Bond 23 - "Skyfall" spoilers from post 595

krudler · 29-10-2012 7:53pm

Grimebox wrote: »

This film has gone in the opposite direction of "Bourne-lite" and is a return to the more fantastical Bond films

I think its at a crossroads now, does the series go back to exactly what Casino Royale tried to get away from? or keep it on the edge of realism and more grounded. If they go back to the old stuff it kinda defeats rebooting the series in a more serious tone, that'd be fine if it was a new Bond and new set of films but its odd to have a grounded reboot for Craig (well grounded for a Bond movie) then have it change back to Moore-esque sillyness before his turn with the character is up.

TheDoc · 29-10-2012 9:09pm

Skyfall was excellent. As a big Bond fan, was thoroughly impressed ans satisfied. I wouldn't go as far as saying it was the best Bond like some, but I also wouldn't pay a second to anyone who labelled it rubbish. Excellent Bond installment with a really clever subtle undertone throughout that was a big "**** you" to the cinema world.

Some of the nitpicking going on, on most forums I'm reading is relative to the great Dark Night Rises nit pick.

Some people cant leave it at " Excellent film".

Skyfall just brought Bond back to the forefront of cinema again, thank ****. The biggest compliment I can pay it, is that when I first got into Bond films I was about 12 and watched them religiously. This was the first of the modern era bonds that made me feel 12 again, that made me feel like I was watching James Bond, rushing in every Wednesday to flick on RTE 2

Great nods backward for the 50th anniversary, some great revelations about the character and overall just a bloody good Bond film.

MisterAnarchy · 29-10-2012 10:39pm

krudler wrote: »

I think its at a crossroads now, does the series go back to exactly what Casino Royale tried to get away from? or keep it on the edge of realism and more grounded.

Get away from 45 years of successful Bond films ?
If it aint broken dont fix it.

All that is needed is some better scripts and less of the over the top nonsense that occurred in the latter Brosnan films.
The formula is simple and it has worked for 50 years ,it doesn't need rebooting to be honest.

johnny_ultimate · 29-10-2012 11:19pm

Grimebox wrote: »

This film has gone in the opposite direction of "Bourne-lite" and is a return to the more fantastical Bond films

I should stress by fantastical I do mean the crazy ass 'invisible car being chased by space laser' sort of stuff. The series has always, let's face it, been a little silly, and I just didn't buy into the whole po-faced seriousness of the last two films (barring some cool setpieces like the heart attack bit in Casino Royale). In the best entries, they've gotten a good mix between the cheese and thrills. As I said, I've generally been left cold by the James Bond franchise on the whole, so if Skyfall is moderately enjoyable than it has probably surpassed my expectations. I do expect it to at least look great based on the Mendes direction and trailers I've seen, though.

krudler · 29-10-2012 11:30pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I should stress by fantastical I do mean the crazy ass 'invisible car being chased by space laser' sort of stuff. The series has always, let's face it, been a little silly, and I just didn't buy into the whole po-faced seriousness of the last two films (barring some cool setpieces like the heart attack bit in Casino Royale). In the best entries, they've gotten a good mix between the cheese and thrills. As I said, I've generally been left cold by the James Bond franchise on the whole, so if Skyfall is moderately enjoyable than it has probably surpassed my expectations. I do expect it to at least look great based on the Mendes direction and trailers I've seen, though.

That it does, this sequence:

Is probably the highlight visuals wise.

Teferi · 29-10-2012 11:52pm

In the fulness of time I believe this will be seen as the weakest of the Craig-era Bond, although definitely not the weakest Bond film.

It was an enjoyable, brainless return to a more classic type of Bond movie but I have preferred the more realistic tone that Craig has brought to the role in the previous films.

I think you can see the influence the studio had in this movie with the absolute boatload of nods to previous Bond films, obviously due to the 50th anniversary. To be honest, it became a bit tiresome and kept taking me out of the movie every time another nod was stuffed down our throats.

I didn't like the character of Q or the small storyline he got with Bond. The "I'm getting too old for this ****" of Craig and "cool nerd" tropes that were used in his storyline are incredibly overdone, there was no need for them.

