Bond 23 - "Skyfall" spoilers from post 595

Ellian · 02-11-2012 4:13pm

Saw it last night and thought that while it's a good movie, it's not without it's problems - the main one being it couldn't seem to settle on it's tone. It was going for dark and broody especially in the third act (which seemed to me like someone saw Straw Dogs and thought "that'll do") but then had no problem going back and riffing on earlier campy Bond. It was like someone playing one of Bach's fugues on a church organ and then every so often having someone break in with a banjo solo - it threw the whole thing off kilter. But a vast improvement on QoS.

B.A._Baracus · 02-11-2012 4:24pm

All I can say is that the new Moneypenny is quite hot

... that is all :pac:

seligehgit · 02-11-2012 8:32pm

Saw it last night,excellent film in my opinion.Right up there with the other great Bond films....Goldfinger,On Her Majesty's Secret Service,Casino Royale.Really feel that we may as Bond fans be delving too deep into the perceived changes in direction in the film compared two Craig's two previous outings.There is a 50th anniversary context,nostalgia may have played a part in paying homage to all that's great and not so great in making Bond films what we love,a lack of continuity of the storyline and Bond characterisation.Funny enough I found Javier Bardem unconvincing initially due the campness,hamming it up but he grew into the role of a quintessential Bond villian.Daniel Craig has continued to produce a first class performance as 007.

Deliverance XXV · 03-11-2012 1:25am

Just saw it tonight. Great settings, action scenes and cinematography. I particularly thought the finale was brilliant. I think it's one of those movies that will watch better when you are at home.

Only things that pi**ed me off was the

amount of screen time given to M - It made me hate her come the end of the movie. Detestable character IMO.

There were also some pointless scenes such as the

scorpion/drink

scene and the cheesy lines such as

Welcome to Scotland!

line.

If they are going for the dark and broody style then maybe they should consider revisiting Bond's hand-to-hand combat. Bryan Mills would destroy him!

dastardly00 · 03-11-2012 2:05am

norrie rugger wrote: »

Why is there love for QoS all of a sudden. It was the most ineptly made, badly edited, weak storied and forgettable Bond flick ever

Woah hold on there, that mantle goes to Die Another Day.

Tom_Cruise · 03-11-2012 3:21am

Just back from seeing Skyfall.

I wouldn't classify myself as a biggest fan in the world but i do adore Bond movies, i got hooked on Tomorrow Never Dies as a kid and ever since there's something that releases the inner child in me whenever a new bond movies comes out.

I thought it was great. I loved Craig as bond even more this time around. I didn't find myself engaged so much in the story and while far from perfect it did its job.

8/10.

Lemlin · 03-11-2012 10:52am

Great movie. Bardem was superb. But one thing keeps sticking out in my mind...

How the hell did they allow the two cgi lizard type animals from the casino to remain in the final cut?

It was the worst cgi I've seen since The old Sinbad films!

seligehgit · 03-11-2012 12:40pm

norrie rugger wrote: »

All we see is him connecting an ethernet cable. Are you telling me that there would not be seperate networks for the door security as there would be for the Q branch and their crazy high-jinks? For me it is not a deal breaker, they needed to get Silva out and they did it but I would not have minded Bond saying "Should we be connecting this to our system?" and Q being over-confidant and dismissive saying "we have protocols for this". No explinations necessary after that.

Anyone technos care to clarify the intricacies of the mechanics behind the cyberwarfare and Q's error in the hacking scene that lead to the security breach leading to Silva's escape?Use of ethernet cable,not credible?

johnny_ultimate · 03-11-2012 1:40pm

If you're looking for technical accuracy in a James Bond film, you're looking in the wrong place. Like all othe blockbusters, suspension of disbelief is mandatory.

The hacking serves to move the plot further. It's really as simple as that!

Dempsey · 03-11-2012 1:50pm

seligehgit wrote: »

Anyone technos care to clarify the intricacies of the mechanics behind the cyberwarfare and Q's error in the hacking scene that lead to the security breach leading to Silva's escape?Use of ethernet cable,not credible?

Q should have connected Silvers computer to a separate standalone system not a sandbox type environment on the mainframe. That would have been the minimal "protocol" for accessing a known terrorists computer who has already blown up MI6 by hacking the gas mains. If they connected the computer to a standalone system, Silver's hack wouldnt have worked.

