Well I never. Thanks for pointing this out!
1 Like
The better edit would have worked without any CGI: just cut it out entirely.
3 Likes
Or use CGI to remove the end of each finger as it leaves his mouth, so it looks like he’s eating them.
3 Likes
The fingers thing…it was an odd fixation in that film and it made scene move from a Shakespeare reference (out damn spot, out) to just plain weird, and I’m talking about my favourite Bond film!
2 Likes
QUANTUM OF SOLACE
Before:
I enjoyed the film on first viewing. Although anybody I talked to back then said: ooooh, what a let down! It´s just Bourne! I don´t know what the story is about! (And that one even came from producers I met!)
I never really understood those criticisms. Not even the “Bourne” comparison. Yes, it´s editing is very kinetic, especially in the first 15 minutes. But if you really look at QOS and any Greengrass film you immediately see the difference. Unfortunately, later on, even Forster apologized for the editing, saying “if we only had had more time…”. And Craig complained about himself not being a writer but taking a stab at the script after the writers´ strike prohibited the real writers to do more drafts.
As I blabbered on before I started this re-watch round, I had lost interest in the Craig era. I even had thought that after watching the last Brosnan left on my list I would pause the rewatch sessions because the idea of going through the CraigBonds was not enticing at all. Maybe because they still lingered in my mind, being the most recent ones.
But then I just decided: let’s at least start CR and see what happens. And I was pretty amazed how much I liked it. So today I clicked on QOS. And SF afterwards. Which might tell you already whether I enjoyed QOS.
After:
Hugely. I have no complaints about this film whatsoever. It moves extremely fast - with no scene wasted. Everything works for me. Even the kinetic editing, which is going for an impressionist, almost brutal impact. But while this might have been overwhelming on a big screen, I thought that on my tv screen I could effortlessly follow the geography of the editing.
Maybe QOS had the thankless task of following the breakthrough success of CR - and then later on being sandwiched between that and the juggernaut of SF, so it never got the praise it deserved.
But I think QOS is a better film than CR, combining an interesting and again prescient story (all those billionaires at the opera determining the fate of the world, controlling the water supply for a whole country while putting a puppet into office) with a distinct visual style which still remains the most courageous and inventive of the whole series. The dialogue is punchy, sardonic and absolutely on the mark, and Craig is a powerhouse of energy, driven by anger but also by, yes, duty. Ironically, he goes rogue this time because he wants to complete the mission, knowing that only his determination will finally encourage M to go against her superiors, too.
So, I loved QOS back then - but I absolutely adore it now. Shooting up my rankings almost sky high.
And quite frankly, I believe that the writers´ strike and the short post period actually worked in favor of the film. Because one can expect that QOS remained in this tough and uncompromising form that way. Nobody had the time to soften and tone down everything.
7 Likes
SKYFALL
Before:
I first saw SF in a press screening in the morning - and I fell completely in love with it. SF seemed to have everything I like in a Bond film and even made interesting additions to the known tropes or varied them inventively.
Later on I was distracted by the online criticisms of “it´s just The Dark Knight” and “Silva´s plan is bonkers and full of accidents”.
I wanted to especially pay attention to that this time, while also experiencing what I loved about Mendes´ direction before he did SPECTRE.
After:
I enjoyed SKYFALL immensely again. It is crafted with so much enthusiasm by everyone involved, it has one of the best villains of the whole series and it has ROGER DEAKINS. Yes.
It also adds a new wrinkle (or more) to the portrayal of Bond: aging. While this was tackled before in the later Moore era and in NSNA, it never really got to this point, showing Bond actually feeling and being viewed as a discarded and used up object. Yes, it again focuses a CraigBond on the question of relevancy - but I will stop complaining about this and accept it as one of those features which are not a bug of those films. The Craig era is about Bond having to prove himself despite the world having moved on. And Craig delivers a very fine performance as Bond once again, actually looking a lot older than he did in QOS. But his Bond also shows a dry wit here I had weirdly forgotten about.
I do think SF has an almost impeccable first half - and then loses a step in the second. After Silva turning the tables during the interrogation the tension dissipates a bit. Maybe because it is clear that he will not remain in custody for another 80 minutes, and that everything which follows is a given - we can see where this is going, so we are not as involved in the proceedings again.
And when Bond and M reach Skyfall, the film again has to ramp up to get to those highs of the first half - and it cannot really do it. Here it´s mainly Silva who livens up everything when he finally reappears. Bardem does wonders with his performance, and his facial expressions in that chapel at the end are monstrous and heartbreaking at the same time. The “Last rat standing”-line, of course, is delivered perfectly by Craig at the end of that confrontation.
