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
I think that @Getafix tends to move around the forums slagging the film off, and I for one said in a previous post that I understood his points, but are they sufficient enough to convince those who love SF that it is in fact a bad film?
As for the last point that @Sandy answered, well I agree that is what Mr Dalton would have done. (He even managed to overact with a bit of eye widening when he had a gas mask on in TLD). Mr Craig Is more in line with film acting.
;-)
'Someone obviously helped him'. Yeah obviously. Why not cut away from Bond on the table with laser beam to the next scene. Doesn't matter how he escaped, he just did.
To be fair, this probably isn't a plothole. It just shows no one gives a damn about filling you in. I mean, it's not like not showing him go to the loo or getting a taxi to the airport. Some things in a narrative you can overlook, others you can't.
You haven't addressed how he gets a sniper's bullet and no mention of it doing any serious damage, even the old 'flesh wound' cliche, no mention of how he survived, I mean that really is the key omission for me. Where did he get hit? Oh, it doesn't matter. I mean, he seems to take it in the upper torso, the force blows him off the top of a train! (Edit: didn't really see if it was in the shoulder, I missed that but even then it's a while before we see it if so, a bit of a non-explanation for too long).
So, it's the new sensitive Bond! Quite happy to find other agents dispensable! Leaves one guy to die, just obeying orders. But when his boss makes a mistake under pressure, makes the wrong call, he is all offended! This is understandable; nothing admirable about it however. A sulker. I mean, she wasn't even saying 'Shoot Bond!' That would be understandable then, if she didn't worry about killing him if it meant getting her man.
As for the eyes widening, or some kind or reaction, well you can get that stuff in something other than soap operas (with all due respect). It does reinforce that he is hearing what M is saying, though of course in that case why doesn't he duck down? It doesn't have to be a Dalton 'see me acting from row P in the stalls' type thing.
And why mess with the timeline? the DB5 with gadgets is from 1964 & 1965 only.
How wrong was I.
How on earth do you people notice these things?
Did you honestly think people wouldn't find fault with this film?
1) IMO there's a plot. It revolves around Silva's revenge towards M.
2) Which part isn't explained?
3) M isn't the true Bond girl since Bond doesn't romance her. The Bond girls are there, there are two of them, they simply aren't dragged through all acts for the sake of boringly meeting people's expectations. I for one am pleased that this one cuts low on the Bond girls and focuses more on other things.
4) Joker was all about anarchy and proving a point. Silva is all about revenge. No match IMO. :-)
5) The codename thing doesn't stand. The graves are part of the Fleming legacy and the authorised John Pearson Bond biography. They didn't make up those names.
6) The CGI isn't the best we can get but seriously, I don't mid at all. At least I don't it against the entire film...
I disagree this is the second time in two movies that Bond is rather callous with his "allies", first there was the matter of tipping Mathis in the garbage bin and now the flippant remark of 007 after Severine's demise, "it is a waste of good whisky".
This is no longer the 007 people are used too or want to be. This one is a more psychopathic one and less of a human being. Most of the reactions of 007 in this movie are those of an robot. ANd in the end he even fails to do his job and Silva wins. While SF had some grate moments it was really a grim and dark tale.
I am not sure I like DC's version of 007.
How he fails to do his job is beyond me, I seem to remember that Bond kills him with a knife.
By that logic, Bond in OHMSS failed everything too.
Dude, seriously? :D You've gotten me confused there. ;-) I thought we were both in the fan region of SF. :P
I must admit I don't understand this complaint. Bond had a gun pointed directly at his head so he could hardly do anything about saving Severine until it was removed. It was only after she was dead that Bond feigned indifference with his pithy remark which had the desired effect because the villains believed him and dropped their guard. It was only at this stage that Bond kicked into action and eliminated Silva's henchmen. I thought the scene worked well. First we have the shock factor of Severine's early death, then we have Bond's psychical response in the form of quick justice. I do think Bond should have kicked Silva in the cojones before the helicopters landed though for good measure.
Not very convincing that his quip could disarm his opponents just like that. Not convinced that Craig really isn't unmoved by what has happened. Horrible the way you get a triumphant bit of Bond theme when helicopters arrive, though the gal is dead. 'Well done James!'
I take your point about the triumphant fanfare after Severine's death, @NapoleonPlural. I did feel that the helicopters arriving and then cutting straight to London was a bit jarring, especially after what had just happened.
Why and who Bond is, is because of how he was earlier and how we grew up watching him, IMO. For the kids in this generation I imagine that this Bond is no more different than any other action film character: Flawed, who eventually hits rock bottom and then ressurects to save the day. No wait, Bond didn't even do that in SF. He failed.
In other words Bond 2012 is a guy who reports to his mother on the radio, taking instructions about how to deal with a bad guy. And who, when things get sour, hides, stops shaving, starts drinking heavily and shoots like a 70 year old!
