I too instantly notice the LTK connection with Solomon Lane’s escape, as well as the HALO jump from TND…However, I’m still really psyched for this. I can’t also help but thanking god that Bond 25 has switched gears with Boyle and Hodges script, and thus have a feeling that Purvis Wade’s idea may have very well have run the same road that MI:Fallout is going. At least this time EON isn’t deep into, or almost done filming (as they were on SPECTRE) when Mission Impossible hit the screens, so hopefully this time they’ll see what comparisons the two films have and will have a chance to avoid them.
Yea, M:I5 and Spectre shared way too many things, even the settings…on a other note, Tom cruise is entering Roger Moore territory with regards to age. Hopefully he wont come off as a dirty old man as Moore did in AVTAK.
Sir Roger never came off as a dirty old man in the Bond films. In fact, the whole Bibi thing, IMO, was specially designed to distance his Bond from that, fending off her advances and suggesting to buy her an ice-cream instead, going for the older ladies instead. As he did in OP and AVTAK.
And Cruise still looks and acts like a man 10-20 years younger. A man, by the way, who never was that interested in his leading ladies who never were so much younger than him.
I was specifically referring to AVTAK, when he was nearly twice Roberts’ age.
Twice her age did not make him a dirty old man.
And he did bake her a pie.
That’s the best blockbuster trailer I’ve seen in many a year. Can’t wait.
Incidentally, is he stood on top of the Tate Modern there? How did he get up there?
Climbed up a ladder at the back. When the press got hold of it, they surmised that Cruise was going to jump from the roof to the helicopter. Hmmm. Down wash, anyone.
The helicopter was just filming him.
Well I mean more… where’s he going? It does seem a uniquely pointless place to go to!
Another trailer. Looking rather good. But the best trailer so far was the first one, IMO.
Jesus that looks amazing! The car! The helicopter! This is what Bond used to be all about. This is breathtaking stuff!
Imo opinion a great stunt is a great stunt, but a great movie it does not make.
What Bond has improved upon with Craig is the drama. By drama i mean character development and plot working hand in hand and the cast given something decent to chew on.
The better the drama the more is at stake and the more nerve racking those stunts are. None of the MI films have so far imho racked up as much ‘drama’ as Craig’s Bond movies (thanks to Eon recognising that Craig needs good dialogue etc.).
So although recent Bond movie stunts haven’t been as spectacular as MI’s, they are multiplied by their superior drama (Craig’s performances/Campbell and Mendes direction) to resonate more deeply than Cruise dangling, gripping, falling and running very quickly(!)… In isolation perhaps these MI stunts look pretty awesome, but without good drama as a ‘multiplier’ they are merely great moments.
I’m hoping MI:6 has cracked the drama stakes this time round. I’ve got a lot of love for Chris McQuarrie - i’m a huge fan of his underrated Way of The Gun - and he may indeed surpass recent Bond movies (having hopefully learnt from the last instalment - good, but not great).
So as great as these stunts look i’m keeping my powder dry. Now, if Bond 25 had stunts like this, along with it’s great lead whom imo is a better actor than Cruise, then that’d be ideal!
I would like to ask two questions referring to your points:
- Have the dramatic stakes really been improved on the CraigBond films?
I would say: no. Losing a loved one, feeling betrayed by his superior and taunted by a step-brother did not improve Bond´s character development. It only did what so many Nolan-influenced blockbusters dragged along: a sourness sold as “darkness is always deeper and more interesting”.
So Bond fell in love with Vesper, found out she betrayed him, he cried and hardened, never dared to love again. Well, we already knew that Bond who let his feelings show and stopped doing that because he was hurt.
And is Bond at any point shown tempted to follow Silva´s example? Never. He spends his down time drinking, fornicating and playing dangerous bar games - but at the first sign of real trouble he is ready to go “Yes, M”. Character development? None.
And when he finds out his step-brother is the author of all his pain… he does not want Madeleine to look at something he already has told her about and then makes quips at Franz whether he knows any more bird sounds. The whole relationship between Bond and Oberhauser is not explored at all, and it does not change Bond´s views of his past or his behavior. No character development at all.