I hope that this will be a stop gap in the Craig era. I would hope they pull it back to the more realistic style of Casino Royale. At the very least I hope we don't see a laser chasing Craig in future installments.

King Of Wishful Thinking · 29-10-2012 11:56pm

DM-ICE wrote: »

I really enjoyed this Bond movie.

It was a good mix of classic bond and modern movie making.

I didn't think so at all.

I mean, you can see that the film tips the hat at the old Bond more than others, but this isn't a parody movie, there should be no tipping of the hat here - it should be a Bond film in it's own right and it wasn't, at all really.

It was okay, don't me wrong, I enjoyed it and it was better that Quantum, but not by much.

I never seen so many holes in the plot of a Bond movie before actually, usually they are somewhat believable, even when being fantastic - shame, as I was looking forward to being immersed in a good Bond flick having heard so many positive whispers that that is what it would be.

Corholio · 30-10-2012 12:32am

Enjoyed it, but defintiely not the best bond of all time, or even best Craig bond. It has some really good bits bit also some actual almost boring bits. The film is bookended by 2 not great opening and endings, the middle is pretty good stuff though. The opening sequence is one of the weakest openings of the recent Bonds, there's action but very by the numbers stuff. I was very disappointed by the ending, as soon as they go

to Bonds house, it just drags and kind of seems like Mendes wasn't sure how to end it

Another thing I took a little issue with was the really annoying dialogue. Lines like

"A VW beetle......I think"

weren't humorous or of any substance. There was a few pieces of dialogue like this that affected the film at times. I don't expect Bond films to have entirely clever dialogue but some of it was horrible.

Worth a watch though definitely.

Thwip! · 30-10-2012 12:36am

I found the film good overall, nothing special

Felt like Nolan's Batman films mixed with Home Alone at times

Loved Q and the villain was great, love his and bonds first interaction

krudler · 30-10-2012 12:36am

Teferi wrote: »

In the fulness of time I believe this will be seen as the weakest of the Craig-era Bond, although definitely not the weakest Bond film.

No way is this a weaker film than Quantum, at least this has a memorable villain and decent setpieces.

enda1 · 30-10-2012 12:45am

Quite disappointing. Typical Daniel Craig, no charm and zero personality.
Plot was absolutely farcical, wholely unbelievable.
Stupid and moralising. I hate that with these new takes on classic franchises, the way the roughen the good guy and soften ye bad guy "blur the lines between good and evil". Piss off.

Only for watching it in IMAX, I would have been completely dejected. Such promise, such a shame.

Teferi · 30-10-2012 1:08am

krudler wrote: »

No way is this a weaker film than Quantum, at least this has a memorable villain and decent setpieces.

I liked Quantum.

I think it works better than Skyfall as it continues and wraps up threads from Casino Royale.

krudler · 30-10-2012 1:33am

enda1 wrote: »

Quite disappointing. Typical Daniel Craig, no charm and zero personality.
Plot was absolutely farcical, wholely unbelievable.
Stupid and moralising. I hate that with these new takes on classic franchises, the way the roughen the good guy and soften ye bad guy "blur the lines between good and evil". Piss off.

Only for watching it in IMAX, I would have been completely dejected. Such promise, such a shame.

Ah here, its a James Bond movie, the other 22 films arent exactly realistic either, if anything this has one of the more grounded plots unless I missed the hollowed out volcano scene.

Goldstein · 30-10-2012 2:33am

Jesus, very harsh responses here. I've definitely seen a different film judging from some of the comments here. Do people even remember how irredeemably abysmal QoS was as a film? Some of the worst editing / directing in recent memory.

Skyfall is the best looking Bond ever made by a country mile, Roger Deakins work was outstanding throughout and even stunning in places - the Macau casino / Shanghai skyscraper / yacht approaching deserted island, even the desaturated bleakness of rural Scotland. It bordered on visual porn at times.

It's too Bond / it's not enough Bond. Not loyal enough / too many nods. Too many gimmicks / too few gadgets. Mendes can't win with some of ye. The balance was as perfect as it could have been.

