Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.
Posted 28 October 2015 - 04:50 PM
I buy the Bond/Swann relationship mainly because I buy Swann and that is down to Seydoux.
But the film does not paint a truly convincing love story between the two, and foreground this.
Had that happened, we could have been looking at a really important film in the canon.
The film consistently foregrounds the Bond formula at the expense of its more unique qualities.
I think it's because of the film's ambitions - to return some of the classic Bond elements, to tie up some loose ends whilst still carrying forward the themes from SF, which I think Sam Mendes said at the outset they were trying to do, at least regarding SF.
Spoiler
Concerning the Bond/Madeleine relationship - a work in progress. My impression by the end was, for some reason 007 is impressed with her. But is she completely impressed with him? With Tracy and Vesper one knew it would end tragically. With this - who knows? She could go the same way in the next film - the villains have every reason to target her. But it could easily go the way of Tiffany Case in the book DAF, or Gala Brand in MR - with another man, not Bond. Two other possibilities; with her knowledge of SPECTRE and her psychiatry skills MI6 takes her on but she parts from Bond, or because of her knowledge she spills the beans then is put in witness protection - and Bond never sees her again. I guess I'm looking at ways in which, if a follow on movie is not the plan for Bond 25, her absence could be explained
Swann does tell Bond that she loves him. He does seem to choose a different life away from the secret service because of her and what she offers.
I agree that it is a work in progress that should/will get fleshed out in the next film. He hasn't said 'I love you' back, yet and that moment should be painted in a significant way.
I can see two possibilities - one, Blofeld escapes and Swann is killed by Spectre, this draws Bond back to the service or Two, Blofeld escapes and because of a threat to Britain, Bond is drawn back to the service, Swann has made it clear that is something she cannot tolerate as part of her life.
My one issue with the Swann/Bond relationship:
Spoiler
How quickly he accepted she wasn't going to stick around, once they left the safe house.
Spoiler
It also does not seem right that they just leave her in the street like that.
This does defuse the meaningfulness of the relationship and makes it all seem a bit shallow at a very important point.
Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.
Posted 28 October 2015 - 05:22 PM
My one issue with the Swann/Bond relationship:
Spoiler
How quickly he accepted she wasn't going to stick around, once they left the safe house.
Spoiler
He had other things on his mind at that point? Such as closing down "Nine Eyes" before it became operational? The more I think about it, the more Bond seems to be in limbo by the end of this film. His adversary is in custody but nevertheless still alive. He's gone 'off into the sunset" with the girl - but is it another attempt at a permanent relationship? And what do we make of that gesture on the bridge? Has he had enough of what he does? I repeat, I think the ending leaves a number of options open for Bond 25, not just the ones that might spring to mind first.
I'm trying to avoid reviews but that's like not eating halloween candy lying around. I've heard mixed reactions but being a longtime fan I've suffered from so many biased reviews by pro critics who don't really like Bond movies and it's obvious. I loved Licence to Kill(famously mega bad reviews) and Quantum of Solace(Ditto) so when I read that Spectre was "Quantum of Solace 2" I was actually relieved. I think Skyfall is overrated(best scene is in China in the high-rise building). The action was mostly tepid. The film's actors, atmosphere and score makes you forget it's not a great action film at all but a good Bond movie. Good but not the sacred cow the critics are referring to. Anyway, I'm dying to see it.
Well personally I really enjoyed it. My gripes are simple. It was a bit too long and the main villain's link to Our Man didn't ring true. Still. It had an interesting plot and followed the previous entry nicely. I enjoyed Daniel Craig's performance and got the feeling he was having a bit more fun this time round in the part. I also really enjoyed Ralph Fiennes as M.
After the way it ended - should Craig return for another instalment - I've got a hunch how the next one will play out. All is good! Happy Bond fan here!
I buy the Bond/Swann relationship mainly because I buy Swann and that is down to Seydoux.
But the film does not paint a truly convincing love story between the two, and foreground this. Had that happened, we could have been looking at a really important film in the canon.