But what about Silva´s plan? Is it really so farfetched and unbelievable?
I would say no. Or better: only if one concludes that all of it was a preplanned trap for Bond. I don’t think it was. Just like Bond, Silva improvises and uses what he can find. So although he planned to get captured in order to kill M at the hearing (having his people around with the police clothing to be handed off to him, destroying the subway train station to cover his tracks and divert attention), he only used Bond when Bond appeared on the island. He would have found another way to have himself captured. So, no, I cannot find fault with the planning or plotting here. Is Q too cocky and therefore risking too much by plugging into Silva´s computer? Yes. But M explicitly orders him to find out quickly what is on that hard drive. And Q does come across from the first scene onwards as someone thinking a bit too highly of himself.
As for the often criticized Severine death - she actually has more scenes than CR´s Solange, and Bond also uses her only to gain information and access. The “waste of good scotch”-line might feel offensive to some, but it´s all about Bond not letting his guard down in front of Silva who is ostensibly trying to provoke him.
One last gripe: it is rather unbelievable that Mi6 does nothing to protect M at Skyfall. Maybe that could have been remedied if at the hearing she would have been fired and declared persona non grata.
One last praise: Mendes really raised the filmmaking style once again (although Forster already paved the way), and the fine-tuned character humor also seems to be due to his ability to draw strong performances.
7 Likes
Regarding Quantum of Solace, having watched it again recently - is the hour or so of everything that happens after everyone flies into Bregenz, one of the best hours of Bond? I propose that it might be. Up there with the first hour of The Living Daylights, anyway.
Craig is most engaging here - his Bond remains tough and pragmatic and cynical, yet there is evident compassion and decency; there’s a blunt wit; he’s a snob and there’s a thin veneer of refinement; the relationship with M has softened to mutual respect rather than the previous film’s chiding tolerance; he possesses human frailties, makes errors and remains rash, but has deveoped into a more mature agent and a force to be reckoned with and a figure of some allure and danger (Mathis’ girlfriend’s reaction to him remains fascinating). He’s an efficient killer, albeit with evident disgust about it. This is pretty close to the Bond I read about, other than the smoking and the housemaid. He also has one of those scenes where he wanders into the villain’s domain and provokes him.
If we could have had this persona for say one more film before Skyfall turned him into a Haunted Curmudgeon, that might have been a definitive Bond film, especially with a more potent villain (although I do rather like Greene’s weaselly nature and shark-black eyes).
In passing it has only just dawned on me that the opera sequence is a direct adaptation of a reference in the short story to Bond going to the theatre but ignoring what was going on as he was tailing someone - I’ve never picked this up before.
The editing does calm down for the back half of the film, and there’s much to enjoy in the last hour, once the scribble is done.
I would recommend watching Bregenz onwards and particularly noting the performance - it is in my view (worth little) the point where he “is” James Bond, or at least demonstrating the range of the literary character’s curious characteristics.
9 Likes
Now that you say it!
2 Likes
In retrospect I think Quantum is Craig´s best Bond performance with his own interpretion of film Bond but close enough to Fleming Bond, just like Jim analized. A perfect action Bond film like TND. What a waste going from rookie Bond to burn out Bond in SF without giving him his own Goldfinger…
2 Likes
After listening to the soundtrack quite a bit I decided to watch the film.
FRWL may still be his best film in my opinion, but this is the fully established Connery Bond at the height of his powers. He fully asserts himself from the get go with his own gunbarrel walk.
There are flourishes that show a confident Bond at complete ease with himself: stopping to throw flowers on a dead body despite the door about to be broken down, and enjoying grapes during a break-in.
The way he casually dispatches Vargas is well known, but the way he belittles the shower assassin is top quality. Slamming the bathroom door against his head, tapping the gun out of his hand and giving it back to him afterwards, being so in control and unafraid of his foe. TB Bond is casual but exudes danger, being elevated above everyone else, which is best demonstrated by the underwater finale. While everyone else is struggling and brawling, Bond flies in and dominates.
There are so many cool little scenes with snappy dialogue. Volpe driving like a bat out of hell and Connery showing concern, while the music reaches fever pitch. Handing Volpe the shoes while she’s in the bath. Seeing all the 00 agents receiving the briefing with 007 walking in last. The casino scene, which was only the second such sequence from the 60s at the time. Shooting from the hip while visiting Largo. The Q scene is one of the best. Pretty much the whole damn movie is a highlight.
The street chase has a nice tension about it, and he actually gets shot and needs to heal himself. I don’t think the series had this type of suspense again until Bond’s rescue by Tracy in OHMSS.
