Skyfall Considered the Most Overated film of all.

SaintMark

Ludovico wrote:

Yes, terrible spoilers, sorry. Anyway, T2 was overrated. Not a bad movie, but not the sci fi masterpiece some people think it was at the time, or think it is still.

It is one of those brilliant over the top action movies that still looks good.

chrisisall

SaintMark wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Yes, terrible spoilers, sorry. Anyway, T2 was overrated. Not a bad movie, but not the sci fi masterpiece some people think it was at the time, or think it is still.

It is one of those brilliant over the top action movies that still looks good.

And that's enough for me.

On topic though, I believe in future, CR will be thought of of as Craig's great Bond movie (Unless his next is better); SF will be more like his TWINE.

Ludovico

SaintMark wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Yes, terrible spoilers, sorry. Anyway, T2 was overrated. Not a bad movie, but not the sci fi masterpiece some people think it was at the time, or think it is still.

It is one of those brilliant over the top action movies that still looks good.

It still looks good, that's all it does. Good look, great fx, interesting themes... That were already explored in the first movie. As I said, it is a copy of the first. Hardly 1984, which some fans seem to think it is sometimes.

jaydubya76

chrisisall wrote:

SaintMark wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Yes, terrible spoilers, sorry. Anyway, T2 was overrated. Not a bad movie, but not the sci fi masterpiece some people think it was at the time, or think it is still.

It is one of those brilliant over the top action movies that still looks good.

And that's enough for me.

On topic though, I believe in future, CR will be thought of of as Craig's great Bond movie (Unless his next is better); SF will be more like his TWINE.

Disagree. If any film is Craig's TWINE it's QoS. Even having watchly it recently I find it doesn't leave a particularly strong impression.

Ludovico

Oh, and SF is not even the most overrated movie written by John Logan. That would be Gladiator.

SaintMark

Ludovico wrote:

Oh, and SF is not even the most overrated movie written by John Logan. That would be Gladiator.

And I prefer Gladiator every time over SF, that would be also due to the involvement of Ridley Scott who is probably one of my favorite directors.

Gladiator has the whole package that works, action, drama excitement and a awesome soundtrack.

Ludovico

Gladiator is a fun sword and sandals action movie, but otherwise, it is not the great historical epic that deserved an Oscar. The comeuppance of Emperor Commodus was contrived at best and of course like the rest of the movie historically inaccurate. In fact, it has the typical shortcomings of a John Logan story.

Getafix

jaydubya76 wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

SaintMark wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Yes, terrible spoilers, sorry. Anyway, T2 was overrated. Not a bad movie, but not the sci fi masterpiece some people think it was at the time, or think it is still.

It is one of those brilliant over the top action movies that still looks good.

And that's enough for me.

On topic though, I believe in future, CR will be thought of of as Craig's great Bond movie (Unless his next is better); SF will be more like his TWINE.

Disagree. If any film is Craig's TWINE it's QoS. Even having watchly it recently I find it doesn't leave a particularly strong impression.

CR is superior to GE on every level, but as with GE for Brosnan, may well come to be seen as Craig's 'best'.

QoS is Craig's TND - pacy, light weight but moderately entertaining.

SF is definitely closer to TWINE - slightly bloated, and ultimately rather flacid attempt to do a 'serious' Bond. SF even reheats TWINE's plot.

Let's just hope B24 is not DC's Die Another Day...

DarthDimi

Getafix wrote:

CR is superior to GE on every level, but as with GE for Brosnan, may well come to be seen as Craig's 'best'.

QoS is Craig's TND - pacy, light weight but moderately entertaining.

SF is definitely closer to TWINE - slightly bloated, and ultimately rather flacid attempt to do a 'serious' Bond. SF even reheats TWINE's plot.

Let's just hope B24 is not DC's Die Another Day...

Despite my appreciation for SF, I can follow this line of reasoning by @Getafix. I still think the Craig films have been more even though (so far) - QOS felt more like the Red Bull cut of a sequel to CR whereas TND simply felt like a huge quality drop after GE - but the parallel can be drawn. TWINE and SF both suffocate logic in favour of style and drama, but again I think that the Craig film does it more evenly than the Brosnan film. Whenever I spot a flaw in SF, there's something else - be it a great acting performance or a wonderful bit of cinematography for example - that distracts me. In TWINE I'm regularly let down by all the elements involved.