The Cool · 04-11-2012 12:06am

I really enjoyed the film, Bardem was one of my favourite baddies yet, thought the campness was great! I loved all the nods to the history of Bond - ie the car and all, but how it also brought the franchise up to date with a current theme (no laser sharks here guys). That bit of Bond's history revealed was great as well.

One thing I found interesting: I have read of theories before whereby Bond is a codename for the agent, kind of like M etc, so that it's not just a new actor playing the same guy each time but that in the actual story, it is a new man who is assigned 007 and Bond as working names. This movie, with the reference to his parents, blew that theory out of the water.

Dr Bob · 04-11-2012 1:12am

The Cool wrote: »

One thing I found interesting: I have read of theories before whereby Bond is a codename for the agent, kind of like M etc, so that it's not just a new actor playing the same guy each time but that in the actual story, it is a new man who is assigned 007 and Bond as working names. This movie, with the reference to his parents, blew that theory out of the water.

That annoyed the hell out of me, it doesn't make any sense!.
(the version of M in this is in Goldeneye, which has Pearse Brosnan as Bond? so if the craig movies are a reboot, why have M played by the same actress.nggh) , never mind the CGI Reptiles and invisible cars ..its ****e like this that breaks films for me...le sigh)

Slutmonkey57b · 04-11-2012 1:15am

The Cool wrote: »

I really enjoyed the film, Bardem was one of my favourite baddies yet, thought the campness was great! I loved all the nods to the history of Bond - ie the car and all, but how it also brought the franchise up to date with a current theme (no laser sharks here guys). That bit of Bond's history revealed was great as well.

One thing I found interesting: I have read of theories before whereby Bond is a codename for the agent, kind of like M etc, so that it's not just a new actor playing the same guy each time but that in the actual story, it is a new man who is assigned 007 and Bond as working names. This movie, with the reference to his parents, blew that theory out of the water.

No idea where you've heard that theory but it's always been pretty clear what Bond's origins were. I don't recommend the Fleming books, because they're ****, but there are some Young Bond books which are supposed to be quite good. (written by Swiss Toni of all people).

M three · 04-11-2012 3:12am

Saw it tonight and was disappointed with it.
Average opening scene - why didn't she take the 2nd shot when the bad guy was getting away on the train. After that 30 mins of office politics basically.
The macau scene where bond and moneypenny go around talking to each other via microphones and earpieces isnt very covert.
The escape scene by the baddie reminded me of silence of the lambs.
Crap song by adele too, whoever picked her.

They should have made it for an older audience, make it much darker. after all it is about espionage.
For example show the woman after bardem blows her head off. And when bardem is in custody, do a flashback scene to when he was being tortured instead of him talking about it.

MisterAnarchy · 04-11-2012 3:12am

I saw Skyfall tonight and I enjoyed it.

I wasnt a fan of the last 2 films or indeed Daniel Craig as Bond ,but thankfully Skyfall is a welcome return to the more traditional Bond.

Craig seems alot more relaxed and natural in Skyfall,much more believable in the role .He was far too wooden in his previous outings,trying too hard to be tough .
I think he got the balance right in this one ,he smiled more and delivered his one liners much more naturally .

The plot was a bit ropey to be honest especially the

decision of Bond to hole himself up in a house in the middle of nowhere to fight a gang of heavies.What was the logic of that ??
MI6 seems to be pretty understaffed these days ,have they only one 00 agent left ? What happened the hard drive with the list on it ,it seemed to be forgotten ,I'm sure Silver made a copy of the NOC list too.

Ralph Fiennes played his role well and

Thankfully we wont be seeing Judi Dench in in another Bond film,good riddance to her and her awful portrayal of M,the old grumpy woman act was growing tired after the first 2 Brosnan movies,but it became insufferable in later films.

On a slightly critical note Craigs pants and indeed his suits looked poorly made,they were far too tight.The knots in his tie were too small as well .

The nods to the previous 50 years were well done and subtle ,the one liners were decent and while the film felt modern it also had some nice traditional Bond traits.
I think the producers realised that you dont throw the baby out with the bath water,something they had been guilty of in the last 2 movies.

I'd give the film 7.5/10 ,its the best of Craig's outings by a long way .

