I get the feeling this sort of job interview was a regular ocurance at spectre meetings.
I'm sure Simon Cowell is working on a ripped off version as we speak !
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
The reason why it works is because the audience gets caught up in the sentimentality of the story and ignores the lapses in logic, and because we saw virtually the same story in The Dark Knight, it's familiar enough to somehow make sense.
Correct. I was talking to my GF (not Goldfinger!) about this after we watched Skyfall last night. I was saying how the film comes across as attempting to be too realistic, and classic Bond films would never show Bond having such frailties. She was saying how they need to do this to make the film more relevant. There's an element of truth to this, but when Bond is being so realistic, but the villain so unrealistic - it doesn't really work.
The sentimentality piece, capture, disappearances and conflict between M and Bond was done so much better in DAD, because it didn't stop Bond from being Bond.
The reason why it works is because the audience gets caught up in the sentimentality of the story and ignores the lapses in logic, and because we saw virtually the same story in The Dark Knight, it's familiar enough to somehow make sense.
Correct. I was talking to my GF (not Goldfinger!) about this after we watched Skyfall last night. I was saying how the film comes across as attempting to be too realistic, and classic Bond films would never show Bond having such frailties. She was saying how they need to do this to make the film more relevant. There's an element of truth to this, but when Bond is being so realistic, but the villain so unrealistic - it doesn't really work.
The sentimentality piece, capture, disappearances and conflict between M and Bond was done so much better in DAD, because it didn't stop Bond from being Bond.
This is what bothers me about all of Craig's Bond films. Some things are more realistic when other things are not. That's why I dislike Casino Royale. The story is realistic but it's not done in a believable way. The opposite holds true for other films.
^ I think that's why I like QoS so much, the supposed "depth" of CR/SF/SP don't exist as a main element of the plot. The whole film just flows so easily and while it isn't perfect, it just feels satisfying to watch.
CR, SF and maybe SP are all quite an exhausting watch. I'm yet to buy the SP BluRay and I've only seen it once while at the movies and I enjoyed it - but I'm holding my judgement...
^ I think that's why I like QoS so much, the supposed "depth" of CR/SF/SP don't exist as a main element of the plot. The whole film just flows so easily and while it isn't perfect, it just feels satisfying to watch.
Yes, it's currently my most re-watched Bond, and my favourite Craig (though SP is not too far behind).
I'm yet to buy the SP BluRay and I've only seen it once while at the movies and I enjoyed it - but I'm holding my judgement...
Get it- it's better each time you see it. And unlike CR & SF it doesn't seem as long as it is.
To me, Casino Royale was the right blend of fantasy and "realism," whatever that means these days. It's primary flaw is it needed another 10 minutes of romance.
On the other hand, Skyfall even more unrealistic but dumb on top of it. Quantum of Solace was dull and muddled to me. Spectre was, at least, more entertaining that its two predecessors, but like all of them after Casino Royale, suffers from a limp script.
To me, Casino Royale was the right blend of fantasy and "realism," whatever that means these days. It's primary flaw is it needed another 10 minutes of romance.
I agree that the blend is correct because it still maintains the element of fantasy - such as the fake 747 plane and the weeping villain etc.
To me, Casino Royale was the right blend of fantasy and "realism," whatever that means these days. It's primary flaw is it needed another 10 minutes of romance.
To me, Casino Royale was the right blend of fantasy and "realism," whatever that means these days. It's primary flaw is it needed another 10 minutes of romance.
More armour stripping?? 8-)
I agree. There's already too much of that! I just think there's no chemistry between Craig and Green. The romance had enough time to develop, but it just seems forced and I don't believe there's any love between the two of them. Bond shouldn't seem so miserable when he's with her. I think more time spent on the romance would make it even worse.
To me the issue with Casino Royale is that while so many things are great with it like the locations, the action, the villain, and it is a solid story - elements of the film are dragged out to prove too many points. I find it becoming more and more of a tedious watch than pure entertainment. While this isn't entirely a con per se, it just makes me reach for this one less and less.
