DEEP RISING
4/10
Hadn't seen this in a while and recall it being moderately fun when I saw it in theaters. Time, alas, has not been kind to Stephen Sommers' waterlogged creature feature: this is a truly bad movie with plastic production values that somehow cost $45 million at the time of its production. Blandly shot almost exclusively in tight corridors on threadbare sets, and with a weak cast that presaged Sommers' Mummy movie (Treat Williams in the wisecracking Brendan Fraser role; Kevin J. O'Connor in the...Kevin J. O'Connor role) make for a labored experience that's not "so bad it's good." It's mostly just terrible and dated.
What's more -- the CGI has aged as well, and all of Rob Bottin's monster "designs" unfortunately ended up being animated. As we've seen, '90s CGI fests run hot and cold and the mediocre/average effects of the era look terrible by today's standards. This is one of those situations.
As far as Goldsmith's score goes -- it's energetic, but the score he wrote for another bad underwater action flick (Leviathan) is much better, since at least the latter had some pleasant thematic material. Deep Rising is just a lot of "busy" action writing typical of his works from the era, and doesn't really add much to the film as a whole.
On Blu-Ray now with THE PUPPET MASTERS, an unintentionally funny -- yet much more entertaining -- 1994 Hollywood Pictures production with Donald Sutherland in a curious adaptation of Robert A. Heinlein's novel.
rate the last movie you saw
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34296
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7068
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Altered States
I've previously seen this film in varying degrees of quality -- on TV, on VHS, on a faded 35mm print (with an audience of loud, childish college students), in Westwood in 70mm, and on DVD.
The Blu-ray isn't quite as impressive as the 70mm print, but comes close (and is infinitely superior to the DVD transfer). The film itself seems a little more tame and less freaky than when I first saw it, but remains a solid viewing experience. The story is quite literally "trippy", but often compelling, with very sharp dialog, expertly played by an first-rate cast. It's also a little over-the-top at times, but you have admire a major Hollywood studio backing a science fiction movie aimed at more mature audiences so soon after Star Wars (and by a writer whose contract forbade any alterations to the script).
The effects hold-up very well too, and possesses a convincingly organic quality, which is refreshing in our age of "mouse click" cinema. Jordan Cronenweth's photography is tremendous, at once stylized and naturalistic, and is often relied upon to create clever opticals that less imaginative filmmakers would have farmed-out an effects house (adding to the believability of the film). John Corigliano's music is probably the best "avant garde" film score ever written (and likewise refreshing compared to the lifeless drones which pass for film music today).
Ironically, Altered States is one of Ken Russell's most accessible and comprehensible films, and as such it seems a shame he did not work more for Hollywood (where bigger budgets and the necessity to reign-in his self-indulgence would surely have resulted in his making better movies).
I've previously seen this film in varying degrees of quality -- on TV, on VHS, on a faded 35mm print (with an audience of loud, childish college students), in Westwood in 70mm, and on DVD.
The Blu-ray isn't quite as impressive as the 70mm print, but comes close (and is infinitely superior to the DVD transfer). The film itself seems a little more tame and less freaky than when I first saw it, but remains a solid viewing experience. The story is quite literally "trippy", but often compelling, with very sharp dialog, expertly played by an first-rate cast. It's also a little over-the-top at times, but you have admire a major Hollywood studio backing a science fiction movie aimed at more mature audiences so soon after Star Wars (and by a writer whose contract forbade any alterations to the script).
The effects hold-up very well too, and possesses a convincingly organic quality, which is refreshing in our age of "mouse click" cinema. Jordan Cronenweth's photography is tremendous, at once stylized and naturalistic, and is often relied upon to create clever opticals that less imaginative filmmakers would have farmed-out an effects house (adding to the believability of the film). John Corigliano's music is probably the best "avant garde" film score ever written (and likewise refreshing compared to the lifeless drones which pass for film music today).
Ironically, Altered States is one of Ken Russell's most accessible and comprehensible films, and as such it seems a shame he did not work more for Hollywood (where bigger budgets and the necessity to reign-in his self-indulgence would surely have resulted in his making better movies).
