Skyfall: a surprising disappointment

Where did you and Vesp watch it?

FieldsMan wrote:

Keep watching, Timmer :)

Can't wait to rewatch it at the movies tomorrow when it's released in Australia :)

I'm expecting at least a US$10m or so opening weekend in Australia...Twilight picked up 12m last weekend.

NOT my review but one that is very well written and contains a lot of critisms I feel as well.

enjoy-

Here's my exposition/criticism of "Skyfall" and Bond. Pour yourself a cup of coffee...

Bond producers, this is a very detailed and, I promise, intelligent review.

If there's one scene that encapsulates this entire movie, it's the scene where M is reciting pretentious poetry interspersed with action scenes involving Bond. The inter-cut action scenes are boring but that doesn't matter. In Mendes hands, it's the pretensions that are important. The action scenes are only there to add symbolic weight to the words of the poem -- or to be strung together pieces of "art" and paraded as a Bond movie. Ironically, there's no scene of classy performance art like we normally get in a Bond movie (we DO get it in the latest Mission Impossible movie). It's "Skyfall" itself that gets passed-off as "classy" performance art.

I'm a nearly 50 year-old, life-long Bond fan. This is my first Bond movie review as it is my separation notice to Bond. THIS WILL BE FULL OF SPOILERS. Where do I start? Best Bond ever? I really don't know what movie most folks were watching. I watched one of the most boring Bond movies ever. Also, never mind all those loose ends from the previous two movies/missions. That's all forgotten as Bond goes from being a rookie (though, at times, an unbelievably skilled rookie) to being all washed-up.

The Bond movie producers have committed a lot of sins over the years -- such as infusing silly-ness and a lack of consistency into the Bond movies (even within the same reboot era). And, of course, there is their flat out refusal to EVER deliver a Bond movie that's not full of major plot faults. The one unforgivable sin though is to deliver a Bond movie that is weak on stunts and truly Bondian action. To say that "Skyfall" is weak in this regard is an understatement. Outside of the pre-credit sequence, there is NO truly Bondian action or stunts in the entire lengthy movie (not that I mind a long Bond movie). Even really bad Bond movies, like "Die Another Day", at least entertain if you can ignore the stupid plot and its faults. "Skyfall" starts out well then fairly consistently bores (especially in the last half) -- something a Bond movie should NEVER do. (Note that crappy action, like that of "Tomorrow Never Dies", ALSO bores.)

If we consider the serious experiences of our lives, we find that they are really etched in us and that we still think about them -- but we probably don't seek to repeat them. If we consider the fun experiences of our lives, we find that we seek to repeat them. The best experiences of our lives, those that leave a mark AND that we wish to repeat, have both the serious and the fun elements.

There's a reason that the ideal template for a Bond movie should be a modern fusion of "From Russia With Love" and "Goldfinger" (though not an uneven mish-mash like "Die Another Day"). "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" (OHMSS) should not be the template. The best Bond movies are somewhat serious but always fun (though they should never be silly or attempt to be comedies). Producers, you got to 50 years by making fun movies. OHMSS was great as a one-off stand-alone. You'd have never reached 50 making something so heavy over and over -- anymore than you would have gotten there by making "Moonraker" over and over. Even OHMSS though, had some silly-ness in addition to major plot faults.

As for the plot of "Skyfall", there's not a SINGLE scene in the entire movie that makes any sense whatsoever from a plot perspective. John Logan, who wrote the brilliant Hugo, must have simply been brought-in to add wit to the existing script -- not concerning himself at all about the, apparently, necessary plot faults. Yes, I can only think the producers believe major plot faults to be NECESSARY to a Bond movie as they refuse to make the movies without these faults. With the near total lack of truly Bondian action set-pieces, all these major plot faults, simply and unfortunately, cannot be ignored. More on that in a moment. First, what's RIGHT about this movie?

Top notch acting all around. Javier Bardem is magnificent. You find yourself wishing for more screen time with him. He completely upstages Craig. His villain is part Hannibal Lecter, part Joker, part Max Zorin -- at least original in the compilation. Silva's physical disfigurement adds a fun creepiness even if it lacks the sinister brilliance of a tear duct that weeps blood. This device makes it okay that we don't get a main henchman. Silva is his own main henchman.

Daniel Craig is a great actor. However... Half the fun of a Bond movie used to be simply watching Bond be Bond. Unfortunately, this is not so with Craig's emo Bond. In one scene with Q, when Bond is asked what he sees in an artistic painting, the uncultured, emo Craig Bond offers in put-out fashion "a bloody big ship". The more fun Bonds of the past would have come back with something completely unexpected that showed wit AND greater observation skills -- perhaps noting that the painting was a fake because of some detail noticed only by Bond. And it would have been done with something of a wink. Similarly, during the word association game, Bond damn near howls and hisses. I almost expected him to jump-up on the table and begin snarling and clawing at the air. Craig would make a better villain than a Bond.

There's a scene in "Casino Royale" where Craig's Bond commandeers a tractor and does nothing more inventive with it than crashing it through a wall. There's another scene where he crashes his own body through a wall like the old Jaws henchman -- the same wall a "bad guy" had himself just negotiated with Bondian panache. Enough said?

Q then gives Bond a signature gun which we've already seen used more effectively in "License to Kill" than the use it gets here. Then Q quips "were you expecting an exploding pen"? Well, yes, frankly -- at the very least.

I like the idea of a young computer expert assisting Bond (even if all the "computer work" by Q in this movie is ridiculous and unbelievable -- and the graphics look like something from the 80s after we were JUST given REALLY GOOD graphics for the computer work in "Quantum of Solace"). However, shouldn't someone older, with more experience, be creating gadgets?

The producers have long been content to allow the actor portraying Bond to become too old to be believable in the role. 35-45 is the ideal age for Bond -- old enough to be an experienced expert and young enough to still be a field agent who is believable in the action and matched to still physically attractive women who are not too young. Five movies per actor -- one every two years. Then a reboot with a new actor -- not a new origin story --keep Bond a mystery -- just a reboot.

Now it seems the producers want someone too young portraying Q to possibly be believable as someone having the experience and knowledge needed to create truly great gadgets. The Whishaw character works very well as a computer expert (an ADDITIONAL character to the tradition) but not as a weapons inventor / quartermaster.