I actually wish some things were done with a bit more brevity in the film than being extended...
To me, Casino Royale was the right blend of fantasy and "realism," whatever that means these days. It's primary flaw is it needed another 10 minutes of romance.
More armour stripping?? 8-)
Haha, no. That was an entirely cringe-worthy line.
What I wanted in terms of romance was their actually interacting as a couple, in ways that were palatable to the Bond universe.
To me, the two most romantic scenes in any Bond film are both in On Her Majesty's Secret Service:
The first is when Bond, demoralized and hopeless, sits down to await his grim fate, and then a woman comes skating up to him. He slowly looks up, and it's Tracy. If you didn't feel in that moment that he had to marry this woman, then you don't get romance.
The second is the proposal scene in the barn. Everything is pitch perfect -- dialogue, acting, lighting, music. It was the most difficult scene in the movie, to me, and they bat it out of the park. Once again, I believed in the moment. Those two were meant to be together.
There's really nothing quite like that in Casino Royale. There's the cheesy beach scene with the lousy "armor" dialogue. But romance is not rooted in awful Hallmark card words like that but in what people do together that makes them mesh. And that's more than a montage scene of them slapping and tickling each other.
To me, Casino Royale was the right blend of fantasy and "realism," whatever that means these days. It's primary flaw is it needed another 10 minutes of romance.
More armour stripping?? 8-)
I agree. There's already too much of that! I just think there's no chemistry between Craig and Green. The romance had enough time to develop, but it just seems forced and I don't believe there's any love between the two of them. Bond shouldn't seem so miserable when he's with her. I think more time spent on the romance would make it even worse.
There's chemistry -- the two bathroom scenes show it best. The problem is there aren't any comparably good romantic scenes elsewhere. Putting them at the same dinner table or having them wake up in bed together is not by themselves a romantic scene. The missed opportunities were actually having romantic scenes rather than just scenes where two people were supposed to be in a romance.
To me, Casino Royale was the right blend of fantasy and "realism," whatever that means these days. It's primary flaw is it needed another 10 minutes of romance.
More armour stripping?? 8-)
Haha, no. That was an entirely cringe-worthy line.
What I wanted in terms of romance was their actually interacting as a couple, in ways that were palatable to the Bond universe.
To me, the two most romantic scenes in any Bond film are both in On Her Majesty's Secret Service:
The first is when Bond, demoralized and hopeless, sits down to await his grim fate, and then a woman comes skating up to him. He slowly looks up, and it's Tracy. If you didn't feel in that moment that he had to marry this woman, then you don't get romance.
The second is the proposal scene in the barn. Everything is pitch perfect -- dialogue, acting, lighting, music. It was the most difficult scene in the movie, to me, and they bat it out of the park. Once again, I believed in the moment. Those two were meant to be together.
There's really nothing quite like that in Casino Royale. There's the cheesy beach scene with the lousy "armor" dialogue. But romance is not rooted in awful Hallmark card words like that but in what people do together that makes them mesh. And that's more than a montage scene of them slapping and tickling each other.
Those are excellent scenes in OHMSS and I agree that nothing in CR compares to them. But also, George Lazenby shows love in his acting and Daniel Craig does not. Daniel Craig shows no emotion at all until when Vesper dies, and that isn't enough.
I don't know if that's entirely true. He certainly seems interested after their first meeting, later when they are sparring while getting ready in the bathroom, and during the montage sequences. Craig chose to play Bond as super tough and stoic, I think, on purpose to contrast with the pain he expresses when he can't save Vesper, which contrasts again when he is cold while talking to M. While he has limited range for such things, the greater problem is the script doesn't give much opportunity to do more. Somewhere in the montage are the actual scenes that I'm looking for.
Interestingly, the deleted scenes for Casino Royale show a bit more of what I'm looking for:
Have to say that Skyfall is the best example of Craig's Bond and Craig's MI6's incompetence. The fact that a mummy-troubled ex-agent could do what he did to that organisation and get away is a joke.
