James Bond In Skyfall - Part 8

[Homer J. Fong]

I watched For Your Eyes Only a couple days ago, and that's a movie I want to like so much more than I actually do. From the first shot, it's clearly trying to mark itself as a back-to-basics return to form - Bond visiting Tracy's grave, followed by one last battle with the man responsible for her death. But that pre-title sequence is emblematic of what's most wrong with it: the poor integration of humor or otherwise silly moments. Why is this Blofeld a goofball who ultimately pleas, "I'll buy you a delicatessen - in stainless steel!"? Couldn't he have been more like the Blofeld in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, a movie this one is trying to emulate? The Bibi Dahl character and the final Margaret Thatcher/parrot gag are also embarrassing fumbles in terms of comic relief. It doesn't help that Kristatos is a boring villain - his agenda is interesting, and I like the way he sets up Columbo as the villain, but he's ultimately pretty bland. Everything else in it is good; I like it, I just wish it came together better.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

The thing about For Your Eyes is that not only is it supposed to be a complete opposite of the previous two Bond movies, it's a movie that has a much smaller scope than the previous Bond movies. You can make the argument that it has the smallest scope. It's a good and bad thing. What brings FYEO down though is that it's dated, but in a bad way. It feels like an early 80s action movie, but in a bad way.

 

[Homer J. Fong]

I don't think it's altogether dated, but it does have its moments of, "This is very 1981, and I don't know if I'm into it." I like that the scope is as small as it is, though - I mean, From Russia iwth Love had about the same level of stakes to it as this, and that's another one that FYEO consciously tried to emulate. FYEO still feels like a breath of fresh air coming after Moonraker, and it's more than 30 years later. Similary, The Living Daylights - a movie that shares some of FYEO's flaws - still feels like a breath of fresh air after A View to a Kill, even though it's almost 30 years later.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'm still surprised we haven't seen a World War II era James Bond story.

Especially since Bond was inspired by real WWII era spies. Not to mention MI6's war with German spies, which put British intelligence on the map.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I don't think it's altogether dated, but it does have its moments of, "This is very 1981, and I don't know if I'm into it." I like that the scope is as small as it is, though - I mean, From Russia iwth Love had about the same level of stakes to it as this, and that's another one that FYEO consciously tried to emulate. FYEO still feels like a breath of fresh air coming after Moonraker, and it's more than 30 years later. Similary, The Living Daylights - a movie that shares some of FYEO's flaws - still feels like a breath of fresh air after A View to a Kill, even though it's almost 30 years later.

I don't have a problem with the aspect that it's smaller in scope, but my feeling with For Your Eyes Only is kinda similar to most Bond fans opinion of the movie. Yeah, this exists. It's not bad, but to me it's not among the best Bond movies.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I'm still surprised we haven't seen a World War II era James Bond story.

Especially since Bond was inspired by real WWII era spies. Not to mention MI6's war with German spies, which put British intelligence on the map.

It's not really surprising at all considering that Bond is a postwar character and the Bond stories are always contemporary.

 

[chamber-music]

I forgot to add with Plesances Blofeld, I will be honest and say that Austin Powers also had a hand in ruining Plesances Blofeld.

Yeah I think some the hate he gets is because his one of the most parodied Bond villains.

Personally Plesances Blofeld was my favourite version. He had that quiet calmness that was creepy.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I think also what hurt's Plesance's Blofeld is that in previous movies, he was depicted as having a deeper voice that sound a bit more delightfully sinister, which I felt Savalas reflected best.

 

[baerrtt]

Fair enough about Grant.

Also, with Jaws, I think that they changed Jaws because this one kid got scared and wrote the director (or writer, or someone) a letter saying that Jaws should be a good guy, and they caved for children.

The story I heard was the kid liked the character and thought he'd be better as a good guy. I imagine because of Kiel's height and those metal teeth the producers discovered kids in general found Jaws more fascinating than scary. I know that watching TSWLM for the first time as a child I didn't find him scary at all.