Casting John Cleese as Q was genius back in the Brosnan days. I wish Cleese were brought back. To hell with consistency. That was already thrown out when Dench was kept on as M following the reboot. Yes, she is very good. So is Cleese -- just in a fun way rather than a serious way. This character has always been about fun. Also, it used to be that Q was the only one allowed to out-quip Bond. This is no longer the case. This is a good change in relation to the young Whishall who Bond really should be able to out-quip (and who should respect Bond as an elder who's been with MI6 longer) but we still need an older gadget master who Bond can not out-quip and someone who Bond respects (even if Bond doesn't respect the actual gadgets and never returns them in working order) -- someone who doesn't really care for Bond.

I did like the reveal of the new Moneypenny -- which suggests that she may be more than the traditional secretary of previous Bond movies (and is a fun character). I hope she's more than a secretary anyway. I'd hate to think the producers got their wires crossed with Q and Moneypenny. The computer age makes a pure secretary completely unnecessary while a gadget master is made even more necessary -- given that nearly every gadget will surely have a built-in microprocessor (see the latest Mission Impossible movie for wonderful examples) and given that gadgets will become dated so quickly (which means we need a quartermaster regularly handing-out new gadgets). Also, we don't want Moneypenny entirely discouraged from the field just because of Bond's crass discouragement toward her. HE's never made a mistake?

As with Q, who is now out-quipped by Bond, the script is similarly flipped with Moneypenny. It is Bond who makes sexual advances toward HER while she is the one keeping HIM in check. This is a GREAT change. It's refreshing that not every woman unbelievably fawns over this man (especially given this Bond's lack of model good looks -- which makes such fawning even less believable). The flirting is still there on both sides and is fun. Hopefully they will never actually sleep together and ruin the fun.

The pre-credits action is a bit routine but made fresh by some added dramatic elements. Then, thank goodness, there's the cuff-link and jacket adjustment and the truly good digger action directly before and the "just changing carriages" quip directly after -- all taken together to FINALLY give us a truly Bondian extended moment in a Craig Bond movie (and all done very well by Craig). All that is missing from this scene is the Bond music theme.

I disagree that this pre-credit set-piece is the best in the series. For me, that honor belongs to both "Golden Eye" and "Casion Royale" -- though, obviously, I have very different reasons for the selection of each. As in the "Golden Eye" pre-credit set-piece, the Bond music theme is conspicuously absent from the "Skyfall" pre-credit action -- even though both set-pieces offered great placement opportunities for it. Still, "Skyfall" gets EXTRA credit from me for fusing these two different types of pre-credit sequences ("Golden Eye's" and "Casino Royale's"). Even if it's not quite as great as either, it's still a good pre-credit set-piece.

Producers, can we PLEASE have the gun-barrel back to the beginning of the movies NOW? Pretty please with sugar on top?

I've often thought that the pre-credit sequence should not be the very best set-piece of a Bond movie -- though it should be one of the best of the movie. There should be about five set-pieces (interspersed with smaller action bits) and the pre-credit piece should be the third best -- with a better one mid-movie and the best one at the finale. This way the movie, starting out with a bang, and while breathing and perhaps moving up and down, is still generally always building. (The same should be true of the drama, fun and twist/surprise reveals.) Many Bond movies make the mistake of never topping the pre-credit action. Worse, more still have very weak finales. Well, in "Skyfall", the pre-credit set-piece is all we get. Period.

"For Your Eyes Only" is a great example of a Bond movie with a large number of set-pieces held together by an engaging, down-to-earth, realistic story with a few twists. (Though it's not a perfect movie mainly because Moore is miscast as Bond in this reboot. Bond is played very differently than the Bond we'd already gotten from Moore -- and Moore, at this point, had already become too old to portray Bond. This should have been the first Bond movie starring Dalton. The movie also had some silly moments.)

The "Skyfall" title song is good and the the credits animation is great. I really enjoy the work of Daniel Kleinman. His Bond work is more original and less pornographic than the credit sequences of the Brosnan Bond movies. His work here is not quite as inspired as his work on "Casino Royale" but still great. The cinematography is similarly great. Mendes gets credit here for insisting on his cinematographer.

The score is slightly weak with only passing notes of the Bond theme. The Bond theme never really takes-off because there are simply no action scenes with the required panache to place it. Well, it could have been placed in the pre-title sequence. The producers have inexplicably shied away from the great Bond theme now for many years while the Mission Impossible movie producers continue to make expert use of their own good theme. As a result of this, more people seem to be now familiar with the Mission Impossible theme than the Bond theme. It's likely that newer Bond fans, form the Brosnan era on, have never heard a lengthy segment of the theme. Producers, if you believe the Bond theme has become dated, then update it with some modern instrumentation and computer enhancements. Don't abandon its full expression during a great action scene. It has gone a long way to adding the panache for which Bond had previously (prior to the Craig era) been famous.

Mendes was responsible for insisting on his sound man and should take blame for the slightly weak score. Also, apparently Mendes lied when he said that he did NOT ask for action scenes to be deleted from the script (to make more room for drama) when he was hired-on as director. This is easily one of the most Bondian action set-piece WEAK Bond movies ever. You can't make-up for this with crap action.

There's a lot of wit written into the script despite its plot faults (everywhere). I like true wit like Craig's brilliant last line in the "Casino Royale" pre-credit piece. Prior to the Craig Bond movies, I'd grown tired of Bond's school-boy sexual innuendo and his add-on un-witty comments displaying his tasteless disregard for life following a necessary killing. Nearly everyone, including Craig, gets witty lines in this movie. Now, let's get to those plot faults...

First, why does Bond go AWOL and become addicted to alcohol and pills? It's never explained. Is it simply because he was accidentally shot? One minute, he's on top of his game fighting on top of a train. The next, he's all washed-up but we don't know why. Bond can't take a bullet? He's sulking. An attack on MI6 pulls him out of it. Really? Why doesn't the knowledge of those infiltrated Quantum agents embedded in MI6, or that dangerously still missing hard drive, keep him from going into sulk-mode in the first place? Surely they're at least as great a threat to MI6 -- maybe Quantum is even behind the recent attack. Why does MI6 not attempt to recover Bond's body after he's thought killed? Is it not at least possible that he had obtained the hard drive just before he was shot and that he has it on his person? Did MI6 not send another double oh after the hard drive after Bond said "the hell with it" for three months?

MI6 is attacked with explosives which we've already witnessed in a scene (albeit an unbelievable one -- a lone woman who continues to attack MI6, after the explosion, all by herself in broad daylight on open waters) from the vastly more entertaining and original story that is "The World Is Not Enough" (the miscasting of Denise Richards and the boring finale not-with-standing). How did Silva get the explosives into the building? Maybe he made use of those Quantum agents that have infiltrated MI6 but have been forgotten about. Then, once NATO agents start getting exposed, shouldn't Felix Leiter step-in? Where's the CIA? Oh yes, the Americans had already covered this ground years earlier in "Mission Impossible I". Why is Quantum never suspected by MI6 or M or Bond in all this?