Beautiful film, but completely at the expense of common sense. Also very odd that Silva wasn't caught when getting from London to Scotland - and also if Mallory mentions being able to track them on the motorway cameras!
Kill him!
Skyfall is a pretty dumb movie if you analyze it more than casually -- it relies on a whole series of events that are at best improbable and can really only be reconciled with considerable effort.
Silva's entire plan is shaky from the start. He would have had to have anticipated a series of intertwining events that seem quite a stretch, such as knowing where Bond would be when he sets off the explosive or that M would be at a particular hearing at a particular time (and apparently choose to remain to recite a poem and such when she was told she was a target).
This can be reconciled to some degree if we're supposed to believe that Silva hacked into MI6 computers to monitor everything closely or, perhaps, had help now from Blofeld, but none of this is ever confirmed onscreen and still leaves the question of how Silva would know where his prison cell would be in the alternative MI6 headquarters to even make his escape, assuming that he knew he would be taken prison and not just killed by Bond outright in Japan.
But even not addressing that element of the story, Bond's plan at the end just makes no sense. M going along with it just makes n sense, except that she trusts Bond -- which given the plan, isn't a very good idea. Mallory tracking them but not sending reinforcements makes no sense.
The reason why it works is because the audience gets caught up in the sentimentality of the story and ignores the lapses in logic, and because we saw virtually the same story in The Dark Knight, it's familiar enough to somehow make sense.
Okay, this argument bugs more than anything else in the whole world, except hemorrhoids.
This is how I see the story going down.
1. Silva acquires the hard drive with the agent's IDs.
2. He realizes that he can at once bring down MI6 and publicly humiliate M.
3. But the public humiliation will be a thousand times better if he is there to witness it.
4. He doesn't care much for his own life.
5. He hacks into MI6's computers to gain access.
6. His agents prepare bombs, booby traps, disguises, rendezvous points, weapons, etc. weeks in advance.
7. He knows that MI6 will send agents to find him. He doesn't really hide because he wants to get captured and taken back to MI6. He knows he won't get killed because he has valuable information.
8. Bond finds him (which makes sense because if 005, say, found him it wouldn't be a Bond movie).
9. He implants a virus into the hard drive that he'd stolen. He knows the weaknesses in MI6's firewalls because he's been infiltrating their systems, possibly for years.
10. With the virus, he disables MI6's security apparatus on a wholesale basis (doesn't matter where his particular holding cell is).
11. The investigatory hearing has been publicly known for weeks, so he is able to coordinate his efforts for maximum public humiliation of M.
12. He lures Bond toward the bomb that had been previously set (one of many) and delays him long enough until the train comes by. There's enough leeway in his plan to be plausible unlike the Joker's prison escape in TDK which required perfect timing.
13. They go to Scotland because the carnage will continue until either Silva or M is dead.
14. Having Mallory send reinforcements to Scotland wouldn't work because Silva would know it was a trap.
15. Hiding M on a secure military base wouldn't work because Silva would continue with terrorist attacks until one of them was dead.
16. By going to an out-of-the-way location, Bond negates Silva's technological advantages. He didn't count on a. his father's gun collection being gone and b. Silva having a military helicopter armed with an rotary autocannon, but nobody is perfect.
17. I didn't find the ending of SF particularly moving, so I'm not blinded by sentimentality.
18. Having Silva infiltrate MI6 by allowing himself to be captured isn't a rip off of TDK so much as a reversal of the Bond trope where Bond allows himself to be captured (DAF, for example).
The point is that Silva had months to work out his plan, he knew how MI6 operated, and he understood M's mentality.
Now if you want to see plot holes check out the Dark Knight (gangster breaks legs jumping from a building but is walking around normally a couple of scenes later) or the PTS to Spectre (building is blown up but Day of the Dead parade goes on a block away like nothing happened).