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9750
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Skyfall (2012): 9/10
One of the top-tier Bond films, a tremendous comeback following the dreadfully disappointing Quantum Of Solace. Gorgeous photography, crisply-edited action sequences (no shakey-cam bullcrap here), witty and boasting superior villainy courtesy of a deliciously perverse Javier Bardem (rocking another iconically awful hairdo). Thomas Newman's propulsive score works fine in the film, and is certainly a better attempt at a "textural" 007 score than whatever Eric Serra was attempting in Goldeneye, but I dunno if I'll pick up the soundtrack album, unless I see it cheap. Still, great film, and it's a pleasure to finally see some long-absent characters and situations finally click back into place (no spoilers). Now, if they'd just put the bloody gunbarrel back at the beginning of the next film...
One of the top-tier Bond films, a tremendous comeback following the dreadfully disappointing Quantum Of Solace. Gorgeous photography, crisply-edited action sequences (no shakey-cam bullcrap here), witty and boasting superior villainy courtesy of a deliciously perverse Javier Bardem (rocking another iconically awful hairdo). Thomas Newman's propulsive score works fine in the film, and is certainly a better attempt at a "textural" 007 score than whatever Eric Serra was attempting in Goldeneye, but I dunno if I'll pick up the soundtrack album, unless I see it cheap. Still, great film, and it's a pleasure to finally see some long-absent characters and situations finally click back into place (no spoilers). Now, if they'd just put the bloody gunbarrel back at the beginning of the next film...
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34296
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
SKYFALL
8/10
Not quite as crazy about it as MJ, but it's very, very good, particularly in terms of its refreshingly straightforward plot, and Roger Deakins' terrific cinematography. Bardem was over the top and engaging -- I think his second monologue to M felt just a bit too Hannibal Lecter-like for my taste in terms of its choreography and execution, but Bardem brought it. (The audience actually laughed during his "interrogation" of Bond with its gay innuendo). The action scenes were crisp, the editing superb. Thomas Newman's score works much better in the movie than it did on the album, there's no doubt, yet aside from the one portion when he worked in Adele's theme song, there's nothing to grab onto thematically. It's fine for the movie, but it doesn't function beyond it. Judi Dench was terrific (probably her best performance in this series) and Ralph Fiennes also perfect.
My main reservation of the Craig films continues to be Craig. Once again Bond has precious little dialogue in this film (which is ironic given this is one of the longest films in the entire series), and Craig's "tough guy" approach is what it is -- I just, personally, don't find him very charismatic or interesting. Of course, it's not as if they give Bond much more to do here other than look "tough" -- and I do think Craig sells the few brief instances when he has to "emote" -- but there's not much in the way of charm there. I'm guessing it's probably unlikely he's ever going to "loosen up," but that's exactly what he needs to do.
The other weak area was the total lack of importance of the "Bond girls" to this movie. In the entire run of the series I think this is likely the weakest set of female leads in the whole series, as Naomi Harris' role is basically a gag (once you see where it ends up) and the other girl has a couple of strong scenes before turning into the series' traditional "sacrificial lamb." Again, it's not their fault -- more that they could've given both more to do. Not sold on the new "Q" guy either...but at least he's in there!
Overall I found the film very stylish and entertaining -- and far better than Quantum of Solace. Also happy that, FINALLY, it seems Bond is on track to be "Bond" in the next film as this picture's ending strongly implies. (I think the gunbarrel will be back where it belongs the next time MJ...at least that's what I read into it).
8/10
Not quite as crazy about it as MJ, but it's very, very good, particularly in terms of its refreshingly straightforward plot, and Roger Deakins' terrific cinematography. Bardem was over the top and engaging -- I think his second monologue to M felt just a bit too Hannibal Lecter-like for my taste in terms of its choreography and execution, but Bardem brought it. (The audience actually laughed during his "interrogation" of Bond with its gay innuendo). The action scenes were crisp, the editing superb. Thomas Newman's score works much better in the movie than it did on the album, there's no doubt, yet aside from the one portion when he worked in Adele's theme song, there's nothing to grab onto thematically. It's fine for the movie, but it doesn't function beyond it. Judi Dench was terrific (probably her best performance in this series) and Ralph Fiennes also perfect.