Bond breaks into M's home. He also did this in "Casino Royale" -- a movie in which he also remotely hacked her computer. How does this behavior not get him court-martialed -- especially after he just went AWOL? It's an obvious attempt by the producers to make Bond more Bourne-like but Bond is not Bourne. He works FOR queen and country not AGAINST them -- or, at least, he shouldn't work against them.

After living with it for three months, Bond gets around to extracting shrapnel from a bullet wound in his chest so that he can identify the shooter -- the same shooter that killed MI6 agents at the beginning of the movie with the same gun. (I wonder if there's shrapnel in his body from Eve's gunshot.) Apparently MI6 never thought to extract those bullet remains from the other agents' bodies three months earlier as any police investigation would have done. Thank goodness for Bond's superior intelligence.

Shanghai. Three "bad guys" (we later learn) have someone in a room that they want to kill. Do they simply kill him? No. They fly in a hit man to shoot him from a neighboring skyscraper. Bond coldly watches the murder without interfering. Then Bond quickly out-fights the hit man and accidentally kills him -- the same man he was unable to kill on top of the train. Now that Bond is all washed-up and unable to fight, he is suddenly able to vanquish him quite readily. Why did Silva, who's been monitoring nearly everything at MI6, not warn his hit man that Bond was pursuing him? I did enjoy the silhouetted fight.

Macao. The same three "bad guys" who couldn't kill a man that they had surrounded and isolated in a room (and had to hire someone to murder him), decide to kill Bond in a crowded casino. They're not worried about anyone seeing. They don't wait to try to kill him outside. They attack him in the casino -- but without simply pulling a gun on him. They first allow Severine (another good performance) to speak with him but don't bother to find our what she learned before trying to kill him. I did enjoy the Bondian Komodo dragons.

I also enjoyed the spin on the "shaken-not-stirred" bit. There should always be a spin on this. The "Bond, James Bond" bit was tired. While this line should be in every Bond movie, the set-up and delivery has only been done really well in five Bond movies -- Connery's in "Dr. No", Moore's in "Live And Let Die", Dalton's in "The Living Daylights", Brosnan's in "The World Is Not Enough", and Craig's in "Casino Royale".

Next we meet Silva on his island lair. It's a great scene with a great performance by Bardem. The trouble is, it makes no sense. We are to believe that this man, formerly of MI6, is motivated by revenge and wants to kill M -- maybe attacking MI6 and NATO first for greater revenge even though this represents the same kind of betrayal to his compatriots that he himself has suffered. Anyway, didn't we have this basic story already in the superior "Golden Eye" (the dumb Boris character and the fact that everyone in the world in that movie speaks English not-with-standing)?

We don't know how Silva obtained his release from his Chinese captors (whose hands M had betrayed him into) but we do know it was many years ago. Does this great (we learn) former agent immediately track down M to seek his revenge upon gaining his freedom -- the very reason, he says, that life continues to "cling" to him? No. He somehow becomes an amazing computer expert (better than the genius young Q who is outsmarted by Silva). Silva becomes a sort of computer-espionage expert for hire and builds a private army. Apparently, this is all merely to pass the time while he continues to think, for years, about getting his revenge on M -- not worrying that the "little old lady" might well die of natural causes or retire before he gets to her and her MI6.

He and Bond are the two lone survivors that M has created - -as Silva explains to Bond. Really? Bond is all that's left of the 00s or MI6? When did that happen? Silva acts as though he knew, for years, that M would send Bond for him and that he has some connection to Bond. Bond is part of his plan -- but Silva has no connection to Bond as he does to M.

Also, with all the potential story material in today's headlines, the producers, for Bond's 50- year anniversary, decide to give us a tired story of revenge with a throw-back to the Hong Kong hand-off of a now distant time.

Silva kills Severine (a waste of on-screen talent and an interesting character). Bond, who had promised to rescue her, doesn't give a damn -- even though he's a more emotionally vulnerable Bond when it comes to his own hurts. This is now the third time in as many mission/movies that Craig's Bond has directly caused the death of an innocent and not cared.

Then Bond, who couldn't hit a stationary target with his gun a few days earlier, expertly outguns four moving gunmen at once -- killing them all with only one shot to each. Silva is then taken into custody -- all part of Silva's plan. Apparently, it was also part of his plan to blow the cover on his island lair, lose some men, and lose his access to the vast computer network that he had spent years building and was the source of his livelihood and power. (Why did he ask Bond to join him?) This must be why Silva, the former great agent, never bothered to frisk Bond which would have led him to discover the not-so-tiny 1970s-ish radio that Bond had expertly hidden on himself by dropping it into his pocket.

Also, apparently, after Silva's attack on MI6, he knew MI6 would move its headquarters to an underground location giving him access to London's subway system. He also knew that MI6 would build a "Silence of the Lambs" glass prison just for him and connect its door to their main computer network so that he could escape and meet some of his men at a pre-arranged place. This escape would be assisted, he knew, by the "brilliant" new young Q's "brilliant" decision to plug Silva's laptop into MI6's main computer network. Awesome.

Is the missing hard drive still out there in a henchman's hands? Has the information contained on it already been shared with foreign governments and terrorist organizations? Is NATO now finished thanks to M? Does anyone care anymore? What happened to Silva's plan to continue to expose NATO agents and wreak computer network havoc on MI6? If he's now done with all that and it's time to kill M, why not track her down and kill her? Why did he want to get himself captured first? Why did Silva want access to the subway system via MI6 rather than simply walking into the subway from the street? Well, it's now all about Bond...

You see, in his master plan, years in the making, he knew that if he escaped from MI6 into the subway system that Bond would pursue him there and catch-up with him as he was making his way up a ladder -- at the exact moment that a subway train would be approaching. Silva could then blow a hole in the subway corridor (with explosives that he must have planted years earlier) that would send an entire subway train careening toward Bond (a train that, at rush hour, is completely empty). This is much better than having one of his men kill Bond. You see, it makes perfect sense. This train scene is quite bombastic and totally lacking in Bondian flair. This ludicrous "plot" (for lack of a better word) device is what gets passed-off as a mid-movie action "set-piece".