14. Having Mallory send reinforcements to Scotland wouldn't work because Silva would know it was a trap.
Still, they could've intercepted the Defender that contained the goons and Silva and just killed them. By that stage he had blown up the MI6 building, threatened M, derailed a train and killed police officers. Seems ludicrous to me that he's able to just head up to Scotland in his own time.
The flaw to the movie is that there's so much political realism, accountability and back story on the side of M and James Bond - but none on the accountability of the police force/military to do anything about this terrorist roaming around the UK.
Have to say that Skyfall is the best example of Craig's Bond and Craig's MI6's incompetence. The fact that a mummy-troubled ex-agent could do what he did to that organisation and get away is a joke.
Beautiful film, but completely at the expense of common sense. Also very odd that Silva wasn't caught when getting from London to Scotland - and also if Mallory mentions being able to track them on the motorway cameras!
Kill him!
Skyfall is a pretty dumb movie if you analyze it more than casually -- it relies on a whole series of events that are at best improbable and can really only be reconciled with considerable effort.
Silva's entire plan is shaky from the start. He would have had to have anticipated a series of intertwining events that seem quite a stretch, such as knowing where Bond would be when he sets off the explosive or that M would be at a particular hearing at a particular time (and apparently choose to remain to recite a poem and such when she was told she was a target).
This can be reconciled to some degree if we're supposed to believe that Silva hacked into MI6 computers to monitor everything closely or, perhaps, had help now from Blofeld, but none of this is ever confirmed onscreen and still leaves the question of how Silva would know where his prison cell would be in the alternative MI6 headquarters to even make his escape, assuming that he knew he would be taken prison and not just killed by Bond outright in Japan.
But even not addressing that element of the story, Bond's plan at the end just makes no sense. M going along with it just makes n sense, except that she trusts Bond -- which given the plan, isn't a very good idea. Mallory tracking them but not sending reinforcements makes no sense.
The reason why it works is because the audience gets caught up in the sentimentality of the story and ignores the lapses in logic, and because we saw virtually the same story in The Dark Knight, it's familiar enough to somehow make sense.
Okay, this argument bugs more than anything else in the whole world, except hemorrhoids.
This is how I see the story going down.
1. Silva acquires the hard drive with the agent's IDs.
2. He realizes that he can at once bring down MI6 and publicly humiliate M.
3. But the public humiliation will be a thousand times better if he is there to witness it.
4. He doesn't care much for his own life.
5. He hacks into MI6's computers to gain access.
6. His agents prepare bombs, booby traps, disguises, rendezvous points, weapons, etc. weeks in advance.
7. He knows that MI6 will send agents to find him. He doesn't really hide because he wants to get captured and taken back to MI6. He knows he won't get killed because he has valuable information.
8. Bond finds him (which makes sense because if 005, say, found him it wouldn't be a Bond movie).
9. He implants a virus into the hard drive that he'd stolen. He knows the weaknesses in MI6's firewalls because he's been infiltrating their systems, possibly for years.
10. With the virus, he disables MI6's security apparatus on a wholesale basis (doesn't matter where his particular holding cell is).
11. The investigatory hearing has been publicly known for weeks, so he is able to coordinate his efforts for maximum public humiliation of M.
12. He lures Bond toward the bomb that had been previously set (one of many) and delays him long enough until the train comes by. There's enough leeway in his plan to be plausible unlike the Joker's prison escape in TDK which required perfect timing.
13. They go to Scotland because the carnage will continue until either Silva or M is dead.
14. Having Mallory send reinforcements to Scotland wouldn't work because Silva would know it was a trap.
15. Hiding M on a secure military base wouldn't work because Silva would continue with terrorist attacks until one of them was dead.
16. By going to an out-of-the-way location, Bond negates Silva's technological advantages. He didn't count on a. his father's gun collection being gone and b. Silva having a military helicopter armed with an rotary autocannon, but nobody is perfect.
17. I didn't find the ending of SF particularly moving, so I'm not blinded by sentimentality.
18. Having Silva infiltrate MI6 by allowing himself to be captured isn't a rip off of TDK so much as a reversal of the Bond trope where Bond allows himself to be captured (DAF, for example).