For any Bond films I'd recommend you check out a series of videos uploaded to youtube by Haphazardstuff.
They are really well put together and cover all of the fims .Here he takes the mick out of Pierce Brosnan .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahht8d4MicY

DEFTLEFTHAND · 04-11-2012 3:17am

I loved Bond during my childhood but I haven't carried the love over to the present day. I've grown out of the genre and found Skyfall to be very silly business. That's not to detract from those who enjoy this type of film, its just not my kind of thing anymore.

M three · 04-11-2012 3:40am

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

I saw Skyfall tonight and I enjoyed it.

I wasnt a fan of the last 2 films or indeed Daniel Craig as Bond ,but thankfully Skyfall is a welcome return to the more traditional Bond.

What exactly do you mean by that?

Theres similar soundbites all over this thread, they just sound like something from the movies press release.

Its a very average movie tbh

Duggy747 · 04-11-2012 3:53am

Saw it tonight and enjoyed it, definitely my favourite of the Craig films since I fond the last 2 pretty medicore. They didn't feel like Bond movies at all.

Bardem was hamming it up completely but considering he was a Bond villain he fitted in pretty well and was enjoyable to watch.

I've been re-watching a lot of Bond movies leading up to this, plus the Bond documentary "Everything or Nothing" (Good watch), so I found some of the nods to the older films quite good.

Easily the best segment of the film was when he was in China. Really well shot and the scrap between Bond and the assassin was well executed (I love extended fight sequence shots).

The CGI Komodo dragons did look naff and out of place as did the close-ups of Bond & the assassin on their bikes in the opening sequence, looked completely unnatural. Minor quiffs, though.

Overall, it was good and a step in the right direction for a Bond flick (gadgets, fancy locations, a villain with his own island :pac:) Craig is a lot more convincing Bond this time around and, as it usually seems to be the rule, it's takes a 3rd movie for the Bond actor to settle in and become properly accepted by the audience.

Only major gripe with the movie was a middle-aged numpty who came by himself ad sat beside the girfriend and me. He was the only gimp laughing out loud at scenes that weren't even funny and kept talking to the screen (When the old man at the mansion sawed off the shotgun and fired a test shot he loudly said: "RIGHT JOB FOR IT!!") I found him staring at the gf like a loon at random times until he caught me staring back at him, the cùnt.

N64 · 04-11-2012 4:21am

Saw it tonight as well. Such a massive improvement over the previous film. I really enjoyed the way that the movie did not take itself overly seriously. I was kind of disappointed in the ending fight though. I found it extremely anticlimactic

Casino Royale was a better film (and also had a better opening theme song :P)

Slutmonkey57b · 04-11-2012 10:26am

well done and subtle

???

Subtle like a wrecking ball, or a runaway tube train. Not one of them made any sense in the overall plot, they were just slapped in with a cringeworthy "big wink and a nod". The DB5 reveal raised a few cheers in my screening but I had to cover my eyes. Totally stupid choice of vehicle and miles out of character with the Bond they'd established in the last two films.

My biggest criticism of the film is the "heritage nods" which were only there for the 50th anniversary and dragged what was a mediocre film down into the abyss.

seligehgit · 04-11-2012 12:10pm

Obviously there is no means of finding out what M wrote in Bond's obituary?Possibly will come out later when the script details are devoured in fanzines?

MisterAnarchy · 04-11-2012 1:39pm

M three wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by that?

Theres similar soundbites all over this thread, they just sound like something from the movies press release.

Its a very average movie tbh

To put it simply Daniel Craig was more believable as Bond in Skyfall,his persona was more similar to the Bond fans of the franchise associate with.
He seemed more believable ,more charming and altogether more convincing .
In Casino Royale and QOS ,the main character was not Bond ,he was a dour faced thug .

Duggy747' post just above this sums up why this was a more traditional Bond film.

M three · 04-11-2012 3:02pm

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

To put it simply Daniel Craig was more believable as Bond in Skyfall,his persona was more similar to the Bond fans of the franchise associate with.
He seemed more believable ,more charming and altogether more convincing .
In Casino Royale and QOS ,the main character was not Bond ,he was a dour faced thug .

Duggy747' post just above this sums up why this was a more traditional Bond film.

