redacted

189111314

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I've missed you all.
    Posts: 28,417
    bondjames wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I also thought Mathis' death was better handled and a more emotional punch to the gut than M's.
    Bond crying at M's death made me cringe. The Mathis death was a bit cold, but it was done well. I really thought Kurylenko nailed that scene.

    Why wouldn't Bond cry?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I also thought Mathis' death was better handled and a more emotional punch to the gut than M's.
    Bond crying at M's death made me cringe. The Mathis death was a bit cold, but it was done well. I really thought Kurylenko nailed that scene.

    Why wouldn't Bond cry?
    I wouldn't have, at least not in front of Kincaide. There are ways to experience grief, but a more subtle expression would have been more appropriate imho. At the end of the day, M was his boss. That's it. I always felt that the overplayed 'mother' angle was supposed to be from her perspective, and not his.

    Having said that, narratively I realize that Mendes had to lock the scene down and move on. Having Bond show rage (like in CR) wouldn't have been appropriate in this instance, because the perpetrator was already dead. Moreover, they had to close it out and move to the 'Bond is back' finale with retro throwback to MP & M in classic office. So I understand why they did this.

    At the end of the day, it was a minor moment in an otherwise excellent film, so I'm nitpicking. As long as they leave the crying with the Craig era, I'll be fine.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing South Florida
    Posts: 3,861
    Both are enjoyable for me in their own regards. I always enjoy QOS a lot more directly following CR. While as SF is great for me at any point. I havent been much in tune with Bond recently, I think the only film I've watched in the last month was the first half of YOLT so a marathon is in my future to get reacquainted
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I've missed you all.
    Posts: 28,417
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I also thought Mathis' death was better handled and a more emotional punch to the gut than M's.
    Bond crying at M's death made me cringe. The Mathis death was a bit cold, but it was done well. I really thought Kurylenko nailed that scene.

    Why wouldn't Bond cry?
    I wouldn't have, at least not in front of Kincaide. There are ways to experience grief, but a more subtle expression would have been more appropriate imho. At the end of the day, M was his boss. That's it. I always felt that the overplayed 'mother' angle was supposed to be from her perspective, and not his.

    Having said that, narratively I realize that Mendes had to lock the scene down and move on. Having Bond show rage (like in CR) wouldn't have been appropriate in this instance, because the perpetrator was already dead. Moreover, they had to close it out and move to the 'Bond is back' finale with retro throwback to MP & M in classic office. So I understand why they did this.

    At the end of the day, it was a minor moment in an otherwise excellent film, so I'm nitpicking. As long as they leave the crying with the Craig era, I'll be fine.

    Seems like the most natural reaction to me. She was always the person he could count on, even when he thought he couldn't, and she showed him more care than most people he's ever known. She took him from a reckless man and molded him into her "legacy," the man we know him to be. It was her that helped him see what Vesper did to save him, when he was denying it, it was her that stood up for him when others didn't trust him, and she saved him from killing squads who wanted his head because she trusted him to do him job. And in her last moments, the only person she wanted to help her take down Silva was Bond, as it's always been Bond.

    I don't see them as just a boss and employee, though on the face of it, that is what they are. Bond and M in this incarnation were always trying as subtly as they could to share their appreciation and respect for each other, as they knew it'd be unprofessional to express it more overtly. But in M's final moments you can see all the care and respect she has for Bond, and how happy she is that he has become a man who they both could be proud of. They're both past it and don't exactly fit into how the world as it is now, but they keep on going because that's what they have to do to keep their people safe, at all costs. Tennyson's poem is just as much a story about Bond as it is M, two people of vintage facing modernity with reluctance, but marching on all the same. It's why M gives Bond the bulldog, the best and most symbolic thing she could push his way. It's the symbol of endearing stubbornness, telling Bond to keep going, keep surviving, as she molded him to do. She wasn't his surrogate mother by definition, but she was the closest thing he had to a maternal figure since he was a boy, and there's probably a part of him that feels guilty and angry in the moment, thinking he could've done more to protect her. But that's the inevitability of time, eh?

    Wrapping all this together, Bond would be a robot if he didn't get emotional.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I always felt the emotion when Connery and Moore did it, even though they didn't express it as openly. It's implicit and they conveyed it subtly. We know Bond is a decent fellow after all & not a robot. This sort of thing comes with the territory and the job.

