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
Those DB5 gadgets are seen less than a minute in total. Do you rather prefer the blatant tributes from DAD?
And you just knew they were gonna put some tributes in this film for the 50th anniversary.
Because if you look at what had gone before you'd expect some exposition as to why Bond is driving a fully kitted out DB5. They went to great effort to slowly build in classic elements while stripping others completely out. CR and QOS tried to create a new timeline, Q has been reimagined, Moneypenny the same. The DB5 - no explanation. Some people don't care and it doesn't bother me that much but you have to agree it doesn't make any 'logical' sense in the Craig era thus far. An era which has tried it's best at reinvention. They could have been clever with the DB5. They weren't.
Oh and I don't understand what you mean about DAD. Are you implying an anniversary dictates you must be referential? Personally I could do without it. Are we going to do this for the 55th, 60th, 65th, 70th...
Why does all of a sudden everything has to make "logical" sense in a Bondfilm?
Stop w-nking on with questions. I've just given a reason for why some people would consider certain things odd (ie. a gadget laden car from 1964 in a film that takes place in a completely different timeline and which prides itself on reinvention) If you can't see it's a little out of step then I don't care, you obviously can't see the wood for the trees in your quest to profess your undying love for Skyfall. I bloody love the film but I'm not going to bend over and take it in the backside and harp on about how everything in it is great when there are clearly areas for discussion and certain elements that don't really add up.
The db5 doesn't bother me. It's kitted out with gadgets, great! Do I give a crap that it's in a Craig movie? Not really because I don't need to be spoon-fed every single detail. It's pretty obvious that the db5 in SF is either Dimitrios' car reinvented or the likely scenario, it's a different Aston Martin. I can come up with any number of reasons to justify or explain why Bond is driving the SF AM and why it's kitted out but instead of wasting my time trying to criticize the movie for not explaining something that doesn't really need explaining, I sit back and enjoy the moment.
Also, it's a Bond film. No matter how Tinker Taylor Soldier Serious a Bond film wants to be, it will still have absurd and fantastical elements to it, it's what makes all 23 movies Bond films.
So my good friends, let's move on to more interesting points about SF, shall we? ;-) Thank you.
Anyway I watched TB last night, and saw SF or the 2nd time last week, and I think I'll have to move TB back into my top 5, pushing SF to 6th.
1) LTK
2) TLD
3) GE
4) TSWLM
5) TB
6) SF
They could have been clever with it rather than lazy. Just a missed opportunity in some people's eyes. They were clever about how Bond won the DB5 in CR, they could have done likewise with SF. Like I said, it doesn't diminish things and for what it's worth it's fun, just a talking point.
Like all things, SF is very much fair game to be criticized. There are numerous things I have issues with about the movie but the db5 isn't one of them, except for the fact that they destroyed it!!!! and Craig's Bond doesn't know how to take care of motor vehicles except the bloody ford?
I think there are many scenarios in all the movies that they could have been clever with about explaining things but I think in the interest of trying to keep the run time fairly reasonable, they may have had to omit certain things they felt they didn't need to include. I would like to have scene certain scenes expanded upon but as I've already stated the kitted out AM doesn't bother me in slightest.
The thing is, CR began what is essentially a seperate set of stories unrelated to anything that had gone before. It was advantageous and allowed for a kind of continuity that in all honesty hadn't existed before, chronologically anyway. With the Craig era it seems like the opportunity is there for a definitive narrative arc across 5 (maybe 6) films unlike anything we;ve had before. There is little to no apparent character development across any other actors tenure, with Craig it's different. His tenure could be it's own standalone series that has a clear beginning, middle and end. I find that quite fascinating. It would be ashame if it didn't pan out that way.
I wouldn't want that if it means another reboot.
It wouldn't. You move on and do what you want with the character. I'm not insinuating Bond dies or anything of that nature, something more subtle. A reboot doesn't have to involve him becoming a double-0 again. They can do whatever they like when Craig finishes. Like I said, if this tenure stands alone you have free reign to do anything with the next actor.
Otherwise you may as well have Solitaire turning up, and have people go, yeah, Craig's Bond met her on a mission in the last few years or something. Well, maybe I guess.
But if you can overlook this stuff, I'm surprised people can't overlook the tin whistle in the Golden Gun jump, or a myriad of other irritants in the Moore films.
As a regular visitor to the MI6 site, I took a concious decision to limit the information I read about SF during the few months running up to the release. I kept away from forums and any leaked information. I wanted to avoid any particular details and spoilers before I saw it (it also helped that I was working overseas until the day before the premiere!) in order to see a Bond film as 'blind' as possible for the first time since the mass emergence of the internet and the spoilers I succumbed to running up to TWINE. I knew about as much as was officially released to the public.
What I discovered on my regular trip to see Bond at Leicester Square was quite outstanding....mostly. I had seen the publicity pictures of some of the locations and knew that Roger Deakins was on board, but even so, I was blown away by how amazing the film looked, some shots were absolutely stunning.
Again, the only plot details that I knew of were those released by the studio. Although I do think that as usual, too much footage was made available in promotion of the film, there wasn't much of the action in particular, that I hadn't already had glimpses of on TV. The story though, was great fun with a satisfying conclusion. Nothing special, but more than fulfilled its expectation. Javier Bardem was great, like Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd rolled into one, he stole his scenes with murder and gayness! Craig, Dench, Kinnear and the rest carried out their duties in fine style, and were joined by a few more 'regulars' who all gave their finest performances on their débuts.
