Let me try to make it clearer if I can. DAD had a strong first act, and got progressively weaker as it progressed. For me SF is similar although nowhere near as pronounced.DAD could have been a superb entry but lost it's momentum.it may be a weak observation but they strike a similar chord for me.
Let me try to make it clearer if I can. DAD had a strong first act, and got progressively weaker as it progressed. For me SF is similar although nowhere near as pronounced.DAD could have been a superb entry but lost it's momentum.it may be a weak observation but they strike a similar chord for me.
I see your point now, and it's a good one.
"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,749Chief of Staff
I think with Skyfall being the biggest Bond film ever etc I dont think EON will be changing the formula as Bond is very much alive and well
Commercial success does not indicate quality. Casino Royale is the only good Daniel Craig Bond film to date. QoS and SF were both terrible. As I said in my original review, SF was like a really intense sales pitch to try and convince us that Bond is good - I didnt fall for it but a lot of people obviously did. It was like some one shouting to get their point across as though volume makes up for meaning.
According to you, that is. Your review is no indication of quality either - its subjective.
er....perhaps you can direct me to an "objective" review? ahem
There was a quality to SF which was contrived and trying too hard to manipulate the audience - for instance when M dies at the end we're supposed to feel sadness/pathos - I was unmoved but I knew the film makers expected me to be moved - that was their intention with that scene. That's manipulation. However if we turn to The Bourne Ultimatum where Bourne visits the daughter of the couple he murdered in the hotel room and explains that her mother didn't kill her father, Bourne killed both of them - that was truly sad and had real pathos because Bourne was thinking of the death of his own girlfriend at the start of the film. See the difference?
Ask yourself and be honest - did you feel sad at M's death because the scene was sad or because the film was telling you to feel sad the way canned laughter tells you something is funny in a lame American sitcom like Everybody Loves Raymond? Is your loyalty to Bond as a brand - wanting the films to be good - blinding you to the actual quality of the last 2 films.
I'm not a Moore fan, I think Dalton was the best Bond - an action man with manners and a sense of humour - and Brosnan wasn't too bad either for the most part.
Mathis's death in QoS was also contrived and didn't quite work, BUT the scene where Bond finds Vesper under the shower in CR and comforts her does have real pathos about it. There was nothing contrived about that situation - I didn't feel like I was being manipulated into feeling something that wasn't really there just because the circumstances demanded that I should. Vesper's fear after witnessing the violence of the fight in the stairwell was something that anyone could relate to. It touched a universal chord. M's death in SF did not.
The villain's escape from MI5 in SF and the trap involving diverting a train to crash on top of Bond was also incredibly contrived. And how did the villain escape from his prison and kill his guards - we don't know and we are never told how. That's a long way from the genius of films like Oceans 11 etc where every aspect of the film's infiltrations is either shown or explained later - pure entertainment. It made SF look lazy - were the writers having an RDO that day?
QoS did not have a plot/villain deserving of Bond - Bond should be stopping men who are trying to take over or destroy the whole world. The lame missing hard drive idea in SF was even weaker - who cares about a few agents who could have been told to leave their posts if they were in danger. Hardly edge of the seat stuff.
Any competent screenwriter will tell you that the villain and the challenge he presents drives the film and defines the hero. This has been sadly lacking in the all of the Craig films. If you don't believe me look it up in screenwriting 101 in any university curriculum.
I did feel sad at M's Death but Only because we were saying goodbye
to Dame Judi. Our last time to see her in a Bond film. Although I do agree
the villains for Craig's Bond haven't been up to much. Here's hoping they will
start to get a little more larger than life as we go on. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
As I said in my original review, SF was like a really intense sales pitch to try and convince us that Bond is good - I didnt fall for it but a lot of people obviously did.
Or perhaps those of us who felt SF was a very good Bond film didn't "fall for" anything, but instead we were able to discern qualities that you somehow failed to grasp? I understand that you didn't think much of Skyfall, but do you really have to be so condenscending towards the viewers that did? Sheesh! ?:)
As I said in my original review, SF was like a really intense sales pitch to try and convince us that Bond is good - I didnt fall for it but a lot of people obviously did.
