The Double O Directorate is based upon a real organisation, No 30 Assualt Unit which was organised by Ian Fleming during WW2. They were NOT spies in the traditional sense. They were a mix of special operations and paramilitary types and their missions reflected that. Bond, who is a Naval Officer is basically the SIS’s armed force not an intelligence gatherer.
I watched the movie over the weekend. Most of my observations have been made.
Overall I did enjoy the movie. Same concerns over Silva’s complicated plan, and the stupid moves in a couple places, like Q plugging the computer into the network. That just isn’t done. You plug it in to a dedicated isolated system where you can dissect it, but any trojans or whatever are isolated and cannot get to your system.
I was a little annoyed that Eve didn’t take the second shot. Oops, well plug the guy now that you have a clean shot.
The final confrontation was a bit much. The helicopter being taken out by the propane bottles - yeah. And the gamekeeper and the chief spy using the flashlight, which got spotted. Uh-huh.
I was surprised with Eve being Moneypenny. Did kinda anticipate Ralph Fiennes being the next M.
I don’t agree. Silva expected M to send someone after him, probably several someones. Doesn’t have to be Bond, but someone. I don’t think the hit was intentionally to draw out the agent, I think it just happened to be the way Bond found his way in. When Bond killed the assassin, Severine saw it. So that’s why Silva knew to expect someone to show up at the casino. But he didn’t know who until later.
Agreed.
Bond didn’t seem concerned about the hit. He didn’t stop the hitman from killing the guard at the desk, he waited to follow. He wanted to confront and question the assassin, not just kill him, so that’s why he had to creep up through the layers of doors.
And about that building, what was with all those doors? Seriously, does that design make any sense? It’s not a good layout for offices, and everything was empty. 
As mentioned, that was Severine. She and all the men with her were Silva’s men, they knew the assassin was there, that was a staged hit.
If that’s the direction they go, I’ll likely lose interest again. I want the gritty Bond, not the comic book cheese.
Yeah, it really didn’t feel like he tried to hard to save her. I mean, he did miss with the pistol, so at least he didn’t shoot her himself, but he kinda just left her to Silva. That annoyed me.
I disagree. They thought him dead, they assumed him dead. They proceeded as if he were dead.
Yes.
The point wasn’t to kill the assassin, but to question him. Dropping him off the building was an accident, he was frustrated because that was his only lead to Silva. Fortunately he found the casino chip, which gave him another lead.
Stiff upper lip, and all that, Cheerio.
Well stated. Silva didn’t just want to kill her, he wanted to humiliate her and destroy her reputation, then kill her. He wanted to show his power and her impotence. Thus the strike to the heart of MI6, by using her computer. Thus the taunting messages while revealing the identities from the list slowly over time, and not selling them piecemeal or in bulk to the enemies. The capture and return to MI6 was a means to have his confrontation with M. And escaping from within when they think they have won, once more showing them up.
That wasn’t created for this movie, that is the rooftops of the grand bizarre in Istanbul. It’s been in other movies. Here’s a scene from “The International”.
(may have to scroll down a ways)
Why would MI6 go around killing people to manufacture orphans so they can craft them into superagents? Wouldn’t it be more efficient to recruit orphans that already exist?
This isn’t “James Jr following in his daddie’s footsteps”, this is a reboot Bond. Connery and Moore and Dalton and Brosnan and the other guy don’t exist to this Bond.
I had forgotten about the guns. I was wondering why he would park his nice car so close to the obvious firefight, letting them use it for cover. But then I didn’t expect him to let them walk right up to the front doors.
I also thought it was a shotgun, glad to know they didn’t screw that up.
Hard to mesh this story with the one from “Casino Royale”, where he was described as not coming from money, and not fully comfortable in the clothes. Learned to look the part but not really part of that crowd. I guess if his parents had lost most of the money and were middle class rather than upper class, that could explain his background.
Looked that way to me.
I also thought nightfall was a tad quick. And that moor was awfully deep.
Bazaar.
Bah!
[QUOTE=Irishman]
Hard to mesh this story with the one from “Casino Royale”, where he was described as not coming from money, and not fully comfortable in the clothes. Learned to look the part but not really part of that crowd. I guess if his parents had lost most of the money and were middle class rather than upper class, that could explain his background.