The film consistently foregrounds the Bond formula at the expense of its more unique qualities.
I think it's because of the film's ambitions - to return some of the classic Bond elements, to tie up some loose ends whilst still carrying forward the themes from SF, which I think Sam Mendes said at the outset they were trying to do, at least regarding SF.
Spoiler
Concerning the Bond/Madeleine relationship - a work in progress. My impression by the end was, for some reason 007 is impressed with her. But is she completely impressed with him? With Tracy and Vesper one knew it would end tragically. With this - who knows? She could go the same way in the next film - the villains have every reason to target her. But it could easily go the way of Tiffany Case in the book DAF, or Gala Brand in MR - with another man, not Bond. Two other possibilities; with her knowledge of SPECTRE and her psychiatry skills MI6 takes her on but she parts from Bond, or because of her knowledge she spills the beans then is put in witness protection - and Bond never sees her again. I guess I'm looking at ways in which, if a follow on movie is not the plan for Bond 25, her absence could be explained
Spoiler
the script had an absolutely wonderful middle point to their relationship that would've helped make their romance that much more believable - the original Morocco hotel scene (where Madeleine gets drunk, and Bond, much to her surprise, decides to just put her to bed and let her sleep instead of kissing her and joining her. "Is this the part where you kiss me?" "I hardly know you" "You must've kissed a lot of girls you hardly know. Don't you want to know what that's like? Oops- *she loses balance, and Bond catches her and carries her to the bed* "Aw, you're putting me to bed, how sweet. You don't want to join me?" "Tempting, but no." "And there I was thinking you were a heartless monster."
And the train scene which was obviously cut down for time in the final film but it really, for me, solidified their connection.
(after "Not always", instead of "I don't stop to think about it".)
""Evasion. Deflection. Manipulation deployed to protect the core psyche." My PHD." "Tell me, Dr. Swann, am I paying for this session?" "Do you ever dream of getting out" "I never dream about anything" "I don't believe you" "It was the road laid out for me" "No, you had a choice." (beat) "You know, I was wrong. You're not like my father at all. (beat) Have you ever been in love?" "Once" "What happened?" "She died" "Were you there?" "Yes." "Do you dream about her?" "I already told you, I don't dream." "Not anymore...." (linking back to a cut question from the first clinic meeting - "do you have trouble sleeping/only when I'm alone"
Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.
Posted 28 October 2015 - 11:40 PM
Well personally I really enjoyed it. My gripes are simple. It was a bit too long and the main villain's link to Our Man didn't ring true. Still. It had an interesting plot and followed the previous entry nicely. I enjoyed Daniel Craig's performance and got the feeling he was having a bit more fun this time round in the part. I also really enjoyed Ralph Fiennes as M.
After the way it ended - should Craig return for another instalment - I've got a hunch how the next one will play out. All is good! Happy Bond fan here!
Interesting you say it was a bit too long. It didn't seem like that to me. I actually came out of the cinema thinking it should have been a bit longer! Strange but true.
Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.
Posted 28 October 2015 - 11:48 PM
Well personally I really enjoyed it. My gripes are simple. It was a bit too long and the main villain's link to Our Man didn't ring true. Still. It had an interesting plot and followed the previous entry nicely. I enjoyed Daniel Craig's performance and got the feeling he was having a bit more fun this time round in the part. I also really enjoyed Ralph Fiennes as M.
After the way it ended - should Craig return for another instalment - I've got a hunch how the next one will play out. All is good! Happy Bond fan here!
As for Oberhauser;
Spoiler
I didn't think it would, but it worked for me. When early on Bond asked Moneypenny to look up Oberhauser's records "before and after his death" I thought "identity theft". Later on - yes in this Bond universe it worked. Bond had no way of knowing the maternal line. And it was a neat inversion of the identity issue in OHMSS - from Blofeld to Bleauchamp. SPECTRE - from Oberhauser to Blofeld. I imagine the organisation he headed knew him as ESB. Only Bond knew him as someone else.