The point is that Silva had months to work out his plan, he knew how MI6 operated, and he understood M's mentality.
Now if you want to see plot holes check out the Dark Knight (gangster breaks legs jumping from a building but is walking around normally a couple of scenes later) or the PTS to Spectre (building is blown up but Day of the Dead parade goes on a block away like nothing happened).
It's entirely possible to retcon the lapses by "filling in the holes," but the audience shouldn't have to do that -- the story itself should be able to stand on its own.
Think about it this way: If Silva is Johnny on the Spot about hacking into the most protected computer system in England, how come he can't do that with a laptop? How come the same information wasn't available through the more secure computer system in the first place?
If he can hack into the computer, why all the need for blowing things up and such? He gives a speech about toppling governments and so forth with information -- why not just humiliate M by releasing deeply embarrassing and humiliating information? The Prime Minster? Why not implicate M as a double agent and get her taken out by her own people? Certainly, that would be far more easy than all the other machinations and just as humiliating and potentially deadly to M.
And if he has access to Bond's records, including that he didn't pass his physical, then he also knew that Bond was coming after him. Why would he allow this? If he wanted to be captured, why not just turn himself in? And if he knows all about Bond, wouldn't he also know all about Skyfall? Why would Bond need to lure him there? Shouldn't Silva have already known Bond's destination once he started on his trip (where else could he be going?) and just flown there first and taken Bond out when he arrived?
For the sake of argument, let's say he has this cachet of bombs rivaling the military and disguises rivaling MGM studios -- but then how does he get them from Japan to England? Are we to believe he amassed all this (and a helicopter) and have them conveniently stored somewhere in the event he is captured and taken to England instead of somewhere else?
And if Silva had all that time to plan for such, he didn't have time to break into Bond's rather unprotected storage locker and put a tracer on the car? After all, if Silva is so aware from his hacking of everything the British are doing, he already knows Bond is alive and the agent being sent after him.
Why would the carnage stop just because Bond and M are at Skyfall?
How does Skyfall negate Silva's technological advantages? He shows up with a helicopter, machine guns, grenades, and goons. The only thing Silva can't do is hack into a computer there, but since he already knows that's where Bond and M are, what difference would that make? (Skyfall also rips off the last part of The Wrath of Khan, where the ships battle it out in the nebula to negate technology, and the hero loses a friend . . . even the camera shot at the end is reminiscent.)
For that matter, if Silva is so far ahead of everyone, how come he doesn't already have men waiting for Bond and M when they arrive?
If Silva already knows Bond is headed to Skyfall, why not send reinforcements? Silva has already taken the bait and shows up, so what's to stop British commandos from arriving 15 minutes later?
The problem with any attempt to rationalize why things happen in Skyfall is that it usually opens up the plot to additional problems. One moment, Silva is a technological and planning genius who knows everything that's going on and can anticipate with precision future moves; the next moment, he's in the dark and at the mercy of the keen efforts of our hero . . . whose efforts don't exactly make sense. Or we can toss in the old cliche of "well, he's crazy, so you can't expect him to always make good decisions." Meanwhile, what is actually onscreen doesn't really confirm much of anything.
Have to say that Skyfall is the best example of Craig's Bond and Craig's MI6's incompetence. The fact that a mummy-troubled ex-agent could do what he did to that organisation and get away is a joke.
Beautiful film, but completely at the expense of common sense. Also very odd that Silva wasn't caught when getting from London to Scotland - and also if Mallory mentions being able to track them on the motorway cameras!
Kill him!
Skyfall is a pretty dumb movie if you analyze it more than casually -- it relies on a whole series of events that are at best improbable and can really only be reconciled with considerable effort.
Silva's entire plan is shaky from the start. He would have had to have anticipated a series of intertwining events that seem quite a stretch, such as knowing where Bond would be when he sets off the explosive or that M would be at a particular hearing at a particular time (and apparently choose to remain to recite a poem and such when she was told she was a target).