Or perhaps those of us who felt SF was a very good Bond film didn't "fall for" anything, but instead we were able to discern qualities that you somehow failed to grasp? I understand that you didn't think much of Skyfall, but do you really have to be so condenscending towards the viewers that did? Sheesh! ?:)
There was a quality to SF which was contrived and trying too hard to manipulate the audience - for instance when M dies at the end we're supposed to feel sadness/pathos - I was unmoved but I knew the film makers expected me to be moved - that was their intention with that scene. That's manipulation. However if we turn to The Bourne Ultimatum where Bourne visits the daughter of the couple he murdered in the hotel room and explains that her mother didn't kill her father, Bourne killed both of them - that was truly sad and had real pathos because Bourne was thinking of the death of his own girlfriend at the start of the film. See the difference?
Ask yourself and be honest - did you feel sad at M's death because the scene was sad or because the film was telling you to feel sad the way canned laughter tells you something is funny in a lame American sitcom like Everybody Loves Raymond? Is your loyalty to Bond as a brand - wanting the films to be good - blinding you to the actual quality of the last 2 films.
I'm not a Moore fan, I think Dalton was the best Bond - an action man with manners and a sense of humour - and Brosnan wasn't too bad either for the most part.
Mathis's death in QoS was also contrived and didn't quite work, BUT the scene where Bond finds Vesper under the shower in CR and comforts her does have real pathos about it. There was nothing contrived about that situation - I didn't feel like I was being manipulated into feeling something that wasn't really there just because the circumstances demanded that I should. Vesper's fear after witnessing the violence of the fight in the stairwell was something that anyone could relate to. It touched a universal chord. M's death in SF did not.
The villain's escape from MI5 in SF and the trap involving diverting a train to crash on top of Bond was also incredibly contrived. And how did the villain escape from his prison and kill his guards - we don't know and we are never told how. That's a long way from the genius of films like Oceans 11 etc where every aspect of the film's infiltrations is either shown or explained later - pure entertainment. It made SF look lazy - were the writers having an RDO that day?
QoS did not have a plot/villain deserving of Bond - Bond should be stopping men who are trying to take over or destroy the whole world. The lame missing hard drive idea in SF was even weaker - who cares about a few agents who could have been told to leave their posts if they were in danger. Hardly edge of the seat stuff.
Any competent screenwriter will tell you that the villain and the challenge he presents drives the film and defines the hero. This has been sadly lacking in the all of the Craig films. If you don't believe me look it up in screenwriting 101 in any university curriculum.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I certainly can't quarrel with your feelings about SF. You felt manipulated and you thought there were too many contrived moments. Those are your feelings and you are obviously entitled to them. My problem with your previous post is that you seemed to suggest that those of us who don't feel the same way are somehow less discerning than you are or more easily manipulated. Speaking for myself, I didn't get that overall impression from the movie. Were there moments when the filmamkers were trying to get us to feel a certain way? Of course, as is true of every film. Some of those moments worked for me and some didn't, but I did not feel as I watched SF that they were always trying too hard to get a certain reaction from the audience, resulting in a movie that is less enjoyable or of lesser quality. Bottom line - some fans think SF is an excellent Bond film, some don't. I don't question the judgment of either group. (Although I do question the judgment of those those who think CR '67 is a good Bond film - there's no excuse for that! )
As I said in my original review, SF was like a really intense sales pitch to try and convince us that Bond is good - I didnt fall for it but a lot of people obviously did.
Or perhaps those of us who felt SF was a very good Bond film didn't "fall for" anything, but instead we were able to discern qualities that you somehow failed to grasp? I understand that you didn't think much of Skyfall, but do you really have to be so condenscending towards the viewers that did? Sheesh! ?:)
Comming from you that is kind of funny...
What is that supposed to mean? Please enlighten me.
"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,749Chief of Staff
Commercial success does not indicate quality. Casino Royale is the only good Daniel Craig Bond film to date. QoS and SF were both terrible. As I said in my original review, SF was like a really intense sales pitch to try and convince us that Bond is good - I didnt fall for it but a lot of people obviously did. It was like some one shouting to get their point across as though volume makes up for meaning.
According to you, that is. Your review is no indication of quality either - its subjective.
er....perhaps you can direct me to an "objective" review? ahem
Sure...read mine B-)
But remember I wasn't the one spouting off in the first place....