Before I get into the spoiler-y stuff, I always thought that Blofeld was simply lying about the Bleauchamp stuff in OHMSS. Bond knew that Blofeld wasn't related to the Bleauchamps and Blofeld knew that Bond knew.
Spoiler
As for Spectre, it's perfectly reasonable for Oberhauser to be Blofeld's biological father. Though, I could also see him lying about that too and he was always Blofeld. In the December script, Bond mentions that Oberhauser was adopted and gives his real name.
In Madeleine's case, it's a shame to see some of the best bits of that relationship get lost. The discussion when Vesper comes up would be a major point in their relationship as to that point, Bond hadn't told anyone outside of those that were involved about Vesper. As it stands, I don't really buy the Bond being in love with Swann after just 2 days thing. With Tracy and Vesper, the relationship matured. With Swann, it was a whirlwind. Personally, I'd like to see that maybe she doesn't get killed off and rather just decides that this life isn't for her, like Case from the novel. That's my two cents anyway lol.
Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.
Posted 29 October 2015 - 03:05 PM
Before I get into the spoiler-y stuff, I always thought that Blofeld was simply lying about the Bleauchamp stuff in OHMSS. Bond knew that Blofeld wasn't related to the Bleauchamps and Blofeld knew that Bond knew.
Spoiler
As for Spectre, it's perfectly reasonable for Oberhauser to be Blofeld's biological father. Though, I could also see him lying about that too and he was always Blofeld. In the December script, Bond mentions that Oberhauser was adopted and gives his real name.
In Madeleine's case, it's a shame to see some of the best bits of that relationship get lost. The discussion when Vesper comes up would be a major point in their relationship as to that point, Bond hadn't told anyone outside of those that were involved about Vesper. As it stands, I don't really buy the Bond being in love with Swann after just 2 days thing. With Tracy and Vesper, the relationship matured. With Swann, it was a whirlwind. Personally, I'd like to see that maybe she doesn't get killed off and rather just decides that this life isn't for her, like Case from the novel. That's my two cents anyway lol.
About Madeleine, I think you may be right;
Spoiler
She is as likely to go the Tiffany Case route as the Tracy or Vesper. More likely in fact, unless the relationship spills over into Bond 25. I think for it to be convincing one would have to cast the same actress in the role of Madeleine - would Lea Seydoux be available for 25? But it would be a first for a Bond film - same leading lady played by same actress in two consecutives. (And same villain played by same actor if Christoph Waltz returns - though the unfortunate injury Blofeld sustains may allow the "plastic surgery" excuse to be used if a different actor is cast.
I have just read a review of SPECTRE by Mark O'Connell - "Catching Bullets" - and he makes a good point about the "Octopussy" source material. In the short story Major Smythe is effectively allowed a period of grace to "do the decent thing", if you see what I mean. This is also referred to in the film OP by the title character. In SPECTRE it is Mr. White who Bond could kill, but instead allows him the option of taking his own life. (Actually, White is doomed anyway - he'd be more use to MI6 alive but Bond, knowing White's days are numbered, allows him another way out.)
Well personally I really enjoyed it. My gripes are simple. It was a bit too long and the main villain's link to Our Man didn't ring true. Still. It had an interesting plot and followed the previous entry nicely. I enjoyed Daniel Craig's performance and got the feeling he was having a bit more fun this time round in the part. I also really enjoyed Ralph Fiennes as M.
After the way it ended - should Craig return for another instalment - I've got a hunch how the next one will play out. All is good! Happy Bond fan here!
As for Oberhauser;
Spoiler
I didn't think it would, but it worked for me. When early on Bond asked Moneypenny to look up Oberhauser's records "before and after his death" I thought "identity theft". Later on - yes in this Bond universe it worked. Bond had no way of knowing the maternal line. And it was a neat inversion of the identity issue in OHMSS - from Blofeld to Bleauchamp. SPECTRE - from Oberhauser to Blofeld. I imagine the organisation he headed knew him as ESB. Only Bond knew him as someone else.
Agreed.
Spoiler
He was Oberhauser until the age of 16 or whenever, and then took the name Blofeld after faking his death.