    Like I said, I wouldn't have expressed it in front of Kincaide, or at least I would have tried to hold back. That's one of the reasons I can't stand the Baku breakdown in TWINE (apart from the horrendous overacting by the principal) - because I wouldn't have reacted that way.

    Again, I'm nitpicking. I'll never like the scene, but it's such an insignificant moment in an otherwise superb effort. They handled it well enough given how they'd built the whole thing up over so many films. In a way, the tears were meant to be for us (i.e. Bond was crying for us) as we said goodbye to a well known character.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I've missed you all.
    Posts: 28,417
    What's this about not crying in front of Kincade? He was getting emotional along with Bond, and he's not a patriarchal figure who follows Bond everywhere, telling him to, "Be a man." It makes sense for them to both be shaken and sad in that moment, as they respected the woman and wished they could've done more.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Again, I've always seen Bond as a tough naval sort, who keeps his emotions under his vest - represses them. Even in a moment such as this, if I was him in his position & with his training and experience, I would have shown restraint. It's not about being a man. It's about control of one's emotions. That doesn't mean one doesn't feel it. It means one tries not to show it.

    Obviously Mendes and many others disagree with me.

    As I said, QoS was well handled, but it was Kurylenko who really nailed that scene, when she looks away.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I've missed you all.
    Posts: 28,417
    I think that sort of feeling does have a foundation in hyper-patriarchal expectations of "men being men," as I see it crop up everywhere. Emotion is viewed as weakness, weakness defeats us, etc.

    I understand the possible utility of keeping a clear head on the job, keeping your chin held high for duty's sake, but for Bond the job/mission here was done, and all he was left with was a woman dying in his arms who meant more to him than probably anyone else in his life, because he is so reluctant to let people in. He keeps a very small circle of people in his life that actually mean something to him, and that he keeps around: M, Moneypenny, Q, Mathis and Vesper. Three of those are dead by the end of this film, and you can imagine where his head is at, especially since he thought he was betrayed by the latter two and eventually learned to forgive himself and them to move on.

    It's like expecting Bond not to get emotional when Tracy dies (which I know many have a problem with, curiously). These people are his world, the only ones that count. He will break, he can't not feel it.
  • Posts: 11,425
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Deakins is great, but they all have their strengths. Finding someone who shoots locations like Ted Moore is a near impossible mission, for instance. We'll never see something quite like him again. It's one thing to make a shot look pretty, but to have everything the frame encases come alive is another entirely.

    I would take Ted Moore's Istanbul over Deakins' any day.

    Quite frankly, I find Istanbul very dull looking in Skyfall.

    I agree. I really don't get the raving about the cinematography with SF. As you say, some pretty shots, but overall I just don't get what is so special.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Of course there is a hidden traditional aspect of men being men etc. That's rather different from today's view of letting it all hang out. Even today, the military and naval training is regimented, structured and disciplined. It goes with the territory. Add a veteran like Bond, who's seen disappointment and death everywhere in his life, and one gets hardened by the experiences.

    There's also a UK/US cultural difference as well. Stiff upper lip and all that.

    I have no problems with Tracy or Vesper. That's expected, and quite frankly, the way it was depicted in OHMSS was spot on. Similarly in CR.

    I just found it a little curious that Bond appeared to shed more tears for his boss than for either of those two, who were far more important to him emotionally. That's my point, in a nutshell. I would have preferred if Mendes focused on Craig's eyes tearing up....kept the focus there as he attempted to hold it back. It would have been far more powerful imho, and Craig can emote beautifully without having to bawl. Not with the same rage he showed in CR, but more sadness.

    I recall Campbell saying they agonized over the emotional elements and how to bring them to the screen in CR. I respected that when I read it. I realized he understood the importance of subtlety.
  • Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    I always felt the emotion when Connery and Moore did it, even though they didn't express it as openly. It's implicit and they conveyed it subtly. We know Bond is a decent fellow after all & not a robot. This sort of thing comes with the territory and the job.

    Like I said, I wouldn't have expressed it in front of Kincaide, or at least I would have tried to hold back. That's one of the reasons I can't stand the Baku breakdown in TWINE (apart from the horrendous overacting by the principal) - because I wouldn't have reacted that way.