When QOS came out everyone was saying that its Bond character was more in keeping with the colder, darker bond that fleming portrayed in his books!!

Going by your praise for skyfall above you really like it.
Fair enough, but I watched it last night and its a very average movie, lot of people getting caught up in the hype imo

Stark · 04-11-2012 5:25pm

Dr Bob wrote: »

That annoyed the hell out of me, it doesn't make any sense!.
(the version of M in this is in Goldeneye, which has Pearse Brosnan as Bond? so if the craig movies are a reboot, why have M played by the same actress.nggh) , never mind the CGI Reptiles and invisible cars ..its ****e like this that breaks films for me...le sigh)

After Die Another Day, Q invents a time machine for M that allows her to travel back in time to before Casino Royale. That or they have a Doctor Who crossover where she gets touched by one of those weeping angel things. It's all quite straightforward really.

MisterAnarchy · 04-11-2012 6:54pm

M three wrote: »

When QOS came out everyone was saying that its Bond character was more in keeping with the colder, darker bond that fleming portrayed in his books!!

Dalton was the closest Bond to the books ,he was a really good Bond .
Good looking ,charming and suave while also being ruthless .He got the balance right .

I liked his portrayal of Bond in Licence to Kill,it was very dark ,that film was ahead of its time.
Its ironic that people were praising Daniel Craig in Casino Royale for being dark and gritty when Dalton was slated for being too cold and dark 17 years earlier.
I'd much prefer Dalton's Bond to Craig's.

Going by your praise for skyfall above you really like it.

I liked it yes but it wasnt without its faults .I gave it 7.5 out of 10 ,its not in my top 5 Bond films .

Slutmonkey57b · 05-11-2012 12:43am

Dalton wasn't gritty and dark.

The books weren't gritty and dark. Anyone who says so, clearly hasn't read them. Roger Moore's bond was closer to the books than anything else. Being kidnapped by the use of a revolving wall in a bar is an actual scene in one of the books. Awful tripe.

I've nothing against the "old style" bond film. I just can't work out what the point was of CR and QoS when Skyfall basically shoves the whole thing into a corner like it never happened.

ASJ112 · 05-11-2012 3:27am

On a slightly critical note Craigs pants and indeed his suits looked poorly made,they were far too tight.The knots in his tie were too small as well .

Yeah those Tom Ford suits aren't up to much at all, poorly made indeed !!!

upstairs for coffee · 05-11-2012 9:50am

Don't understand the hype about it really. Is it because it was directed by Sam Mendes?

Like all action movies these days it seemed to be twenty minutes to thirty minutes too long. (It's cliched, but cliches emerge from origins of truth so it shouldnt be readily dismissed)

It was a surprising turn that they killed off

Bonds/Bardems love interest so quickly

. It was a nice change.

Overall, out of all the recent mainstream action movies I'd give it 8/10 but about a 6/10 when competing agianst other genres.

Gamb!t · 05-11-2012 11:49am

Saw it last night,started off good but then just dragged on.
Thought Bardem was really good in it.
Overall disappointing 6/10

TobyRyan · 05-11-2012 12:19pm

Have to say I enjoyed it you guys, Craig is coming into his own, Havier Bardem was brilliant on so many levels and love Ralph Fiennes as the new M.

His pants had a skinny jean vibe to them I must say. Not hot.

Also it was refreshing we didn't have to hear about the Bond girl's bullsh*t story for once.

And Bond is Scottish:eek: who knew?? Is it that according to the books?

Anyone recommend a good Bond book for some Christmas reading?

Roar · 05-11-2012 12:22pm

"I kicked the new Bond villain out of my pub"
"Javier Bardem?"
"No, he can come back when he's sober..."

Squ · 05-11-2012 3:28pm

TobyRyan wrote: »

Also it was refreshing we didn't have to hear about the Bond girl's bullsh*t story for once.

I was surprised she was killed off so quickly after coming into the story.. She was a fecking cracker!

mike65 · 05-11-2012 3:41pm

280 million dollars and counting.

conorhal · 05-11-2012 4:50pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

If you're looking for technical accuracy in a James Bond film, you're looking in the wrong place. Like all othe blockbusters, suspension of disbelief is mandatory.

The hacking serves to move the plot further. It's really as simple as that!