The rest of SPECTRE would know him as Blofeld.
Bond is the only one to bring the name Oberhauser into it because he was assumed dead. For all we know, the MI6 records were full of references to this mysterious man "Blofeld", but no-one knew it was one and the same person.
I see no reason he would be lying about his mother's maiden name etc.
Having slept over it, my impression of my first viewing of SPECTRE remains. Since I have to talk about details my assessment is full of spoilers. So, please don´t click on the spoilers if you haven´t seen the film yet.
Still here? Okay.
I think the PTS is brilliant, truly one of the best ever. The titles are breathtakingly inventive, darkly sexy. And the Rome sequence is wonderful, too. The car chase is fun - but here...
Spoiler
... I got the feeling that the tone, for the first time in the film, gets wobbly. If we´re still supposed to feel scared by Hinx, Bond is not feeling it, spending time with Moneypenny on the phone, and the director even takes time to get in a Moore-era-like joke with the old man in the car. This change of tone will permeat the film from this point onwards, not always working in favor of it.
The Austria sequence starts off with great dialogue between Bond and Swann. And then...
Spoiler
the plane action starts - and although it has all the ingredients one expects... it only has all the ingredients one expetcs. For my taste, it was all too predictable.
I love the Morocco and the train sequence. It really has nice interaction between Bond and Swann - and Sédoux, by the way, totally convinces in this role. I have no problem at all buying Bond falling for her and Swann getting attracted to him.
Spoiler
The mouse-dialogue on the one hand is funny, on the other I was asking myself: what´s the "mouse-obsession" here? I´m alluding, of course, to the dialogue with Bond and the guard in Rome.
Then the big desert-Oberhauser-sequence. I must say: Waltz really shines here, without using too many of his usual tricks. But...
Spoiler
I am not sold on why Bond actually wants to risk going to Oberhauser with Swann. He must know that his gun will be taken away. In SKYFALL he had called Mi6 to Silva´s island. Here, despite the Smart Blood (which, by the way, is an idea that sounds interesting and new - but gets totally wasted. How does this differ from the implant he gets in CASINO ROYALE?) he just has no backup plan at all. And the torture scene is also only a great setup, but no follow-through at all. If you have Oberhauser explaining what the torture will do, and then the torture does not do this at all, it loses its menace instantly. It also turns Bond into an invincible superhero, something that CASINO ROYALE avoided at least by giving Bond time to recouperate.
The London finale, IMO, is the most...
Spoiler
contrived of all the sequences. It really feels to me as if Mendes just wanted to end the film in London without finding a compelling reason for it. "Nine Eyes" going online is not a really menacing countdown, and the showdown is so "been there done that" that it´s very disappointing and even generic. I also felt disappointed that there was no traditional "the henchman is not really dead and reappears"-scene; Hinx was a really menacing presence - but underused and dealt with too quickly. And the emotional power of the bridge scene also felt undersold. Here, Mendes should have gone for big drama. Instead, this is where his directing of Craig is a let down. Someone as intense as Craig should have been allowed to really delve deep into the anger against the one person responsible for all his anguish... and only then letting go. That should have been the real ending, by the way. Instead, we get a final visit to Q´s lab that felt tacked on just to show the... um... vehicle again.
The most troubling aspect of the whole movie, for me, however, is...
Spoiler
Hoyte van Hoytema´s cinematography. While the camera movements, all the sweeping vistas and, of course, the tracking shot in the PTS are first rate, the color and the lighting are a total letdown after the painterish beautiful work of Roger Deakins for SKYFALL. If Deakins had returned for SPECTRE it would have made all the difference. Instead, the color grading - was this Mendes´ idea? - drains almost everything. I know, fire and ice as a motif, blue and orange, desaturation, the sickly feeling of the Day of the Dead sequence - all interesting concepts. But not as pleasing to look at, actually. For me the final London sequence looks the worst. Almost camcorder-like. Was this a budgetary thing to have the showdown in the Mi6 building almost only greyish and shadowy? And while that, again, could be explained thematically, Deakins found a much more visually appealing way to close out SKYFALL.
