Amph 007 Skyfall

Apologies for taking three posts in a row but this just occurred to me then - I was surprised to see that they allowed Sévérine to smoke. During the promotional trail for Casino Royale, I recall Daniel Craig expressed his frustration regarding the fact that he wasn't allowed to smoke yet it wasn't out of the question for him to walk into a room and let loose with a concealable firearm.

 

imma agree with that dude about tomorrow never dies being better than goldeneye. of the first three brosnan films (which are the ones ive seen), its the one i find most memorable, largely because of the rupert murdoch-analogue villian and michelle yeoh who, i mean, how can you not love her?

 

Sure, Pryce and Yeoh are terrific, but the film they're in suffers from sloppy editing, implausible scenarios and an unengaging jilted-love backstory. GoldenEye is clearly the superior film.

 

honestly i havent seen any of these in at least a decade so ymmv

 

The suit is the same, but the shirt color (powder blue) does not stand out in QoS and looks pale white or at best bluish white. This has to do with the color timing on the film, which has been ratcheted way down for an almost monochromatic color palette in many scenes.

This is where multiple viewings and, if you're really a fan, subtitles come in handy. Everything we need to know is there but yes it does go at an incredibly rapid pace and you might not know what's happening the first time (or three) you see the film. Other than that, yeah I agree QoS is excellent and quite underrated.

 

Yeoh is the only good thing in Tomorrow Never Dies. Pryce is really awful. That scene where he does the karate kick and all that to Yeoh . . . God, I wanted to crawl under my chair for watching a movie that could let something so damn stupid and idiotic actually happen in it. Pryce has given some really good performances, but Eliot Carver is NOT one of them. He's awful. I love the motorcycle/helicopter action sequence, but otherwise, TND is really pretty dull to me.

 

I really only enjoyed GoldenEye and Die Another Day of the Brosnan films. The former is pretty legitimately entertaining (Irksome pet peeve of Hollywood style hacking aside, because there's a lot of that), and the latter is just so terrible and goofy I can't help but love it. "We'll be using old-fashioned rules: FIRST TO DRAW BLOOD FROM THE TORSO!"

 

Die Another Day is definitely a guilty pleasure of mine too. The pre-credits stuff and the credits themselves are pure gold. Arnold's score is pretty great; I love the music (though not much else) from the Cuba sequence. And, God, that sword fight. It even tops the car fight, which is hard to do. I love both of those sequences. And as bashed as it is . . . when Bond comes over top of that ice wave and the Bond theme just kicks it through the roof . . . I love it.

 

I too am a sucker for DAD's swordfight - I rarely watch much else of it, but that sequence makes the film worthwhile for me. With TND and TWiNE I find that they're neither realistic & gritty enough, or over-the-top and fun enough to keep my interest.

And I've just rewatched Dr. No - definitely one of my favourites. Sure it's clunky in places and kind of dated, but I like the stripped-down nature of Bond in this, and Connery is really making an effort - he obviously still believes in the character here, and it shows. Honey Ryder is one of the more interesting Bond girls, too.

 

Er... that and the fact that the CR one is a three-piece suit and the QOS one isn't.

I've kinda begun to hate QOS on recent viewings. It actually seems ashamed to be a Bond film, boasts a myriad of set-pieces that are totally incomprehensible and do very little to further the plot (the film is already beginning to wear out its welcome with the Mitchell chase), and frankly it's no damn fun, which is a criticism I can levy at only a select few Bond films. It's a chore, and it brings nothing to the table beyond the misbegotten idea that Bond should question the forces that he works for.

 

Except, it's actually not the same suit.

For starters, notwithstanding that Brioni provided the suits for Casino Royale and Tom Ford for Quantum of Solace, the suit at the end of Casino Royale was a three piece designed to resemble Connery's 3pc from Goldfinger. Bond is clearly wearing a jacket and tie in Quantum of Solace.

If I had to rate the films by actor:

Connery - FRWL - Nothing to add here from what's been said. It's no surprises he credits it as his favourite too.