My main reservation of the Craig films continues to be Craig. Once again Bond has precious little dialogue in this film (which is ironic given this is one of the longest films in the entire series), and Craig's "tough guy" approach is what it is -- I just, personally, don't find him very charismatic or interesting. Of course, it's not as if they give Bond much more to do here other than look "tough" -- and I do think Craig sells the few brief instances when he has to "emote" -- but there's not much in the way of charm there. I'm guessing it's probably unlikely he's ever going to "loosen up," but that's exactly what he needs to do.
The other weak area was the total lack of importance of the "Bond girls" to this movie. In the entire run of the series I think this is likely the weakest set of female leads in the whole series, as Naomi Harris' role is basically a gag (once you see where it ends up) and the other girl has a couple of strong scenes before turning into the series' traditional "sacrificial lamb." Again, it's not their fault -- more that they could've given both more to do. Not sold on the new "Q" guy either...but at least he's in there!
Overall I found the film very stylish and entertaining -- and far better than Quantum of Solace. Also happy that, FINALLY, it seems Bond is on track to be "Bond" in the next film as this picture's ending strongly implies. (I think the gunbarrel will be back where it belongs the next time MJ...at least that's what I read into it).
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9750
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: rate the last movie you saw
I hope you're right, Andy...it'd be inexcusable to NOT put the gunbarrel back in its traditional spot in the next one, considering how neatly Skyfall brings the character back to his roots, as it were. I liked the treatment of the gunbarrel in Casino Royale, but having it at the end in Thingy Of Whatsis and Skyfall is just...weird.AndyDursin wrote:Also happy that, FINALLY, it seems Bond is on track to be "Bond" in the next film as this picture's ending strongly implies. (I think the gunbarrel will be back where it belongs the next time MJ...at least that's what I read into it).
Also agreed that the Bond Girls this time out were a fizzle. As deadly dull as Olga Kurlyenko was in Something Of Boris, at least she was actually in the movie. Berenice Marlohe is a stunner, and is set up as a potentially interesting character, but the callous way she's jettisoned from the picture would have had more weight if she'd been in more of it (especially with Craig's blase reaction). And Naomie Harris is appealing, but considering the easy-to-spot "twist" with her character, there was nowhere to go with her relationship with 007. Hopefully we'll get to see Bond in a more relaxed, romantic/lecherous mood the next time out.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34296
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
SPOILERS
As for Harris -- am I going crazy or was there a story that spilled the beans as to her function at some point? Or is it just that it was so obvious that it seemed like I already knew what would happen? lol. I don't remember but once she was jettisoned from the main storyline and started talking "desk job" we all knew where it was headed from there. They could've done a better job involving them in the story, and I was surprised on that angle.
Also worth commending was Stuart Baird's editing, which also made the action sequences easy to comprehend for a change. In that regard, visually, it was even more impressive than CASINO ROYALE which had that "Bourne" thing going.
One other thing: I wonder if Variety knew that Eon reached out to Connery to play Albert Finney's part. It would've made a lot of sense given the Scottish setting and this being the 50th anniversary of the series...too bad if that's the case.
I really disliked the resolution of her character. What was stopping Bond from pulling that "escape" a moment earlier and saving her life? I didn't get it. It was probably the weakest element in the entire movie.Also agreed that the Bond Girls this time out were a fizzle. As deadly dull as Olga Kurlyenko was in Something Of Boris, at least she was actually in the movie. Berenice Marlohe is a stunner, and is set up as a potentially interesting character, but the callous way she's jettisoned from the picture would have had more weight if she'd been in more of it (especially with Craig's blase reaction). And Naomie Harris is appealing, but considering the easy-to-spot "twist" with her character, there was nowhere to go with her relationship with 007. Hopefully we'll get to see Bond in a more relaxed, romantic/lecherous mood the next time out.
As for Harris -- am I going crazy or was there a story that spilled the beans as to her function at some point? Or is it just that it was so obvious that it seemed like I already knew what would happen? lol. I don't remember but once she was jettisoned from the main storyline and started talking "desk job" we all knew where it was headed from there. They could've done a better job involving them in the story, and I was surprised on that angle.