Or perhaps those of us who felt SF was a very good Bond film didn't "fall for" anything, but instead we were able to discern qualities that you somehow failed to grasp? I understand that you didn't think much of Skyfall, but do you really have to be so condenscending towards the viewers that did? Sheesh! ?:)
Comming from you that is kind of funny...
What is that supposed to mean? Please enlighten me.
What I meant was that saying things like "but instead we were able to discern qualities that you somehow failed to grasp" makes you sound very condescending to me as well. I'm getting a bit tired of being called "dumb, uninformed, shallow e.d." because I'm not a big fan of the last 2 movies. I have tried to stay out of discussions like this because I do not want to start a fight with respected members like you.
What is that supposed to mean? Please enlighten me.
What I meant was that saying things like "but instead we were able to discern qualities that you somehow failed to grasp" makes you sound very condescending to me as well. I'm getting a bit tired of being called "dumb, uninformed, shallow e.d." because I'm not a big fan of the last 2 movies. I have tried to stay out of discussions like this because I do not want to start a fight with respected members like you.
You missed the point of my comment. I was trying to set up an equivalent to the condescending tone of the original post by delicious to show how it could be taken as offensive. I don't believe for one second that those of us who enjoyed SF are any more or less perceptive or discerning than those that didn't like it. It's all a matter of personal opinion, and my point is that we shouldn't imply that those who don't share our particular opinions are "dumb, uninformed, shallow", etc. At least that's what I was trying to do, but I guess I botched it.
I might have misunderstood and in that case I'm sorry for my comment. Like I said, I try to keep out of this kind of discussions because this is the kind of reactions I try to avoid.
You missed the point of my comment. I was trying to set up an equivalent to the condescending tone of the original post by delicious to show how it could be taken as offensive. I don't believe for one second that those of us who enjoyed SF are any more or less perceptive or discerning than those that didn't like it. It's all a matter of personal opinion, and my point is that we shouldn't imply that those who don't share our particular opinions are "dumb, uninformed, shallow", etc. At least that's what I was trying to do, but I guess I botched it.
No I don't think you did...I thought your comments were/are spot on...and sensible too...perhaps that's the problem )
But that is exactly what I am trying to say. I can understand why people love Skyfall. It is a fantastic Bond movie, a great movie in its own right, just not my cup of mud
But that is exactly what I am trying to say. I can understand why people love Skyfall. It is a fantastic Bond movie, a great movie in its own right, just not my cup of mud
I for one am glad you dont like skyfall,wouldnt it be boring
if we all agreed (wasnt sky fall great ,"yes it was" ,i liked it "me too )
lets all keep up the differences of opinion its what makes this web so good
AAJB has many different opinions some wrong the others Mine.
There is no one less perceptive or discerning than Me. Also
"dumb, uninformed, shallow", are all words used to describe my posts,
But the thing that really upsets me is to find out that Blackleiter has been
made a "Respected Member " and no one told me.
Was there a Party with cake?, I bet I missed out. I hate missing cake. Still
Congrats and all that -{ . I can Only hope to Reach for the stars Myself. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
AAJB has many different opinions some wrong the others Mine.
There is no one less perceptive or discerning than Me. Also
"dumb, uninformed, shallow", are all words used to describe my posts,
But the thing that really upsets me is to find out that Blackleiter has been
made a "Respected Member " and no one told me.
Was there a Party with cake?, I bet I missed out. I hate missing cake. Still
Congrats and all that -{ . I can Only hope to Reach for the stars Myself. )
Hell, I missed that event myself! Where's my trophy?
I might have misunderstood and in that case I'm sorry for my comment. Like I said, I try to keep out of this kind of discussions because this is the kind of reactions I try to avoid.
No need to apologize. I just hope my point is clearer now.
There was a quality to SF which was contrived and trying too hard to manipulate the audience - for instance when M dies at the end we're supposed to feel sadness/pathos - I was unmoved but I knew the film makers expected me to be moved - that was their intention with that scene. That's manipulation. However if we turn to The Bourne Ultimatum where Bourne visits the daughter of the couple he murdered in the hotel room and explains that her mother didn't kill her father, Bourne killed both of them - that was truly sad and had real pathos because Bourne was thinking of the death of his own girlfriend at the start of the film. See the difference?
