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
He was born in CR, avenged himself in QoS, sacrificed in SF and thus - after being reborn as the demi-god 007 at the end of that film - has now returned to a multiplex near you to seriously butt-kick some bad guy arse whilst being all flippant about it and gloriously pissing off a load of nancy critics who don’t like escapist entertainment.
MR because there is the slapstick and glib humour as well as the action scenes where it appears thousands of $ have been spent and yet tension is strangely missing.... It also had a detached, by the motions Roger Moore, which some are saying the same of Craig.
QoS because characters aren't as well developed as they could be. QoS had a writer's strike. SP evidently had a writer cluster f'*@k.
It may, eventually be seen as his TB. Let's see.
Meaning a "Bond's Greatest Hits" movie?
That's a very interesting take on Craig's four films. So what will his fifth be, assuming there is a fifth?
My opinion after one viewing--and that is not enough to form a conclusive judgment, I'll admit--is that SP resembles QOS far more than any Moore film. So many people go on about how "jokey" SP is, but I do not see it. Never laughed out loud once during SP, but may have snickered once or twice. Indeed, I would argue that the absence of comic relief is possibly the film's greatest weakness. Contrariwise, SP, right from the macabre PTS, through Sam Smith's dolorous dirge, and the disturbing octopus imagery of the credits, and on to the horrific drill torture, is an incredibly grim and doom-laden film. In that respect, it really feels like a QOS continuation, minus Paul Haggis' ideological interpolations.
Well, although you may have noticed I wasn't being entirely serious, now that you ask...
Craig's 5th would surely have to be about his demise. Have Bond killed at the end, YOLT style, with a bodybag shot out to sea in a torpedo & cue the end credits - only to reveal DC's successor when the bag is unzipped after being brought aboard a Royal Navy sub in the PTS of Bond26. Fits in seamlessly with 007 needing to 'die' in order to track down ESB.
A bit 'Dr Who', but it could work...
The film has been for less than a week in my neck of the woods and I'm already tired of this sort of a debate.
Christ, when I read line about having Bond killed I was wondering what in god's name you were going on about, but by the end of your post, I can't deny that that doesn't sound half bad. That's actually kind of clever.
Why not, I'd say that's a good thing at the moment. It was time to return to true Bond form.
Don't misunderstand, CR was absolutely the right thing at the right time and a masterpiece, but they drifted off too much since then IMHO.
GoldenEye did this too, it brought back the much needed action, some a bit OTT, some not, humour, quotable dialogue, some seriousness, some grittiness but never too much.
I daresay a great many people agree with you. Thing is, as I viewed SP, I was never even remotely put in the mind of GE. Now SP may indeed possess the same skeleton as GE, but the skin covering that framework is all QOS. As I've just noted in another thread, SP has a palpable leadenness about it. I'd almost compare it to a Poe short story, and I do not mean that as unfriendly criticism. In fact, after one viewing I cannot say precisely how I feel about this aspect.
Having watched it a 2nd time, I'm leaning more MR than QoS. The first half and particularly the casual way about the car chase and plane chase (in terms of Bond's lack of relative stress) evoke MR for me. The car scene in particular was just too relaxed (and I don't mean that as a compliment). At least in TSWLM there was some palpable tension in that landmark Lotus chase. This one definitely evoked the gondola/speedboat from MR.......for me.
There is some QoS, but that is only because of the desert lair, the one gunshot to explode the place (a little convenient), the somewhat torrid pace of the escape from that lair, the somewhat undeveloped characters (on first watch if not 2nd......it's an intelligent film that way..you have to see it a couple of times...), and the somewhat 'I don't know what to make of this' feeling some of us got after the first watch.
I did not sense any overall 'darkness' in this film. It's quite light, apart from that torture sequence, which is somewhat Kubrick almost.....
It's not so much the torture itself (which is definitely more John Schlesinger 'Marathon Man'esque') but more the scene, which for some reason brought back The Shining/Eyes Wide Shut (not sure why? It could be the lighting, the sparseness of it except for the principal characters, or the chilling surrealism of it all).
No, the torture itself was not evocative of Kubrick. I was thinking of him also because of the 'Eyes Wide Shut' Blofeld SPECTRE meeting
The scene obviously evoked Bond waking up after the torture scene of CR (that's what I thought of at least). Loved the throwback to a sadistic Flemingesque torture scene. I did see Kubrick in many of the symmetrical shots from the movie, however.
I'll tell you where the darkness comes from--and this is just off the top of my head--Sam Smith's dirge-like title track; the disturbing black octopus imagery from the credits; the macabre Dies de los Muertos PTS; Hinx gouging out a bloke's eyes in a very ominous SPECTRE meeting; the bleak setting of Blofeld's lair; the dying and destitute Mr. White blowing his ruddy brains out; a hostile Dr. Swann in an ice-cold Shrub-Gloria clinic; the painful childhood memories for Dr. Swann at L'Americain. And after a second viewing, I'm sure I'll be able to name many others. None of this fits in with Moonraker, or even Gun. SP is a bleak and vaguely depressing affair, not at all unlike QOS.
I hear you. That's definitely all there. However, I thought that they definitely tried to lighten the tone despite all of this compared to SF, where I felt more of a overarching morose undertone (with all the gloomy Deakins shots and the revenge plot). So the darkness didn't quite resonate with me (just like Bond's torture in DAD didn't resonate with me, despite it being a dark period).
The film is almost schizophrenic as a result. Unsettling for the viewer. I really didn't know what to make of it the first time out. That's why it demands multiple watches.
Having seen it a 2nd time, the dark elements that you mention sort of faded to the back for me and I just was caught up in the 'adventure' of it all, which the light hearted car chase and alpine plane chase reinforce.
It's an interesting film, because I'm sure I'll feel another way with another viewing. It's layered, and one can focus on whichever aspect appeals to you at a particular time.
Yes, those are good points. I agree completely that SP is multifaceted, expansive and deeply layered. It's a complex, sprawling and ambitious melange of a film, and one's mood while watching definitely plays a role in how one views it. But, for the life of me, I cannot imagine where anybody gets the notion that SP resembles a Roger Moore film. SP's humor--what there is of it--is far more subtle than anything in a Moore film. Hell, I got far more chuckles out of CR and SF than SP.
I think with time, that is what stays with me.
It doesn't dwell on it certainly, but the overall impression that is conveyed is one of darkness and not light heartedness, even though DC's portrayal is much more carefree (when perhaps, given the circumstances of the film, it shouldn't be?).
I think that's where it's catching people (including myself) off guard. Given the gravity of the proceedings, the protagonists (Swann after her father's death, Bond after finding out 'brother' f'd up his life) seem strangely disinterested and unconcerned. If they're not invested.....why should we be? I realize she wants to walk away in London, and he wants to ostensibly leave the service at the end......but their demeanours are strangely indifferent in both cases.
That's what gives this film its 'dreamy' (or is that nightmarish?) quality. Something feels surreal because, like in a dream, the protagonists seem to be just observing 'hellishness' dispassionately rather than living it.