Alidar Jarok wrote:
Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:
Did he really fail the tests because he's actually bad at target practice, or was he trying to make it seem like he was bad at them?
No, it's the former. I thought it was pretty obvious. That's why he was surprised when he found out he didn't pass later on.
The movie itself was also an excuse.. for itself. He had to chase down and beat up a bad guy in Shanghai. Why? Because Shanghai looked kewl.
Couldn't the same be said for Jamaica, Istanbul, Japan (except to bring in Ninja Commandos), Hong Kong, Egypt, Uganda, Italy, etc. That's the whole point about James Bond that sets it apart. They seek out beautiful exotic locations.
I've seen it twice and I didn't find it obvious. The character by nature is stoic, and always is supposed to have a plan within a plan, and, by that logic, intentionally gives off whatever external veneer will suit his purpose, so there's no way for me to know that he failed them by accident, and Craig's take on the character is rather wooden (which is I guess how Bond is supposed to be, which is a problem) that I found myself unsure. Maybe he wanted Ralph Fiennes to think he wasn't as good as he used to be at targets and all the other tests. I have no idea, and Craig doesn't have the charisma of an 80's or 90's era Harrison Ford to let me know with a mere glance if he meant to fail or not.
I'm not a big Alec Baldwin fan by any means, but watch his nuanced performance in Hunt for Red October
. There, a mere expression will tell you that he thinks he's in over his head, and even if he doesn't betray these feelings to a character he's talking to, we
still get it.
As for your second point, I agree. Just as I agree that Trek movies are not praised for their glory shots of the enterprise. But they have them anyway. Why is this film being praised beyond the usual accolades of other Bond films?