This can be reconciled to some degree if we're supposed to believe that Silva hacked into MI6 computers to monitor everything closely or, perhaps, had help now from Blofeld, but none of this is ever confirmed onscreen and still leaves the question of how Silva would know where his prison cell would be in the alternative MI6 headquarters to even make his escape, assuming that he knew he would be taken prison and not just killed by Bond outright in Japan.
But even not addressing that element of the story, Bond's plan at the end just makes no sense. M going along with it just makes n sense, except that she trusts Bond -- which given the plan, isn't a very good idea. Mallory tracking them but not sending reinforcements makes no sense.
The reason why it works is because the audience gets caught up in the sentimentality of the story and ignores the lapses in logic, and because we saw virtually the same story in The Dark Knight, it's familiar enough to somehow make sense.
Okay, this argument bugs more than anything else in the whole world, except hemorrhoids.
This is how I see the story going down.
1. Silva acquires the hard drive with the agent's IDs.
2. He realizes that he can at once bring down MI6 and publicly humiliate M.
3. But the public humiliation will be a thousand times better if he is there to witness it.
4. He doesn't care much for his own life.
5. He hacks into MI6's computers to gain access.
6. His agents prepare bombs, booby traps, disguises, rendezvous points, weapons, etc. weeks in advance.
7. He knows that MI6 will send agents to find him. He doesn't really hide because he wants to get captured and taken back to MI6. He knows he won't get killed because he has valuable information.
8. Bond finds him (which makes sense because if 005, say, found him it wouldn't be a Bond movie).
9. He implants a virus into the hard drive that he'd stolen. He knows the weaknesses in MI6's firewalls because he's been infiltrating their systems, possibly for years.
10. With the virus, he disables MI6's security apparatus on a wholesale basis (doesn't matter where his particular holding cell is).
11. The investigatory hearing has been publicly known for weeks, so he is able to coordinate his efforts for maximum public humiliation of M.
12. He lures Bond toward the bomb that had been previously set (one of many) and delays him long enough until the train comes by. There's enough leeway in his plan to be plausible unlike the Joker's prison escape in TDK which required perfect timing.
13. They go to Scotland because the carnage will continue until either Silva or M is dead.
14. Having Mallory send reinforcements to Scotland wouldn't work because Silva would know it was a trap.
15. Hiding M on a secure military base wouldn't work because Silva would continue with terrorist attacks until one of them was dead.
16. By going to an out-of-the-way location, Bond negates Silva's technological advantages. He didn't count on a. his father's gun collection being gone and b. Silva having a military helicopter armed with an rotary autocannon, but nobody is perfect.
17. I didn't find the ending of SF particularly moving, so I'm not blinded by sentimentality.
18. Having Silva infiltrate MI6 by allowing himself to be captured isn't a rip off of TDK so much as a reversal of the Bond trope where Bond allows himself to be captured (DAF, for example).
The point is that Silva had months to work out his plan, he knew how MI6 operated, and he understood M's mentality.
Now if you want to see plot holes check out the Dark Knight (gangster breaks legs jumping from a building but is walking around normally a couple of scenes later) or the PTS to Spectre (building is blown up but Day of the Dead parade goes on a block away like nothing happened).
Well done Gala ) ) ) )
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
Comments
I'm sure Simon Cowell is working on a ripped off version as we speak !
Correct. I was talking to my GF (not Goldfinger!) about this after we watched Skyfall last night. I was saying how the film comes across as attempting to be too realistic, and classic Bond films would never show Bond having such frailties. She was saying how they need to do this to make the film more relevant. There's an element of truth to this, but when Bond is being so realistic, but the villain so unrealistic - it doesn't really work.
The sentimentality piece, capture, disappearances and conflict between M and Bond was done so much better in DAD, because it didn't stop Bond from being Bond.
"Better make that two."
This is what bothers me about all of Craig's Bond films. Some things are more realistic when other things are not. That's why I dislike Casino Royale. The story is realistic but it's not done in a believable way. The opposite holds true for other films.
