SKYFALL: FANS' REACTIONS - GUARANTEED SPOILERS

191012141599

Comments

  • Posts: 3,327
    actonsteve wrote:
    Regan wrote:
    [
    Really? Despicable cretin? You are calling a reviewer an utter despicable cretin for being critical about Skyfall? I'm speechless.

    No. He is calling the author a despicable cretin for calling Turkey third world. It hasn't been for a long time.
    Thanks actonsteve....I thought that was obvious to everyone, but not Regan. Looks like he's a bit slow on the uptake....... ;)
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 6,601
    Regan wrote:
    Regan wrote:
    Nothing ouch about that. It's just embarassing for the US that you have reviewers like that. What an utter despicable cretin.

    Really? Despicable cretin? You are calling a reviewer an utter despicable cretin for being critical about Skyfall? I'm speechless.

    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
  • Posts: 173
    actonsteve wrote:
    Regan wrote:
    [
    Really? Despicable cretin? You are calling a reviewer an utter despicable cretin for being critical about Skyfall? I'm speechless.

    No. He is calling the author a despicable cretin for calling Turkey third world. It hasn't been for a long time.
    Thanks actonsteve....I thought that was obvious to everyone, but not Regan. Looks like he's a bit slow on the uptake....... ;)


    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.
  • JWPepperJWPepper You sit on it, but you can't take it with you.
    Posts: 512
    actonsteve wrote:
    Regan wrote:
    [
    Really? Despicable cretin? You are calling a reviewer an utter despicable cretin for being critical about Skyfall? I'm speechless.

    No. He is calling the author a despicable cretin for calling Turkey third world. It hasn't been for a long time.
    Thanks actonsteve....I thought that was obvious to everyone, but not Regan. Looks like he's a bit slow on the uptake....... ;)

    Americans, pffff :-(
  • Posts: 3,327
    Regan wrote:
    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.
    Sorry Regan, its just that I wouldn't call someone an utter cretin for simply disliking a movie. I only did it because of the ignorance of the critic in calling Turkey Third World. Also, the review itself felt like attention-seeking behaviour, rather than a well-constructed argument.

    No offence meant.
  • Posts: 3,276
    What a bummer!

    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!
  • Posts: 173
    Regan wrote:
    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.
    Sorry Regan, its just that I wouldn't call someone an utter cretin for simply disliking a movie. I only did it because of the ignorance of the critic in calling Turkey Third World. Also, the review itself felt like attention-seeking behaviour, rather than a well-constructed argument.

    No offence meant.

    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...
  • Posts: 3,327
    Zekidk wrote:
    What a bummer!

    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!
    I think watching any new film 4 times in the space of a week and you will start to get bored of it.

    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.

  • Posts: 11,189
    Zekidk wrote:
    What a bummer!

    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!
    I think watching any new film 4 times in the space of a week and you will start to get bored of it.

    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.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 12,837
    What an utter despicable cretin.

    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.
  • Posts: 3,276
    Zekidk wrote:
    What a bummer!

    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!
    I think watching any new film 4 times in the space of a week and you will start to get bored of it.
    Not a week, but two. Did the same thing with CR and QoS. And I felt different then. Actually I didn't really like CR the first time I saw it. But I absolutely loved it two weeks later.
  • Posts: 3,327
    What an utter despicable cretin.

    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.
    Ok, no worries. I was just about to bite your head off.......

    <:-P
  • Posts: 11,189
    Zekidk wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    What a bummer!

    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!
    I think watching any new film 4 times in the space of a week and you will start to get bored of it.
    Not a week, but two. Did the same thing with CR and QoS. And I felt different then. Actually I didn't really like CR the first time I saw it. But I absolutely loved it two weeks later.

    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.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Zekidk wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    What a bummer!

    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!
    I think watching any new film 4 times in the space of a week and you will start to get bored of it.
    Not a week, but two. Did the same thing with CR and QoS. And I felt different then. Actually I didn't really like CR the first time I saw it. But I absolutely loved it two weeks later.
    If I see any film too much in the space of a short time I can get bored of it quickly, particularly when going to the cinema and getting distracted by a noisy audience, or waiting for certain moments then getting annoyed because the audience don't respond in the way you expect them to.

    Much better watching repeat viewings in the comfort of your own home on Blu Ray.

  • finally got round to watching
    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.

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I don't get all this comparing it to GE, the films are night and day, Campbell's efforts on that film can't hold a candle to Mendes, he considerably improved with CR but Mendes easily takes the award for best Bond director of the last 20 years.

    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.

  • Shardlake wrote:
    I don't get all this comparing it to GE

    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.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I love GE but both SF and CR are both better, more tightly directed films. At least you can't see an actor looking offscreen at the autocue in either.
    Shardlake wrote:
    I don't get all this comparing it to GE

    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.
  • BAIN123 wrote:
    I love GE but SF (and CR) are both better, more tightly directed films.

    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.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I love GE but SF (and CR) are both better, more tightly directed films.

    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.
  • only just watched skyfall though goldeneye popped into my head and world is not enough also, and m dying felt like on her majestys secret service to an extent. i think in years to come skyfall will be either seen as one of the best bond movies or possibly the worst.
  • Getafix wrote:
    I am utterly bemused by how any one could think it was a better film than CR, or IMO, QoS.

    I was shocked by how poor it was. I am fully aware of what certain people might 'expect' me to say. Given that I'm one of the biggest defenders of QoS on this site, I think those people could at least give me some credit for being neither a troll nor negative without reason.