In all of this, the producers were obviously trying to take a chapter from the "The Dark Night". The only thing they got right was the brilliant portrayal of Silva by Bardem. The plot of "Skyfall" shows none of the intelligence of the "The Dark Knight". (I'm not talking about the "Dark Knight Rises" -- which was heavy and lumbering and not nearly as good or as fun as "The Dark Knight".)

M explains to Bond that she traded Silva to the Chinese because he was too gun-ho in his job and exceeded his mandate. Sound like Bond? You'd think at this point Bond might be concerned that the same could happen to him and that he'd take Silva up on that job offer. After all, the Craig Bond fails every mission, is insubordinate and rude, regularly breaks into his boss' home and hacks her computer, had just gone AWOL, and is an alcoholic and drug addict. Anyway, I knew governments traded prisoners for other prisoners but it's quite unsettling to think that they trade their own agents. At this point, I began wishing Silva success.

Silva finally attempts to kill M and fails. Well, he tried to kill her by storming a congressional over-sight hearing at which M was present -- not exactly the most opportune moment. Why not break into her home as Bond does? Bond is again shown to be an expert gunman. Bond then "kidnaps" M and takes her to his childhood home -- believing that he and (ultimately) his deceased parent's old groundskeeper (still stalking around their isolated and abandoned mansion home in suite and tie) can protect M better than all of MI6. Apparently, he AND M also believe that such an isolated location offers good protection instead of making them sitting ducks. Why not get some help? Yes, Silva had infiltrated the MI6 computer network but Bond can't call in support?

The mansion and Albert Finney character seem to exist for no other reason than to make Bond more like Batman. Bond should NOT have a home life! He is Bond NOT Batman. Producers, be proud of that fact!

The old Aston Martin is brought out. Why does this modern Bond have a 1960s model Aston Martin that has been heavily modified by Q branch? It's not explained. It would have been fun if it had been shown how Bond had acquired this car. Perhaps it had belonged to some legendary double oh of the 1960s -- a great wink to the audience. Anyway, didn't we learn how Bond had acquired his taste for Aston Martins back in "Casino Royale"? How does this fit in? As in "Casino Royale", this Aston Martin is underutilized. When the car is destroyed, Bond shows his first real emotion in the entire movie. If only this materialistic Bond cared as much when Severine died (or when M dies later).

While some may think that Bond has always been materialistic, this is not true. He may make use of the best of everything but he has always had an "easy come, easy go" attitude toward money and possessions and has always been very sharing. In fact, before this, we'd not known Bond to actually "own" a car or have a home.

Silva shows up with his men. Being now denied his island lair with its computer network and presumably stripped of all personal belongings when he was taken into MI6 custody, how was Silva able to organize his men and follow the computer-created "bread crumbs" laid-out for him by Q? Without access to bank accounts (which surely MI6 had seized), how is he able to pay his men? Why are they still working for him? How did they get a helicopter?

Bond fails in protecting M and Silva kills her. Bond then does Bardem's great character the dishonor of killing him by cowardly stabbing him in the back with a knife throw. It reminded me of Bond's hot-headed and cold-blooded shooting of the unarmed bomber at the beginning of "Casino Royale" (the one he needed alive). It also reminded me of his cowardly and sadistic maiming-shooting of the unarmed and unsuspecting Mr. White at the end of that movie -- which Bond performed from a distance while hidden. This Bond is not "cool" (in every sense of that word). Grow-up 007.

Unlike with Vesper, Bond gets over the death of his "mom" and his failure to protect her in no time. Well, I guess she was a "bitch" before she died (good for nothing more than sacrificing agents) -- though, to be fair, Bond wasn't the best "son" a mom could have. Wait a minute, Vesper was also a "bitch" - but AFTER she died. Let's see... Bond only has relationships with "bitches". All other women are to be used. Got it. Wait, is Moneypenny a "bitch" or will he use her?

This is now Bond's third failure in as many missions/movies. In "Casino Royale", he failed to deliver Le Chiffre alive (and was subsequently shown to be cavalier and insubordinate about it in the next movie). Having redeemed himself by capturing Mr. White, he then loses him in "Quantum of Solace" and never recovers him. (By the way, why couldn't Le Chiffre simply have been kidnapped by MI6 at the beginning of "Casino Royale" the way Mr. White was at the end of the movie?) Bond then deliberately failed in delivering anyone else alive during this mission/movie -- including Dominic Greene, who could have been used to gain intelligence on the mysterious Quantum organization. In fact, Bond deliberately sent Greene to a slow sadistic death (the kind of evil the villain would normally dish-out). Bond, very unprofessionally, did this from personal motivation (after only extracting the information from Greene needed to satisfy Bond's own personal vendetta) and then lied to his superior about it.

It's interesting that after Bond fails to recover the stolen hard drive at the beginning of the movie and then goes AWOL and then fails all of his tests, M rewards him by lying about his failed test results and sending him out on a mission with such high stakes for herself and MI6 and NATO -- especially given this drunk, drug-addicted Bond's track record of failure and insubordination. It's even more interesting that after Bond "kidnaps" M and gets her killed -- damn near treasonous action -- the new M rewards Bond with yet ANOTHER mission.

In fact, Bond's presence in this mission/movie doesn't significantly change anything about how it's played out or how it ends -- except that Severine and (possibly M) would have lived if it weren't for Bond. And maybe, just maybe, MI6 headquarters wouldn't have gotten exploded if Bond were on the job rather than getting drunk.

The finale is completely boring -- especially the panache-lacking Die Hard - like action. In fact, there hasn't been a good finale to a Bond movie since "License to Kill" -- a movie that did a great job of using great action and stunts to actually move the serious story along. The action was well integrated into the story. However, I don't like Bond motivated by revenge. It's okay for the villain but I like a Bond who doesn't take things personally. Also, the VERY end of that movie was out-of-place.

By panache-laden Bondian action I mean things also like the tank chase in "Golden Eye" or the boat chase in "The World Is Not Enough" (and a lot of the other set-pieces in that movie) or the car chase in "Die Another Day" -- though all these seemed tacked-in and were not as well integrated as the action in "License to Kill".

And all the stuff about Bond's childhood is also out-of-place. He's not supposed to have two identities like most super heroes. He's meant to be a continuous cipher -- always on the edge of death so always enjoying life. Where can you go after blowing his cover like this? Will he wear a mask and cape in the next movie? We EVEN learn, not only of his Scott heritage but also of his Christian heritage. This is a mistake to impart on this formerly mysterious man of the world. It also limits the ability of the male members of Bond's international audience to project their alter-egos onto the Bond character (and it limits the ability of the female members of his international audience to wish to be with him) -- a commercial mistake.