One of my biggest pet hates in modern cinema has become 'hack-sposition'.
It would seem that there is no plot hole too stupid that can't be solved by sombody 'hacking the system'.
It's desperately lazy and has become the go-to plot device for screenwriters that have written themselves into a corner or need to jump to the next action scene without wanting to bother with logic or plot.

There's just something deeply un-cinematic about any plot that involves computers, it was the death of Diehard 4.0 for example

Kinski · 05-11-2012 5:28pm

Skyfall, or WE REALLY LIKE CHRIS NOLAN'S WORK AND WE DON'T CARE WHO KNOWS.

The hero could've just stayed home for this one...made no difference to the outcome.

johnny_ultimate · 05-11-2012 5:57pm

conorhal wrote: »

One of my biggest pet hates in modern cinema has become 'hack-sposition'.
It would seem that there is no plot hole too stupid that can't be solved by sombody 'hacking the system'.
It's desperately lazy and has become the go-to plot device for screenwriters that have written themselves into a corner or need to jump to the next action scene without wanting to bother with logic or plot.

There's just something deeply un-cinematic about any plot that involves computers, it was the death of Diehard 4.0 for example

TBH given that international espionage and criminal activity these days are so deeply associated with cybercrime, I don't have an issue with it being represented in a modern James Bond film. There'd be something highly quaint about a villain armed with only laser tables and volcano bases in 2012. Could work with the right writing, of course... Actually, Skyfall does a pretty good job countering its 'high-tech' nonsense with more practical, old-school setpieces. As pivotal as it is to the plot - the MacGuffin is a HDD, after all - there's only a small handful of scenes that utilise computers directly. I was more concerned with the hyper-accurate tracking system :pac:

The hacking sequence in Skyfall is hardly elegant, but this isn't exactly a franchise that has been known to deal in elegance. I'm not forgiving lazy screenwriting (although this series has always had a character whose sole job it was to hand out elaborate narrative shortcuts) - I just think that a two minute sequence of stylised, nonsensical hacking in a James Bond film is pretty much par for the course. As I've said before, the faux-seriousness of the previous two films IMO only served to exaggerate the inherent silliness of the situations and character. This was more considered in that sense, and a more enjoyable slice of entertainment. I'm the first to praise smart blockbusters with ambition, but I'm not convinced James Bond is the franchise for it, especially when in competition with the Greengrass Bourne films.

Skyfall is no masterpiece - one of the best blockbusters of the year, maybe, but the competition hasn't been particularly inspiring with a string of high-profile disappointments. Its familiarity to The Dark Knight is most definitely a problem. But, like most other blockbusters of recent times, discussion has been partially drowned out by a load of highly specific plot nitpicks. I don't think it deserves it - it's merely an entertaining, well-directed James Bond film, with few pretensions. There's undeniable problems with the film as articulated throughout this thread, but I think picking apart the plot logically is an exercise in frustration and futility, and can't imagine five decades of Bond films would benefit from the same scrutiny.

jones · 05-11-2012 8:00pm

N64 wrote: »

Saw it tonight as well. Such a massive improvement over the previous film. I really enjoyed the way that the movie did not take itself overly seriously. I was kind of disappointed in the ending fight though. I found it extremely anticlimactic

Casino Royale was a better film (and also had a better opening theme song :P)

I totally agree after all the masterplans

he gets stabbed in the back with a knife and just dies

didnt seem very bond mastervilliany to me haha. I did enjoy the film though and its definitely back in the right direction after the boredom of solace

Grimebox · 05-11-2012 9:45pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

TBH given that international espionage and criminal activity these days are so deeply associated with cybercrime, I don't have an issue with it being represented in a modern James Bond film. There'd be something highly quaint about a villain armed with only laser tables and volcano bases in 2012. Could work with the right writing, of course... Actually, Skyfall does a pretty good job countering its 'high-tech' nonsense with more practical, old-school setpieces. As pivotal as it is to the plot - the MacGuffin is a HDD, after all - there's only a small handful of scenes that utilise computers directly. I was more concerned with the hyper-accurate tracking system :pac:

The hacking sequence in Skyfall is hardly elegant, but this isn't exactly a franchise that has been known to deal in elegance. I'm not forgiving lazy screenwriting (although this series has always had a character whose sole job it was to hand out elaborate narrative shortcuts) - I just think that a two minute sequence of stylised, nonsensical hacking in a James Bond film is pretty much par for the course. As I've said before, the faux-seriousness of the previous two films IMO only served to exaggerate the inherent silliness of the situations and character. This was more considered in that sense, and a more enjoyable slice of entertainment. I'm the first to praise smart blockbusters with ambition, but I'm not convinced James Bond is the franchise for it, especially when in competition with the Greengrass Bourne films.