So who knows... Maybe Bond 24 will resemble DAD but with most of its problems fixed. Maybe it will be one of those comic book-ish "five-minutes-into-the-future" adrenaline overdoses, but then with good music, good actors, a more sensible plot, more practical effects and an overall higher class of film making. It could be Craig's GF, TB or YOLT for all I care, and I'd honestly welcome that. The sour, depressed, over-analysed Bond has run his course IMO. Three films is enough. Let's go back to old school Bondian fun. Let us see Craig function in a more amusing atmosphere. But by all means let's not lower the high standards these Craig films have reached in terms of cinematography (barring QoS' editing), acting, effects, ...

Ludovico

my bet is that Bond 24 may be Craig's TB. Which I'd be very happy about.

RC7

I imagine B24 won't be too dissimilar to SF.

DarthDimi

@RC7, I think they would make a grave mistake to have Bond 24 resemble SF too much. SF was a unique film, and a hit. But could they get the same hit with the same sum total of elements? I doubt that. I think the power of the Bonds is that they can differ enough from film to film to keep things interesting and fresh. I'm confident Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli realise that too. ;)

QBranch

Ludovico wrote:

my bet is that Bond 24 may be Craig's TB. Which I'd be very happy about.

Same here. I'd love to see Craig get his TB on in both epic scale and water theme- not because I want to see him don those tight little blue swim trunks once again... but because it would be a nice change from what we've had recently. :)>-

RC7

DarthDimi wrote:

@RC7, I think they would make a grave mistake to have Bond 24 resemble SF too much. SF was a unique film, and a hit. But could they get the same hit with the same sum total of elements? I doubt that. I think the power of the Bonds is that they can differ enough from film to film to keep things interesting and fresh. I'm confident Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli realise that too. ;)

I don't think the elements will be the same, but I imagine the tone, pacing and composition will be similar. I guess what I mean is, it will be closer in execution to SF than it will CR or QOS. I don't think it will be a vastly different take visually, perhaps narratively, but again I doubt it.

Getafix

DarthDimi wrote:

Getafix wrote:

CR is superior to GE on every level, but as with GE for Brosnan, may well come to be seen as Craig's 'best'.

QoS is Craig's TND - pacy, light weight but moderately entertaining.

SF is definitely closer to TWINE - slightly bloated, and ultimately rather flacid attempt to do a 'serious' Bond. SF even reheats TWINE's plot.

Let's just hope B24 is not DC's Die Another Day...

Despite my appreciation for SF, I can follow this line of reasoning by @Getafix. I still think the Craig films have been more even though (so far) - QOS felt more like the Red Bull cut of a sequel to CR whereas TND simply felt like a huge quality drop after GE - but the parallel can be drawn. TWINE and SF both suffocate logic in favour of style and drama, but again I think that the Craig film does it more evenly than the Brosnan film. Whenever I spot a flaw in SF, there's something else - be it a great acting performance or a wonderful bit of cinematography for example - that distracts me. In TWINE I'm regularly let down by all the elements involved.

So who knows... Maybe Bond 24 will resemble DAD but with most of its problems fixed. Maybe it will be one of those comic book-ish "five-minutes-into-the-future" adrenaline overdoses, but then with good music, good actors, a more sensible plot, more practical effects and an overall higher class of film making. It could be Craig's GF, TB or YOLT for all I care, and I'd honestly welcome that. The sour, depressed, over-analysed Bond has run his course IMO. Three films is enough. Let's go back to old school Bondian fun. Let us see Craig function in a more amusing atmosphere. But by all means let's not lower the high standards these Craig films have reached in terms of cinematography (barring QoS' editing), acting, effects, ...

I think any Craig film is better than any of Brosnan's. Although not a big fan of SF, I'd still take it over any of the Brosnan films. It sets its ambitions high, and although I think it fails to achieve them, I repsect it just for trying.

I don't mind the odd OTT movie, in the vein of DAD. DAD's problem was that it was just utter rubbish from start to finish. I don't think Mendes will be tempted to go down that route exactly, but I think he may want to up the campyness and have a bit for fun. At least, I hope he'll see it as time for Bond to have a bit more fun. I get the general sense that that is pretty much what every fan wants to see, even if they liked SF.