Well, to be fair, Bond had already blown his own cover in "Casino Royale" when he stormed an embassy and had his picture shown and identity revealed in the newspapers. I guess his real career in espionage had ended as soon as he had become a double oh. I wonder why Dominic Greene didn't know who Bond was?

I'm all for putting intelligence, grittier action, good acting, artistic devices, beautiful cinematography, and more realistic and thrilling stories into Bond movies but for goodness sake, don't sacrifice the panache, sets, gadgets, special effects and stunts (or even a slight bit of fantasy) -- the most critical elements of Bond movies and that which truly distinguishes the character from other spies, action-adventure heroes and super heroes. Especially don't sacrifice these elements if there's been a failure in inserting the intelligence (as is definitely the case here).

These missing elements, apparently, have all been given over to the "Mission Impossible" movies -- the last of which contained much better action, stunts, gadgets, fun and inventiveness (even as they copied and out-Bonded Bond) than all of the Craig Bond movies put together. This, even, despite the fact that "Ghost Protocol" simply showed the Mission Impossible team breaking into places over and over again through-out the entire movie. To be fair, its plot ALSO involved unbelievable and unrealistic computer hacking and the now tired Bond cliche of a villain attempting to incite nuclear war between world super powers. It also had some plot holes but nothing like the craters in "Skyfall".

What "Mission Impossible IV" really did well was strike a balance between a serious espionage thriller and a fun action adventure movie -- a balance that at least half the Bond movies fail to achieve (with most falling on the silly side). It's certainly not achieved in the boring, overly-serious "Skyfall". (Okay, maybe "Mission Impossible IV" could have been a bit more serious.) "Skyfall" came out a full year after "Ghost Protocol" but the 007 team still couldn't top it -- even with a 50-year anniversary movie. Bond, you are no longer the leader.

I do like the update of making Bond more of a world-wide warrior and less of a "gentleman agent" and less of an icky playboy bedding women (or girls) half his age. I like that he can enjoy a beer in addition to wine or a mixed drink (thank goodness that there's been no rich playboy-esq champagne drinking by Craig's Bond). I'd prefer though, that he'd enjoy a classier brand of beer than Heineken. I EVEN like the main characters to have back story -- just not for Bond. He is supposed to be an international man of MYSTERY. Producers, you can update him and even take cues from other franchises without completely surrendering him to those franchises. Remember, yours' is the ORIGINAL action-adventure hero all the (former) pretenders have copied. Are you content that Bond should now be the pretender -- copying everyone else instead of simply taking cues?

And, producers, please, I know it's Bond, but IT'S REALLY OKAY (I promise) to have a story without major plot faults. Nobody will complain. If you can't find a writer who can deliver this, I'll review the scripts for free and point them out. It's not rocket surgery. Also, try taking just a littler more inspiration from the highly fun and inventive "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise and just a little less from the self-absorbed Bourne and Batman franchises -- which are not the "game-changers" that you and Mendes believe them to be. If they were, "Mission Impossible IV", "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "The Avengers" (though not my cup of Early Grey) would not have done so well at the box office.

Maybe even give us a Bond movie involving modern sea-based piracy. Sure, give us another Craig Bond (maybe two) to wrap-up the Quantum stuff, then give us a reboot back to a (little more) fun Bond with a new actor. Actually, Craig looks old enough to retire the role already.

For those that think I've overly harped on the plot faults, consider... This Bond movie had pretensions of being taken as a serious thriller. It has an academy award winning director at its helm and is filled with top-tier actors and actresses. It has a celebrated writing team. The producers have publicly bragged about this script and all the time (YEARS) that they had to perfect it. All this and they give us a story no more cohesive than that of "Moonraker" -- but with none of that movie's stunts, sets, or special effects to hide the craters. It's enough to make one forget one's complaints about double-taking pigeons, gondola-car hybrids, and henchman who fall in love with teenage girls half their height.

This is our 50 year anniversary gift for all our support over the years -- and the new formula!? Old formula -- the plot and story must never make sense and we'll have great panache-laden action set-pieces to hide the fact. New formula -- the plot and story must never make sense and we'll have scenes with great acting to hide the fact -- and the action set-pieces are to be thrown-out (baby with the bath water).

Finally, my take on Craig as Bond in general... I've been on the fence but now three movies in, I have to say, Craig is not my Bond. He's a great actor and I like much of his work but he's miscast. Bond can be a cold killer and still be fun and have panache. If people truly want the Fleming Bond then, Timothy Dalton, the most underrated Bond, fit the bill better. Unlike Craig's Bond, his Bond showed remorse at killing -- the way Fleming wrote him. His Bond was also dashing and handsome while exuding the same kind of danger and physical ability that Craig's Bond pulls-off. Also, like Craig, Dalton is a GREAT actor.

Also, while Craig now claims to have been a Bond fan since way back, it was obvious from the "Casino Royale" press conference that he had very little knowledge of Bond. He became Bond almost entirely at the personal preference of one woman -- Barbara Broccoli. Note that I'm not suggesting a new Bond has to be like the prior Bonds. I like that Craig actually has a fit body -- as Bond should have. And I certainly don't mind Bond being Blonde -- especially since Hollywood almost always makes blondes be evil or stupid or both. In fact. Bond movies have often done the same. Please, no more tired aryan-esq villains.

At 50, I've finally given-up on Bond but may write a review of the similarly over-rated "Casino Royale" (which was still way better than "Skyfall") - whose script also has many plot faults (though they're not as numerous or as serious as those of "Skyfall"). The under-rated "Quantum of Solace" -- though I agree with most of the criticism it received -- was far more entertaining than "Skyfall" with not nearly the number of plot faults (though there were some).

I actually thought "Quantum of Solace" had a very realistic and modern plot -- the U.S. government working with a phony environmentalist seeking to take over the natural resources of a South American country. This is much more up-to-the-minute and original than "Skyfall's" tired revenge tale -- with all its major plot elements stolen from better movies (including better Bond movies). I don't know why people couldn't understand the "Quantum of Solace" story -- a story which, for a realistic change (especially in a Bond movie) showed some of the less moral action of a major western nation's government.

"Quantum of Solace" also had action set-pieces even if it wasn't all Bondian action (though the foot chase and the fight that ends that chase were both GREAT -- even if it was all very Bourne). I also thought Craig looked more Bond-like in that movie than he did in his other two Bond movies. "Quantum of Solace" simply needed to be more fun (it was even more serious than "Skyfall") and it needed to be fleshed-out with more story and character development between the action scenes. Also, like "Skyfall" and "Casino Royale", it desperately needed more Bondian panache.

