It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Don't be - this was about Turkey, but I checked him/her out. If you go on this side and check out the reviewers, you will find out, that exactly this one has the highest score of being way more negative then positive. ALL the others I checked on have the opposite. So yes, I think its save to call him names. He even jumped on Roger Deakins - so please. As much as some here want to critisize the film, don*t feel obliged to praise everyody, who does the same. Like everything, it always depends on the way its done. If it goes over the top for a critically acclaimed film, something is wrong.
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/casino-royale/critic-reviews
First off, it's a "she" not a "he" and you are being rude and unpleasant. And no I didn't catch that right away because you didn't actually point out why you thought the reviewer is a despicable cretin. It's fair enough to assume you were referring to the actual criticising of the movie and not that particular Turkey point, which is why it really baffled me that anybody could have that reaction. What a class act calling me "slow". True gentleman.
Americans, pffff :-(
No offence meant.
Usually Bond-movies grow on me, and get better after each viewing. Having just watched SF for the fourth time, it breaks my heart to say that quite the opposite is happening here. SF just feels weirdly "off" from the Bond canon. Maybe it's the tight editing, maybe I have just had enough of Craig's Bond losing, maybe it's the script which is basically a rehash of GE (former agent with a vendetta) and TWINE (someone is after M.)
Have to watch CR again to heal my wounds!
That's ok @jetsetwilly... thank you for the apology. I am sorry for assuming you had called him that for different reason. Water under the bridge now...
I've seen it 3 times, but have decided to take a break from it before I watch the film again, otherwise you start to ruin the experience.
Did you enjoy it equally as much on each of those 3 viewings. Oddly for me I enjoyed it more the first time (I've seen it twice now). Although I did see the film twice in the space of under three days so maybe that was inevitable.
Because he didn't like a film? Why do you care so much?
I loved SF and the reviewer made some stupid comments but really we don't have to insult everyone who didn't like it.
EDIT- Sorry, I didn't read this new page.
<:-P
I had a similar reaction to CR. Initially I liked it but was lukewarm (I actually stuck on GE when I returned home). Then I saw it a second time and loved it.
Much better watching repeat viewings in the comfort of your own home on Blu Ray.
Skyfall. my initial reaction is i am not sure what i have just watched. though on a technical level its a extremely well made film and there are some very good sequences in this film, shanghi stood out. one question running through my mind is whether skyfall is actually a bond movie.
a negative at this point is some of the so called humour and you can always tell which lines purvis and wade come up with. the script took me out of the film at times early on, and felt some of the one liners out of place with what proceeded them.
was it a good movie? yes.
was it a good bond movie? not sure at this point, need to watch it a few more times.
p.s. severines acting was erratic.
message to producers, please be done with origin stories now, it would appear everything has been brought into some kind of line with the earlier movies.
The story, script and pacing outshine GE all the way, I guess SF was going to get the backlash and I'm not surprised, the amount of hype and raves are bound to wind some up because they can't see it like some of us, pretty much how I felt back in 1995 when a certain film was been regarded as 007's second coming.
I saw it for the third time this Saturday just gone and won't be seeing it again to the Blu ray but unlike some and as I was with CR and still are, I regard it top notch Bond and it remains in the no.2 spot, it easily outstrips TDKR as blockbuster of the year.
Lets face one thing, James Bond 007 is preposterous silly hokum and hopefully always will be, it's entertainment, no it's not Tinker Tailor deep it's a blockbuster, so people looking for plot holes and inconsistencies as a way of bringing it down are going to have no problem, hence our friend getafix and his supporters constant reassessment of it on these threads, get use to it, it's likely to get worse come Friday when the U.S get a taste of it.
Ex agent is a villian, theme of is Bond still relevant today (in GE it was post cold war, in SF it's because of all the new technology), big gap, Bond returning, lots of hype, etc.
The films themselves are different but I think they have sort of a similar vibe.
SF even makes a cheekey nod to GE during the Q scene. That did make me smile I must admit.
I prefer GE to both. I like CR and really like SF but I just enjoy GE more and think it has a bit more going for it. I know people are going to have a go at me for that and now we'll get the same old people bashing GE but that's how I feel.
I'm not going to have a go at you at all. As I said I love GE, always have and that film has a very personal connection with me, but I have to admit that SF is better (IMO). I suspect it will hold up a bit better as the years pass too.
Regarding CR I wouldn't be suprised if Martin Campbell looked at GE again prior to shooting and saw areas he thought he could improve on.
This is not a James Bond we've seen before - no longer necessarily a man men want to be and who women want to be with.