The music of TB is hyper masculine and sets the mood so well. One of the best uses is ‘Death of Fiona’ with the drums pounding up the tension - then the threat passes and the melody causally swaggers off. So cool and so Bond.
It has to be said Rick Van Nutter was a great Felix, possibly the one I most envision when reading the books, and the movie itself translates the book in a solid way.
The Tom Jones song may as well be Connery Bond’s main anthem, because he really is “the winner who takes all.”
9 Likes
I always thought he first had his hand lower and then tried to cover the blood with his hand…
2 Likes
My favorite “hidden” moment from Thunderball is at the very end of the credits - the colors of the rising bubbles create a momentary French flag over the shot of Paris…
(although the dog peeing in the street during the carnival is a close 2nd)
9 Likes
Wow! I never noticed this! Great find! 
4 Likes
SPECTRE
Before:
After seeing “Skyfall” (which I had absolutely loved) and being excited by the teaser for this new film (ending in that shot cracking the windshield) I watched “Spectre” in an early morning press screening. I remember how I giddily chose a front row seat, taking in the giant screen above me and expecting a new milestone in Bond history.
The PTS, starting with that long tracking shot (I know, digitally spliced together), already made me feel very good about the film. Then the Rome sequence with that creepy meeting, very nice. The car chase in peculiarly empty streets… okay.
And then… my excitement vanished from scene to scene. This was not the movie I was expecting. This was not the movie which I thought would bring back Blofeld and Spectre in a powerful way. This was not the movie which was better or even close to “Skyfall”.
I left saddened. And I returned a few weeks later for a second screening, wishing to love the film after all. My feelings did not change.
Then I came across an earlier script draft, made available due to the Sony hacks. And I loved what I read: Q not escaping the goons in Austria but being captured. Bond having to escape from the Spectre lair and freeing Q. A finale in a torrential downpour on top of the Mi6 building. Fighting Irma Bunt, Blofeld´s henchwoman. A deeply troubling ending with Bond telling Madeline “We have all the time in the world”.
This was the movie I thought “Spectre” should have become. Why did Sony, after the massive success of “Skyfall”, decide to pinch pennies and nix that script version as too expensive?
In the following years I only tried “Spectre” once more, enjoying the first half hour and some scenes I had liked before - but again, my opinion did not change. I did not return to it and it certainly helped me sour on the Craig era, especially when NTTD finally came around, again not fulfilling my expectations and hopes, even crushing them with that ending. And when years passed and no new film was in sight, I was even more convinced that the Craig era had turned out to be a mistake with lingering consequences. And it all started for me with “Spectre”.
When I began my re-watch sessions last year, the other eras brought back so much joy and excitement, I even thought I would stop after the last Brosnan and postpone a re-watch of the Craig era for, I don’t know, a long time.
Then I thought I should at least start CR and see how far I would come. But to my own surprise I enjoyed it. I moved on to QOS, was totally in love with it, and again was very much enamored by SF.
I feared, though, that SP would end that streak as it did before.
After:
It did not.
Instead, I was thrilled from beginning to end.
For the first time I might have been ready to appreciate the film for what it actually is and does, having put all my expectations and ideas about how it should have been aside.
And I must say, I absolutely adore it now. I marvel at how wonderfully precise the structure is, how sardonic and witty the dialogue, how well paced it is and how subtly it conveys its themes throughout the story. All this despite the all-too-publicized problems during production - a truly Herculean effort, demonstrating the utter professionalism of everybody involved.
I now see what Mendes achieved here. SP is a totally different film from its predecessor, and that’s wonderful. It manages to be playful yet severely dramatic, sometimes both at the same time. And Craig delivers (so far, I don’t want to comment on NTTD before having re-watched it) his best Bond performance.
I was absolutely wrong about CraigBond always sulking. He had reasons to sulk in CR, QOS and SF. But in SP he shows absolute confidence, even in the face of all the existential threats he encounters here. He truly is Bond now, showing that Connery-esque smirk, provoking his opponents and regaining the upper hand after skirting death once again.
I also noticed how wrong I was about CraigBond always just doing his own thing, going rogue all the time.
This is not true, actually. Yes, CraigBond chooses his own path. But he actually always fulfills the objective that needs to be fulfilled. Only too often his superiors just don’t realize that CraigBond is right. It´s actually M who is either wrong or in the case of SP too troubled by the pressure from C to see the big picture. Bond does. He follows his instincts which prove to be correct. Only by ignoring M here Bond can actually help M to stop C in the end. - This is very different from going rogue for a personal vendetta, as in LTK.