Skyfall is no masterpiece - one of the best blockbusters of the year, maybe, but the competition hasn't been particularly inspiring with a string of high-profile disappointments. Its familiarity to The Dark Knight is most definitely a problem. But, like most other blockbusters of recent times, discussion has been partially drowned out by a load of highly specific plot nitpicks. I don't think it deserves it - it's merely an entertaining, well-directed James Bond film, with few pretensions. There's undeniable problems with the film as articulated throughout this thread, but I think picking apart the plot logically is an exercise in frustration and futility, and can't imagine five decades of Bond films would benefit from the same scrutiny.

I dunno... have you seen Swordfish. Hugh Jackman really sets the bar

opinion guy · 05-11-2012 11:16pm

Meh!

A great big meh for this.

Particular reasons.
1. He gets shot, twice, from a moving train 150feet up in the air, lands in a river, goes over a waterfall and drifts into the deep........and then shows up 6 months later in a bar doing scorpion shots. Err......wha ?? come again.......few little issues there.
2.And eh......why does he only have a sharpnel wound from the first shot, and not a bloody great big scar from the sniper shot that apparently broke some ribs and messed up some 'minor organs' ??????
3. Silva had a bomb in place to blow a whole in a tube tunnel just before an empty train came along to throw at bond. Eh....what ??? How could he possibly plan that.
4. The laptop hacking the MI6 mainframe with polymorphic encryption n ****e and weird graphics was just ridiculous.
5. It was TOO LONG!!

Anyhow. Entertaining enough romp but doesn't make sense.
Diagnosis: Prometheus syndrome.

Boo Radley · 06-11-2012 12:44am

opinion guy wrote: »

Diagnosis: Prometheus syndrome.

While I have my issues with the film I think this is being a bit harsh. Not comparable as films at all as far as I'm concerned.

flazio · 06-11-2012 1:42am

Overall I enjoyed it but there is one thing that niggles me a bit.
THink of this film from the POV of someone who has never seen a Bond film before, or even just the Craig ones. All of a sudden Bond has a classic Aston with an eject button under the gear stick and guns in the indicators?

Joekers · 06-11-2012 1:50am

flazio wrote: »

Overall I enjoyed it but there is one thing that niggles me a bit.
THink of this film from the POV of someone who has never seen a Bond film before, or even just the Craig ones. All of a sudden Bond has a classic Aston with an eject button under the gear stick and guns in the indicators?

No sorry if you know this is a James Bond film then you expect an Aston with gadgets

its a franchise movie, might aswell say that about any other film in a franchise/series and point out something that has been well explained in previous movies as a flaw.

pixelburp · 06-11-2012 9:00am

Saw the film last night and figured that I'd sleep on it before considering my opinion on the movie. All I can say about it is that was a perfectly serviceable slice of adventure cinema, no more no less, maybe veering on the 'less' for Bardhems performance. The 'hacking' stuff was ludicrous but that's par for the course in Hollywood cinema - it's either unwilling or incapable of presenting computing in an even vaguely realistic light. What I found far more insulting was lazy twist that *gasp* Silva wanted to get captured all along! Jesus, it didn't make sense when Dark Knight did it ffs, why continue this worn-out trope?

My main, overriding emotion though is that of being utterly jaded by the whole exercise; I'm sure I was expected to feel something for seeing Bonds old home, but I just felt disinterested. It doesn't help that Craig is about as charming and relatable as... well, as the emotionless thug he's portraying. Yes yes, I know that's more like the books blah blah, but the character / actor is such a personality vacuum, it's hard to even care whether Bond wins / loses.

Either way, there's no two ways about it, we're at Bond #23(!!) and that's insane - how anyone can maintain excitement over what is just a conveyor-belt of a franchise is beyond me. We complain vociferously around these parts about reboots and remakes, yet Bond gets a pass for some reason; it's the definition of copy & paste cinema, yet we lap it up.