.
[/QUOTE]
Where is it said in Casino Royale that he was not from money. The only thing mentioned is that he is an orphan.
“By the cut of your suit, you went to Oxford or wherever. Naturally you think human beings dress like that. But you wear it with such disdain, my guess is you didn’t come from money, and your school friends never let you forget it. Which means that you were at that school by the grace of someone else’s charity: hence that chip on your shoulder.”
Well, that was Vesper’s read of Bond, not neccisarily fact - he did not dispute it, but that does not make it so.
I thought it was strongly implied that her comments hit the mark–or rather, skewered it.
It is strongly implied thusly, but not confirmed - Bond may simply have been playing along with her as well.
They were both deadly accurate. He was trying to show her up, he wouldn’t have let a gross error by like that.
I think the majority opinion is that Daniel Craig is right for the part. I was disappointed in Brosnan. I thought he was right for the part but the chemistry never happened.
I believe the majority also feel that the franchise desperately needs new writers. Casino Royale was very good but it may be that we were so enamored with the new guy that we gave them a lot of leeway. I haven’t seen Quantum Of Solace but few of these comments speak positively of it. This movie was enjoyable, but as the thread shows, there were some issues with the story.
Megalomaniac villains seem to be required in action movies of this type, but the early Bond films didn’t take things to extremes. I feel that Silva’s exploits were a bit over the top but not as bad as earlier films. I’d prefer fewer flights of fancy as it pertains to technological genius and anticipation of the enemy’s next move. I like the Bond gadgets and I haven’t seen enough of them in the Craig films. But again, let’s take it back to the early days when it was just a pen with a tracking device instead of an i-phone that turns into a helicopter.
This has truly been a reboot that works but if the next picture is as weak as Quantum, or addled as Skyfall, they’ll lose the whole thing.
Except that he would know her error - and she would not - therefore he wins.
She only thinks she does.
He clearly cannot take the wine that is in front of her.
The problem is that megalomaniacal villains with hollowed-out volcano lairs etc are now only acceptable as subjects of parody (cf Austin Powers). It’s actually hard to come up with a Bond Villain who can only be taken down by James Bond’s talents and not someone like a Evil Mastermind who (from the audience’s view) can easily be neutralised via a good, old-fashioned carpet bombing, missile strike, or random military/police marksman with a sniper’s rifle.
And you have to be careful about the nationality/political affiliation/etc of your Bond Villain, so you don’t offend anyone.
Given the difficulties in coming up with a plausible (within the context of Bond Movies) villain, I think the current Bond films are doing pretty well at coming up with villains whom a modern James Bond might actually be called in to deal with - even if there’s still a bit of “Look, it’s a Bond film, OK?” leeway involved.
First Bond movie to hit the billion dollar box office mark. $37 million more needed to beat “Thunderball” (inflation adjusted, of course), with China still to open the movie (Jan. 21st). Not sure even the most die hard fan- of which I’m one- would have predicted those kinds of numbers.
I sure didn’t. Casino Royale is still a much better film IMHO.
In Ohio, we call that a “lake.”
Thanks for the info on the roofs, Irishman. I knew it was the Grand Bazaar but didn’t know that “pavement” was a feature. Do people walk around up there?
The whole final battle scene feels weird. It seems that they threw a lot of stuff together without smoothing it out.
One of the things I’ve not seen mentioned is the business with the helicopter. So they have a great badass attack chopper, but they wait to deploy it until the first wave has been killed. And when they get there, they get out! and start shooting with their puny handguns throwing firebombs ? Surely it would come with some nice complementary rockets to flatten the whole house ? They can go through the rubble later to see if they got their man/woman.
It was not an attack chopper. It looked like a utility helicopter like the Blackhawk or the Mi17. Armed with Gatling or machine guns yes, but not Euromissile HOT or MILAN to do a number on The house.
Then I was whooshed, much like the shotgun/huntingrifle debate. Thanks for the info.
The point still stands though seeing as how it was “attack” enough for the enemy they were engaged with.