My kind of Bond - the "real" Bond - doesn't fail. He is a classical archetype alpha male always on top of his game and a chauvinistic, arrogant womanizer with a dangerous job. This worked for 40 years, so after six years of rebooting can we have that guy back, please?
The guy who can pass the physical as well as the psychical test before send on a mission using cool and inventive gadgets? Yeah, yeah... I know - "exploding pens... we don't do that any more"? WTF? That doesn't sound good for Bond 24.
I haven't seen the film for a week or two and my memory isn't great so sorry if I missed any mention of it.
Must.... resist....urge.... to..... argue.....
Oh come on, you know you want to \:D/
;-)
I knew, you were kidding :D but yeah, that pretty much sums it up, what some few are saying.
I think, there is something, some here seem to have gotten wrong. They review this film as a serious documentation almost. You as Bondfans should know, that Bond films are not meant to be taken THIS seriously, not even Craig Bond. Far from it. Strip away the impossible and you will moan, how it did get way too resalistic. Now - for some - its not realistic enough. Gosh...
Various films you can not take wholly seriously, but it doesn't mean that things don't have to add up or make sense within their universe.
Maybe we can just agree, that this is your opinion and be good? Repeating it forever doesn*t change anything, for neither party.
Many a true word said in jest
I think, debates in itsself, never mind the context are fine, but the repeats - on BOTH sides - are tiring and bring nothing new to the table after a while.
I agree
:\">
=)) Love this!
First thoughts as walking out. It was different like CR but I didn't automatically get the "Bond vibe" but in my opinion, that is a good thing. It means the Bond series has now matured to the point of it being above the rest again.
The Good:
Bond: Daniel Craig gives the Bond performance of a lifetime in this film. He's funny, witty, dead serious when he needs to be, and for the first time in a long time, sentimental. Craig has cemented himself as the ultimate Bond for this generation, perhaps ever
Silva: I remember the excitement I felt when I first heard that Bardem was being seriously considered for the villain in Bond 23. And boy does he not disappoint! Every second he's on screen he just has the viewers attention for every line and every movement he says. It's great to see some camp back in the villain. But also (especially near the end) he can be deathly frightening when he wants to be. Easily the best on screen villain since Ledger's Joker.
M: Some people hate that Dench has had more of a role in Bond's life the last few films. I for one, think that it has been a great thing! And here, she really gets a chance to shine. A worthy sendoff to a beloved character. And yes, a tear was shed.
Q/Eve/Mallory: Let's start with Q. I thought Ben's performance was brilliant. He and Craig have great chemistry with witty banter but by the end I think we felt a good mutual respect they had for each other. I look forward to seeing this relationship continue. On to Eve. I've heard she has great chemistry with Craig and that she has no chemistry with Craig. Some of it seems a little forced, but overall I was impressed. Loved their constant banter of how he feels safe if she's not in the field. The "Miss Moneypenny" line made me smile. Mallory had a good character arc in this film and I feel that Bond and the rest of MI6 gained legitimate respect for the character over the course of the film which makes his transition to his new job much easier.
The Action/Roger Deakans: What more can be said of the great Roger Deakans. This film looks beautiful. The Skyfall finale was dark and moody, China was bright and neon. The action did not disappoint me either. Yes there are less action scenes but these scenes were longer and more entertaining than anything in Quantum of Solace. One thing that surprised me is I hardly find anyone talking about the London tube chase. I found this to be my favorite action scene in the film. Very well constructed and entertaining. The brief fight in the skyscraper was beautiful.
The Mixed:
The Music: It's not that Thomas Newman did a bad job. Far from it. It's just it wasn't very memorable. Now I really like what David Arnold did for the last two films and Newman didn't quite come up with the same level of things. But it still worked and is far from an Eric Serra disaster. The Bond theme was used in all the right places and most importantly, it was not overused
Skyfall: I may be in the minority here, but I would of loved to see Bond's story explained more. That scene with M outside the car begged for more exposition (even if us Bond fans already know most things). And for some reason I wish the lodge was called Skyfall more. Petty thing I know
The bad:
The Gunbarrel: I don't care that it was at the end, in fact that worked. It's just that the design and Craig's pose didn't work for me at all. It wasn't terrible but it's the only negative I can say.
Overall:
After looking forward to this for 4 long years, I can say my expectations were met and then some. This is a movie that MUST be seen more than once. I know I didn't get everything out of it. This was a very personal story and a great "transition" Bond film. The "Bond vibe" has been reinvented my friends. And I'm looking forward to 50 more years!
9.5/10
I don't think that the audience need to be educated in the direction of a more temporary 21st. century Bond by the filmmakers who do not want become suspects of doing the same thing all over again. Shouldn't people get the "Bond vibe" after having watched a Bond-movie? How can it be a "good thing" if they don't?