The thing is OHMSS did the magic first, and it worked.
Then CR did too, again after 35 years, and for majority, it worked.
But unfortunately NTTD tried to do again, but failed this time.
And of course they did even try to do Fleming's thing of Bond using his wristwatch as a knuckle duster.
I also just don't believe that a building can just sink down that far- how deep are Venice's canals supposed to be? And without collapsing either. Bond films are silly and that's fine, but that is very silly 😁
Agreed, that sinking building, it's really silly, I could even see it being more fitting in a Roger Moore Era Bond film!
And about that knuckle duster wristwatch, I'm glad it didn't make the cut, I thought it's also a bit silly too, I'm not just a fan of that thing, maybe because it's a bit impossible to do? Idk.
But not just a fan of it and thought it's a bit silly, so glad it's not included.
The thing is OHMSS did the magic first, and it worked.
I guess that's arguable in a way as it wasn't thought of particularly well for a while, was it? And it doesn't have you leaving the cinema on a Bond high, which CR actually does despite you having just seen the love of his life commit suicide.
And about that knuckle duster wristwatch, I'm glad it didn't make the cut, I thought it's also a bit silly too, I'm not just a fan of that thing, maybe because it's a bit impossible to do? Idk.
It could be a thing that could be a Q gadget I guess: I could imagine there's some sort of hidden feature which makes the bracelet go rigid in some way so it doesn't transmit the force into your fingers and break them, or maybe it has some sort of electric charge which stuns people when you hit them with the face.
Magus, I agree with some of your points. The film is indeed too long. The novel didn't have enough combat and explosions for a modern action film, so the story's first half was expanded and the result is a broken-backed film. I think we needed some scenes of Bond foiling Le Chiffre's schemes, but the film's pacing sags in its second quarter.
I also agree about the change from poker to baccarat. Texas Hold ‘Em isn't a Bondian game (nor is any form of poker), but it was a big fad in 2006 (this, along with cell phones, dates the film). Unfortunately, for those of us who don't know the game, onscreen it comes across as lengthy and boring. Baccarat is a simple, fast-moving game that can be explained in very little screen time (which eliminates the need for Mathis to explain what's going on). And being a game of chance it's inherently more suspenseful--every card flip is vital.
I disagree about Craig not looking like a killer. If he'd been an adult in 1963 he would have been a perfect Red Grant (perhaps that's why I never fully warmed to him as Bond). But I agree that he wasn't the second coming of Steve McQueen, albeit regarding charisma rather than toughness.
I admit to finding the shower scene a bit maudlin, but Bond is not entirely a cold-hearted killer. As Fleming writes in chapter 21, "Like all harsh, cold men, he was easily tipped over into sentiment." But that sentence takes place after Bond has been tortured and Vesper finally shows real emotion toward him. As MI6-Headquarters notes, "in the book, there's a development in their romance, from Bond underestimating and almost disliking Vesper to finally developing emotions for her, and falling in love with her." And afterward there are the scenes of their relationship on the rocks, until Vesper seems to become herself again, only to commit suicide. Movie Vesper is a much better drawn character than Fleming's, but the arc of the relationship between her and Bond is more convincing in the book. I wasn't a fan of the overblown sinking house climax either.
I don't think the film resolves the awkwardness of the script conceiving Bond as a hotheaded rookie double-O and the casting of Craig, who was too old for that conception and tended to be least convincing when acting immature. Nor does the film really show Bond learning from and processing his mistakes. The nature-of-evil dialogue and Bond's realization that he's been playing "Red Indians" powerfully serve this function in the book, but in the film Vesper leaves Bond a vital clue right after he calls her a bitch and he runs off to collar the bad guys and look cool. All's well that ends well!
Also @Revelator like what I've said, Vesper's death in the books changed Bond for the better, her death makes Bond hungry for love, that's why he often fell in love with his Bond Girls many times, asking them for marriage and etc. He became this frustrated lovesick of a guy to women, he learned to respect them.
In the films, Vesper's death changed Bond for the worse, her death made Bond cold, brutal and more distant.
But I don't liked the Vesper of the film too because her betrayal was very easy to sense by her ways, like she's always criticizing Bond's ways, she's antagonistic towards him, she's too abrasive, so when it's revealed that she betrayed Bond it's not surprising, because her attitude towards Bond may be a signposting.
In the book, she's innocent and not showing any dark signs that one could call her a traitor, so her betrayal was unexpected and all the more shocking, because it's not obvious to her, but in the film, she's a lot more confident and a bit arrogant, I think I still really prefer her book version if I'm going in the sense of her character arc.
I agree that it's overrated but wondering who you're referring to whom specifically overrates it?
On this forum it gets lauded for what it is - a great new direction the breathed life into a series that was creatively running out of juice. Just like all of the individual Bond movies there are lovers and haters.
I find that it gets overrated by my mates. We were all about 16/17 when it came out, so it was a pretty major deal when it came out, further exacerbated by our age but also growing up with Bond films. They continue these days to show love for the film in comparison with any other Bond.
Critically and in pop culture/podcast circles I think that Skyfall gets more talk and IMO is the most overrated Bond film...