Ethan Hunt does have to give up the love of his life to protect her. He is shown how he secretly watches her. Character development… well, not really either - but not less than CraigBond. Instead the M:I-films show a main character who is constantly on the run and tries to outsmart his opponents to prevent major catastrophes. He has become the best secret agent one can hope for. AND he does not put his own feelings before his job. Something a certain James Bond was excelling at in the first 20 films.
The new M:I film apparently ties every previous film together by focussing on the consequences of Hunts´ actions, also in his private life. That’s something the CraigBond-films have not managed so far.
- Why is Craig a better actor than Cruise?
IMO, Craig is a decent and charismatic actor - but someone who actually is not that versatile. His main talent is showing intensity, simmering anger and blunt force with a sardonic twist. He is not really good at charming women or at comedy.
Cruise has charme and charisma, he is a true movie star and can do drama and comedy. His willingness to do these outrageous stunts himself also proves again and again how committed he is to offer the audience something special.
For me, I would describe the Craig films as having a little more “meat on the bone” to them as opposed to similar films - especially Skyfall…
Whilst i agree that Cruise is a fantastic and versatile actor, I dont think the MI films have given Cruise the opportunities to show the extent of that range - its always been my one gripe with them. If you see Interview With A Vampire, Magnolia or even Tropic Thunder or one of his Spielberg collaborations (witness him being put into every fathers nightmare in Minority Report or how far a dad would go to prevent that in War of the Worlds), Cruise truly excels when he’s allowed off his lead, as it were, so i hope its something McQuarie makes use of at some point.
I also think that the Craig films have some more “development” than most Bond films. That said, I don’t necessarily see it as a good thing. Casino Royale gave us a great arc for Bond, who falls in love and has both his trust and his heart broken. It turns him into the blunt instrument that we know him as. QoS tripled down on this and gave us a way too dark Bond, far darker than even Licence to Kill. Skyfall saw Bond fall into despair and regain his composure and conviction. Spectre, well, I’m still not sure what Spectre was trying to accomplish.
However, I agree with you SAF that Ethan Hunt is totally different than Bond. He’s never been a loner, like Bond. But they aren’t so different. Bond was going to give up his life of espionage for his loves. He was planning to leave for Tracy and he resigned for Vesper. He even did it for shudder Madeleine. Hunt did the same thing with the difference being that he was able to protect his wife. Vesper betrayed Bond to save him, Tracy was murdered by Blofeld in the franchise’s saddest moment, and I really hope Madeleine is just written out and won’t show up again.
I guess my point is, enjoy them both.
Absolutely, the M:I films did not really demand that kind of range - but they do not even attempt to do that. They are content with featuring a hero and adding only small details of his psychology, and then they run with that, concentrating on the plot and the action because they are fully aware of this being their whole reason to be.
The CraigBonds are much more pretentious while they still do not fulfill those “bigger” ambitions.
Again, the big arc of CR, QOS, SF and SP does not amount to anything - it´s used as an expositional tool. The filmmakers maintain that all these actions show how Bond became Bond etc. - but in the end, they don’t explain Bond because there is so little to actually understand here, and there is no real logic why Bond would be turned into that kind of man by that one lost love or the loss of his parents etc.
Don’t take me wrong, I do not want that kind of explanation or psychology for Bond.
I would rather have them not attempt to showing off any ambition here. Bond is a pulp fiction hero and should be treated as such. That’s how he works best.
Not sure how many of these posters will actually be printed (Define ‘poster’).
I don’t mind Bond showing emotion and fear. Bond not wanting to catch Della’s flowers in LTK, for example. Or his escape from Piz Gloria before Tracy rescues him. But if overdone things can get tiresome.
Bond has demons (as Fleming shows via internal dialogue) but he’s not going to show much outward pain. The only time he went to pieces was Fleming’s YOLT. Turning up late to work, losing at the casino, over-drinking, endangering agents in the field, etc. Basically an extreme version of his existing lifestyle to the point it’s reckless. But this is a very special case and should never be the norm.
In general, I like depth but it needs to be balanced with a sense of fun that the MI films definitely have.