy-period big Bond film; nothing more nothing less, and I found that feeling slightly underwhelming. It is quite vanilla, but after I came to terms with that I actually sort of enjoyed it more! :)
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    4. GE - assembly line Bond, passable but too corporate and soulless - way overrated by the fans

    Yes, this. As I said I still have great affection for GE as it was my first Bond film, but every time I revisit it, after I get past my nostalgia and get to the meat of the thing, I find it rather lacking. It doesn't really do anything new or interesting, instead sticking to a rather ordinary, cookie cutter recipe. And the movie doesn't seem to make up its mind about what the main villain's motives are, first it's revenge, then it's money. The villain of the previous film, Sanchez, is way more interesting and he remains consistent with what he's all about throughout LTK. The best Bond movies typically feature very memorable, cool main villains with grandiose plans that they'd stop at nothing to accomplish. And speaking of villains, one of the best things about GE is Xenia Onatopp, and though she's fun to watch, she's still mostly one note. Give me TB's Fiona Volpe any day. She often has as good or better dialogue than even Bond, she's even a smarter, better baddie than the main villain, Largo! Trevalyn and Onatopp can't compare to these two, who are far more deadly and memorable. Plus, the filmmakers of GE don't give Bond himself a lot of fleshed out character. He doesn't have the swagger or the charm seen in even weaker entries in the series from before and his dialogue just isn't very interesting.
    I don't know. On it's own, I guess GE might entertain, but compared to the rest of the series, it's vanilla.

    Yep. Agree with all of this.

    And yeah, LTK is a solid entry in the series with one of the best baddies. None of the Brosnan- or even Craig-era villains have come close, in my opinion.

    Oh I think Silva is easily up there, and Le Chiffre isn't exactly shabby. I wonder how well Sanchez would fare against a stronger Bond, in fact.
  • edited March 2020 Posts: 7,500
    I think Goldeneye is probably the most overrated Bond film. On the surface it tried to be fresh and new and make some original tweaks, but in the end it turns out very one note and bland. I know Sean Bean is generally admired. In this film I think he is quite weak. I feel I am at a low level amateur theatre whenever he delivers his pompus and melodramatic lines that pretend to be clever about Bond´s psyche.

    But he is not the only actor who puts in a lacking performance that for some reason gets vastly overrated praise in the Bond fan community and elsewhere. Scorupco seems far too aware that she is supposed to be a self proclaimed "uniquely strong and independent" Bond girl "of the new era". It feels like she almost expects an applause whenever she acts strong and resourceful, especially in that "boys with toys" moment. In the end she doesn´t come of as natural or believable. Onatopp is an interesting character and Janssen has some nice on screen charisma, but the performance in general is far to one note and by the end of the film she feels a bit cartoonish and, dear I say, pathetique. And well, Brosnan... I am sorry to say, but he is simply not good enough. He is at his best when he can put on a confident smirk and act cool during some playfull banter with his co stars, but his performance in any other apect lacks serious integrity and gravita.

    Adding to that some of the scenes are not done very well in my opinion. I find the lengthy scene where Goldeneye is used on Severnaya uncomfortable to watch, but not in the way the movie makers want it to be uncomfortable, more because of how dragging it is, how badly the special effects have aged and the general grim quality. The infamous "stunt" from the PTS where Bond dives to catch a plane in mid air, ranks up there with the tsunami surfing scene and Jinx dive as one of the most ludicrous in the series for me. Completely ridiculous and OTT, utterly unbelievable and not Bondian at all. And the same theme goes for many of the other action scenes. Did we really need to see Bond go into Rambo mode with a machine gun and destroy a city like a madman in a tank? Opinions might differ, but I am in the definitive NO camp. And the final climax scene is quite weak to be honest. Boris ranks up there with Bibi and Sheriff Pepper as the most annoying character in Bond (in fact I think he takes top spot), yet for an awful moment that seems to last for an eternity he takes centre stage playing with that pen. It is supposed to be a tense moment, I can only cringe and desperately want the scene to end...

    This post turned out longer and more critical than planned, but as I was writing I remembered more and more things that bother me with this film. If any entry in the series runs the risk of looking more like a "TV drama" than a Bond film, it is not LTK, it´s this one.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    jobo wrote: »
    Scorupco seems far too aware that she is supposed to be a self proclaimed "uniquely strong and independent" Bond girl "of the new era". It feels like she almost expects an applause whenever she acts strong and resourceful, especially in that "boys with toys" moment.

    Yeah, 'boys with toys' never quite worked.
    jobo wrote: »
    The infamous "stunt" from the PTS where Bond dives to catch a plane in mid air, ranks up there with the tsunami surfing scene and Jinx dive as one of the most ludicrous in the series for me. Completely ridiculous and OTT, utterly unbelievable and not Bondian at all.

    Oh I think that's brilliant: and it is possible. The greenscreen moment was ill-advised, but I love that shot of the stuntman jumping his bike off the mountain.

    jobo wrote: »
    And the same theme goes for many of the other action scenes. Did we really need to see Bond go into Rambo mode with a machine gun and destroy a city like a madman in a tank?

    Yeah definitely! That's ace! :)
Sign In or Register to comment.