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

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Some good bits however included Bond being a vulnerable, somewhat sh1tty agent in this one, I think the could have played this up even more, the ending for example could have been a lot more contestable, he could have just scraped a victory instead of quite easily dispatching the main antagonist and managing to fight underwater in ice cold water. Additionally I liked what I assume to be the Aston Martin reference, kudos for that. 5/10.

Agree there.....the idea of Bond being out of shape, barely hanging in there was a good idea that I liked, but it just seemed to be abandoned by the end when Bond was kicking ass all round him. Also the stolen hard drive seemed to not be a concern by then.

Am really, really tired of this whole villain-wanting-to-be-captured thing at this stage. If there is an hour of run time to go and the villain is smirking at you from inside a cell, you can bet that is just where he wants to be. And it made even less sense in this film than the Dark Knight - why this hopelessly convoluted plot to get at M when hopping a plane, going to her apartment and shooting her would have been rather a lot easier? The relationship between Bond and M was a wasted opportunity - for all their screen time together they don't get beyond the usual barbed, witty jibes at each other.

And the Home Alone style ending was just bizarre...appreciate that they tried something different for a Bond film but it just didn't work.

Still like Craig as Bond but he has not been well serviced with good films and it seems to be going all Pierce Brosnan now....a great film followed by disappointing ones.

Deleted User wrote: »

Thought this was the worst bond since I can remember. A plot about M? Give me a break, I dont tune into James Bond to watch a story about an oul one and a flaky ex agent wanting to kill her. The last 45 minutes set in an old house in scotland? I cant think of a worse plot for Bond out of all the movies.
This movie was anti-bond. I can understand Craig being a tougher Bond, but he has no charm now at all, fixing his cuffs was the only suave thing he did in the whole movie. He looked old and haggard in many scenes, which may have been intentional but Roger Moore at 60 looked better then craig did in that film.
No gadgets, no grandeur, no hot chicks with any sort of proper role.
I was waiting and waiting to be finally engaged by this movie and it never happened. I really cant understand how a plot like this could produced into a bond movie, the most endearing series of all movies.

After loving the previous two movies with Craig, this was nothing like Bond on any level. Cinematography? Its totally meaningless in this case. You don;t watch bond for that.

Bond, regardless of the 'darkness' of the books compared to the cinematic legacy set by the original Bond films of Sean Connery, was about a British colonial cad, being suave, charming and a bit of an asshole but nonetheless likeable, throwing his weight around abroad, that's the whole point of Bond, not sitting around being misreable in the gloomy/depressing surroundings of of the London underground and Glasgow, ffs. I have a major issue with the whole back to basics grit and depression fundamentalism that is being exerted by Hollywood with regards to franchises, it must be an expression of the recession or the self indulgence of boom time economics. I don't care. Whatever, I want escapism and fun. If I want depressing thought provoking I'll go see some French or Polish film.
But I don't give a rat's ass about critical acclaim or the value of seriousness, to me an entertaing piece of fluff film is as good as a thought provoking masterpiece of art. I'm post intellectual. I'm not saying bring back the uber cheese of Rodger Moore Bond, but seriously, a bit of fun and some actually nice locations, some of which were present in the film but underutilised, wouldn't go amiss. This film wasn't sexy. That is why it failed.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I didn't like this film. Admittedly I haven't watched any of the new bond films since 1997, but I found it to be grimy and depressing. M16's hq looked gloomy and depressing with the awful flourescent lighting, if they had to go for that clinical lighting style they could have at least emulated TDK which had a nicer ambient lighting effect for Batman's underground facility. The character's were forgettable and not exactly likeable except for Bond and the villian was entertaining, but the rest just seemed like a bunch of humourless assholes. I also thought that if I'm going to see a Bond film I want it to be set completely in exotic locations, and although there were such scenes in the film, I found it an insult to Bond, that he was even in the London underground. Furthermore the boglands of Scotland were unsuitable for the denouement. Also the Bond babe dies midway through, what's up with that? It was also boring and the plot was meh. Some good bits however included Bond being a vulnerable, somewhat sh1tty agent in this one, I think the could have played this up even more, the ending for example could have been a lot more contestable, he could have just scraped a victory instead of quite easily dispatching the main antagonist and managing to fight underwater in ice cold water. Additionally I liked what I assume to be the Aston Martin reference, kudos for that. 5/10.

I loved that we finally get to see Bond do something on his home turf, there were plenty of locations in it though.

The reactions to this movie are really puzzling, it seems most people think its not enough like the old Bonds, but others are complaining theres too much old school stuff in it.

I thought it was a great entry into the series, sure there's daft plot moments in it but its one of the few Bond movies where Bond himself seems like a human being not a caricature, I liked the setting, the move away from some countdown clock on a bomb or worldwide threat, its about simple revenge not some dastardly plot to harness the suns power or start a war or something daft.

Bond being past it was something I did have an issue with it, its the third movie, Casino Royale he was a rookie 00 agent, Quantum is set literally right after that film so he's not much better and now he's too old? him being injured ok, that works, but him being broken down in what we see as his third onscreen mission is skipping a few beats, especially since Craig is tied into 2 more, whats he gonna be doing then?

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Thought the decision to stage the film's second half in the UK was a very wise one - it's almost exotic to see Bond facing a threat on his own doorstep after decades of excursions to picturesque foreign locales.

The UK scenes looked a bit dreary,it might have helped if they hadnt shot it in the midst of Winter .