Mind you, all of this is only my first impression. And as I said on another thread: my mind was full of big expectations and ideas on how all the intriguing bits from the trailers fit together.
When I will view the film for a second time I will be much more open to what is actually there, maybe appreciating the film on its own terms much better. It actually happened to me before: TOMORROW NEVER DIES was a let down for me when I had watched it for the first time. On subsequent viewings it became my favorite Brosnan Bond.
Still, the thre previous Craig Bonds I loved instantly. SPECTRE - well, I loved the first half. And the second... was okay for me at best. Right now, I would rate it a 7 out of 10, and the fourth-best of the Craig era. Ha. It would not craig my Top 10 of all the Bond films.
One more thing:
Spoiler
Oberhauser being Blofeld. The motivation was explained very well, short and not too much psycho-babble. But really, who do a "John Harrison" again? The film is called SPECTRE, Mr. Mendes - so that will already give away that Blofeld is the main villain. To make a secret of it is pointless. Instead, it set me up for something really surprising: having Oberhauser to be just a "Largo" for someone else who turns out to be Blofeld in a massive surprise.
AND...
Spoiler
The way the ending with Blofeld is edited, with a lingering shot on him watching Bond and Swann kiss and leave, it is absolutely clear how BOND 25 will start: the way EON second-guessed themselves after OHMSS. Back then, at least it was rumored that way, EON would have ended OHMSS with Bond and Tracy going away after the wedding. And DAF would have started with Tracy´s assassination. So... you guessed it, folks, BOND 25 will be another personal mission. Hopefully, they will connect it with a great Blofeld-caper-plan that Bond has to avert as well.
Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.
Posted 30 October 2015 - 08:04 AM
Having seen SP again yesterday;
Spoiler
I think the film ends with Bond at a similar stage of his relationship with Dr Swann as with Vesper after the death of Le Chiffre - but before the events in Venice. A work in progress, as I've said previously, but left at the very end of the film and potentially setting up something for Bond 25. Bond had a brief period of happiness and "normality" in CR when he was prepared to give it all up for the love of a woman. But whereas Vesper made no demands on him and he was just so head-over-heels that he resigned anyway, Madeleine made clear she can't enter Bond's current way of life - too similar to her father's.
It's not even the same as Bond and Tracy because, like Vesper, Tracy didn't say "give up being a secret agent". Bond just knew he couldn't combine licenced assassin with domestic bliss. Madeleine has been the daughter of an assassin - she wants none of it in her life. Bond has, apparently, fallen for her and knows he can't have her and carry on as a Double-O - not only because he knows he can't combine his job and "normality" but this time around because she has made it clear he can't and knows what she's talking about.
Where this leads us in the next movie, who knows? A revamp of OHMSS/YOLT the book - with Blofeld "ruining Bond life" one more time, Bond jolted back to his former self, out to kill ESB because the latter has killed Madeleine? It could equally be that Bond can't adjust to not being "007" and they split up anyway. At least this ending meant that for once in a Craig film a woman he romanced survived the movie - but it leaves open more than one prospect for Bond 25
Yes, this relationship Swann seems to be only the beginning, in terms of actually falling in love. Bond recognises the possibility, a strong possibility and needs to give it time and room to breath. If he carried on the with the life of a secret agent, this would be impossible, so he walks away from that.
By the way, I liked the film even more on this repeat viewing, the 3rd time I've seen it.
Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.
Posted 30 October 2015 - 10:45 AM
I'd just like to add these jottings about the end of SPECTRE and Bond 25 - possibly;
Spoiler
I wouldn't assume that, even if "25" concerns a personal angle that it will be a re-hash of "villain kills Bond's lady love, Bond seeks revenge". For a start its been done before and as we have argued about here many times, the "personal" angle has been done almost to death throughout the Craig era.