    I was genuinely hyped up before going into the cinema and was convinced it was going to be at least an entertaining couple of hours, but I was utterly, utterly underwhelmed. I found the whole feel of the film strangely flat right from the start (Newman's strangely muted score is undoubtedly part of the problem) . As BAIN points out, the CGI'd motorbike chase didn't help. Despite the chase actually having been shot for real it felt at once totally contrived (not necessarily a bad thing) but also simply unexciting and without danger. As has become fairly typical with Craig's action sequences, there is an air of inevitability about him getting his man to the extent that you end up rooting for the other guy. And of course Bond would have got his man if M hadn't idiotically had him shot.

    One good thing at least, Dench is dead and at least we don't have to endure any more of her tedious trust issues. The film ends with her saying that she got one thing right, when of course the whole premise of the film is that she got everything completely and utterly wrong, including her loss of nerve and faith in Bond when it mattered most. SF portrays M as serially incompetent, a betrayor of her agents, mistrustful and lacking in confidence in Bond and utterly uselless in the field of intelligence. her disdain for the committee she has to go before makes her even less sympathetic - as Mallory (a much better character and thank god he is now M!) says, it's her job to be accountable and since she has done such an utterly catastrophic job she fully deserves to be hung out to dry. Her incompetence, arrogance and inability to accept responsibility makes her seem like an extremely dangerous person to have at the head of an intelligence organisation. It would have been a nice touch if Mallory had just replaced her right at the start.

    She says she had no choice but order Bond shot or she'd risk losing the disk, when of course, if she remotely trust Bond (which after three films she still doesn't) then she'd have seen him as her best chance of getting it back. Since they had put practically the entire PTS in the trailer I obviously knew what was going to happen any way, so I was not surprised, but despite this I was disappointed to see M's lack of faith in Bond being a central part of the story... again.

    It's not that I expect my Bond films to make sense (most of them don't), but when you make your story so pretentious and supposedly 'serious' and yet completely and utterly unbelievable, you invite people to question it.

    The Xan Brooks review in the Guardian makes a whole lot more sense to me now after seeing the film. I feel he is the only reviewer who has dared to speak the truth about this film.
    It's important that we are able to talk in a civil tongue while disagreeing with one another. I was over excited about this film as were most of us, and maybe we expected too much. What is the motorbike CGI issue.? If it appears unrealistic to you I suggest that you come to Turkey and try it out, if you can ride, I've done motor cross for years. It is hard, as there is a need for a stunt drivers that can't wear helmets but it is as real as it gets as you can't expect Craig to risk his life to satisfy you. You wrongly connect the three films as continuation. There is no evidence that this film is related to the first two, quite the contrary, M states " if you've worked with Bond as long as I have, you know that's precise intelligence". Craig's CR and QoS were connected, this is not and indicates that a lot has passed since. Your dislike of Judy Dench is sad, as she gave the character such depth. For Campbell to offer her the role in GE and bring her back with Craig at the start of his career means she was the best for that role. I loved her tough no-nonsense role as M. She was tough, demanding, from DAD onward, in CR "utter one more syllable and I'll have you killed" and if you liked QoS as you say, she showed who's BOSS. In SF again she is excellent, showing the tough calls she has taken over the years, and admits to having fucked up. She's made it clear that she serves a greater picture and will sacrifice someone for the greater good. It's how it works and it was a judgement call that was bad. As you've seen SF, it boils down to commitment, dedication, and the effect she has on these agents as "mommy" to the point that Sylva's emancipation will come only by his death through her. The control she has in his life can only end with her death, but then Sylva can't exist without her. And no matter what, she is the most important person in Bond's life, kind of love-hate relationship, a bitch on one hand, and the tears of losing her as she dies, and as it ends, her acknowledgement in that she's done one thing right. Beneath the iron mask the love of a mother. And Bond's tribute to her come with the words, "With pleasure, M." I will miss her

  • the more i think of skyfall the more i feel like i have been manipulated by the film. something is really bugging me about this film, not sure what it is yet.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 24
    Skyfall was a reasonably entertaining movie, but I'm not sure it felt like a Bond film.

    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
  • The fight scenes in CR and QoS were very very good. The staircase fight in CR was great (Ben Cooke is doubling in some parts) and the fight in the hotel room in Haiti (QoS) frame-by-frame is Craig doing the real thing. SF fight scene in Shanghai with Patrice done in the dark spoiled it for me. I honestly thought that Sony's video was part of the film. Too bad
    Sony's Skyfall TV Commercial
  • Posts: 6,601
    the more i think of skyfall the more i feel like i have been manipulated by the film. something is really bugging me about this film, not sure what it is yet.
    the more i think of skyfall the more i feel like i have been manipulated by the film. something is really bugging me about this film, not sure what it is yet.

    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.
  • Posts: 1,492
    Desk wrote:
    Skyfall was a reasonably entertaining movie, but I'm not sure it felt like a Bond film.

    Desk

    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.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    actonsteve wrote:
    Desk wrote:
    Skyfall was a reasonably entertaining movie, but I'm not sure it felt like a Bond film.

    Desk

    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.
  • Posts: 11,189
    To me SF felt very much like a bond film. It had pretty much everything you could want. Character, locations, beautiful women, intrigue and espionage, M, Q, Moneypenny AND explosions and chases.
  • Posts: 3,327
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I love GE but SF (and CR) are both better, more tightly directed films.

    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.
    That's fine. Some people like DAD too. Its what the makes the world tick. We are all different.

Sign In or Register to comment.