Lazenby - OHMSS - The best of the entire series. Such a shame he didn't do more films; we could have been spared the ignominy of Diamonds Are Forever and the Moore era.

Moore - FYEO - Moore only did one Bond film; this one. The rest he was playing someone coincidentally called James Bond, who was a lecherous septuagenarian in a ridiculous wardrobe copulating with women 1/8th his age.

Dalton - LTK - TLD was my first Bond and in many ways, still very enjoyable. But, it suffered from having a few gags written in for Roger More (which is all he could manage in lieu of acting) so I give it to LTK for being more Fleming-esque.

Brosnan - TWINE - Pierce always wanted to give Bond depth. To go back to Fleming and really draw the performance from that. The producers preffered his looks and wouldn't give him a truly dark Bond as he wanted (so he showcased his range in the black comedy thriller The Tailor of Panama instead). TWINE, like all Brosnan films, suffers from plot holes (how did the parahawks find him?) and forgettable Bond women. Despite Denise Richards there's moments of Brosnan really getting into the character (look at the look on his face as he dispatches the banker's henchman in Bilbao) and that's why I love this one.

Craig - CR - I narrowly give it to this one because I don't think Craig's had a bad film yet. I did not like QOS in the cinema, as it smacked of Bourne with the hyper-kinetic energy. Bond's got everything over Bourne - stronger character; stronger foundations; Omega over TAG-Heuer , and he's British, not American. Trying to copy a paper tiger seems odd.

But, I shamelessly downloaded a copy with the occasional "For your consideration" splashed across it shortly after (I've bought it three times on DVD; first release, then when the 2-disc set came out and now on blu-ray) and watched it a few times on my iPhone. It stood up. So does Skyfall.

I think though that CR is one of Ian Fleming's better stories and despite massive plot holes (I'm not sure you understand how options work, Messers Wade and Purvis) it's a blast from start to finish.


I'll be starting the film by film review thread shortly, by the way.

 

Okay, so he divested the vest and then put the jacket back on. Stop ruining my suspension of disbelief!

I'll defend QoS till my dying breath. I find the set pieces entirely comprehensible and loads of rapid-fire action-movie fun. Beyond that, it brings to the table a genuine concern for the impoverished citizens of a despot-ruled country struggling to survive. That makes it unique in the 007 oeuvre, and while I realize that global compassion is not necessarily a desirable feature of spy movies for most folks, for me it raises the level of emotional involvement and distinguishes the film as special. Plus the action scenes are phenomenal; the editor cut them that fast just to entertain me, apparently.

 

I suspect I'll disagree with several of your assessments, but still, looking forward to it!

 

Plus Mr. White's clothes are different, and Siena is a significant distance from Lake Como. There was obviously a stop and change of clothes, and probably cars, somewhere on the route.

 

It's about 2 minutes of the film total.

What's more, Haggis and co go down a rather indefensible route of demonizing the west - something that flies more violently in the face of Fleming than anything Moore ever did.

 

QoS is hardly a bad movie, but I do think it would have worked better if it tried to be stand-alone and not a follow up to CR.

I agree with those who say DAD had a few entertaining parts, in many ways I prefer it to TND which was bland in most ways.
The biggest problem I have with Brosnan's run is that his cars were so naff. The BMWs were either horrid (like the big everyman company car he had in TND, I mean WTH was that?) or were on screen for about 5 seconds, shame the only times he drove an Aston it was ridiculous (thought the DAD ice battle is pretty cool).

Brosnan's films do at least all have a moment that they are remembered for, something some of the other Bond movies outside of Connery's run don't have so much (I struggle to remember what happens in many of the Moore films, a lot of it has blurred into one because there were so few stand-out moments).

 

Richie I often wonder if you miss large chunks of dialogue in Bond films in anticipation of the next big EXPLOSHUN.

The reason Bond had the 750i BMW was because his cover was that of a banker. Hence, he drover a banker's sedan.