    Again, I'm nitpicking. I'll never like the scene, but it's such an insignificant moment in an otherwise superb effort. They handled it well enough given how they'd built the whole thing up over so many films. In a way, the tears were meant to be for us (i.e. Bond was crying for us) as we said goodbye to a well known character.

    Except I was sick of Dench's M and really ready to see the back of her.

    I don't really care about M enough frankly. Maybe Bernard Lee, but not any of the others.

    I wanted a Bond movie and got tiresome unconvincing psychodrama
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I've missed you all.
    Posts: 28,417
    I think what he feels for Vesper and M was equal in a way, but for different reasons. Vesper the woman he thought was his, and M the maternal figure he'd lost. I wouldn't say he gets more emotional over M than Vesper, as at the end of CR he's doing a mix of both fuming and crying rivers, some of which isn't as visible because he's already soaked in water. If anything, he got more bent out of shape over Vesper because after her death he goes to a bad place and bottles everything up, like poison. After M's death he's able to accept it and move on, knowing that the most healthy way to honor her is simply by being the bulldog she trusted him to be, and keep pushing on.

    It just makes perfect sense to me that he would be broken by the two women who meant the most to him, for different but equal reasons, that's all. Quite normal, even for a military man, as I always get the feeling that this Bond wouldn't have seen eye to eye with his old superiors on many important aspects of how one should carry oneself.

    I won't get started on the military bit of things, as that only gets me offset. I know many people who've gone through that sort of thing and I'll never approve of "authority" figures shouting at people to break their psyches and teach them to treat their enemies as non-human so they can kill them more effectively. That's why I've always liked Bond: he takes his orders, but when he kills he feels it and often wishes it could've been another way. He doesn't let his training overtake him or his heart, and keeps the fundamental core of himself functioning so that he doesn't become a robotic killing machine like some of the villains he faces.

    Still, as ever it was interesting to see your perspective, @bondjames, and you back it up well.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Likewise @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7. A good discussion, and at the end of the day it's not a big deal for me as it's such a minor scene. They moved off it nicely. I just recall thinking in the theatre that Craig really could have nailed the 'repressed grief' thing and Mendes should have capitalized on the quality of his actor.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I've missed you all.
    Posts: 28,417
    bondjames wrote: »
    Likewise @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7. A good discussion, and at the end of the day it's not a big deal for me as it's such a minor scene. They moved off it nicely. I just recall thinking in the theatre that Craig really could have nailed the 'repressed grief' thing and Mendes should have capitalized on the quality of his actor.

    I can understand that. I think one of Dan's biggest strengths is that he makes any emotion he expresses feel natural. His pain, anger, rage, fear, etc. all feel believable.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Funny. I always feel Dan a bit monochrome emotionally. Any way, that's just my take on him.

    Give me Laz's one take on Bond over Dan any day, in terms of emotional range.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 2,977
    bondjames wrote: »
    Likewise @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7. A good discussion, and at the end of the day it's not a big deal for me as it's such a minor scene. They moved off it nicely. I just recall thinking in the theatre that Craig really could have nailed the 'repressed grief' thing and Mendes should have capitalized on the quality of his actor.

    I can understand that. I think one of Dan's biggest strengths is that he makes any emotion he expresses feel natural. His pain, anger, rage, fear, etc. all feel believable.
    Getafix wrote: »
    Funny. I always feel Dan a bit monochrome emotionally. Any way, that's just my take on him.

    Give me Laz's one take on Bond over Dan any day, in terms of emotional range.

    @Getafix
    I agree.... I don't see so much range in his emotions. Since Vesper's death he feels a bit like depressed all the time (which is of course not unbelievable). However, I don't really see so much variety in his character and don't know whether he is sad or angry or both. Maybe, grief and sadness directly converts into anger and rage.

    I know that this is a special emo-Bond concept but I wish that we at some point in time move on to films with a more relaxed Bond character and without him being too much involved emotionally.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Craig has the ability to convey a lot very subtly. I always cite the example of his look when he sees Vesper in the shower, or when he's staring down Yusef at the end of QoS (if looks could kill). Even his look before he blows the two clowns following him in the Alfa in the QoS PTS off the cliff is great acting.

    We haven't really seen much of that coiled intensity in the last two outings, and that's a shame because he does it very well. Instead we now get the goofy expressions he makes in the plane in SP, which are quite a come down, at least imho.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I guess the subtle stuff was too subtle for me. I missed most of it. Not to say Craig hasn't given us some nice moments.