The people giving out about

Moneypenny being present sum it up - you don't even know who she is until the end on the film so what does it matter what her name is?

utyh2ikcq9z76b · 30-10-2012 2:38am

Thwip! wrote: »

Felt like Nolan's Batman films mixed with Home Alone at times

Thats exactly what I thought, with a little Macgyver as well

heebusjeebus · 30-10-2012 10:09am

I left the cinema thinking I'd just watched a Harry Potter film. Felt sad for Hogwarts at the end.

syklops · 30-10-2012 10:11am

krudler wrote: »

Can see the nitpicking start already on other forums, like
how Bond got back to the UK after his supposed death, ehh, cos he's ****ing James Bond, one of the worlds best secret agents can't get back into his home country without some big explanation behind it? pfff

I read quite a lot of action/thriller books. I particularly like Andy McNab because his character is ex SAS now doing deniable operations for MI6. Similar vein to Craigs bond, but without any of the gadgets, girls or cars. What his character does is have credit card names and bank accounts in various names spread across europe, each with a credit card and a few grand in the bank. Anytime he suddenly needs cash or a new passport he goes and gets one and its enough to get him to his destination.

In the movie

when he wins the cash in the casino. In real life he wouldnt hand it back. I suspect he would take it and divide it among a few different accounts. In short, like having the car in a lockup in London, he has resources out in the world we cannot see

. But he's James Bond works an answer too.

syklops · 30-10-2012 10:22am

enda1 wrote:

Plot was absolutely farcical, wholely unbelievable.

Would you mind explaining this a bit more? Which aspect of of the plot did you find unbelievable?

TheDoc · 30-10-2012 10:41am

syklops wrote: »

Would you mind explaining this a bit more? Which aspect of of the plot did you find unbelievable?

The mere fact people are having an issue with a James Bond plot being unbelievable is enough to prove how retarded general cinema goers are getting.

This whole fad of " serious cinema" is a cop out, and people need to get over it, expecting now the standard is some sort of dark serious tone created by Nolan, when in fact reflecting on the Batman installments, its not any more realistic, believable or dark, it was just made modern.

Probably the most annoying trend I'm seeing emerge here, the whole hearted mis-interpretation of this " Nolan serious" thing, and people questioning believability of plots......

Timothy Daltons bonds have more serious tone then any of the news ones, and they were SLATED for years after release as being one of the weakest when in more recent years, thanks for the Nolan fad, they are being looked back at as the more stronger ones in the series : /

johnROSS · 30-10-2012 10:41am

The whole fake teeth thing, is silver a thinly disguised version of this guy?

:pac:

TheDoc · 30-10-2012 10:46am

Thats one thing I was wondering the minute he popped his teeth out, was this Jaws?!?! Although the GF figures its probably just a 50th anniversary nod, but there was some pretty serious gasps and a few "no way!" in the cinema alright

Giruilla · 30-10-2012 11:15am

Another awful Bond movie.. ruined by the compeltely non-sensical plot and nuke the fridge moments from start to finish. Had some excellent scenes.. especially the scenes in Shanghai. Think they brought the product placement a little too far in this one.

For me Daniel Craig just doesn't make a great bond.. he's too bland and uncouth.

The whole second half of the film was a complete bore.

syklops · 30-10-2012 11:23am

TheDoc wrote: »

The mere fact people are having an issue with a James Bond plot being unbelievable is enough to prove how retarded general cinema goers are getting.

Which is why i wanted the clarification. Ex-company man goes mad and seeks revenge on the company. Not a new concept. As for a system wide hack attack, also not new. I'm really curious which part was unbelievable. Unbelievable in what context? For me Die another day was the worst for 'unbelievable for a James Bond movie', which is a context all of its own.

Grimebox · 30-10-2012 12:14pm

TheDoc wrote: »

The mere fact people are having an issue with a James Bond plot being unbelievable is enough to prove how retarded general cinema goers are getting.

This whole fad of " serious cinema" is a cop out, and people need to get over it, expecting now the standard is some sort of dark serious tone created by Nolan, when in fact reflecting on the Batman installments, its not any more realistic, believable or dark, it was just made modern.