Manchegan · 06-11-2012 9:27am

conorhal wrote: »

One of my biggest pet hates in modern cinema has become 'hack-sposition'.

'haxploitation' maybe?

krudler · 06-11-2012 12:17pm

flazio wrote: »

Overall I enjoyed it but there is one thing that niggles me a bit.
THink of this film from the POV of someone who has never seen a Bond film before, or even just the Craig ones. All of a sudden Bond has a classic Aston with an eject button under the gear stick and guns in the indicators?

This film isnt for people who have never seen a Bond film. That'd be like complaining the 3rd sequel to a movie doesnt explain every single reference to the others for people who didnt watch those first.

sham69 · 06-11-2012 12:25pm

Saw it friday night.
Enjoyed it as such.
Its about 30 mins too long.
First 40 mins or so were great, last hour was great but there was a bit in the middle which bored me to death.
Not enough of the bond girl (would have filled the 30 mins for me

)

Overall a great movie, he's definitely my favorite bond after Dalton.
I still prefered Casino Royale though.
Bardem is class but I really liked Mads MIkkelson...

MyBrokenKnees · 06-11-2012 1:11pm

It was a Great Summer blockbuster.. But not sure it was a James Bond movie for the most part. But with the last half hour or so I wonder if they are going to I hate using this term I really do.. Re Boot it back to James Bond getting it away from Jason Bond/James Bourne type movies. From where it left off the next film could be Dr. No.

mike65 · 06-11-2012 1:16pm

Its a shame the web wasn't about in 1969 when OHMSS was released.

Mickeroo · 06-11-2012 2:55pm

flazio wrote: »

Overall I enjoyed it but there is one thing that niggles me a bit.
THink of this film from the POV of someone who has never seen a Bond film before, or even just the Craig ones. All of a sudden Bond has a classic Aston with an eject button under the gear stick and guns in the indicators?

TBF you don't have to have seen a Bond movie to get those references, if someone doesn't get the references its more a case of being out of the loop with pop culture as a whole. Its the same with Star Wars references, which pop up in just about everything, they're so prominent and iconic that watching the films isn't even necessary to appreciate or recognise them.

Anyways, I saw this lastnight and I enjoyed the hell out of it. I loved CR & I even enjoyed QoS (when watched as a direct continuation of CR it works pretty well imho, as a stand alone movie it wasn't great). This was nearly as good as CR i thought, I might even consider it better after I watch it again down the line.

I thought they got the blalance spot on between injecting a bit more fun into the franchise while staying true to the darker more serious aspects brought in in the first to Craig movies. The thing i loved about CR wasn't really the gritty Bourne-isms they brought in it was the level of characterisation they gave Bond. They turned him into a flawed character we could identify with rather than the womanising one-liner laden caricature we were used to (I'm aware this was done in the occasional bond movie before then too, but not as well imo). This was built on well in Skyfall I thought, loved going to James' childhood home for the climax. I thought it was strange they made him into a grizzled old vet who's getting too old for the job since he was only new to the job in the other two movies. Still it worked quite well if you take it out of context from the other films I suppose.

The main highlight for me was Dench's performance though, it was a great way for her to say goodbye to the franchise by finally giving her a more meaty role and a direct involvement with the villain. Her death was a pretty poignant moment and probably the most i've ever been moved by a Bond movie (Vesper's death in CR and the ending of On Her Majesty's Secret Service are close seconds). Bardem was great also, definitely the most memorable villain in quite a while, but he could have done with getting onscreen a bit earlier in the film.

The action was great too and it never stretched my suspension of disbelief too far. The silhouette fight was the best bit though as has been mentioned.

The train crash was the only part where I had a "Aw come on!" moment, it was "rush hour on the tube" yet the train was empty bar the driver, wtf?

Overall it was a very enjoyable entertaining film, no more than I want or expect from a bond movie. i look forward to seeing Fiennes as M in the next film, though in a weird way the ending of this made it feel like another reboot.

johnROSS · 06-11-2012 7:58pm

All the computery hackery stuff will look very dated in ten year's time. Look at moonraker, for chrissakes.

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

Comments

Bond 23 - "Skyfall" spoilers from post 595