A place for disappointed skyfall viewers

JamesCraig · November 2012

I meant that the whole film was not explained enough.

Not interested anymore in Bonds 24 & 25. [-(

Zekidk · November 2012

DarthDimi wrote:

I have hopes that next time it'll happen along the line of:

- Bond.
- M.
- Here's the mission. You will find so-and-so, do this-and-that and 007,
- Sir
- This is the big one!
And no more M for the rest of the film, except, perhaps, in a funny coda.

Amen!

Getafix · November 2012

DRESSED_TO_KILL wrote:

I apologize for any offending comments from the Skyfall fan review thread, but I can no longer post in that thread due to flaming . I feel like we disappointed skyfall viewers need our own thread to discuss our negativity on the film . I may be in the minority here but I know there are others out there who feel the same way as I. Anyways here is my final say on skyfall. Thank you

As I said in Friday’s review, I love both
‘Casino Royale‘ and ‘Quantum of Solace‘,
and really wanted ‘Skyfall’ to follow
through with the new rebooted series,
which modernized and humanized James
Bond, and did away with corny
unrealistic fluff such as dumbass
gadgets and riding down ski slopes on
musical instruments. Unfortunately, I
feel that ‘Skyfall’ takes Bond back into
the nearly brainless mode that most of
the previous 20 films functioned on.

The first sign that something wasn’t
right with ‘Skyfall’ happened during the
overly-long introductory sequence. After
finding a dead agent and his now hard
drive-less laptop, Bond chases a random
henchman for what feels like 20
minutes. Cranes, trains and automobiles
– this action sequence is cool, but way
too long, and lacks continuity in every
way possible. Bond gets shot twice, but
we later only see him with one gunshot
wound. He drives a dirt bike off a city
bridge onto a train that is suddenly in
the middle of wide open plains – no city
in sight. Two minutes later, he’s in the
mountains.

Due to an on-the-spot call that M
makes, Bond is shot and possibly left for
dead, but we sure as shit know that isn’t
the case. The dumb aspect of this scene
is that M is willing to risk killing Bond in
order to get the hard drive back, but had
she not made the call, both Bond and
Henchman #1 would have smashed into
the train tunnel. While they both would
have died, the hard drive would have
been retrieved and I never would have
been made to suffer through ‘Skyfall’.

This is the first of many times where
‘Skyfall’ steals an element from another
very popular movie. Guess what was on
the hard drive that the henchman got
away with? A list containing every MI6
agent, his/her whereabouts,
pseudonyms and infiltrated
organizations. Wait, isn’t that the exact
same plot from Brain De Palma’s
‘Mission: Impossible‘? You bet your ass it
is, and the plot stealing doesn’t stop
there. Ethan Hunt’s NOC list is only the
beginning.

After a few minutes of being led to
believe that Bond is dead, we of course
learn that he isn’t. Bond is content to
stay off the radar in his tropical hiding
place, tossing back shots of tequila with
stupid scorpions on his hands and
boning random local chicks (and possibly
dudes too) – that is, until he sees
something on the news that stirs him
up. With the NOC list out there, agents
are being killed and someone has
infiltrated MI6 headquarters, blowing up
M’s office in the process. Who did it? Of
course, it’s Javier Bardem’s character,
Silva. How did Silva do it? Who knows?
Like many other major plot points in
‘Skyfall’, we’re never given an answer.
Lazy little ‘Skyfall’ works in a brain-dead
manner. Don’t ask the “how” questions
because there aren’t any answers to be
found.

Shortly thereafter, Bond comes back
from the dead and visits M. She takes
him to the new MI6 headquarters, and
the ‘Casino’ and ‘Quantum’ apologies
begin rolling in. Taking us full circle with
the original Bond flicks, we get all the
goofy stuff that old fans want. The MI6
HQ is now underground and resembles
the hideout of old. We meet Q and some
gadgets are teased. Jokes are made
about not using them as much as MI6
did in the past, but then we proceed to
rely on them. Had it not been for the
transmitter, Bond would have died on
Silva’s island. Had it not been for the
Aston Martin machine guns, many more
henchmen would have entered Bond
Manor during the climax. As much as I
didn’t want ‘Skyfall’ to dig into this has-
been, gadget-filled territory, I initially
didn’t mind because it seemed to be a
minimal joke, a throwback. Sadly, it’s
really just one of the “apologies.”

Through unmotivated and coincidental
actions, at the one-hour mark Bond
finally discovers the identity of the
villain behind the attack on MI6. For the
first time in the film, we meet Silva – a
flamboyant former Double-0 agent with
mommy issues and a desire to bring
down MI6.Wait a second, isn’t this the
exact same antagonist type as seen in
‘GoldenEye‘?! Ding-ding-ding! Instead of
stealing a villain from ‘Mission:
Impossible’, ‘Skyfall’ steals one from its
own franchise. Bardem isn’t bad, but his
collective 15 minutes of screen time
don’t come close to portraying the
fleshed-out three dimensional villain he
could be. His flamboyance is just a
notch down from Jim Carrey’s portrayal
of the Riddler. That removing any
potential he had of being a menace and
kills the serious tone.