Also worth commending was Stuart Baird's editing, which also made the action sequences easy to comprehend for a change. In that regard, visually, it was even more impressive than CASINO ROYALE which had that "Bourne" thing going.
If we're to take them at their "word" so to speak here, Bond is BOND at the end of this film. We've got a male M, Moneypenny, Q, and Bond having confronted his past -- it's time to go forward and put the damn gunbarrel back where it belongs!I hope you're right, Andy...it'd be inexcusable to NOT put the gunbarrel back in its traditional spot in the next one, considering how neatly Skyfall brings the character back to his roots, as it were. I liked the treatment of the gunbarrel in Casino Royale, but having it at the end in Thingy Of Whatsis and Skyfall is just...weird.
One other thing: I wonder if Variety knew that Eon reached out to Connery to play Albert Finney's part. It would've made a lot of sense given the Scottish setting and this being the 50th anniversary of the series...too bad if that's the case.
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9750
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: rate the last movie you saw
That would have been AWESOME, but also really distracting, and EON probably would have had to cough up a considerable chunk of change to get Connery to un-retire for a bit part. If Spielberg and Lucas couldn't do it for Crystal Skull, then I doubt anyone can.AndyDursin wrote:One other thing: I wonder if Variety knew that Eon reached out to Connery to play Albert Finney's part. It would've made a lot of sense given the Scottish setting and this being the 50th anniversary of the series...too bad if that's the case.
Not to take away from Albert Finney, who was great in the part, but Connery would have blown the roof off the theater and probably would have gotten even more butts in the seats.-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9750
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Flight (2012): 7.5/10
Fine character drama with a potent performance by Denzel Washington, but like most "addict" movies, there's the inevitable time jump following the character's "bottoming out" moment that handilly skips past the actual recovery process, which always rings false. Still, nice to see a good film for adults for a change, and wonderful to see Robert Zemeckis make a "real" movie again.
Fine character drama with a potent performance by Denzel Washington, but like most "addict" movies, there's the inevitable time jump following the character's "bottoming out" moment that handilly skips past the actual recovery process, which always rings false. Still, nice to see a good film for adults for a change, and wonderful to see Robert Zemeckis make a "real" movie again.
Re: rate the last movie you saw
SKYFALL - 10/10. Absolutely loved it. I enjoyed the acting, the story, and the cinematography. Javier did an excellent job, and kudos to Judi Dench as well for her performance. The action pieces were well done - very exciting. Loved how they brought the series full circle at the end, and I like the new Q a lot.
I know that hardly anyone on this board liked QoS, but I think this three film arc (CR, QoS, SKYFALL, all top-notch IMO) is at least as good as my other favorite three film arc from the Bond series (FRWL, GOLDFINGER, and THUNDERBALL). All six of these films have great opening action set pieces that are memorable, all six of them were compelling and well done on pretty much every level. I couldn't be more pleased. As far as Marlohe's character, maybe Bond had been hardened enough from the whole Vesper thing and all he really wanted was to bring down Silver. She was expendable (which is too bad because she was incredibly hot), and I didn't mind that part of his character. And I had no idea what was coming with Harris' character until the very end...should have though!
I totally enjoy Daniel Craig as Bond...to me, he seems to be the closest to the character in the books from what I can remember. I do feel that Craig opened up a bit more in this performance, but not much. I see this arc as Bond's beginnings so even Bond, as a character, is working out how he handles himself in the field and around the office. And Thomas Newman's score worked well in the film; it would be a better experience on the CD if it were complete (IMO).
This is a gushing review but I really can't complain about anything. This was totally worth the wait, and it makes me want to go through all the other Bond films again...lol...can't wait to snag this on DVD and enjoy digesting it.
I know that hardly anyone on this board liked QoS, but I think this three film arc (CR, QoS, SKYFALL, all top-notch IMO) is at least as good as my other favorite three film arc from the Bond series (FRWL, GOLDFINGER, and THUNDERBALL). All six of these films have great opening action set pieces that are memorable, all six of them were compelling and well done on pretty much every level. I couldn't be more pleased. As far as Marlohe's character, maybe Bond had been hardened enough from the whole Vesper thing and all he really wanted was to bring down Silver. She was expendable (which is too bad because she was incredibly hot), and I didn't mind that part of his character. And I had no idea what was coming with Harris' character until the very end...should have though!