It might be we find Bond and Madeleine trying to live a life outside Bond's former career and finding he can't - call of duty, especially if some king sized plot emerges and "the expert on SPECTRE" (our man Bond) can tackle it. The wrench might not be losing his love through assassination but through call of duty. (He might lose her anyway later on through death but that's another matter.)
Also - Madeleine is not Tracy or Vesper. Tracy the spoilt brat but vulnerable - Vesper the cool customer hiding the agonising turmoil of knowing her "boyfriend" will die if she doesn't deliver the goods. Bond falls for both and both die tragically but they are different from his new love. She is more than capable of taking care of herself, even if she despises the way she learnt how to. She might be a harder target for an enemy to take out.
Yes, this relationship Swann seems to be only the beginning, in terms of actually falling in love.
Bond recognises the possibility, a strong possibility and needs to give it time and room to breath.
If he carried on the with the life of a secret agent, this would be impossible, so he walks away from that.
By the way, I liked the film even more on this repeat viewing, the 3rd time I've seen it.
Glad to hear it's growing on you.
It's my second viewing tonight. Deliberately held off a few days. I'm overseas so that will be an added intrigue for the viewing experience. Opening night again here, so hopefully a receptive audience.
It B25 involves Blofeld is will of course be personal, how could it sensibly otherwise? I also think it will be Craig's last and I can't imagine them sending him off with anything less that a deeply personal conclusion to his run.
At this stage, with Craig as Bond, a run of the mill adventure would be crucified by the critics and the fan base he has built up might turn against it too.
Yes, this relationship Swann seems to be only the beginning, in terms of actually falling in love. Bond recognises the possibility, a strong possibility and needs to give it time and room to breath. If he carried on the with the life of a secret agent, this would be impossible, so he walks away from that.
By the way, I liked the film even more on this repeat viewing, the 3rd time I've seen it.
Glad to hear it's growing on you.
It's my second viewing tonight. Deliberately held off a few days. I'm overseas so that will be an added intrigue for the viewing experience. Opening night again here, so hopefully a receptive audience.
Thanks, Vaux. I'll be interested to know if it grows on you too.
I saw it on opening light at the Odeon Leicester Sq, then the next day at the IMAX in the afternoon. Which were a very different audiences. Last night was at the Duke's at Komedia in Brighton, again a very different audience. All seemed to love it. In fact, to my surprise, the best atmosphere in the cinema was Thursday night in Brighton's North Laine.
Well personally I really enjoyed it. My gripes are simple. It was a bit too long and the main villain's link to Our Man didn't ring true. Still. It had an interesting plot and followed the previous entry nicely. I enjoyed Daniel Craig's performance and got the feeling he was having a bit more fun this time round in the part. I also really enjoyed Ralph Fiennes as M.
After the way it ended - should Craig return for another instalment - I've got a hunch how the next one will play out. All is good! Happy Bond fan here!
Interesting you say it was a bit too long. It didn't seem like that to me. I actually came out of the cinema thinking it should have been a bit longer! Strange but true.
Spoiler
I agree it needed more scenes with Swann and Blofeld. But does it really need to be longer? There were several moments (like when Q discovers Bond has taken the car) where Mendes uses several shots amounting to 10 or so seconds, when one well-composed 3-second shot would have done. Some of the action could've been trimmed, too - in particular, the Rome chase and the MI6 finale, which Mendes composes out of many tracking shots that aren't necessary and hamstring the pacing. And maybe a couple of the barrel rolls from the helicopter in the PTS, too... Trims like this would've saved enough time for additional dialogue to flesh out the characters.
On my first viewing, I thought it needed to be longer too.
However, having seen it again,
Spoiler
I'm now of the opinion that we have only just started with Swann and Blofeld.
That said, it works well at this length - there is more to come in Bond 25.
I find it very interesting that Mendes has said many times that what drew him back was the notion that he had started a story for M, Q, Moneypenny and felt ownership of them and needed to continue their story. Well, the way SP is left, he has an even more compelling reason to carry on with...
Spoiler
Swann and Blofeld.
I expect to hear him saying as much in July next year.
I´m not quite sure whether I like the "Mi6-gang"-concept so much.