 

[Roose Bolton]

I was surprised he could talk at all when I first saw Moonraker.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I know this has been brought up before but what is the likeliness of a period set bond film happening? You know something set in the early 60's perhaps cold war era. I think it would be very interesting.

Unfortunately i feel one of the upcoming bond films would have to tank for the studio to jump to this decision, as in taking bond in another new direction.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Very unlikely. Bond is a contemporary character.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I know there was a period set bond novel released not too long ago that got some good reviews i believe.

Yes he is a contemporary character but he was born of the cold war and the cold war was probably the golden age of international espionage.

I can see a studio being hesitant for a period film due to the fact that bond films are always supposed to be followed by sequels with the main actor. I don't know if a studio would want to invest in a stand alone period bond film where doing further sequels would be difficult.

Sort of a shame though.

 

[Roose Bolton]

We've seen Cold War Bond films though, 16 of them to be exact.

Personally I find it more interesting seeing Bond's role in the post 9/11 world.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Fair enough about Grant.

Also, with Jaws, I think that they changed Jaws because this one kid got scared and wrote the director (or writer, or someone) a letter saying that Jaws should be a good guy, and they caved for children.

Wow that sucks, what a stupid way to make creative decisions, ruined a classic monster heel.

The thing about For Your Eyes is that not only is it supposed to be a complete opposite of the previous two Bond movies, it's a movie that has a much smaller scope than the previous Bond movies. You can make the argument that it has the smallest scope. It's a good and bad thing. What brings FYEO down though is that it's dated, but in a bad way. It feels like an early 80s action movie, but in a bad way.

It's amongst my top 10, I love the ski chase, Melina and the big mountain finale as well as the stripped down plot. I also think it gives Moore one of his best moments as Bond, when he ruthlessly finishes off Locque. In truth it feels more like a leftover from the 70's than an 80's action movie, the gunfight at the shipyard for instance is like the similar scene from the French Connection II, and it doesn't have the overall bombastic style that 80's action films had. Come to think of it the film has some great smaller action sequences in it's globetrotting, like Bond and Melina tied together underwater after the fight in the aqua suit.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It has to be Savalas. t: He was miles better than Pleasance or Gray.

A lot of people here like Alec Trevelyan as one of their top 10 villains.

I don't blame them. One of the most interesting aspects of GoldenEye was the fact that the villain was not only a former 00 agent, but also one of Bond's closest friends. In a way, Bond truly met his match.

Alec Trevelyan is what got my little brother into Bond. When we were little he couldn't name any other Bond villains or characters, but he always knew who Alec was. Even called him Trevelyan.

 

[Gary Griffith]

Here's an idea that will NEVER happen,but what would everyone think of a Bond film that's an anthology film, you know like five short Bond stories. You could have 5 different directors doing each episode and to get really crazy, let some of the big shots who have stated they'd love to do a Bond film have a crack at it, like Spielberg, Tarantino, Nolan, Cameron. It could be a sort of cinematic equivalent of the For Your Eyes Only collection. Like I said, it's only a pipedream but what do you think?

 

[747]

Except for the silly pre-title stuff with Blofeld, FYEO is damn great.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Except for the silly pre-title stuff with Blofeld, FYEO is damn great.

Agreed. It was in my top five Bond films up until Casino Royale came out, which knocked it down to six. Kristatos isn't a great villain, but his actual plan is one of the most interesting in the series. Melina Havelock is one of the more interesting and capable Bond girls. Colombo is the best Bond ally not named Kerim Bey. It also has some great action, Roger Moore at his most ruthless, and has probably my second favorite stunt in the entire franchise after the Union Jack cliff jump. It also has my favorite ski chase in the series and the best score of any of the non-60s films.