For those that believe "Casino Royale" was a perfect Bond movie... Why would Le Chiffre's clients attack him during the card game -- rattling the hell out of him when they needed him to win? Why would Le Chiffre put Vesper in the road risking both her and Bond's death when he needed them both alive and could have captured Bond through safer means? Why did Vesper show no hint of the turmoil she was suffering for most of the movie but seemed happy-go-lucky? Why even send an accountant with Bond rather than an assisting agent? It might have made sense when Fleming wrote it but makes no sense in the computer age. I could go on and on and on....

All-in-all, "Skyfall" is not a Bond movie but a pathetic Batman movie. If you want to see a better Batman movie, see "The Dark Night". If you want to feel the creative fun and sense of adventure that you used to experience at a Bond movie, see any of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies. If you want to see an actual good new Bond movie, see "Mission Impossible IV". As for "Skyfall" itself, wait for someone to upload the the pre-credit set-piece scene onto You Tube and watch it there. You'll then have seen all you need to see of this mess of a movie (okay, maybe watch the credit animation too and listen to the title song but that's it).

I appreciate great acting, drama and cinematography. However, if "Skyfall" is supposed to be the new direction of Bond -- all the dumb story and plot faults we've come to expect of the franchise but none of the special effects, set-pieces, thrills, stunts, gadgets, sets, panache and fun -- the series will never make it close to another 50 years. Happy Birthday anyway Mr. Bond. You may have done nothing for us lately but we appreciate your cumulative service. Now, I'll stop "expecting you" as you're now, yourself, an "uninvited guest". As I said, you've committed an unforgivable sin. You bored me.

James Bond is dead. Long live Mission Impossible.

Gregory Klein
logiasophia at gmail dot com

Interesting you quote this Gregory Klein fellow. He sounds just as clueless as you.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Interesting you quote this Gregory Klein fellow. He sounds just as clueless as you.

You are such a charmer and so good with words.

I felt that this was a well written review that showed dissapointment about SF & Craig and as clueless as I am I got it in the right thread.

While I gather from your words you disagree I must admit the way you vocalise this shows your absolute class, so nothing new there.

I agree with most this review. The problem is, the direction shouldn't make you question the plot problems, but it does. The movie is really like watching a best of bits recap at the beginning of a show. It feels like it's missing tons of pieces.

saint mark wrote:

I felt that this was a well written review that showed dissapointment about SF & Craig and as clueless as I am I got it in the right thread.

It's an daft review clearly written by someone very young, with English as their second language. As soon I saw Tennyson's ULYSSES dismissed as a "pretentious poem", alarm bells went off. Tells me more about the reviewer than the film.

Largo's Shark wrote:

saint mark wrote:

I felt that this was a well written review that showed dissapointment about SF & Craig and as clueless as I am I got it in the right thread.

It's an daft review clearly written by someone very young, with English as their second language. As soon I saw Tennyson's ULYSSES dismissed as a "pretentious poem", alarm bells went off. Tells me more about the reviewer than the film.

Fair enough, but then again somebody should be allowed to dislike Tennyson's Ulysses. It does not mean his views are less worthy.

Some of the stuff I was made to read during my education years I did not enjoy and neither did my teachers' spirited explanation why it was great improve my appriciation. But I could remember enough to pass the grade needed.

But some of the points he made about the movie were valid and not pretentious as well.

For me the Tennysons' poem did not add much to the movie I was caught between thinking it was pretentious filmmaking like Forsters 4 elements or that it was some more adult approuch towards the franchise.

But I will read the piece so in that sense Mendes does enlarge some peoples horizons.

saint mark wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

saint mark wrote:

I felt that this was a well written review that showed dissapointment about SF & Craig and as clueless as I am I got it in the right thread.

It's an daft review clearly written by someone very young, with English as their second language. As soon I saw Tennyson's ULYSSES dismissed as a "pretentious poem", alarm bells went off. Tells me more about the reviewer than the film.

Fair enough, but then again somebody should be allowed to dislike Tennyson's Ulysses. It does not mean his views are less worthy.

It does if he dislikes ULYSSES out of ignorance and philistinism, as this review suggests.

This is an example of a well-written negative review of SKYFALL that comes to a similar conclusion.

http://n007.thegoldeneye.com/film_commentary/skyfall_review.html

I do like that review too, and it has indeed another approuch to the poet and his poem. But I still remain in my idea that dismissing a review over calling a poem pretentious that would be pretentious. ;)

FieldsMan wrote:

Keep watching, Timmer :)

Can't wait to rewatch it at the movies tomorrow when it's released in Australia :)

I saw it an an advanced screening at the cinemas at the start of the week.

Largo's Shark wrote:

saint mark wrote:

I felt that this was a well written review that showed dissapointment about SF & Craig and as clueless as I am I got it in the right thread.

It's an daft review clearly written by someone very young, with English as their second language. As soon I saw Tennyson's ULYSSES dismissed as a "pretentious poem", alarm bells went off. Tells me more about the reviewer than the film.

Dude, he's saying that the reading of poetry in the context of the movie is pretentious, not the poem itself, savvy?
"The action scenes are only there to add symbolic weight to the words of the poem"
Oh dear, this suggests my worst fears, based on Mendes work on "The Road To Perdition", may have been realised. In that film most of the action sequences were poorly constructed and broad brush, somehow detached, incidental and uninvolving
If Brosnan was the post Thatcher, Cool Britannia "feel good about Britain again" Bond, Craig has been the credit crunch Bond, battling the grey corporate Quantum
Because we are living in uncertain economic times, where many feel let down and distrust established institutions, this Bond must always be presented as an outsider, even though somehow he still manages to hold down a job within the establishment
Brosnan Bond added an element of soap to the established recipe, half baked and never fuly developed, Craig Bond has come to be dominated by the soap, CR continuing long after the death of the main villain, in order to follow Craig Bond's personal relationship / betrayal / revenge. Then QOS's villains played second fiddle to Bond excercising his demons in his next outing, to the extent that he forgot all about them afterwards (although presumably Mr White and co are still out there). Now it seems the personal soap opera angle has been allowed to dominate for a third time, with the old cliche's of self doubt and alcaholism thrown in for good measure?
Oh The Humanity!
:roll:

Seve wrote:

Brosnan Bond added an element of soap to the established recipe, half baked and never fuly developed, Craig Bond has come to be dominated by the soap, CR continuing long after the death of the main villain, in order to follow Craig Bond's personal relationship / betrayal / revenge. Then QOS's villains played second fiddle to Bond excercising his demons in his next outing, to the extent that he forgot all about them afterwards (although presumably Mr White and co are still out there). Now it seems the personal soap opera angle has been allowed to dominate for a third time, with the old cliche's of self doubt and alcaholism thrown in for good measure?
Oh The Humanity!
:roll:

Yes indeed, the humanity! As the Bond Turns.