DarthDimi

Indeed, @Getafix, in fact I've been hearing people scream for some simple fun since CR. You see, CR surprised - I think it's fair to say - most of us by being a serious, mature Bond film, the purest antithesis to DAD imaginable, yet so pleasantly refreshing and energizing. It still had a pretty dour ending and it kept a couple of the familiar Bond traditions in the fridge, but many moviegoers and critics ate it up. So after we had taken a breath of fresh air, most of us felt that we could now move on and see Craig, fully fleshed out as Bond, get his GF or TB. Instead, we spent two more films on developing the character of Bond, on motherly teaching him 'valuable lessons', and most of this through the harshest and bleakest moments in the whole of half a century of Bond on screen. They got away with it because we were, and some of us still are, a bit drunk from Craig's astonishing performance as Bond, and because both QOS and SF gambled with the formula but in such a way that they kept the adrenaline pumping. I think it's important that we realise in what sort of unique position in the Bond time line we now find ourselves. Three rather tough, hard-boiled and somewhat cheerless Bond outings all very successful whereas in the past films like OHMSS and LTK struggled with finding the same audience that YOLT or even MR had found. But formula fatigue can show-up suddenly and kill the success instantaneously. For 8 years now, we've stripped the Bond films of the more traditional elements of 'fun', and mostly for their own good I dare say. But it's been a pretty gloomy, melancholic 'trilogy' of Craig Bonds so far. I'd say that's enough for now. Let's put colour, exotic flavours, and thin slices of fantasy back in the Bonds. Who knows, they may just consider throwing us another Blofeld / SPECTRE party. I'm certainly ready for it. For my next Bond film, I don't want the Bond Theme when Bond blows up his parents' house while he's fighting a depressed terrorist who wants to get even with M. I want the Bond Theme when Bond does things that invite me to make a fist and scream "YEAH!". There's cool, as in cold, and there's cool, as in awesome. So far, Craig has had both. Now I want a film where it's only the latter form of cool.

Getafix

Yep. And I don't think it's about throwing the baby out with the bath water. They're not going to totally reinvent Craig's Bond now. But just a bit of effortless cool and fun would be nice. Something to make you smile.

MayDayDiVicenzo

DarthDimi wrote:

Indeed, @Getafix, in fact I've been hearing people scream for some simple fun since CR. You see, CR surprised - I think it's fair to say - most of us by being a serious, mature Bond film, the purest antithesis to DAD imaginable, yet so pleasantly refreshing and energizing. It still had a pretty dour ending and it kept a couple of the familiar Bond traditions in the fridge, but many moviegoers and critics ate it up. So after we had taken a breath of fresh air, most of us felt that we could now move on and see Craig, fully fleshed out as Bond, get his GF or TB. Instead, we spent two more films on developing the character of Bond, on motherly teaching him 'valuable lessons', and most of this through the harshest and bleakest moments in the whole of half a century of Bond on screen. They got away with it because we were, and some of us still are, a bit drunk from Craig's astonishing performance as Bond, and because both QOS and SF gambled with the formula but in such a way that they kept the adrenaline pumping. I think it's important the we realise in what sort of unique position in the Bondtime line we now find ourselves. Three rather tough, hard-boiled and somewhat cheerless Bond outings all very successful whereas in the past films like OHMSS and LTK struggled with finding the same audience that YOLT or even MR had found. But formula fatigue can show-up suddenly and kill the success instantaneously. For 8 years now, we've stripped the Bond films of the more traditional elements of 'fun', and mostly for their own good I dare say. But it's been a pretty gloomy, melancholic 'trilogy' of Craig Bonds so far. I'd say that's enough for now. Let's put colour, exotic flavours, and thin slices of fantasy back in the Bonds. Who knows, they may just consider throwing us another Blofeld / SPECTRE party. I'm certainly ready for it. For my next Bond film, I don't want the Bond Theme when Bond blows up his parents' house while he's fighting a depressed terrorist who wants to get even with M. I want the Bond Theme when Bond does things that invite me to make a fist and scream "YEAH!". There's cool, as in cold, and there's cool, as in awesome. So far, Craig has had both. Now I want a film where it's only the latter form of cool.

I 100% agree with this. I couldn't have put it as eloquently.

BAIN123

I remember when I first watched SF in 2012. The audience I was with in London seemed to be having fun while watching it. They laughed at the bits they were suppose to (the Q scene, the "what makes you think this is my first time" retort, the bulldog being left to Bond at the end etc). I think, despite the more serious tone, SF is still a "fun" film.

