Bond 23 - "Skyfall" *spoilers from post 595*

senordingdong

krudler wrote: »

Oh there were definitely throwbacks I loved, the

Aston Martin reveal which got a huge "wheyyy!" from the audience I saw it with. The exploding pen, or lack thereof, joke. I just thought bringing all the stuff CR had moved away from is putting Bond back in the territory that made it stale to begin with.

+1
I gritted my teeth for alot of this movie.

I am going to give QoS another watch tonight as the absence of this nonsense is giving me much fonder memories of it.

K.Flyer

Really enjoyed this one. Yeah you can find faults here and there but not much. One or two ropey CGI moments alright but what movie nowadays does not have them.
Having watched Taken 2 last week it was funny to watch almost the exact same rooftops being used in each movie.
9.5 / 10

Grimebox

K.Flyer wrote: »

Really enjoyed this one. Yeah you can find faults here and there but not much. One or two ropey CGI moments alright but what movie nowadays does not have them.
Having watched Taken 2 last week it was funny to watch almost the exact same rooftops being used in each movie.
9.5 / 10

If you give this 9.5... what do you give Casino Royale?

K.Flyer

Grimebox wrote: »

If you give this 9.5... what do you give Casino Royale?

First off, I was never really a Bond fan and have only ever sat down to watch a few of them over the years.
I watched Casino Royale with Daniel Craig not by choice but have to say I enjoyed it way more than I expected.
As for rating it I may have said 8 / 10 back then as I am (was until Legacy) a big Bourne fan, so I would have been a bit biased.
Since then I have watched it (C.R.) again and have enjoyed it just as much as the first time so probably same as Skyfall.

Grimebox

K.Flyer wrote: »

First off, I was never really a Bond fan and have only ever sat down to watch a few of them over the years.
I watched Casino Royale with Daniel Craig not by choice but have to say I enjoyed it way more than I expected.
As for rating it I may have said 8 / 10 back then as I am (was until Legacy) a big Bourne fan, so I would have been a bit biased.
Since then I have watched it (C.R.) again and have enjoyed it just as much as the first time so probably same as Skyfall.

I don't see what the Bourne series has to do with any of this. I'm going to have to watch Casino Royale again because I don't think Skyfall is even close to its standard. Maybe I'm wrong and CR is rubbish too

bb1234567

Just saw it yesterday...it was just incredible! like really one of the best movies of the last few years anyway..think i may have even preferred it to the dark knight rises. The characterisation of M was fantastic, the action scenes were spectacular and it was paced excellently.A++

Grimebox

I actually can't believe how wrong I have seem to gotten this film. Its like I watched something different entirely

Rasmus

We enjoyed the film - loved how it is using the old-school formula for Bond and look forward to

having Fiennes as the new 'M'

. Question about Javier Bardam character: did he have a lot of make-up on for his character? I thought he was virtually unrecognisable. Coloring can make a huge difference of course, but his even features seemed different! His performance was brilliant, I thought.

Smartly Dressed

Didn't think it was a classic-formula Bond film by any stretch. It felt so strange and almost even uncomfortably personal at times.

Having said that, I still enjoyed but it's definitely not without some annoying scenes and lines.

The DB5 was amazing.

aindriu80

saw SkyFall last night, thought it was pretty good to darn excellent. Thought craig did a good job as bond

TheInquisitor

I saw this last night. The 3 others that went with me all thoroughly enjoyed it. I on the other hand thought it wasn't great. Not once during the movie did I feel like I was on the "edge of my seat"

When the tube came through the roof

it just seemed pointless. This is the first Bond movie that I haven't enjoyed and was left disappointed with. I thought they could have done so much more with

the big empty island they had taken over

. 4/10

senordingdong

Grimebox wrote: »

I don't see what the Bourne series has to do with any of this.

Yeah, especially since Bond tried the gritty approach with Timothy Dalton long before Bourne was around. The public just wasn't ready for it then.