I totally enjoy Daniel Craig as Bond...to me, he seems to be the closest to the character in the books from what I can remember. I do feel that Craig opened up a bit more in this performance, but not much. I see this arc as Bond's beginnings so even Bond, as a character, is working out how he handles himself in the field and around the office. And Thomas Newman's score worked well in the film; it would be a better experience on the CD if it were complete (IMO).
This is a gushing review but I really can't complain about anything. This was totally worth the wait, and it makes me want to go through all the other Bond films again...lol...can't wait to snag this on DVD and enjoy digesting it.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7068
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
I really liked the way they are returning to the Bond traditions, like getting out of the MI6 headquarters on the Thames and setting-up in more secretive digs, and bringing back M's old office complete with Miss Moneypenny. I wouldn't be surprised if they even started using the "Universal Exports" cover in subsequent films. I also LOVED the scene where they took off in the Aston Martin DB5 -- to the strains of Vic Flick plucking the Bond theme! Awesome stuff!AndyDursin wrote: Overall I found the film very stylish and entertaining -- and far better than Quantum of Solace. Also happy that, FINALLY, it seems Bond is on track to be "Bond" in the next film as this picture's ending strongly implies. (I think the gunbarrel will be back where it belongs the next time MJ...at least that's what I read into it).
One thing thing I did think was a little odd, was that in this film Bond is a middle aged, "washed-up" operative who is pressured into retiring, when just a few years (and only two films) ago he was a young, newly christened "double 0" on his first real assignment. There were also elements that did seem a touch recycled -- Bond's apparent "death" smacks of You Only Live Twice, while the former agent who resurfaces having "turned bad" reminded me of Sean Bean in Goldeneye. These things didn't really compromise the film for me, but they did seem a little odd.
But overall I thought the film was great, and Craig was fantastic. He may be grim, but he so much more believable than Brosnan. I also thought Ralph Fiennes was terrific, as was Ben Whishaw as "Q".
Thomas Newman's score was serviceable, but the only times it ever came alive was when it quoted John Barry or Monty Norman. Note to ALL directors -- melody is what helps your film, not drum loops!
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34296
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Paul, I felt exactly the same as you did. Wasn't the point that this was Bond at the BEGINNING of his career? So why is Fiennes telling him he's "old and washed up"? I didn't get that either. They also, perhaps intentionally, mixed in plot points from prior movies -- the bad guy felt like Goldeneye, the "Bond is dead" set up felt like You Only Live Twice, etc. as you said.
I wasn't as crazy about the "Q" portrayal. Just seemed a bit prudish -- the usual uptight, movie "tech nerd" -- and came across stereotypically to me. Maybe he'll loosen up the next time.
Overall though, I liked it just fine. I appreciated that, finally, we're getting back into the groove of classic Bond as well with the reintroduction of series staples. One of the best of the "modern" Bond films (say the post-John Barry era) for sure...and also proof that QUANTUM OF SOLACE was a total waste of time. For me I'll go from CASINO to this movie and basically forget QOS ever happened.
I wasn't as crazy about the "Q" portrayal. Just seemed a bit prudish -- the usual uptight, movie "tech nerd" -- and came across stereotypically to me. Maybe he'll loosen up the next time.
Overall though, I liked it just fine. I appreciated that, finally, we're getting back into the groove of classic Bond as well with the reintroduction of series staples. One of the best of the "modern" Bond films (say the post-John Barry era) for sure...and also proof that QUANTUM OF SOLACE was a total waste of time. For me I'll go from CASINO to this movie and basically forget QOS ever happened.