Ask yourself and be honest - did you feel sad at M's death because the scene was sad or because the film was telling you to feel sad the way canned laughter tells you something is funny in a lame American sitcom like Everybody Loves Raymond? Is your loyalty to Bond as a brand - wanting the films to be good - blinding you to the actual quality of the last 2 films.
I'm not a Moore fan, I think Dalton was the best Bond - an action man with manners and a sense of humour - and Brosnan wasn't too bad either for the most part.
Mathis's death in QoS was also contrived and didn't quite work, BUT the scene where Bond finds Vesper under the shower in CR and comforts her does have real pathos about it. There was nothing contrived about that situation - I didn't feel like I was being manipulated into feeling something that wasn't really there just because the circumstances demanded that I should. Vesper's fear after witnessing the violence of the fight in the stairwell was something that anyone could relate to. It touched a universal chord. M's death in SF did not.
The villain's escape from MI5 in SF and the trap involving diverting a train to crash on top of Bond was also incredibly contrived. And how did the villain escape from his prison and kill his guards - we don't know and we are never told how. That's a long way from the genius of films like Oceans 11 etc where every aspect of the film's infiltrations is either shown or explained later - pure entertainment. It made SF look lazy - were the writers having an RDO that day?
QoS did not have a plot/villain deserving of Bond - Bond should be stopping men who are trying to take over or destroy the whole world. The lame missing hard drive idea in SF was even weaker - who cares about a few agents who could have been told to leave their posts if they were in danger. Hardly edge of the seat stuff.
Any competent screenwriter will tell you that the villain and the challenge he presents drives the film and defines the hero. This has been sadly lacking in the all of the Craig films. If you don't believe me look it up in screenwriting 101 in any university curriculum.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I certainly can't quarrel with your feelings about SF. You felt manipulated and you thought there were too many contrived moments. Those are your feelings and you are obviously entitled to them. My problem with your previous post is that you seemed to suggest that those of us who don't feel the same way are somehow less discerning than you are or more easily manipulated. Speaking for myself, I didn't get that overall impression from the movie. Were there moments when the filmamkers were trying to get us to feel a certain way? Of course, as is true of every film. Some of those moments worked for me and some didn't, but I did not feel as I watched SF that they were always trying too hard to get a certain reaction from the audience, resulting in a movie that is less enjoyable or of lesser quality. Bottom line - some fans think SF is an excellent Bond film, some don't. I don't question the judgment of either group. (Although I do question the judgment of those those who think CR '67 is a good Bond film - there's no excuse for that! )
Yes all fiction is contrived in the sense that it is made up and is trying to elicit an emotional response form the viewer/reader, but in the case of some films. like SF, the way the characters, plot, themes and dialog were put together don't harmonise and flow well enough to make the audience feel something - eg the illusion isn't well constructed enough in such cases. Often the best writing comes from real life stories because such narratives are based on real human experience and there's a greater chance that the story will draw us in emotionally. My feeling with SF was a bit like my feeling about DAD - it was a film that was made under too much pressure to succeed or the teamwork wasn't the best or something else was going on behind the scenes which has created a sense of tension that has nothing to do with the story. I was never able to engage with or get inside SF - I was just watching a series of well executed scenes but as the themes were wrong and the film lacked an emotional centre of gravity - something for me to care about like the fate of the world as in most Bond films - it was just action without meaning. I've watched Steven Seagal films with more drama and depth.
What was SF really about, bottom line? What are its themes. In QoS, the theme was in the title - Bond makes peace with Vesper who he suspected of betraying him in CR. He finds solace in bringing Greene and Quantum to justice. Camille has a parallel story line in her quest to avenge the death of her family by killing General Medrano. Even though the water supply issue was a weak plot threat in comparison to most Bond films, the theme worked and held the film together.
Casino Royale had a somewhat meatier threat - the $100M which Le Chiffre was trying to win in the poker game. The film was mainly Bond's readiness to be a 00 agent - not just in the scene in the PTS which tests his ability to take life but throughout the entire film and culminating in his having to deal with the loss of Vesper - he triumphs at the end when he tracks down Mr White and tells him his name. He has successfully mastered the role of 00 agent. He is strong enough to kill and strong enough to cope with the death of a loved one. He may be tormented and need alcohol to dull the pain but he can do the job. So the theme was initiation.