K.Flyer

Grimebox wrote: »

I don't see what the Bourne series has to do with any of this.

Read my post again and point out to me where I said that Bourne had anything to do with this ???
All I said was that I am a Bourne fan (with the exception of Legacy) and was not a Bond fan until I watched Casino Royale.

Albedo0.39

I really thought it was a great film. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Probably give it 8.5 \ 10.
Didn't feel the time going at all.

efb

Enjoyed it, not a Bond fan, V sharp, a bit mad men-esque

cloud493

Do they show your woman getting shot? The woman who Bond sleeps with on the boat I mean. She's still standing when MI6 turns up isn't she?

Albedo0.39

TheInquisitor wrote: »

I saw this last night. The 3 others that went with me all thoroughly enjoyed it. I on the other hand thought it wasn't great. Not once during the movie did I feel like I was on the "edge of my seat"

When the tube came through the roof

it just seemed pointless. [/SPOILER]. 4/10

That was pointless and there were a number of suspend your concept of reality/ plausibility scenes like that throughout- I still thought it was entertaining though.

Slydice

Saw the film this evening. Really liked it. Felt like a proper Bond film.

Katunga

saw it on Friday At 15:00 was shocked that the screen was almost empty only 10-15 people at a screen that would hold about 150 people.
Was a great film I thought but Casino Royale was better in my opinion. ts a bit strange how they Have Restarted Bond on a different track since Casino Royale.
The end was a bit of a shock in Skyfall.

Slutmonkey57b

I must be a weirdo.

I thought it was a great Bond film, and a great film. I enjoyed watching it. But I hate it. Loathe it. As many others have pointed out up above, going back to the old formula is a disaster area. As a Classic Bond film, this is right up there. As a post-Casino Royale Bond film, it's utter ****ing dreck.

What I don't understand is why they decided to do this at all. They had a great setup going, a great, re-energised franchise, and now what? The CR/QoS storyline is just dead, not even referenced, might as well not have happened. All they've done is remake Goldeneye. What was the point of "going back to the start" in CR if that is going to be absolutely ditched and replaced with a new start? Instead of a "newly minted" agent, Bond in Skyfall is a grizzled old veteran who worked with M 15 or 20 years ago.... it's nonsense.

Brosnan must be sick as a dog. I thought he was probably the best Bond, who was given some of the worst scripts. Now they're going to do the same to Craig.

niallon

Albedo0.39 wrote: »

That was pointless and there were a number of suspend your concept of reality/ plausibility scenes like that throughout- I still thought it was entertaining though.

Anyone else also think it was really convenient that

The train was empty?

Just seemed handy, big action scene, this'll explain away the repercussions. Like The Dark Knight Returns, this is a film that is starting to get lower and lower in my opinion as I revisit it. Ya know peeps its completely possible that Jedi isn't the only 3rd in a series that's "ok but really could've been better as well as being worse"

I really think the glowing reviews for this are coming from people who only expected the worst and are relieved this wasn't a total turd.

Wils110

It was mentioned in the film that their was an organisation involved........it was a great movie they went back to the roots they tried to tell a story in CR and QOS an people hated it...for 20 movies there was no story it was a film to enjoy that's what this is

PerrinV2

cloud493 wrote: »

Do they show your woman getting shot? The woman who Bond sleeps with on the boat I mean. She's still standing when MI6 turns up isn't she?

She was tied to the rock I think

acquiescefc

Saw this in IMAX in Ipswich on Friday night. Amazing experience. Have some small issues but can't take away from a fantastic film. Didn't feel like a bond movie, just lots of good ideas from great films and fantastic acting from ppl I didn't consider as great actors.
Please don't rush the next one if its not gonna be as good as this.