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9750
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Tell me about it...I re-watched QOS the night before I saw Skyfall, and if anything it's gotten worse with four years' perspective. I didn't much like it back in 2008, but still riding high on a buzz of enthusiasm for Craig's reinvention of the character, I tried to cut it more slack than it really deserved. But a second viewing really cemented how slapped-together and incoherent the film is. I know that the writer's strike of that year crippled the film by forcing the director and producers to forge ahead with an incomplete script, and it really shows in the finished product, which basically skips from one horribly-shot-and-edited action sequence to another, with a bare minimum of "plot" holding them together (all I remember is that Roman Polanski lookaline wanting to control the world's water supply, or something). In that respect, the four-year gap between that and Skyfall due to MGM's financial woes was actually an asset to the new film...they really had a great deal of time to iron out the kinks in the screenplay and polish the film to a glossy sheen.AndyDursin wrote:One of the best of the "modern" Bond films (say the post-John Barry era) for sure...and also proof that QUANTUM OF SOLACE was a total waste of time. For me I'll go from CASINO to this movie and basically forget QOS ever happened.
Re: rate the last movie you saw
MORE SPOILERS!!!!
I was thinking about the film a lot this morning (since I wanted to be distracted from schoolwork!)...I think maybe they dispatched the one woman so that "Bond's girl" could actually be M, who was basically a parent to him. The stage was cleared for those two to have their final moment together (rather than Bond having to keep some strange woman from harm). The more I reflected on the significance of having the showdown at Skyfall and having "mom" die in his arms after everything went down with the other "son", the more effective I thought the closure was, both with his being an orphan (perhaps) and to his surrogate mother as an adult (not a child). I felt the climax there was just as emotionally moving as the death of Tracy Bond in OHMSS (and I cried at both). Not sure how far I want to go with that, but kudos to how well done that whole sequence was. Also, loved the gift at the end - the last Bond film to be that moving was, as I said, OHMSS. Makes me like SKYFALL even more.
I was thinking about the film a lot this morning (since I wanted to be distracted from schoolwork!)...I think maybe they dispatched the one woman so that "Bond's girl" could actually be M, who was basically a parent to him. The stage was cleared for those two to have their final moment together (rather than Bond having to keep some strange woman from harm). The more I reflected on the significance of having the showdown at Skyfall and having "mom" die in his arms after everything went down with the other "son", the more effective I thought the closure was, both with his being an orphan (perhaps) and to his surrogate mother as an adult (not a child). I felt the climax there was just as emotionally moving as the death of Tracy Bond in OHMSS (and I cried at both). Not sure how far I want to go with that, but kudos to how well done that whole sequence was. Also, loved the gift at the end - the last Bond film to be that moving was, as I said, OHMSS. Makes me like SKYFALL even more.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7068
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
I was actually thinking the same thing. The overall story arc was really about Bond and M, and their contentious -- but in the end, warm and devoted -- relationship.mkaroly wrote:I was thinking about the film a lot this morning (since I wanted to be distracted from schoolwork!)...I think maybe they dispatched the one woman so that "Bond's girl" could actually be M, who was basically a parent to him.
I'm sorry to see Judi Dench go however. I'm a tremendous fan of hers to begin with, but I also always felt making M a woman was a great twist on the Bond millieu, in which a womanizer like 007 found himself having to be subordinate to a female.
Another thing about Skyfall that I admired -- the filmmakers' steadfast refusal to abandon the traditional Bond title sequence. In an era when most movies don't even have front titles, Skyfall gave us the old school, extended title sequence (and song)...and yet not a single person in the theater seemed bothered.
Re: rate the last movie you saw
I agree! I also liked how Judi Dench's M was more active and not just a boss who Bond took orders from. I liked that she was in the field quite a bit rather than just a desk jockey, and I liked that her character was willing to take those kinds of risks (the scene before the committee comes to mind when she refused to leave after Q warned her about Silver's escape...great build-up of tension in those sequences). They allowed Judi Dench's M to be and show more complexity (rigid and brave, obstinate and reflective, sturdy and unapologetic, dry sense of humor, and caring) though I don't have anything against the other Ms in the series.Paul MacLean wrote:I'm sorry to see Judi Dench go however. I'm a tremendous fan of hers to begin with, but I also always felt making M a woman was a great twist on the Bond millieu, in which a womanizer like 007 found himself having to be subordinate to a female.
Very poignant movie.