Although I can't quibble with the boozing. Craig-Bond has nothing on Fleming Bond. I get tipsy just reading Fleming.

What I can say in favour of SF, is that the Bond character is back to normal. Bond behaves like Bond, or close enough. The fact he goes awol at the beginning is even understandable, as he heard the "bitch" say "take the bloody shot" so in that sense he and Silva do both have their own separate issues with M, although in Silva's case, M explains that the guy had gone somewhat rogue, in that he was "hacking" the Chinese without sanction, at a time when Britain was trying to engineer a smooth "handover" (Hong Kong), so she gave the rogue-agent up and got 6 back in return.

I can't quibble with M giving up Silva. He was probably whacked back then too. M's order to Eve though was rather reckless and unnecessary. Bond's reaction was understandable. He was pissed, so I can roll with that, but as the honorable patriotic sort that he is, he felt compelled to return when he saw that the realm was under attack. For the rest of the movie, Bond is pretty much methodically going about the mission, free of personal issues, which is a nice friggin change.

Problem with SF, IMO anyway, is that now M has lost it, and has issues and Bond has to help her through them. Arrggh. M is suddenly reckless and somewhat brash, although she does mercifully sort herself out fairly well. SF is a well done film. My only bitch is that I simply don't like the story. We only get a Bond film every two years if we are lucky. After the waste of space that was QoS, why does the next film have to be all about Mommy M and some whacko, Joker-like villain, whose got M issues.

Bond is at least back in form though, so there is that, and the ending was very encouraging, but is it too much to ask for a normal Bond film again.

In the meantime, I can enjoy SF for what it is - another character-driven drama Bond, but at least miles better than the last dismal effort, which actually in its own quirky way is watchable too, but I digress. Point I am trying to make is that LALD is also emminently watchable. The tried and true adventure-Bond formula works quite well too! Try it Dano, you might like it!

tiffanywint wrote:

he and Silva do both have their own separate issues with M, although in Silva's case, M explains that the guy had gone somewhat rogue, in that he was "hacking" the Chinese without sanction, at a time when Britain was trying to engineer a smooth "handover" (Hong Kong), so she gave the rogue-agent up and got 6 back in return.

I can't quibble with M giving up Silva. He was probably whacked back then too.

I disagree strenuously. If he really was the apple of M's eye, it was probably because he was able to exceed his brief in a way that benefited her, much the way Bond did by the end of QoS. If he was 'wack' he wouldn't have been allowed to run wild. Throwing him away for basically doing his job-plus seems especially suspect and political, and speaks volumes about M's lack of character. Or are we to assume that all the vitriol M spouts about Bond after he gets caught on camera in CR is just her gruff-fond transference of old affection for Silva to another guy who screws up things for her but she lets get away with it?

It's a bad script call. We're supposed to accept M's account of this because of her position, when in fact her position and how she obtained it is called into question just by all the mysterious circumstance, from the guy's name to her evasiveness and Mallory probably knowing about all of this.

That's three years. It's impossible in today's world to get a movie series out every two years, not large as Bond. It takes one year of pre-production, one year to shoot and edit and issue and one to promote. You can't reduce that unless you put out crap films like Quantum of Solace or if you write by adapting Fleming novels in the 60's.

No problem, 3 years is more realistic, although the next film has targeted 2014.

==

re Trevanian's points. I don't know what Mallory knew about M and Silva, or about how M got her position. I don't think the film tells us much about that.

M though in SF, is suddenly a contradiction. I'm trying to giver her the benefit of the doubt, as for two films she has been written as a sympathetic character and ultimately she's pretty forthright in SF despite her reckless attitude witnessed in the pts. She does come around. We are on her side. Bond forgives her, so we do too.

Given the psychotic, homicidal fiend that Silva has become post China, I tend to think he might have been a little loose all along. Thus I can't ipse-facto fault M's instincts. Yes she sold him out, but it does seem he may very well have been the author of his own demise.

Still, yes Mommy may have been bad. We can't completely toss that out either, but I'm rolling with Bond here. He's willing to give her the benefit.

But the M dilemma I think underscores the whole folly of calling M's character into question as a story-device in the first place. It's a tough sell considering the iconic, supportive and generally above-reproach role the character has played for 22 films, nevermind books. The whole notion seems like an awkward contrivance, created simply to launch this latest Bond drama. Why go down this road?! It's fraught with plausibility landmines.

I think it's a story that might have been better left not told.

Then again there's possible $900 million in box-office, so what do I know? But LALD also made lots of money. So there!

Quote :

.Why go down this road?!

Because they wanted to kill her off. It's the only way to do it.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Quote :

.Why go down this road?!

Because they wanted to kill her off. It's the only way to do it.

Operative word "wanted" . She didn't have to be killed,but yes if they are going to kill her off, you got to go big.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Quote :

.Why go down this road?!

Because they wanted to kill her off. It's the only way to do it.

You go the PSYCHO route, having the shock value of Bond pop M after being brainwashed (probably by QUANTUM, off camera between movies.) Then you really DO have justification for going deep into Bond's psyche as he comes back to himself afterward. If Craig wants some angst to play, there you go. You want Bond to have some genuine justification for missing a shot, have it on account of guilt, not him being shellshocked or out of shape or whatever the SF excuse is.

trevanian wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Quote :

.Why go down this road?!

Because they wanted to kill her off. It's the only way to do it.

You go the PSYCHO route, having the shock value of Bond pop M after being brainwashed (probably by QUANTUM, off camera between movies.) Then you really DO have justification for going deep into Bond's psyche as he comes back to himself afterward. If Craig wants some angst to play, there you go. You want Bond to have some genuine justification for missing a shot, have it on account of guilt, not him being shellshocked or out of shape or whatever the SF excuse is.

Hard sell to a movie crowd. It's probably much easier to sell in the books because of the narrative structure and for me personally it barely worked in the book. And you're not talking about injuring M but killing M. Bond is still the good guy. It's hard to turn that image around for an audience in a two hour time frame.after that kind of act. It was really the only way to do it. Only downfall was it was from some random thug that M couldn't hit.