    As @GBF says tho, my overwhelming image with Craig's Bond though is just of someone who's pissed off all the time. Angry.
  • CountJohn wrote: »
    Definitely Skyfall. A much more suspenseful film with a better villain.

    I agree, but some very cool stuff in QoS, which I prefer to Spectre.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    SF has pretty much remained at my number 6 spot since it came out but I gain a better appreciation of QoS as time goes by. I remember being slightly disappointed by it when it came out but it has gotten incrementally better literally every time Ive watched it. At this point I'm starting to wonder if I even prefer it to SP.
  • TheSharkFromJawsTheSharkFromJaws Amity Island Waters
    edited February 2017 Posts: 127
    SF has pretty much remained at my number 6 spot since it came out but I gain a better appreciation of QoS as time goes by. I remember being slightly disappointed by it when it came out but it has gotten incrementally better literally every time Ive watched it. At this point I'm starting to wonder if I even prefer it to SP.
    This. I never disliked QoS, but there was a time when it was closer to the bottom. And I loved SP on my first viewing opening night. But as time goes on, my initial view of QoS's mediocrity has developed into a favorable "solid Bond flick" and my SP praise has become really muted as the film's serious flaws start to become more apparent. The two are basically side-by-side for me.

    My opinion of SF also drastically changed following SP. It's gone from good/maybe great to one of my very favorites.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    SF has pretty much remained at my number 6 spot since it came out but I gain a better appreciation of QoS as time goes by. I remember being slightly disappointed by it when it came out but it has gotten incrementally better literally every time Ive watched it. At this point I'm starting to wonder if I even prefer it to SP.
    This. I never disliked QoS, but there was a time when it was closer to the bottom. And I loved SP on my first viewing opening night. But as time goes on, my initial view of QoS's mediocrity has developed into a favorable "solid Bond flick" and my SP praise has become really muted as the film's serious flaws start to become more apparent. The two are basically side-by-side for me.

    My opinion of SF also drastically changed following SP. It's gone from good/maybe great to one of my very favorites.
    Glad to hear it fellas. I seem to be reading this sort of reassessment with time a lot around here.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Loved QOS first time
  • I'll take Quantum over Spectre any day of the week.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,729
    I'll take qos over every bond film, except for 4 any day of the week
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 719
    I'll take Quantum over Spectre any day of the week.
    Amen.

  • Posts: 19,339
    I'll take Quantum over Spectre any day of the week.

    Definitely !

    Qos #4 and SP #12 on my rankings ,so pretty good placings for both of them,but QoS is a much better film IMO.

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    bondjames wrote: »
    Of course there is a hidden traditional aspect of men being men etc. That's rather different from today's view of letting it all hang out. Even today, the military and naval training is regimented, structured and disciplined. It goes with the territory. Add a veteran like Bond, who's seen disappointment and death everywhere in his life, and one gets hardened by the experiences.

    There's also a UK/US cultural difference as well. Stiff upper lip and all that.

    I have no problems with Tracy or Vesper. That's expected, and quite frankly, the way it was depicted in OHMSS was spot on. Similarly in CR.

    I just found it a little curious that Bond appeared to shed more tears for his boss than for either of those two, who were far more important to him emotionally. That's my point, in a nutshell. I would have preferred if Mendes focused on Craig's eyes tearing up....kept the focus there as he attempted to hold it back. It would have been far more powerful imho, and Craig can emote beautifully without having to bawl. Not with the same rage he showed in CR, but more sadness.

    I recall Campbell saying they agonized over the emotional elements and how to bring them to the screen in CR. I respected that when I read it. I realized he understood the importance of subtlety.

    Agreed.
  • Posts: 2,590
    GBF wrote: »

    I know that this is a special emo-Bond concept but I wish that we at some point in time move on to films with a more relaxed Bond character and without him being too much involved emotionally.
    We got that in SP, but unfortunately Craig doesn't do relaxed as well as he does intense emotions. Because Craig is such a deep actor, he is never going to do flippant as well as the master of flippant himself, Roger Moore, for example.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I've missed you all.
    Posts: 28,417
    I must have some crazy dyslexia, because I thought the title of this thread was Quantum of Solace vs. SKYFALL.
Sign In or Register to comment.