Oh and +1 for IMAX....wow

Oafley Jones

Grimebox wrote: »

I don't see what the Bourne series has to do with any of this. I'm going to have to watch Casino Royale again because I don't think Skyfall is even close to its standard. Maybe I'm wrong and CR is rubbish too

The Greengrass movies were undoubtedly a large influence on CR direction. Felt an awful lot of TDK in this one. Still not entirely sure what I make of it. Never fond of fan service i.e. the DB5, or the winking to the audience. The initial chase felt like Pierce era stuff. I did love how old fashioned the ending briefing scene was.

grames_bond

Well after starting this thread 2 years ago I finally got to see it......and I loved it!! (I know - look at my user name, I am admittedly biased)

I just thought it felt like a proper bond movie, updated! Craig was brilliant as was the supporting cast! Bardem was creepy as f*ck and as mentioned I like how it was just a vendetta rather than a massive huge plot to take over the world! Really enjoyed it, did not see the time pass and will see it again!

eyescreamcone

How did Bond survive the fall early on???

Where did he get the money to buy the Heineken??
How did he fly back to London??
Didn't M have an apartment in Casino Royale??
After taking the old Aston out of the lock up why did he just drive off without locking the door??

Suspend reality for a while
It's Bond after all

Loved it 9.5 - I'd have loved some gadgets!

Jimdagym

eyescreamcone wrote: »

How did Bond survive the fall early on???

He's Bond!

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Where did he get the money to buy the Heineken??

He's Bond!

eyescreamcone wrote: »

How did he fly back to London??

He's Bond!

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Didn't M have an apartment in Casino Royale??

He's Bond!

eyescreamcone wrote: »

After taking the old Aston out of the lock up why did he just drive off without locking the door??

He's James freaking Bond!

Smartly Dressed

eyescreamcone wrote: »

How did Bond survive the fall early on???

Where did he get the money to buy the Heineken??
How did he fly back to London??
Didn't M have an apartment in Casino Royale??
After taking the old Aston out of the lock up why did he just drive off without locking the door??

Suspend reality for a while
It's Bond after all

Loved it 9.5 - I'd have loved some gadgets!

He stole the money. How do you know he flew back? Maybe she has multiple residences for safety or convenience. Do you want to sit there and watch a guy close a shed for the sake of realism?

SimonTemplar

Long time Bond fan. I've seen Skyfall twice and my comments are:

MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW

- Overall, I was satisfied when the movie ended and it is a considerable improvment over QOS. It doesn't reach the heights of the better Connery movies, TLD or GoldenEye.

- The three leads were excellent in their roles. It was nice that Dench had such a juicy role for her last appearence in the series. She really displayed what a talented actor she is and her contribution to the series cannot be overstated and her presence will be missed. Having said that, I think Fiennes makes a fine replacement as M. I'm looking forward to seeing how his relationship with Bond developes. I also liked how Mallory was initially introduced as a possible adversery, but was gradually shown to be sympathetic towards M and MI6.

- I was surprised that Q was given such a big supporting role as opposed to the traditional single q-branch scene. However, I had no problem with Ben Whitshaw. I thought he did a fine job conveying Q's rather unique personality, albeit one that does differ from Desmond's interpretation. I liked the "bring the equipment back in one piece" line though.

- Silva is probably the most memorable villian since the 60s. A Bond movie can often suffer due to a weak villian (QOS for example), but the opposite is the case with Silva. I've read a few reviews comparing Silva to The Joker from TDK. Silva will never be as iconic as The Joker, but Bond's first meeting with him certainly had elements of the Batman/Joker relationship, together with Silva's rather unusual vocal delivery.

- I read a previous poster here didn't like that Bond went to Scotland because he would be more comfortable away from the technology. That wasn't my reading of his motivation. On two occasions, MI6's computer system has been hacked by Silva to devestating effect. I believe Bond brought M to Scotland not because he felt more confortable in a traditional environment, but because it elimated Silva technological advantage.

- I liked the inclusion of the DB5, and its reveal got a great reaction from the two audiences I saw it with. It was a great thrill to hear the Bond theme on guitar as the DB5 drives away. I also liked the ejector seat banter between M and Bond.

