Bond 23 - "Skyfall" spoilers from post 595

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.

opinion guy · 06-11-2012 8:11pm

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?

The bigger problam with this was that they swapped from the 'company car' because it was bugged.....and got into another company car....

Dempsey · 06-11-2012 8:16pm

opinion guy wrote: »

The bigger problam with this was that they swapped from the 'company car' because it was bugged.....and got into another company car....

new jags would have gps tracking, auld aston in storage, no

harney · 07-11-2012 12:00am

I just watched this and it was at best OK, if a little too long. I don't remember QoS, so that probably wasn't too bad but Casino Royale was mind numbingly boring so perhaps I am just not a Daniel Craig fan.

The Black Oil · 07-11-2012 12:08am

I rather enjoyed this. However, I think I was overexposed to promos and trailers - my own fault.

Only two or three complaints which are minor enough - parts of the soundtrack seemed a bit excessive or loud. Next, I think you could question Naomie Harris's ability to convey her character's field skills and the stolen hard drive with the list of names business. But hey, the latter is typical cinema bollocks and standard issue plot for most films involving an intelligence agency these days. Plus, it's really only a device to introduce Silva, easily forgivable. Enjoyed Bardem's performance. His motivations were much more personal - he wasn't out to destroy the world which was good. The core of the film is the Bond/M relationship.

Save for the tube incident, the action's not overdone. I liked the throwbacks to the earlier days of the franchise (the car and quips, though not many in the cinema were laugh, around 30 in the screening, mind), Q, though they could have given him a little more to do. I hope he's not stuck to his PC all the time in future outings. Ralph Fiennes, once he was cast, I figured he was going to be designated the new M, so that wasn't a huge surprise. A while back there was a production shot or picture put out with the coffins draped in Union Jacks and I figured she'd be in one of those. She's not, but again her departure wasn't surprise.

I didn't notice any product placement save for the Sony laptop. Didn't really catch the Dark Knight vibe some of you have pointed out.

wandatowell · 07-11-2012 12:12am

Its ok. Not great, not crap just ok.

Ottway · 07-11-2012 12:43am

Seen it twice in the hope that I would enjoy it more second time around, bit not to be.

Didn't have near enough humour for a Bond flick, which would have been excusable if the story was gripping but just wasn't. The script was far and away the film's weakest point.

Can't fault the performances, direction, editing, cinematography, casting, anything - everything was fine, shame it didn't have a script and storyline to match.

billyhead · 07-11-2012 9:36pm

So what is the general conscensus on the latest bond film as I was thinkig of seeing it at the weekend. Getting conflicting reviews reading this thread. Is CR better?

Slutmonkey57b · 07-11-2012 10:19pm

billyhead wrote: »

So what is the general conscensus on the latest bond film as I was thinkig of seeing it at the weekend. Getting conflicting reviews reading this thread. Is CR better?

Much better.
If you like Bond films, you'll like this.
If you wanted a continuation of CR, you'll be disappointed.

ancapailldorcha · 09-11-2012 12:15pm

I loved it. Saw it in IMAX last night. Thought it was better thanks in no small part to less globetrotting. It amazes me that this was the first Bond to have something happen in Britain besides him being briefed.

Grudaire · 09-11-2012 1:02pm

He is MI6 in fairness!

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

Comments

Bond 23 - "Skyfall" spoilers from post 595