The only theme I have found in SF are old age and retirement (or put another way, fitness to do the job and general competency). This is the opposite of initiation and it relates to Bond and to M. What bothers me about such themes is that they are not the kind of themes that his character should ever have to confront. Unless its a trend and the next film features the death of Bond. I also don't like the focus being on the hero's issues so much - it feels like the franchise is chewing its own foot off.
it was a film that was made under too much pressure to succeed
Again, I appreciate that you have a different perspective on SF, and the film didn't work for you. But judging from its critical and financial success, I don't understand your comment that I quoted above. True, it obviously didn't succeed with you, but generally speaking it was a success. Is it the best Bond film ever? Not in my opinion, but I enjoyed it quite a bit, as did many others. And that's not just because we were all somehow suckered in by the "flim flam", or because we weren't capable of recognizing certain nuances that you managed to discern. It's because taken as a whole, SF held together well enough and had enough entertaining qualities that many fans, such as myuself, found it to be a solid and enjoyable addition to the Bond film series. I hope the next film is as good or better.
Comments
Have fallen for the flim flam. :-)
I see your point now, and it's a good one.
Only those who think QoS is great, what ?
And its good for you to openly admit you have fallen for the flim flam B-)
er....perhaps you can direct me to an "objective" review? ahem
Ask yourself and be honest - did you feel sad at M's death because the scene was sad or because the film was telling you to feel sad the way canned laughter tells you something is funny in a lame American sitcom like Everybody Loves Raymond? Is your loyalty to Bond as a brand - wanting the films to be good - blinding you to the actual quality of the last 2 films.
I'm not a Moore fan, I think Dalton was the best Bond - an action man with manners and a sense of humour - and Brosnan wasn't too bad either for the most part.
Mathis's death in QoS was also contrived and didn't quite work, BUT the scene where Bond finds Vesper under the shower in CR and comforts her does have real pathos about it. There was nothing contrived about that situation - I didn't feel like I was being manipulated into feeling something that wasn't really there just because the circumstances demanded that I should. Vesper's fear after witnessing the violence of the fight in the stairwell was something that anyone could relate to. It touched a universal chord. M's death in SF did not.
The villain's escape from MI5 in SF and the trap involving diverting a train to crash on top of Bond was also incredibly contrived. And how did the villain escape from his prison and kill his guards - we don't know and we are never told how. That's a long way from the genius of films like Oceans 11 etc where every aspect of the film's infiltrations is either shown or explained later - pure entertainment. It made SF look lazy - were the writers having an RDO that day?
QoS did not have a plot/villain deserving of Bond - Bond should be stopping men who are trying to take over or destroy the whole world. The lame missing hard drive idea in SF was even weaker - who cares about a few agents who could have been told to leave their posts if they were in danger. Hardly edge of the seat stuff.
Any competent screenwriter will tell you that the villain and the challenge he presents drives the film and defines the hero. This has been sadly lacking in the all of the Craig films. If you don't believe me look it up in screenwriting 101 in any university curriculum.
I did feel sad at M's Death but Only because we were saying goodbye
to Dame Judi. Our last time to see her in a Bond film. Although I do agree
the villains for Craig's Bond haven't been up to much. Here's hoping they will
start to get a little more larger than life as we go on.
Comming from you that is kind of funny...
Huh?? ?:)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I certainly can't quarrel with your feelings about SF. You felt manipulated and you thought there were too many contrived moments. Those are your feelings and you are obviously entitled to them. My problem with your previous post is that you seemed to suggest that those of us who don't feel the same way are somehow less discerning than you are or more easily manipulated. Speaking for myself, I didn't get that overall impression from the movie. Were there moments when the filmamkers were trying to get us to feel a certain way? Of course, as is true of every film. Some of those moments worked for me and some didn't, but I did not feel as I watched SF that they were always trying too hard to get a certain reaction from the audience, resulting in a movie that is less enjoyable or of lesser quality. Bottom line - some fans think SF is an excellent Bond film, some don't. I don't question the judgment of either group. (Although I do question the judgment of those those who think CR '67 is a good Bond film - there's no excuse for that!
What is that supposed to mean? Please enlighten me.
Sure...read mine B-)
But remember I wasn't the one spouting off in the first place....