Bond's brainwashing was never a particularly great a story element, even in Fleming.

saint mark wrote:

NOT my review but one that is very well written and contains a lot of critisms I feel as well.

enjoy-

Here's my exposition/criticism of "Skyfall" and Bond. Pour yourself a cup of coffee...


Daniel Craig is a great actor. However... Half the fun of a Bond movie used to be simply watching Bond be Bond. Unfortunately, this is not so with Craig's emo Bond. In one scene with Q, when Bond is asked what he sees in an artistic painting, the uncultured, emo Craig Bond offers in put-out fashion "a bloody big ship". The more fun Bonds of the past would have come back with something completely unexpected that showed wit AND greater observation skills -- perhaps noting that the painting was a fake because of some detail noticed only by Bond. And it would have been done with something of a wink. Similarly, during the word association game, Bond damn near howls and hisses. I almost expected him to jump-up on the table and begin snarling and clawing at the air. Craig would make a better villain than a Bond...

...Finally, my take on Craig as Bond in general... I've been on the fence but now three movies in, I have to say, Craig is not my Bond. He's a great actor and I like much of his work but he's miscast. Bond can be a cold killer and still be fun and have panache. If people truly want the Fleming Bond then, Timothy Dalton, the most underrated Bond, fit the bill better. Unlike Craig's Bond, his Bond showed remorse at killing -- the way Fleming wrote him. His Bond was also dashing and handsome while exuding the same kind of danger and physical ability that Craig's Bond pulls-off. Also, like Craig, Dalton is a GREAT actor.

Gregory Klein
logiasophia at gmail dot com

perhaps the problem with having "great actors" in the role of Bond is that they will never be satisfied with just playing the role straight without wanting to introduce soapy "character development" like going rogue, personal loss and revenge or suffering self doubt after injury and becoming an alcoholic?
Connery may have left partly for that reason, while Moore and Brosnan would always have been happy to just play the role, and Lazenby was an idiot

Chief of SIS wrote:

trevanian wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Quote :

.Why go down this road?!

Because they wanted to kill her off. It's the only way to do it.

You go the PSYCHO route, having the shock value of Bond pop M after being brainwashed (probably by QUANTUM, off camera between movies.) Then you really DO have justification for going deep into Bond's psyche as he comes back to himself afterward. If Craig wants some angst to play, there you go. You want Bond to have some genuine justification for missing a shot, have it on account of guilt, not him being shellshocked or out of shape or whatever the SF excuse is.

Hard sell to a movie crowd. It's probably much easier to sell in the books because of the narrative structure and for me personally it barely worked in the book. And you're not talking about injuring M but killing M. Bond is still the good guy. It's hard to turn that image around for an audience in a two hour time frame.after that kind of act. It was really the only way to do it. Only downfall was it was from some random thug that M couldn't hit.

If they're serious about their storytelling (and that seems to be how they're selling these things), then this would be a lot less upsetting than, say, Willard, shooting the injured viet in APOCALYPSE - and potentially of more dramatic import.

Back in the early 90s, between Dalton and Brosnan, a friend and I brainstormed about Bond and shaking things up, and he liked the idea of having it that M knew Blofeld was around and let him make the hit on Tracy, to keep Bond in the fold. I thought that was pretty fucked up, especially since I was thinking of an original recipe M instead of Mother-May-I, but since then I've thought of it a lot.

Seve wrote:

saint mark wrote:

NOT my review but one that is very well written and contains a lot of critisms I feel as well.

enjoy-

Here's my exposition/criticism of "Skyfall" and Bond. Pour yourself a cup of coffee...


Daniel Craig is a great actor. However... Half the fun of a Bond movie used to be simply watching Bond be Bond. Unfortunately, this is not so with Craig's emo Bond. In one scene with Q, when Bond is asked what he sees in an artistic painting, the uncultured, emo Craig Bond offers in put-out fashion "a bloody big ship". The more fun Bonds of the past would have come back with something completely unexpected that showed wit AND greater observation skills -- perhaps noting that the painting was a fake because of some detail noticed only by Bond. And it would have been done with something of a wink. Similarly, during the word association game, Bond damn near howls and hisses. I almost expected him to jump-up on the table and begin snarling and clawing at the air. Craig would make a better villain than a Bond...

...Finally, my take on Craig as Bond in general... I've been on the fence but now three movies in, I have to say, Craig is not my Bond. He's a great actor and I like much of his work but he's miscast. Bond can be a cold killer and still be fun and have panache. If people truly want the Fleming Bond then, Timothy Dalton, the most underrated Bond, fit the bill better. Unlike Craig's Bond, his Bond showed remorse at killing -- the way Fleming wrote him. His Bond was also dashing and handsome while exuding the same kind of danger and physical ability that Craig's Bond pulls-off. Also, like Craig, Dalton is a GREAT actor.

Gregory Klein
logiasophia at gmail dot com

perhaps the problem with having "great actors" in the role of Bond is that they will never be satisfied with just playing the role straight without wanting to introduce soapy "character development" like going rogue, personal loss and revenge or suffering self doubt after injury and becoming an alcoholic?
Connery may have left partly for that reason, while Moore and Brosnan would always have been happy to just play the role, and Lazenby was an idiot

Lazenby was great, but that aside. ;) I do like this article by Klein. Its refreshing, as it does seem that in journalism circles it is de rigeur to fawn all over Craig. Klein reminds us that Craig was an oddball choice to begin with, and he reminds us why. I've never been happy with Craig as Bond. He's way off, and it does start with the look, but the drama tendencies and bouts with dourness don't help either. I've just learned to endure. He delivers the character fairly well in SF, better than he did in the first two films IMO, so he is watchable at least, but he is still all wrong, notwithstanding how unfashionable that opinion has become.

Re "great actors" I think you are on to something here. The "great actors" will be more inclinded to try and "improve" and depart somewhat from the Connery persona. The less ambitious actors will be more content to do respect to the Connery persona. As much as I applaud Dalton's efforts, and I do like his films, I do believe he tried too hard to make Bond vulnerable and human. This is the thespian in him. The Connery approach is far more invigorating and I think reminds far more of Fleming than Dalton. Fleming's Bond was quite relaxed in his skin. Connery's approach is every bit as legitimate and I think translates much better to the screen.

In the mean time, being a reasonable sort, I applaud Craig's herculean efforts on behalf of the franchise, but next time, lets go younger and insist on the classic look.

tiffanywint wrote:

Lazenby was great, but that aside. ;)

by the way, I was referring to his decision to abandon the role after one movie, rather than his actual performance in the role
;)