Watched this over the weekend and thought it was certainly the best of the Craig films to date.

I really don't get all the "it's not Casino Royale"/"it's too much like Batman" - guys, this is a Bond movie, not a Bourne flick, not a Chris Nolan dark fairytale.

Personally I'm a bit sick of the "everything has to be dark and 'realistic'" direction of a lot of films at the moment - all with the inevitable reference to the Batman reboot. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the Bourne and Batman films (even if I haven't seen the last ones yet ), but I don't want to see them every time I put on a new release either.

Ditto this urge to nitpick and dissect a movie to the point of frustration. It's fiction.. it's about a super spy (one man - though these days usually joined by a female sidekick) who can take out an entire criminal organisation with nothing more than a few gadgets, some cheese and bed-hopping It's not meant to be Da Vinci's unknown masterpiece or the sequel to War and Peace, and I thoroughly enjoyed it as such!

Maybe there's something wrong with me then but I can usually totally immerse myself in the world the film maker is trying to create for the time that I'm there and unless it's really f&cking stupid (Battleship/Transformers I'm looking at you), I can usually just enjoy it for what it is.

If I put on a vintage 80's Arnie flick I expect cheesy one liners, over the top action, bad guys getting killed if a gun is so much as vaguely pointed in their direction, and the hero getting the girl in the end after dispatching the main bad guy for nothing more than a flesh wound in return

Ditto I have a certain expectation for Bond.. exotic locations, bond girls, gadgets, action and super villains. While QOS was a bit all over the place I thought, the latest entry in the franchise is a welcome return to form - unlike the rest of ye I actually really enjoyed the epilogue. You could almost see Connery coming in the door in the next scene!


All in all I'll definitely watch this again when it comes out on BR

Going to watch this on Saturday. Got released today in NZ.
Prebooked some a few prime IMAX seats last week. See how it goes.
Look forward to it.

I enjoyed it.

A mix of old and new-er bond films.
It'll annoy some that it's not as serious as Casino Royale and annoy others that there's not enough gadgets.....but it'll probably make a billion dollars , so the producers won't give a f**k about all the nit picking amateur reviews.

Yup , the plot was a bit familiar/full of holes but it was a good nights entertainment at the cinema.

My heart sank a bit at the prospect of an old age pensioner, A-Team style showdown in the arse hole of Scotland...but it worked out all right...all looked very good........although my opinion may change when I get to watch it on the telly.

I made the effort to watch QoS last night and I must admit I preferred it to Skyfall. It's not perfect but there are plenty of set pieces and regular action and more bone crunching fights and chases than you'd ever need.

I also preferred the story, it was grounded in a realistic enough scenario and I liked the continuation of themes and tones from CR.

I do hope Skyfall was nothing more than an anniversary digression and we get back to the Quantum story line with Mr. White making a return and what not. I think QoS may actually be getting a bit of a bad rap as it's not as bad as I remember it being. Then again that may be with the benefit of hindsight afforded by watching Skyfall.

One additional note, there is a scene where Bond is drinking a beer from a bottle in QoS also! Dear God! 'Not a Martini?' I hear you cry. I'm only glad the press didn't react in some nonsense way to give this more significance than it warranted in some thinly veiled attempt at publicity. Thankfully that'd never happen now would it?

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

And boy did Bérénice Marlohe get a seriously underwritten role, even by Bond girl standards. Actually felt uncomfortable at the way

she was routinely dispatched with barely an acknowledgement from Bond

.

While I don't like most of the quippage and humour in Skyfall (and agree that Marlohe's role was too small), I read the waste of scotch line as Bond covering up that he did care about her death to some degree as well as being a defence mechanism against Silva.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

And the last hour does a great job at making Bond an interesting protagonist with an actual arc -

particularly liked how the ice lake descent visually echoed the opening credit sequence to remind us of Bond's frame of mind and psychological depths

- and his relationship with M was compelling throughout.

I love the title sequence altogether. Even more so when 2:22 - 2:27 was pointed out. Fool that I was to just be thinking of Shanghai with the dragons when they're more likely a nod to Macau while those seconds depict Hong Kong.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The 'epilogue' stuff where it's all revealed to be a sort of prequel was handled a bit too 'wink, wink, nudge, nudge' for my liking. To me that kind of stuff sucks me straight out of the film - hardly a gamechanger during the last thirty seconds, but an inelegant conclusion nonetheless.

Yes.

Cliste wrote: »

He is MI6 in fairness!

Harry Pearce, Spooks and MI5 would be rolling in their graves!

Have to say I liked it, a couple of plot holes (how did he spot Gainsborough?) but loved the nods to the past, even the Komodo dragons. Went to watch it with the young lad and he loved the old Aston Martin, the puns, but then he's watched too many Roger Moore Bonds! The puns mostly worked with one or two ill advised.

The whole thing is beautifully shot, Macau, Shanghai, London and Scotland, the Tube CGI part the only real let down, just too plotted.

The first half hour of the film shows the contrast between Bond and the villain, that's why it is there, Bond was/is just another number but still comes back. I thought the villain was initally memorable, loved the island scene and Bond will always put the job ahead of the Bond girl, as much as he regrets it, but the villain just seemed to go on about turn towards the end, just too Bane like in Batman, unnaturally.

Still, Albert Finney rocks, a legend, him and the sad ending made up for the weaknesses of the end scenes.

Overall, pretty satisfying, 7.5/10, I'll be back for more.