CR, SF and maybe SP are all quite an exhausting watch. I'm yet to buy the SP BluRay and I've only seen it once while at the movies and I enjoyed it - but I'm holding my judgement...
"Better make that two."
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
On the other hand, Skyfall even more unrealistic but dumb on top of it. Quantum of Solace was dull and muddled to me. Spectre was, at least, more entertaining that its two predecessors, but like all of them after Casino Royale, suffers from a limp script.
I agree that the blend is correct because it still maintains the element of fantasy - such as the fake 747 plane and the weeping villain etc.
"Better make that two."
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I agree. There's already too much of that! I just think there's no chemistry between Craig and Green. The romance had enough time to develop, but it just seems forced and I don't believe there's any love between the two of them. Bond shouldn't seem so miserable when he's with her. I think more time spent on the romance would make it even worse.
To me the issue with Casino Royale is that while so many things are great with it like the locations, the action, the villain, and it is a solid story - elements of the film are dragged out to prove too many points. I find it becoming more and more of a tedious watch than pure entertainment. While this isn't entirely a con per se, it just makes me reach for this one less and less.
I actually wish some things were done with a bit more brevity in the film than being extended...
"Better make that two."
What I wanted in terms of romance was their actually interacting as a couple, in ways that were palatable to the Bond universe.
To me, the two most romantic scenes in any Bond film are both in On Her Majesty's Secret Service:
The first is when Bond, demoralized and hopeless, sits down to await his grim fate, and then a woman comes skating up to him. He slowly looks up, and it's Tracy. If you didn't feel in that moment that he had to marry this woman, then you don't get romance.
The second is the proposal scene in the barn. Everything is pitch perfect -- dialogue, acting, lighting, music. It was the most difficult scene in the movie, to me, and they bat it out of the park. Once again, I believed in the moment. Those two were meant to be together.
There's really nothing quite like that in Casino Royale. There's the cheesy beach scene with the lousy "armor" dialogue. But romance is not rooted in awful Hallmark card words like that but in what people do together that makes them mesh. And that's more than a montage scene of them slapping and tickling each other.
Those are excellent scenes in OHMSS and I agree that nothing in CR compares to them. But also, George Lazenby shows love in his acting and Daniel Craig does not. Daniel Craig shows no emotion at all until when Vesper dies, and that isn't enough.
Interestingly, the deleted scenes for Casino Royale show a bit more of what I'm looking for:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUs3YFzh4_c
Okay, this argument bugs more than anything else in the whole world, except hemorrhoids.
This is how I see the story going down.
1. Silva acquires the hard drive with the agent's IDs.
2. He realizes that he can at once bring down MI6 and publicly humiliate M.
3. But the public humiliation will be a thousand times better if he is there to witness it.
4. He doesn't care much for his own life.
5. He hacks into MI6's computers to gain access.
6. His agents prepare bombs, booby traps, disguises, rendezvous points, weapons, etc. weeks in advance.
7. He knows that MI6 will send agents to find him. He doesn't really hide because he wants to get captured and taken back to MI6. He knows he won't get killed because he has valuable information.
8. Bond finds him (which makes sense because if 005, say, found him it wouldn't be a Bond movie).
9. He implants a virus into the hard drive that he'd stolen. He knows the weaknesses in MI6's firewalls because he's been infiltrating their systems, possibly for years.
10. With the virus, he disables MI6's security apparatus on a wholesale basis (doesn't matter where his particular holding cell is).
11. The investigatory hearing has been publicly known for weeks, so he is able to coordinate his efforts for maximum public humiliation of M.
12. He lures Bond toward the bomb that had been previously set (one of many) and delays him long enough until the train comes by. There's enough leeway in his plan to be plausible unlike the Joker's prison escape in TDK which required perfect timing.
13. They go to Scotland because the carnage will continue until either Silva or M is dead.
14. Having Mallory send reinforcements to Scotland wouldn't work because Silva would know it was a trap.
15. Hiding M on a secure military base wouldn't work because Silva would continue with terrorist attacks until one of them was dead.