What I meant was that saying things like "but instead we were able to discern qualities that you somehow failed to grasp" makes you sound very condescending to me as well. I'm getting a bit tired of being called "dumb, uninformed, shallow e.d." because I'm not a big fan of the last 2 movies. I have tried to stay out of discussions like this because I do not want to start a fight with respected members like you.
You missed the point of my comment. I was trying to set up an equivalent to the condescending tone of the original post by delicious to show how it could be taken as offensive. I don't believe for one second that those of us who enjoyed SF are any more or less perceptive or discerning than those that didn't like it. It's all a matter of personal opinion, and my point is that we shouldn't imply that those who don't share our particular opinions are "dumb, uninformed, shallow", etc. At least that's what I was trying to do, but I guess I botched it.
No I don't think you did...I thought your comments were/are spot on...and sensible too...perhaps that's the problem
It's just too easy to rubbish someone else's opinions because they don't match our own...we are all guilty of this to some degree...
I for one am glad you dont like skyfall,wouldnt it be boring
if we all agreed (wasnt sky fall great ,"yes it was" ,i liked it "me too )
lets all keep up the differences of opinion
There is no one less perceptive or discerning than Me. Also
"dumb, uninformed, shallow", are all words used to describe my posts,
But the thing that really upsets me is to find out that Blackleiter has been
made a "Respected Member " and no one told me.
Was there a Party with cake?, I bet I missed out. I hate missing cake. Still
Congrats and all that -{ . I can Only hope to Reach for the stars Myself.
Hell, I missed that event myself! Where's my trophy?
No need to apologize. I just hope my point is clearer now.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
You need to check your predictive text, TP....'brilliant' comes out as 'different'
Yes all fiction is contrived in the sense that it is made up and is trying to elicit an emotional response form the viewer/reader, but in the case of some films. like SF, the way the characters, plot, themes and dialog were put together don't harmonise and flow well enough to make the audience feel something - eg the illusion isn't well constructed enough in such cases. Often the best writing comes from real life stories because such narratives are based on real human experience and there's a greater chance that the story will draw us in emotionally. My feeling with SF was a bit like my feeling about DAD - it was a film that was made under too much pressure to succeed or the teamwork wasn't the best or something else was going on behind the scenes which has created a sense of tension that has nothing to do with the story. I was never able to engage with or get inside SF - I was just watching a series of well executed scenes but as the themes were wrong and the film lacked an emotional centre of gravity - something for me to care about like the fate of the world as in most Bond films - it was just action without meaning. I've watched Steven Seagal films with more drama and depth.
What was SF really about, bottom line? What are its themes. In QoS, the theme was in the title - Bond makes peace with Vesper who he suspected of betraying him in CR. He finds solace in bringing Greene and Quantum to justice. Camille has a parallel story line in her quest to avenge the death of her family by killing General Medrano. Even though the water supply issue was a weak plot threat in comparison to most Bond films, the theme worked and held the film together.
Casino Royale had a somewhat meatier threat - the $100M which Le Chiffre was trying to win in the poker game. The film was mainly Bond's readiness to be a 00 agent - not just in the scene in the PTS which tests his ability to take life but throughout the entire film and culminating in his having to deal with the loss of Vesper - he triumphs at the end when he tracks down Mr White and tells him his name. He has successfully mastered the role of 00 agent. He is strong enough to kill and strong enough to cope with the death of a loved one. He may be tormented and need alcohol to dull the pain but he can do the job. So the theme was initiation.
The only theme I have found in SF are old age and retirement (or put another way, fitness to do the job and general competency). This is the opposite of initiation and it relates to Bond and to M. What bothers me about such themes is that they are not the kind of themes that his character should ever have to confront. Unless its a trend and the next film features the death of Bond. I also don't like the focus being on the hero's issues so much - it feels like the franchise is chewing its own foot off.
Again, I appreciate that you have a different perspective on SF, and the film didn't work for you. But judging from its critical and financial success, I don't understand your comment that I quoted above. True, it obviously didn't succeed with you, but generally speaking it was a success. Is it the best Bond film ever? Not in my opinion, but I enjoyed it quite a bit, as did many others. And that's not just because we were all somehow suckered in by the "flim flam", or because we weren't capable of recognizing certain nuances that you managed to discern. It's because taken as a whole, SF held together well enough and had enough entertaining qualities that many fans, such as myuself, found it to be a solid and enjoyable addition to the Bond film series. I hope the next film is as good or better.