DarthDimi

@BAIN123, you are certainly right; SF can be fun in the sense that it's an entertaining movie. When fun is defined as the opposite of boredom, SF is indeed a lot of fun for a lot of Bond fans, myself included. But when 'fun' refers to a warm, feel-good experience, not necessarily measured by the number of chuckles but by the intensity of the overall feeling of pleasure and amusement, then I guess many a Bond film can be considered to provide more 'fun' than SF.

I know, we're talking semantics here. It makes little difference in the end. I guess 'fun' was merely the best word I could think of when trying to split the difference between the easy-going, charming, smile inducing atmosphere of such films as GF and TB, and the moody, at times discomforting tone of some scenes in QOS and SF.

echo

Getafix wrote:

jaydubya76 wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

SaintMark wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Yes, terrible spoilers, sorry. Anyway, T2 was overrated. Not a bad movie, but not the sci fi masterpiece some people think it was at the time, or think it is still.

It is one of those brilliant over the top action movies that still looks good.

And that's enough for me.

On topic though, I believe in future, CR will be thought of of as Craig's great Bond movie (Unless his next is better); SF will be more like his TWINE.

Disagree. If any film is Craig's TWINE it's QoS. Even having watchly it recently I find it doesn't leave a particularly strong impression.

CR is superior to GE on every level, but as with GE for Brosnan, may well come to be seen as Craig's 'best'.

QoS is Craig's TND - pacy, light weight but moderately entertaining.

SF is definitely closer to TWINE - slightly bloated, and ultimately rather flacid attempt to do a 'serious' Bond. SF even reheats TWINE's plot.

Let's just hope B24 is not DC's Die Another Day...

An actor's fourth Bond is tricky. IMHO, TB, MR, and DAD are far from the best in the series. That being said, all three of Craig's films have strayed enough from formula (a problem with MR and DAD) that Bond 24 could be a refreshing change even if more formulaic.

I think the creative energy that comes from casting a new Bond often makes their first films tough to top. There are plenty of fans who rate DN, OHMSS, LALD, TLD, GE, and CR highly.

Getafix

Interesting point. I'm not a huge fan of LALD though. Nice elements but overall I find it boring. Moore definitely improved as he went on. Connery surged, plateuaed and then went out on a whimper. I agree though that Dalton and Craig both brought a real energy and breath of fresh air to the series.

Thunderfinger

It is the second (apart from Connery), and the fourth who have been troublesome before, so here is hoping Bond 24 will be an exception. No TB for Craig, please.

Getafix

Thunderfinger wrote:

It is the second (apart from Connery), and the fourth who have been troublesome before, so here is hoping Bond 24 will be an exception. No TB for Craig, please.

I totally agree but reading these pages I'm often led to believe TB is a classic. I've always seen it as the first dud in the series.

SuperheroSith

Skyfall is my favourite bond...

Perilagu_Khan

BAIN123 wrote:

I remember when I first watched SF in 2012. The audience I was with in London seemed to be having fun while watching it. They laughed at the bits they were suppose to (the Q scene, the "what makes you think this is my first time" retort, the bulldog being left to Bond at the end etc). I think, despite the more serious tone, SF is still a "fun" film.

Yes. It's sufficiently humorous. Heck, Silva's facial expressions alone are funnier than all of the "humor" on QOS combined.

Ludovico

Getafix wrote:

Thunderfinger wrote:

It is the second (apart from Connery), and the fourth who have been troublesome before, so here is hoping Bond 24 will be an exception. No TB for Craig, please.

I totally agree but reading these pages I'm often led to believe TB is a classic. I've always seen it as the first dud in the series.

I find TB far superior to GF in many aspects. And I would be very happy to see Bond 24 akin to it: same scope, a Bond girl more central to the story, plenty of spying/investigation time, Bond more active.

chrisisall

Getafix wrote:

[reading these pages I'm often led to believe TB is a classic. I've always seen it as the first dud in the series.

It is because of our shared appreciation for the great Timothy Dalton that I shall spare your life here...

:))

SaintMark

SuperheroSith wrote:

Skyfall is my favourite bond...

We all have our faults. ;)

CTrent29

Personally, I think "Goldfinger" is overated. But I also feel that "Skyfall" is second on that list.