16. By going to an out-of-the-way location, Bond negates Silva's technological advantages. He didn't count on a. his father's gun collection being gone and b. Silva having a military helicopter armed with an rotary autocannon, but nobody is perfect.
17. I didn't find the ending of SF particularly moving, so I'm not blinded by sentimentality.
18. Having Silva infiltrate MI6 by allowing himself to be captured isn't a rip off of TDK so much as a reversal of the Bond trope where Bond allows himself to be captured (DAF, for example).
The point is that Silva had months to work out his plan, he knew how MI6 operated, and he understood M's mentality.
Now if you want to see plot holes check out the Dark Knight (gangster breaks legs jumping from a building but is walking around normally a couple of scenes later) or the PTS to Spectre (building is blown up but Day of the Dead parade goes on a block away like nothing happened).
Still, they could've intercepted the Defender that contained the goons and Silva and just killed them. By that stage he had blown up the MI6 building, threatened M, derailed a train and killed police officers. Seems ludicrous to me that he's able to just head up to Scotland in his own time.
The flaw to the movie is that there's so much political realism, accountability and back story on the side of M and James Bond - but none on the accountability of the police force/military to do anything about this terrorist roaming around the UK.
"Better make that two."
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Think about it this way: If Silva is Johnny on the Spot about hacking into the most protected computer system in England, how come he can't do that with a laptop? How come the same information wasn't available through the more secure computer system in the first place?
If he can hack into the computer, why all the need for blowing things up and such? He gives a speech about toppling governments and so forth with information -- why not just humiliate M by releasing deeply embarrassing and humiliating information? The Prime Minster? Why not implicate M as a double agent and get her taken out by her own people? Certainly, that would be far more easy than all the other machinations and just as humiliating and potentially deadly to M.
And if he has access to Bond's records, including that he didn't pass his physical, then he also knew that Bond was coming after him. Why would he allow this? If he wanted to be captured, why not just turn himself in? And if he knows all about Bond, wouldn't he also know all about Skyfall? Why would Bond need to lure him there? Shouldn't Silva have already known Bond's destination once he started on his trip (where else could he be going?) and just flown there first and taken Bond out when he arrived?
For the sake of argument, let's say he has this cachet of bombs rivaling the military and disguises rivaling MGM studios -- but then how does he get them from Japan to England? Are we to believe he amassed all this (and a helicopter) and have them conveniently stored somewhere in the event he is captured and taken to England instead of somewhere else?
And if Silva had all that time to plan for such, he didn't have time to break into Bond's rather unprotected storage locker and put a tracer on the car? After all, if Silva is so aware from his hacking of everything the British are doing, he already knows Bond is alive and the agent being sent after him.
Why would the carnage stop just because Bond and M are at Skyfall?
How does Skyfall negate Silva's technological advantages? He shows up with a helicopter, machine guns, grenades, and goons. The only thing Silva can't do is hack into a computer there, but since he already knows that's where Bond and M are, what difference would that make? (Skyfall also rips off the last part of The Wrath of Khan, where the ships battle it out in the nebula to negate technology, and the hero loses a friend . . . even the camera shot at the end is reminiscent.)
For that matter, if Silva is so far ahead of everyone, how come he doesn't already have men waiting for Bond and M when they arrive?
If Silva already knows Bond is headed to Skyfall, why not send reinforcements? Silva has already taken the bait and shows up, so what's to stop British commandos from arriving 15 minutes later?
The problem with any attempt to rationalize why things happen in Skyfall is that it usually opens up the plot to additional problems. One moment, Silva is a technological and planning genius who knows everything that's going on and can anticipate with precision future moves; the next moment, he's in the dark and at the mercy of the keen efforts of our hero . . . whose efforts don't exactly make sense. Or we can toss in the old cliche of "well, he's crazy, so you can't expect him to always make good decisions." Meanwhile, what is actually onscreen doesn't really confirm much of anything.
Well done Gala
Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmoIDKqfY44
"Better make that two."