You may ask: but what about the stepbrother-Oberhauser-idea. Isn’t that totally silly?
Yes - but only if one believes that hidden resentment and frustration cause Blofeld to wreak havoc on the world and finally on Bond. I myself made that mistake before. But re-watching SPECTRE I realized that Blofeld and his organization are only interested in one thing: power through destabilizing governments and accumulating profits from manipulating stock markets, sending out misinformation, causing terror attacks and stealing from the unprotected.
Sounds familiar, by the way? Once again, a Bond film is so much more prescient than anybody gives it credit for.
Having Bond interfere with Oberhauser´s plans is just a coincidence - but something Oberhauser happily uses to fight back and punish Bond for. For him and Bond, their connection is the irony of fate, nothing more.
One might say, of course, that this connection was not necessary. Or that the deliberate sleight of hand about the name wasn’t clever already in the previous Mendes´ Bond with Eve… Moneypenny. But for me, it does work. Sure, audiences who never heard the name Ernst Stavro Blofeld or saw that white Persian cat won’t understand the significance. But for the majority of moviegoers it is significant.
And the way Waltz plays Blofeld again demonstrates how subtly and yet forceful SPECTRE manages to reinterpret the tropes of Bond history, from the malfunctioning car to the surprisingly different action using a plane as a wrecking ball, to the truly brutal train fight and up to the villain´s desert lair.
Also, SPECTRE strengthens the horror film aspects of LALD (a Mendes and Craig favorite) by applying a nightmare atmosphere to the whole film, starting with the Day of the Dead-sequence. It´s interesting how crowdy those Mexican streets are in contrast to the eerie emptiness of the following locations. It almost feels as if the world has retreated, and Bond is left alone to encounter and fight the ghosts of his past, present and future who now are the only entities here, using the world as their playground.
Even the “L´Americain”-sequence which had bored me before is absolutely in tune with the uncanny mood of the whole film. It´s no coincidence that Bond is shown in the haze of alcohol, in the midst of night, barely awake, when he sees the mouse escaping into that hole (having jokingly called himself “Mickey Mouse” himself before) which makes him discover the secret room of Mr. White. It is a surreal moment, as disconcerting as the disappearing people on the train. Bond is in Nightmare Country, the whole film enforces this idea, up to the spooky old and dark building, about to be demolished, with cables forming a spider’s web which Bond - typical of him - finally uses for his own good by taking a leap of faith with Madeleine into one of those webs.
Even the final boat chase leading to Bond shooting down Blofeld´s helicopter - which felt silly to me before - is actually picking up on that nightmare idea. Realism has left the building, so to speak, and like in a terrible dream Bond fights the symbol of his potential demise (with Blofeld having the disfiguring scar now, only one eye seeing clearly, the devil coming to the harmless surface) and actually manages to take him down. Which would probably seem even more impossible in broad daylight - but we’re in the dead of night. And the symbolic undercurrent becomes even more clear with Bond literally being put on the middle of a bridge in order to decide the direction he wants to take his life in.
Is this all too theatrical for a Bond film? Depends on your taste, I would say.
SPECTRE indeed is a highly stylized film, and that also explains the color grading of the cinematography. Again, I was very critical of that decision before. But now I understand it as a perfect way to convey that particular mood: no bright colors, even the sunlight is drenched out and looks dirty. The rest is darkness, the grey cold of Austria or the burning orange of Rome. Nothing else would have fit here.
I am surprised and actually truly happy how much I appreciate SPECTRE now. I love it more than SKYFALL, and it has become one of my favorite Bonds ever.
It is ironic, however, that I made this discovery on the very same day EON gave up their creative power over Bond. I suspect that this kind of Bond film would not have been greenlit by the new regime. SPECTRE therefore will remain even more special now.
One last thought: When the film was released, I would not have thought that the world would actually become ruled by Spectre-ish people, only 10 years later. I sincerely hope that 10 years from now we can still talk about that in the open.
11 Likes
Great contemporary review. I’m not sure if I’ll ever have SPECTRE amongst my favourites of the series. However, the horror/surrealism elements that members of this site have pointed out, such as in your review, certainly have helped to make it a vastly more interesting watch.
I think it’s nudged above Skyfall in my Craig rankings since these elements have been highlighted.
4 Likes
I actually wonder why they didn’t lean even more into the surrealist/horror angle? The title sequence has that particular air about it, the many weird scenes you would only ever experience in a nightmare. And the film itself lacks so many connecting elements, is at times closer to the weirdest episodes of The Prisoner, with Number 007 forever trapped in the Village that is his world - by his own nature.