When Thomas Newman was chosen to replace David Arnold for this film, I was sceptical. Arnold had performed very well over the years and I was sorry that he would not be scoring the film for its 50th Anniversary. Newman's attempt was impressive, even though some parts sounded as if they belonged in a Batman movie. It could have done with a lot more of the signature Bond moments but had a great atmosphere and sense of suspense.
Things that disappointed me....I was really hoping to see the Gunbarrel sequence back at the start of the film, and don't really buy what Mendes says about it looking ridiculous because the opening scene of the film showed Bond walking forward and raising a gun as well. I'm sure it could have been rearranged to suit.
Bardem's lack of screen time was also disappointing, as was a lack of clarity in a couple of key moments during the film. It wasn't really clear enough on screen as to how Bond received the wound in the opening sequence, and it was quite possible to miss the fact that M had been wounded to any degree of severity during the final battle.
I also don't really buy the fact that the psychologist mentioned 'Skyfall' for no apparent reason, having never been mentioned in any of the previous films and having no part of the plot at that time.
But, despite that, I enjoyed every minute and am more than happy to congratulate Wilson and Broccoli for their outstanding effort for Bonds 50th Anniversary.
I don't think I've "assaulted" people. You have rightful criticism and pointless moaning. Whenever I see the latter, I respond.
With a maximum of two lines. Usually one. More often than not a question. It would add some weight if you voiced a fully formed opinion rather than firing off pot shots. As you just did again to Dimi.
Don't recall mentioning your name, friend.
Sometimes you don't need overly long posts to state your opinion.
I think having something big like him dying, retiring, would ruin it for the next film. Something subtle could work, then they can just carry on as normal with a new actor like they did with every Bonds debut before Craig.
I've been avoiding this thread like the plague for the past two weeks since I live in New York. But I was fortunate enough to attend the NY premiere last night and now can finally chime in. I'm fascinated by what a lot of you have written.
The first thing I can say is that I am still digesting it. It caught me by surprise on many levels and that's why I need to see it again. I'll be doing that this Friday in IMAX when it opens proper in the States. But here are my first impressions:
-I was disappointed when the gun barrel didn't happen. I wanted it so badly that I think I resented it up until half-way through the movie.
-That said, the PTS was fantastic, particularly once they got on the train. If it's not the best PTS of all, it may at least qualify perhaps as the most important.
-I absolutely LOVED Kleinman's title sequence. This was the first time in the picture where I found myself unabashedly grinning from ear to ear. They got so much of it right. The marriage of the song with the visuals was stellar. As much as I love the titles of CR, this may well have topped it. I was so happy.
-I liked how much they used Tanner, and Kinnear's presence as a whole.
-I found the psychological evaluation scene to be quite funny. Craig played it great.
-Craig, overall, does arguably his best work here. He is the real star and handles the difficult material superbly.
-Dench turns in her best performance yet, and like Craig, steps up to the challenge. Her character was wonderfully written.
-Enough can't be said about the cinematography. It wouldn't be irrational to have Deakins at least nominated in this category. The work is that good and that serious.
-I found Newman's score to be serviceable, but not particularly memorable. It did the job without necessarily standing out.
-The way that Mendes shot the Shanghai skyscraper fight with Patrice was exquisite. It was full of art, and thoroughly engaging.
-I wish Severine would have been in it more, but I also understand the decision to keep her character as is.
-Some of the action scenes in London didn't blow me away. I found them to be serviceable, but not particularly memorable.
-Bardem is easily one of the best things about the movie. This is a clear example of what happens when you have a great actor and you give him the freedom to explore. A delicious villain!
-I enjoyed how Fiennes' character was written. The same thing goes for Winshaw, though I didn't find him as hilarious as others have pointed out. It was fine for what it was.
-One of the best moments happened when he pulled out the DB5 and the theme kicked in. That was pure Bond.
-The finale at Skyfall, though bleak as hell, was nonetheless beautifully shot. Once again, Mendes made very artistic choices that pay off.
-Albert Finney was excellent casting in that role.
-M's death was done quite beautifully.
I guess my main gripe is that in many ways it didn't feel too much like a James Bond movie. At least not of the kind we are used to. CR was a reboot, but it still felt to me very much like James Bond. That said, SkyFall is still a very well-made movie regardless of James Bond. Its production values are top of the line. It's just a matter of whether or not the viewer can (wants to) marry it to his/her idea of James Bond.
I'll echo the opinion of most by saying that I can't wait to see what lies ahead.
http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/new_bond_film_skyfall_falls_flat_L2Foui6x7BvFTp642vqU4M
You are getting boring now.
Why not just ignore him now, too?
I stopped reading when the reviewer called Turkey a third world country. No offense to our American brothers on here but this is the reason a lot of smaller nations dislike you. Ill informed, lazy and utterly blasé stereotyping.
Edit: Sorry, I meant back on griping about getafix. Things move fast on this forum.
Anyway, Mendes reveals he wanted gunbarrel at beginning but explains why he changed his mind:
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35699
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.