And as you might expect from director Sam Mendes it's very thoughtful, introspective and character-focused, but this epic two-and-half-hour film sometimes feels too much like overwrought melodrama.
As for the plot....
Spoiler
Let's face it - Bond fails.
Silva's plan is to cause havoc for MI6 and kill M... And he succeeds. Okay, Bond denies him the satisfaction of seeing M die, but she still pegs it 30 seconds later. Every step of the way Bond allows people to die, and he only seems annoyed with the villains when they shoot his car. Not exactly heroic.
Also not very heroic is going off on a three-month sulk, knowing the bad guys have made off with a list of every undercover operative. Bond's been hostile, bitter and arrogant before, but petulant and sulky doesn't suit him.
This film doesn't conform to previous Bond formula. If I hadn't known Naomie Harris was Moneypenny I would have been scratching my head as to why this romantic frisson is established throughout the first half of the movie only for Harris' character to be quietly dropped midway through.
Meanwhile, Silva's plan just doesn't make sense. He allows himself to be captured, just so he can confront M, and an elaborate escape relies on his computer being plugged in and returning his freedom at the precise time M is appearing at a committee meeting which he races towards with his presumably hired goons. Why not just do what Bond did at the start of the film - break into M's home, confront her and then shoot her?
I'm glad to finally see Bond's nagging 'mother' despatched, and welcome Ralph Fiennes as M, but why not call his character Miles Messervy? The in-joke with the Aston Martin wasn't worth screwing around with the continuity, and the final act siege wasn't very Bondian; it should be 007 who ultimately goes on the offensive and takes the fight to the enemy.
Sadly, for me the film didn't work as either escapist fun or this diversion into moving personal drama (it doesn't help that I've never cared for Judi Dench's M).
I loved Casino Royale, but it's taken an epic third film to reboot Bond to the point we were at in Dr No. While I'm all for a bit of character development can we please drop the melodrama and get back to some good escapist adventure?
Desk
Sony's Skyfall TV Commercial
I think and strongly believe, that treating a film like this is to just enjoy the merits and not go into big time thinking about it. Its first and foremost a Bond film, more realistic in the approach, but still a Bond film, which has to tick boxes but also has to leave out some of these in order to remain true to its origins or as true as possible. Its DK territory, which had so many plotholes and so much stuff, that was impoosible. I think SF fared better in that, but still - why bother to treat films like this in the same approach you might do with a "serious" film, wo NEEDS to be grounded in realism?
Just enjoy them, be entertained...that's wat they wanna be - pure entertainmet, even if it means, they are unrealistic at parts. So what..they never meant NOT to be.
For Chrissakes for the last two films people have been bitching about "its not a Bond film". Theres no Q, Moneypenny, Ms office, Aston Martin, gadgets - all the things that according to them make a Bond film.
They are reintroduced and people are still whinging.
Its not 1983 anymore. People and films have moved on. Audiences want abit of character development nowadays. They want more then just explosians and chases. Except of course teenage boys who cant cope with emotion.
And one look around the Skyfall audience shows that it isnt just teenage boys who go see the film.
Agreed on all accounts!
People need to try and define 'Bond film' for a change, before simply stating it as a worn off argument against a newly released film. Some seem to subconsciously think that Austin Powers sets the standard for modern 'Bond films'. I bet in the mid 70s some folks felt that TSWLM wasn't a 'Bond film'. I bet the same happened in '87 and again in '95. Most notably it happened in '69 and look where we stand today in our views of those films...
No two Bond films are alike. By now it should have become something obvious, something we all understand. Perhaps TSWLM and MR form a curious exception to that 'rule'. The fact remains, though, that there's Hitchcock in FRWL, slapstick comedy in DAF, blaxploitation in LALD, Bruce Lee vibes in TMWTGG, Miami Vice in LTK, ... The mystical Bond formula has always been the sum total of repeated key elements (Q, MP, M, gadgets, ...) and common Bond tropes (girls, exotic locations, ...). The mix of those elements and tropes, however, has always resulted in different atmospheres and stories, even different characterizations of Bond himself. Yet somehow people seem to think there’s a very rigid Bond formula, carved in stone, cemented since ’62, which allows not a single left turn from it unless one no longer desires to make a solid ‘Bond film’. If that were so, 50 years of 007 in cinema would have made for half a century of boring filmmaking and film watching.
For the life of me I can't figure out what would make SF a film that doesn't feel like a Bond film since all is there. All of it! Plus, it drags us out of that pool of wanna-coulda-shouldas that QOS left behind.