Anybody who experiences what Bond experiences in this film and isn’t dreaming must surely consider themselves a fictional character in a story. Huge explosions, deadly fights, almost catastrophic helicopter manoeuvres and airplane crashes happen without the ‘ordinary’ people and authorities taking much notice. Women are confronted with losing a partner and a father, yet they don’t significantly react to this loss; in one case even predicted by another dead woman.
The few times where civilians are in the frame they are mostly blissfully ignorant of events, as if indeed the talking roles in this were all ghosts that can only be seen by other ghosts. Perhaps SPECTRES would be the better title.
3 Likes
I am verklempt.
I have always believed that people’s expectations combined with the insider knowledge they garnered as a result of the Sony hack doomed SPECTRE’s reception among the cognoscenti (it did fine among the hoi polloi to the tune of $800+ million).
But that quality of difference doomed it with those viewers who wanted more of what they had just received via SF.
Exactly. Corporatism as villain. Won’t be seeing any of that in the future. EON’s independence, along with the massive success of SF, allowed for such a villain. In the future, expect corporate magnates to be Bond allies, giving him support/supplies at key moments. Oligarch-friendly cinema.
Excellent. Never thought of the horror element before (probably because horror is my least favorite film genre).
Which somehow remained undetected/allowed by the hotel’s proprietors for years. Talk about surreal!
Definitely. You and @Dustin have made me realize that the aesthetic of the film is Surrealism–SP is the Bond film Bunuel might have made. If this aesthetic doesn’t work for a viewer, the movie is going to be a long slog with few, if any, rewards.
Never, and even if they did, they do not have a producer the caliber/experience of Barbra Broccoli to make it. SP is a superbly produced movie–in terms of both its aesthetic achievement and its surmounting of the logistical difficulties which arose during production. As I was absorbing/commenting on yesterday’s news, SPECTRE was the movie I told myself I would watch when I got home–not just because I love it, but also in appreciation of what a creative producer can accomplish. Alas, when movie time came around, it was too late for a film of SP’s length, so I opted for Antonioni’s THE PASSENGER instead, but SP is on the menu for this weekend.
The biggest horror element of them all. Mendes knew what he was doing when he set the funeral scene in the Museo della Civiltà Romana–a Fascist era monument. And lo and behold, the pronouncements by the American President about the art he wants–“the classical architectural style shall be the preferred and default style”-- and what he wants banned–“NO MORE DRAG SHOWS, OR OTHER ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA.”
I think Mendes leaned in as far as he could, and still maintain the architecture of a Bond movie. SP may be the first (and is almost definitely the last) arthouse Bond film.
The movie’s narrative is set in motion by a message delivered by a ghost.
Reminiscent of THE SIXTH SENSE and THE OTHERS: two worlds inhabiting
the same filmic frame (which explains the cinematography choices). I recently re-watched REFLECTIONS IN A GOLDEN EYE in Huston’s preferred tinted version, and the reason it works is that his color manipulations allow the story to take on a mythic quality–it gathers all the film’s elements into a cohesive aesthetic whole. In the Technicolor version, the movie resembles an assemblage of Elizabeth Taylor’s home movies. SPECTRE is full color would lose its sense of the uncanny, and become touristy and mundane.
I think you are right.
2 Likes
One more thing: I had completely forgotten that we already see on Q‘s notebook that the previous villains were all part of Spectre - the printed out pictures in the Mi6 building are just to taunt Bond once more.
2 Likes
I snuck a moment at work, and watched SPECTRE’s title sequence, and I realized that the song works from both Bond’s point of views, and that of Madeleine. Never realized that before. Adds resonance to Sam Smith’s use of the falsetto.
3 Likes
I don’t know how to do the split quotes so I’ve broken them up this way and will comment on them chronologically.
1 – I’ve never bothered to try to read about the SPECTRE script that was leaked so all I know is that it happened. Reading what you just wrote, makes me disappointed that we didn’t we didn’t get that film. 
That sounds really interesting.
2 – SPECTRE is a totally different film from it’s predecessor and yet for some strange reason, Sam Mendes wanted Thomas Newman to reuse some of Skyfall’s music. Odd.
3 – In SPECTRE, Daniel Craig’s James Bond is actually having fun and enjoying himself. It is his most “traditional” Bond performance, i.e. the most similar to how the other actors in the series played 007. In the rest of his films, excluding Casino Royale, he is not having fun, which elevates CR and SPECTRE for me.
4 – I like SPECTRE better than Skyfall too, and always have, even though Skyfall clearly is a better made film than SPECTRE.
3 Likes