There are two big negatives, and neither is really a major problem. The first is the PTS, which would have been fine in its own right if it wasn't for it being the end of Blofeld in the series. Had it just been a regular villain and not his archnemesis, the PTS would have been fine. The second is Bibi who is annoying as hell and doesn't serve any real purpose to the plot. One other slight negative is that this is the first film where Roger Moore really starts showing his age, although it will get worse later.

Other than that FYEO is great.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Meh, not as high as the other two though.

Not quite, but FYEO is still great as I explain above. Hamilton made the best film in the series, an okay film, and two that could be regarded as the worst in the series. Glenn's track record is actually much better as I like four of his films, but AVTAK was a complete misfire. There is some fun stuff early on with James Bond and John Steed working together, but it dies when the setting gets shifted to the United States. Probably my biggest problem with AVTAK is that it just looks cheap. You watch most of the previous films and they are almost travelogues with the nice long shots of exotic settings which are almost completely absent here with nearly the entire film taking place in small indoor sets (no Ken Adams calibre material here) and industrial sites. The only real exceptions are the Paris chase scene and the finale on the Golden Gate Bridge. It is more like a tv movie version of Bond.

I feel the same way about Never Say Never Again, which even if you watched it with the sound off just looks bad in comparison to the expansive and beautiful Thunderball. If not for Connery's age and the arcade scene, I'd swear that Thunderball was the remake rather than the other way around.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Not quite, but FYEO is still great as I explain above. Hamilton made the best film in the series, an okay film, and two that could be regarded as the worst in the series. Glenn's track record is actually much better as I like four of his films, but AVTAK was a complete misfire. There is some fun stuff early on with James Bond and John Steed working together, but it dies when the setting gets shifted to the United States. Probably my biggest problem with AVTAK is that it just looks cheap. You watch most of the previous films and they are almost travelogues with the nice long shots of exotic settings which are almost completely absent here with nearly the entire film taking place in small indoor sets (no Ken Adams calibre material here) and industrial sites. The only real exceptions are the Paris chase scene and the finale on the Golden Gate Bridge. It is more like a tv movie version of Bond.

I feel the same way about Never Say Never Again, which even if you watched it with the sound off just looks bad in comparison to the expansive and beautiful Thunderball. If not for Connery's age and the arcade scene, I'd swear that Thunderball was the remake rather than the other way around.

As I said I think For Your Eyes Only is good, but I don't put it anywhere near the level of the movies I consider the best in the series.

The reason I said not as high is because I don't think any of John Glenn's movies would be at the top my list. My favorite of his is The Living Daylights, but on my list it misses the "great" Bond movie list. It's still in my Bond top ten at #9, but the top eight I have I consider the elite 8. The best 8 Bond movies that to me, defined the series:

1. From Russia With Love
2. Goldeneye
3. Goldfinger
4. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
5. The Spy Who Loved Me (I always switch OHMSS and TSWLM a lot)
6. Casino Royale
7. Thunderball
8. Dr. No

Then there's a dropoff for me after that:

9. The Living Daylights
10. You Only Live Twice
11. For Your Eyes Only
12. Live and Let Die

It's funny, that of all the directors up to 1995 with Martin Campbell, John Glen is the only director to not have a movie in my top 10.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

It's funny, that of all the directors up to 1995 with Martin Campbell, John Glen is the only director to not have a movie in my top 10.

The Living Daylights is in your Top Ten.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Ah, I meant top 8. He's the only director of those guys I thought never made a great Bond movie.

 

[antonydelfini]

This would be my top 10

1.FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE
2.ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE
3.DR. NO
4.GOLDFINGER
5.CASINO ROYALE
6.THUNDERBALL
7.GOLDENEYE
8.THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS
9.THE SPY WHO LOVED ME
10.FOR YOUR EYES ONLY

My Bond actor ranking:
CONNERY
CRAIG
DALTON
LAZENBY
BROSNAN
MOORE

I hope Skyfall is as good as I think it is.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Has anyone seen this?

http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=10346&catid=4&t=mi6&s=news

Reeks of stupidity to me.