Sure, with actors like Fiennes, Harris and Kinnear it is impossible to offer them only cameo-like appearances. But they do detract from Bond´s mission, IMO.
By the way...
Spoiler
I found it hilarious that in the leaked notes from the studio Sam Mendes replied with the same trick every director reacts: saying "I agree on all points." And then he changes very, very little. In fact, some of the notes were pretty spot-on, I must admit. And bigger changes would have had a beneficial impact, IMO.
Personally, I'd rate the Craig films like this now,
1. SF 5 stars
2. CR 5 stars
3. SP 4 Stars.
4. QoS 1 Star (a total mess is every way)
I buy the Bond/Swann relationship mainly because I buy Swann and that is down to Seydoux.
But the film does not paint a truly convincing love story between the two, and foreground this.
Had that happened, we could have been looking at a really important film in the canon.
The film consistently foregrounds the Bond formula at the expense of its more unique qualities.
I think it's because of the film's ambitions - to return some of the classic Bond elements, to tie up some loose ends whilst still carrying forward the themes from SF, which I think Sam Mendes said at the outset they were trying to do, at least regarding SF.
Spoiler
Concerning the Bond/Madeleine relationship - a work in progress. My impression by the end was, for some reason 007 is impressed with her. But is she completely impressed with him? With Tracy and Vesper one knew it would end tragically. With this - who knows? She could go the same way in the next film - the villains have every reason to target her. But it could easily go the way of Tiffany Case in the book DAF, or Gala Brand in MR - with another man, not Bond. Two other possibilities; with her knowledge of SPECTRE and her psychiatry skills MI6 takes her on but she parts from Bond, or because of her knowledge she spills the beans then is put in witness protection - and Bond never sees her again. I guess I'm looking at ways in which, if a follow on movie is not the plan for Bond 25, her absence could be explained
Spoiler
the script had an absolutely wonderful middle point to their relationship that would've helped make their romance that much more believable - the original Morocco hotel scene (where Madeleine gets drunk, and Bond, much to her surprise, decides to just put her to bed and let her sleep instead of kissing her and joining her.
"Is this the part where you kiss me?"
"I hardly know you"
"You must've kissed a lot of girls you hardly know. Don't you want to know what that's like? Oops- *she loses balance, and Bond catches her and carries her to the bed*
"Aw, you're putting me to bed, how sweet. You don't want to join me?"
"Tempting, but no."
"And there I was thinking you were a heartless monster."
And the train scene which was obviously cut down for time in the final film but it really, for me, solidified their connection.
(after "Not always", instead of "I don't stop to think about it".)
""Evasion. Deflection. Manipulation deployed to protect the core psyche." My PHD."
"Tell me, Dr. Swann, am I paying for this session?"
"Do you ever dream of getting out"
"I never dream about anything"
"I don't believe you"
"It was the road laid out for me"
"No, you had a choice."
(beat)
"You know, I was wrong. You're not like my father at all. (beat) Have you ever been in love?"
"Once"
"What happened?"
"She died"
"Were you there?"
"Yes."
"Do you dream about her?"
"I already told you, I don't dream."
"Not anymore...." (linking back to a cut question from the first clinic meeting - "do you have trouble sleeping/only when I'm alone"
Ah, man. This would have made a real difference. I'm sad they cut it.
Second viewing later today. I'm hoping that I'll enjoy it more than I did on Monday. I left the cinema feeling very underwhelmed, especially by the ending. I walked out and immediately felt that this would be DC's final Bond film. On reflection, this has changed somewhat.
The shifts in tone also didn't sit right with me first time around. Looking forward to seeing how it affects me on the second viewing.
I found it hilarious that in the leaked notes from the studio Sam Mendes replied with the same trick every director reacts: saying "I agree on all points." And then he changes very, very little. In fact, some of the notes were pretty spot-on, I must admit. And bigger changes would have had a beneficial impact, IMO.
Actually, quite a lot changed in response to those notes. What you've got now is a big improvement on what it was.
Nailed it.