Comments
The thing is OHMSS did the magic first, and it worked.
Then CR did too, again after 35 years, and for majority, it worked.
But unfortunately NTTD tried to do again, but failed this time.
And of course they did even try to do Fleming's thing of Bond using his wristwatch as a knuckle duster.
I also just don't believe that a building can just sink down that far- how deep are Venice's canals supposed to be? And without collapsing either. Bond films are silly and that's fine, but that is very silly 😁
Agreed, that sinking building, it's really silly, I could even see it being more fitting in a Roger Moore Era Bond film!
And about that knuckle duster wristwatch, I'm glad it didn't make the cut, I thought it's also a bit silly too, I'm not just a fan of that thing, maybe because it's a bit impossible to do? Idk.
But not just a fan of it and thought it's a bit silly, so glad it's not included.
The thing is OHMSS did the magic first, and it worked.
I guess that's arguable in a way as it wasn't thought of particularly well for a while, was it? And it doesn't have you leaving the cinema on a Bond high, which CR actually does despite you having just seen the love of his life commit suicide.
And about that knuckle duster wristwatch, I'm glad it didn't make the cut, I thought it's also a bit silly too, I'm not just a fan of that thing, maybe because it's a bit impossible to do? Idk.
It could be a thing that could be a Q gadget I guess: I could imagine there's some sort of hidden feature which makes the bracelet go rigid in some way so it doesn't transmit the force into your fingers and break them, or maybe it has some sort of electric charge which stuns people when you hit them with the face.
Magus, I agree with some of your points. The film is indeed too long. The novel didn't have enough combat and explosions for a modern action film, so the story's first half was expanded and the result is a broken-backed film. I think we needed some scenes of Bond foiling Le Chiffre's schemes, but the film's pacing sags in its second quarter.
I also agree about the change from poker to baccarat. Texas Hold ‘Em isn't a Bondian game (nor is any form of poker), but it was a big fad in 2006 (this, along with cell phones, dates the film). Unfortunately, for those of us who don't know the game, onscreen it comes across as lengthy and boring. Baccarat is a simple, fast-moving game that can be explained in very little screen time (which eliminates the need for Mathis to explain what's going on). And being a game of chance it's inherently more suspenseful--every card flip is vital.
I disagree about Craig not looking like a killer. If he'd been an adult in 1963 he would have been a perfect Red Grant (perhaps that's why I never fully warmed to him as Bond). But I agree that he wasn't the second coming of Steve McQueen, albeit regarding charisma rather than toughness.
I admit to finding the shower scene a bit maudlin, but Bond is not entirely a cold-hearted killer. As Fleming writes in chapter 21, "Like all harsh, cold men, he was easily tipped over into sentiment." But that sentence takes place after Bond has been tortured and Vesper finally shows real emotion toward him. As MI6-Headquarters notes, "in the book, there's a development in their romance, from Bond underestimating and almost disliking Vesper to finally developing emotions for her, and falling in love with her." And afterward there are the scenes of their relationship on the rocks, until Vesper seems to become herself again, only to commit suicide. Movie Vesper is a much better drawn character than Fleming's, but the arc of the relationship between her and Bond is more convincing in the book. I wasn't a fan of the overblown sinking house climax either.
I don't think the film resolves the awkwardness of the script conceiving Bond as a hotheaded rookie double-O and the casting of Craig, who was too old for that conception and tended to be least convincing when acting immature. Nor does the film really show Bond learning from and processing his mistakes. The nature-of-evil dialogue and Bond's realization that he's been playing "Red Indians" powerfully serve this function in the book, but in the film Vesper leaves Bond a vital clue right after he calls her a bitch and he runs off to collar the bad guys and look cool. All's well that ends well!
Yes! I agree with this.
Also @Revelator like what I've said, Vesper's death in the books changed Bond for the better, her death makes Bond hungry for love, that's why he often fell in love with his Bond Girls many times, asking them for marriage and etc. He became this frustrated lovesick of a guy to women, he learned to respect them.
In the films, Vesper's death changed Bond for the worse, her death made Bond cold, brutal and more distant.
But I don't liked the Vesper of the film too because her betrayal was very easy to sense by her ways, like she's always criticizing Bond's ways, she's antagonistic towards him, she's too abrasive, so when it's revealed that she betrayed Bond it's not surprising, because her attitude towards Bond may be a signposting.
In the book, she's innocent and not showing any dark signs that one could call her a traitor, so her betrayal was unexpected and all the more shocking, because it's not obvious to her, but in the film, she's a lot more confident and a bit arrogant, I think I still really prefer her book version if I'm going in the sense of her character arc.
I agree that it's overrated but wondering who you're referring to whom specifically overrates it?
On this forum it gets lauded for what it is - a great new direction the breathed life into a series that was creatively running out of juice. Just like all of the individual Bond movies there are lovers and haters.
I find that it gets overrated by my mates. We were all about 16/17 when it came out, so it was a pretty major deal when it came out, further exacerbated by our age but also growing up with Bond films. They continue these days to show love for the film in comparison with any other Bond.
Critically and in pop culture/podcast circles I think that Skyfall gets more talk and IMO is the most overrated Bond film...
"Better make that two."