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 fear this will get out of hand, and I already provided a link.
You didn't watch the Film carefully. After a bloodbath in PM's hearings, train diversion and Silva's escape M is bothered of too many people dying because of her and agrees Bond that he can use her as a bait to get Silva (hijacked car conversation) BUT there are only 2 OF THEM (Bond and M) to avoid more people dying. She tries to manage herself trough a miserable situation she brought herself in and she pays with a highest price. And yes, she was a cold hearted, but that's her job. That't why I left the cinema in melancholy.
That's an interesting take. That M sacrifices herself to save more agents from dying. I didn't pick that up in the film but it gives her a little bit more credibility. If they wanted us to see it that way they could have been a bit more explicit.
I agree with @seroxx on this and it was quite explicit to me.
"Its just us now"
Not explicit?
Getafix - why are you not sure, that a review belongs in the review thread?
Is that title not explicit enough for you either? :-?
Well said. What you said kinda made me realize the flaws in the movie. It was a mistake to bring M to the Skyfall lodge as a trap for Silva and his men. Bond could've have at least gone there on his own and make Silva think that M was with him. Q could've done the rest seeing as he did a trail of breadcrumbs for Silva to follow. Q could maybe easily make it look as though M was with Bond when in fact he wasn't hence leading a trap for Silva. And it never occurred to me about the back up from SAS or some sort of counter assault team on the outside of the lodge hiding from plain view. To sum it up, I think Bond's plan to protect M was screwed up seeing as M died in the end no matter what. Sad to admit, but there were just too many men against Bond at the lodge and Bond lacked the firepower and to have M, an aging lady in the midst of all that was a big mistake.
Not gonna take away that Skyfall was a good movie though and I wasn't disappointed with it. Its the flaws and plotholes that bothers me.
however, I'd then liken it to GoldenEye in that, to me, it was reminiscent of how GE attracted a new set of fans, a new audience. I found the marketing was rather like GoldenEye as well. So I've awarded the film 5 stars as it didn't quite live up to my expectations, but the craft used in making the film was exemplary and it ignited everyones love of Bond again.
I have long ago given up to look for logic throughout a film, that is supposed to be action intertainment movie PLUS Bond is even half fantasy and was NEVER a victim of too much reason. Its not what Bond films are about. Never were and never will be.
Spoiling your own fun (for those, who have had it) thinking about what makes 100% sense and not is like spitting into the face of the fairy, coming with a present, because she is realistically not there.
Bond films are about making an impact, give escapism and the realistic approac we have now is as far as it goes. I don't wanna know, how many people would be moaning, if they would stick to 100%, what's possible and totally logic.
I and obviously they (the Bond team) would always go for the more exciting moment on screen and s*** logic. I am dead glad, Bond was home alone and not having a 50 men against 50 men shoot out. I always hated that in the movies.
Had there been other, better ways to end it? I dunno. maybe, maybe not. ALL I know is, that I was watching a great entertainmet unfolding before my eyes and that was what I went into the theater for. No less...
If I want to see realistic drama, i go watch Schindlers Liste or else. This is f***ing Bond. he doesn't need to be realistic and logic at ALL times, not even Craig Bond, but what he needs to do is give me a satisfying 2 1/2 hours, forgetting everyting around me. That he did. So - IMO, nobody needs to be disapponted because of this.
Amazingly, I also totally agree with you. It's just I wasn't entertained. I am absolutely not looking for spiritual enlightenment when I go to see a Bond movie. I want to enjoy it 100% without thinking about the daft plot or character development. For me QoS actually achieved that much better than SF. Unlike many people on here I thoroughly enjoyed QoS in the cinema. I didn't think it was a classic but for me it was the best Bond since the Dalton era. SF just didn't do it for me though. I was bored mostly and found myself zoning out of the story because I didn't care what happened to M, MI6 or anyone else, although it did often look stunning.
So you don't like the battles in the 60s films?
I'd like it if Bond 24 had a big soldiers vs henchmen battle at the villians lair for the finale like they used to have.
1. SK
2. QoS
3. CR
I agree with you @Germanlady, I'm enjoy Bond films for themselves, I think if we think too profoundly about it we go crazy.