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
Want to see your reasoning crumbling down? Look at Dream House. Craig was paid to do it, but he found the end result so bad that he refused to promote the film. Weisz did the same, and the director asked to have his name removed from the credits. How about that?
Suppose, they were all brainwashed by the Broccolis. "Brave new world"
I give this guy 90 seconds at a London bar before someone tells him to shut up. His voice is like an 8 year old with ADHD.
Why do people insist on doing video reviews where they just tell you exactly what happens, and nothing to make you think?
Anyone who uses the logic 'It's dark like CR, so CR fans will love it, and it's got old Bond stuff, so old Bond fans will love it' is certainly working on a different level to me. If only I could think about things in such simple terms, my life would be like my dogs. Cosume. Shit. Sleep. Don't Think.
:P
Matt, there certainly is no point starting another explanation about the waste-of-good-Scotch line, that has been addressed several times by now, and anyway, it IS just one line in the script. I remember Daniel saying he thought the CR script was great and that the SF script was great - he didn't say the QoS one was, hmmm... EON must have had different rules in his contract for that film, right?
I have no problem with people having different opinions and liking or disliking different things, but I do have a problem with those that say anyone who disagrees with them - fellow-posters, actors, directors, anyone is either retarded or just paid to say what they say.
@Sandy, I was under the impression that the main problem was that the trailer revealed basically the whole plot, but I wasn't really following, so I maybe I got it wrong. Daniel has appeared in worse films, but I don't know of any other he would have refused to promote. Admittedly not a great movie, but hardly that bad, either. Should have been a lot better, obviously, considering the potential with those people, but still... *shrug*
By the Way. When they were on the QoS Promo Tour he constantly mentioned that he and Forster were forced to work on the script themselfs but that they were very satisfied with it and the final result (as they had every right to do because QoS Story - with all of its weaknesses- is lightyears ahead of SFs)
But I forgot - everybody, who likes this film is either deranged or doesn't tell the truth.
People in glass houses....
Probably best to master the English language before you start slagging people off.
In other respects you are correct. The SF script is not the work of genius we were led to believe. This fact is covered up by having rather more polished dialogue than usual and superb actors in every role but the plot is no less full of holes than the average Bond film.
Swap the casts and directors of say TWINE or TND with the SF cast and Mendes and it would be those films that would be heralded as 'great' Bond films and SF as a run of the mill, by the numbers Bond film.
SF is a really good Bond film because it has very good talent in all departments but the script is nothing that outstanding like DC, Mendes and Judi have claimed.
His style is just so ubiquitous and he's forever generalising. Like I say, a Dyson review is authentic, this is just some wannabe, ten-a-penny yank, 'Hey look at me, I'm craaaazy'. If it was actually a good review I'd give it some credence. And you have to remember, some of us here like SF (I've seen it 3 times in the last week on Blu-Ray) but don't have to get down on all fours and suck it off every time we hit the forum.
Durint QOS promotion, he NEVER once mentioned, how they were forced to work on the script. It all came out later or in tidbits in the WRITTEN reports. WHAT he said was, that is looks beautiful, it feels beautiful. They sorta talked around the script issues. Only now, all the issues were addressed by and by.
Reg C&A - what they talked about was, that they decided to play it straight, which brought Daniel into the seat and that is was an interesting mix, that was a challöenge to get right. Well they didn't. The audiences paid tribute to that fact with 160 mill worldwide.
I haven't seen them doing the same with SF.
Nobody expects you to. There is a lot fo generalsing going on here as well.
I don't see tis review like you do. For me its genine and he give reasons, WHY he thinks so. Nothing more is needed.
Haven't read that Dyson, but I suppose, he is negative.
No, he loves SF. You should check it out. It'll give you shivers.
Whine, whine, whine, blah, blah, blah, cry, cry, cry. It would be great to have some intelligent discussion with you lot on Skyfall, but instead all I see are new pages filled not with intriguing arguments and posts, but comment after comment arguing with each other. Pathetic, truly pathetic.
Can you give me the link, please. Guess its here, but...
You weren't one of the major shout fests I was referring to, but thank you for understanding my livid disposition. :)
Follow the link at the end to his 'official' review though, more professional!
By the way, am I right in thinking Skyfall was the first EVER Bond film that Bond actually gets shot?
hm, and twice at that lol O.O
I was just about to say that.
Clean? Brosnan has the highest kill count and debatably, destruction.
But that's an exception...!
I will concede that there is a lot of praise for this film, and from wholly credible sources. UK film critic Barry Norman has said it is the best Bond ever, and one of his top 50 UK films. Ever. And I do like Norman (just realised his name is a composite of Monty Norman and John Barry - maybe that has something to do with it) but I just cannot see it, and it's not like I have no arguments to make on it. But maybe I am just reading the film wrongly, I don't know.
I can see that like GE and even DAD in a way, it has a lot for critics to chew on, it has pretensions, grist for the mill. Themes. I just don't like the way it is executed, and no kind of cinematography can change that. The broad sweep is interesting, the devil is in the details.
Well, as was pointed out to me recently, Bond failed to retrieve the agent list, he failed to save Severine, he failed to shoot Silva when he had the chance on the London Undergound, he failed by ASSUMING his personal arsenal would be intact after he'd been declared dead and he failed to save M.
So, the movie is kind of a fail. :))