The Z8 was evocative of the classic 508 and used to modest effect in TWINE.

The Z3 was, yes, crap.

Merlin_Ambrosius69 - I love QoS too. I really do. It's a great film that suffered because people, I think, expected a retread of CR. It's a lot smarter than the Bond films have a reputation for being, and the performances are top notch. Plus I love the score - the bit where Bond's boat is leaving the carnage he inflicted on Medrano's men and the sound is muted to a gentle piano refrain... fantastic stuff. Plus, Tosca..!

It's not the same suit, though. Notwithstanding the breast, the material is lighter in CR. The Tom Ford suit is cut more "British" and less Italian (i.e. less Brioni) and the pinstripes have changed from white to light blue, and closer together. The shoulders are also less padded than the Brioni suits, using a pagoda style. The shirt's collar is also less "full on" than the Turnbull & Asser one from CR. Plus, the shoes have changed too.

I suspect if they could have made it charcoal or a darker cut, which suits Craig's complexion more, they would have. Or, stuff continuity, let's get Craig into properly suited suits ASAP. (Brioni worked for Brosnan because of his slim build. Craig needs a less padded suit because of his natural bulk).

In a way, QOS strangely reminds me of Proof of Life. People had expectations that weren't met and wouldn't give the film it's due based on the film's merits. Both are excellent movies and should be given proper respect.

I suspect that like LTK and OHMSS, it will age well.

 

I'm clearly not the only one who missed that, it was a big gripe on the Top Gear Bond Special. The Z8 as I recall drove backwards about 5 feet, fired a rocket and was then sliced in half by a helicopter (its most impressive feature clearly has to be the six beverage cup holders). Hardly fitting for a Bond car, even the Citroen 2cv (for some reason Moore's favourite Bond Car) and Alfa Romeo did more and half the time they would have arrived at the villain's hideout on the back of a tow truck.

 

Wait, the Top Gear guys groped about the 750i? Well, then like you, they spectacularly missed the point.

EDIT: Bond also drives an S-Klasse Mercedes Benz in Skyfall, in ShangHai. Does this upset you?

Broadly speaking, C Class Mercedes = 3 Series BMW; E Class Mercedes = 5 Series BMW, and S Class Mercedes = 7 Series BMW.

Being a sophisticated chap, you already knew this so can you please comment on the mundane nature of that choice in Skyfall too?

 

it's pretty cool how janes bon has all the top gears. he would not be such a great spy and an international m.o.m. (man of mystry) if he did not have all those top gears.

 

I wanted to like this film the most when it comes to Brosnan's run because out all of his, this is certainly the darkest and most character driven. The production for this era was also at its best because although it had some of the most far-fetched and over the top action seqeuences, most of what you saw was filmed rather than the CGI saturation of Die Another Day. Sophie Marceau was a delightfully bitchy femme fatale. I felt the film suffered the most was from the overly complicated story. It was a good story but not all of the dots connected, a little bit like QOS except in this case, the story would have moments where it was well explained followed by the sudden one-line pacing to get the story to the next point.

 

I liked having an injured Bond, too. It felt very Fleming-esque to have Bond not at his peak - a theme picked up on in Skyfall.

 

If you're referring to the injured shoulder and collar bone i'd mostly agree but it only really becomes relevant in the latter parts of the film.It's hardly ever referred to or attended to during the story so for the most part I forgot about it. I agree that it is a good plot device but its treatment made it feel more like plot convenience to make the fights more thrilling rather than giving us a Bond who was in genuine agony. Compare this to Skyfall where we'er constantly reminded of 007's below par strength because it was so embedded into the story telling as a result of his absence from MI6 which was spent on abusing alcohol and drugs, you can't help it feel the injury in the Brosnan film feels a bit shallow.

 

Except Bond is not on the active duty roster and Brosnan does a nice Flemingesque snarl at Tanner when he's not given a dossier?

Plus it's one of the clues that Elektra betrayed him?

Yeah?