- The direction was outstanding, as one would expect from Mendes. So too was the photography - the entire third act in Scotland looked beautiful, and the silluette fight was probably the artistic highpoint of the whole series. Although, I would have liked for it to have lasted just a little longer.

- M's death was the most powerful emotional scene in the whole series. Her last line "I got one thing right" had me choking up. Whether or not this type of emotion is appropriate for a Bond movie or if it should just be pure escapism is another debate.

- I absolutely loved the return to the traditional Moneypenny/M office layout complete with M's padded door. I really hope they keep this office for future movies. Dench's M never had a consistent office. I believe the last time we saw Bond in the traditional office was TLD. I hope this continues. BTW, I also liked the painting of the MI6 building on the wall behind Fiennes. Keep an eye out for it if you missed it the first time.

- Daniel Klienman really outdid himself with the titles. They are stunning, especially with the imagery of the Skyfall grounds (the house, the deer, the graves). BTW...there is a shot in the titles of a spy projected onto a brick wall. I swear it is the spitting image of Timothy Dalton. If you see the movie again, keep an eye out for it. It appears just after Bond shoots the four shadows on the ground. THe 50 years of Bond logo at the start of the end credits was also a nice touch.

- Adele's song is the best in a long long time. The lyrics and her voice fit the movie very well. The chorus is outstanding and I love the rising notes of the "stand tall" line and the cameo of the Bond theme in song. I would be happy for her to return like Bassey. Sadly, David Arnold was missed, and Newman couldn't fill his shoes especially during the later action scenes. Hopefully Arnold will return for Bond 24.

- I too had a problem with another "Bond reborn" story. We've had similar reborn themes in DAD and CR. I think it would have been better if Bond returned to MI6 as a fully physically and mentally capable agent and dispense with the "physical wreck" subplot. Afterall, this is a Bond movie and as a die hard Bond fan, I don't want him to be a physical wreck who can't hit a target. It was superfluous to the main plot of Silva's revenge. Bond could have been at 100% and the movie's plot wouldn't have suffered at all. Also, the whole "Bond is getting too old for field work" subplot came out of nowhere and doesn't sit well with the series.

- I liked the tube sequence, but doesn't quite live up to the excellent Miami Airport scenes from CR.

- The movie could have done with a few more Bondian moments. The best example is his reaction to the destruction of the DB5. We see the car being destroyed and cut to a shot of Bond looking pissed off accompanied by a powerful performance of his theme. But what does he do: he lights a stick of dynamite on top of a few gas cylinders! Any grunt can do that. Such a personal attack on the iconic Bond car should have been met with a better Bond-esque payoff than simply lighting some dynamite. I appreciate the producers are striving for reality, but they need to understand they are making a JAMES BOND movie, not a Bourne or Nolan Batman movie. Clearly, I don't want the return of double-taking pigeons or iceberg surfing that plagued previous movies but the suspension of disbelieve is allowed in a Bond movie. The train scene in the pre-credits is what I'm talking about. Sadly, the rest of the movie didn't deliver these Bondian moments, despite some otherwise excellent spy/action setpieces.

- Likewise, I would have liked to have seen some more gadgets. Obviously, I don't want to go back to the invisible car, but just include a simple watch gadget for example. Again, make it distinctive 007 instead of just a typical spy thriller. I hope Q's comment about Q-branch not making exploding pens anymore is not an indication that the future movies will have little or no gadgets.

- In conclusion, a strong entry into the series but not in the top 5. However, I do hope the producers make Bond 24 more of a Bond film and less of a Bourne-esque spy thriller. If they don't, they may gain a younger fan base at the expense of alienating their long time loyal fans. Previous entries in the series have proven it is possible to do a fairly realistic spy thriller while retaining the Bond experience. Despite these shortcomings, as a long time Bond fan it is very gratifing to see that Skyfall currently has a rating of 94% on RottenTomatoes and 8.5 on imdb togther with massive public interest in the series (both screenings I went to got a round of applause at the end). It is an outstanding movie, but falls just a little short of being an outstanding BOND movie.