Probably the most annoying trend I'm seeing emerge here, the whole hearted mis-interpretation of this " Nolan serious" thing, and people questioning believability of plots......

Timothy Daltons bonds have more serious tone then any of the news ones, and they were SLATED for years after release as being one of the weakest when in more recent years, thanks for the Nolan fad, they are being looked back at as the more stronger ones in the series : /

Casino Royale set the bar for me. Absolutely nothing to do with Nolan. You're talking rubbish to be honest

syklops · 30-10-2012 12:22pm

Giruilla wrote: »

For me Daniel Craig just doesn't make a great bond.. he's too bland and uncouth.

He's meant to be uncouth. The original character was very much so uncouth.

norrie rugger · 30-10-2012 12:55pm

krudler wrote: »

I can't wait to watch this again, the visuals alone are worth seeing it fore, the silhoutte fight in Shanghai is beautiful, pity it wasn't a bit longer, the Shanghai officials should be grateful for this movie making the city look ****ing amazing.

To be honest, Shanghai by night is a glorious site. Especially if viewed from one of the feck high buildings. It smells like arse though

MisterAnarchy · 30-10-2012 1:33pm

syklops wrote: »

He's meant to be uncouth. The original character was very much so uncouth.

The original character was slightly uncouth but thats not the Bond most people connect with.
Its the Bond of the movies that people generally associate with ,very few people have actually read the books to be honest.
Even Dalton who based his Bond on that of the books, had to make allowances and his Bond was suave and charming while also being ruthless.

Craig ,while a good actor just isnt suitable to the role of Bond.
He looks constipated and angry all the time as if he has a poker up his backside.
He is trying too hard to be tough ,to be menacing and it doesnt work.

Alot of people were unhappy with the decision to “reboot” the series, ignoring the previous 20 Bond films and starting the series again from scratch. It seemed an unnecessary and cynical move, aimed at expanding the fanbase by disparaging the most successful film franchise of all time. Whilst few Bond fans would object to the series changing to reflect audience tastes, Casino Royale and its attendant publicity seemed to send out the message to long term Bond fans that the previous films were all rubbish and you were idiots for enjoying them.
Casino Royale set out to be a Bond film for people who don’t like Bond films.

Penn · 30-10-2012 1:43pm

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Casino Royale set out to be a Bond film for people who don’t like Bond films.

I disagree to be honest. I think the first 10 or so Bond films followed a formula which suited audiences at the time, but became such staple parts of the series that later films found them hard to shake off to the extent that they just became kinda ridiculous as time went on. Casino Royale took it back to its roots, wasn't afraid to cut free some of the more redundant (women with innuendo names, bad guy secret lair) and predictable aspects (3 gadgets which will definitely be required during the film) of the films, and updated it for a more realistic and modern story, while keeping true to most of the elements that made Bond great.

syklops · 30-10-2012 1:49pm

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The original character was slightly uncouth but thats not the Bond most people connect with.
Its the Bond of the movies that people generally associate with ,very few people have actually read the books to be honest.
Even Dalton who based his Bond on that of the books, had to make allowances and his Bond was suave and charming while also being ruthless.

Craig ,while a good actor just isnt suitable to the role of Bond.
He looks constipated and angry all the time as if he has a poker up his backside.
He is trying too hard to be tough ,to be menacing and it doesnt work.

I completely disagree. I think it works perfectly. As another poster said, Casino Royale set the bar with him kicking the sh1t out of some guy and then shooting the other guy mid sentence. It also got rid of some of the sillier aspects of the bond genre, like gadgets with very specific uses which get used. CR is not a kids movie which many of the recent ones had basically become.

FutureGuy · 30-10-2012 2:01pm

Giruilla wrote: »

Another awful Bond movie.. ruined by the compeltely non-sensical plot and nuke the fridge moments from start to finish. Had some excellent scenes.. especially the scenes in Shanghai. Think they brought the product placement a little too far in this one.

For me Daniel Craig just doesn't make a great bond.. he's too bland and uncouth.

The whole second half of the film was a complete bore.

Sometimes I think I watched a completely different movie over the weekend. Twice.

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

Comments

Bond 23 - "Skyfall" spoilers from post 595