Another pointless aspect of Silva comes
across as an apology. I’m fine with
minimal nods back to the original films
(like the subterranean headquarters),
which is why I didn’t mind Le Chiffre’s
bleeding eye in ‘Casino Royale’ being a
throwback to the randomly disfigured
villains of old – but Silva’s ridiculous
disfiguration is damned absurd. The
reveal of Silva’s glass jaw caused me to
groan out loud. Making matters worse is
the fact that the filmmakers try to tie
this disfiguration into a coherent part of
the plot. You see, Silva is disfigured
because of a job gone bad. Things went
sour and M made a call that resulted in
his deformity. Because of the opening
sequence where Bond is shot and left
for dead due to M’s decision, Silva
explains that they have a lot in common.
Mind you, Bond’s involvement in this
whole ordeal stems from coincidences
and random acts. Silva never planned to
get Bond in this position. It was all
chance, but that’s not what we’re led to
believe. Bond randomly finds Silva and
we’re supposed to think that Silva set it
all up.

Bond stumbles into Silva’s lame lair and
gets caught, but it turns out that Bond
wanted to get caught. Because of the
gadgets that Bond now has, M and MI6
are able to intervene, rescue Bond and
capture Silva. It was a twist! (Please
note my sarcasm.) But then Silva is
taken back to the brand new secret
underground HQ and it’s revealed that,
like Loki in ‘The Avengers‘, Silva wanted
to be caught and brought back to their
new hideout all along. Double twist!
What follows is a scene that I deem the
most braindead of the whole movie.
Bond chases Silva through subway
tunnels, catches up to Old Glass Jaw in a
large subterranean room and fires a few
shots. Bond can shoot two rungs on the
ladder Silva climbs, but not Silva
himself. And just when he gets the bad
guy in his sights, he freezes and doesn’t
take the shot just so that Silva can drop
an empty train on him. (P.S. I’ve been in
London’s tubes during the day, and no
train is ever empty.) Considering that
Silva had no idea where the new MI6
HQ was located, how lame is it he
somehow knew the exact place that
Bond was going to catch him, and would
have a bomb rigged so that he could
drop a train on Bond? Absolutely absurd.

At this point in the film, halfway
through, the plot is completely
discarded. Do you remember that NOC
list that Bond and MI6 have been
tracking down? Well, the characters sure
don’t. The story that we’ve been
wrapped up in for over an hour is tossed
aside. You might assume that the hard
drive was retrieved when Silva was
captured, but you’d think that this was a
plot point worth resolving. After all, at
least five agents had their identities
revealed and were executed. This is a
major part of story, something greater
than leaving up to presumptions – but
it’s not resolved. Ever. After Silva breaks
into MI6, only to escape (without
achieving a thing), the MI6 mission
shifts from the unresolved NOC list to
protecting M from Silva. Bond and M
don’t look for the hard drive any longer.
Eff every other agent in the field – Mum
is in danger! All energy and efforts go
towards keeping M safe. Bond and M
run from Silva, becoming the prey and
not the usual predators.

The NOC list is ditched just so that the
franchise can be given yet another new
origin. We’re suddenly force fed a
splinter of Bond’s back story. A plot
point is revealed that other reviewers
claim digs deep into Bond’s roots,
origins and motivations. I disagree with
those statements. ‘Casino Royale’
created a three dimensional character.
Through the death of Vesper in the
climax, Bond was given a dark
motivation that we could all connect
with. In ‘Skyfall’, that motivation (what
I’m calling “The Vesper Motivation”) is
completely dismissed for a newer,
shallower one – his parents died. Why is
Bond the cruel, heartless and brutal
beast that he is? It’s not because of
Vesper. It’s because he’s an orphan.
Once again, we’re supposed to make the
connection that Bond is like Silva – he
has parent issues too. Boo-hoo and
bullshit. The final act character
development is worthless, but not as
worthless as the ripped-off anticlimax
that follows.

Do you know how every Bond movie has
a wild adventurous finale? ‘Skyfall’
doesn’t. The movie wraps up with Bond
and M playing ‘Home Alone‘ against the
strangest set of henchmen ever. They
lock themselves in Bond Manor with
Albert Finney (who pops up just for the
film’s climax) and re-enact ‘Straw Dogs’.
Bad guys climb inside the boarded up
house, but fall for boobytrap after
boobytrap, failing to ever take out either
of the geriatric geezers shuffling around
inside. When Bond, M and Finney
complete the first wave, then enters
Silva in a helicopter shooting sequence
that would have been any other villains’
first attack choice. This scene just keeps
going on and on and on. They move the
fight outdoors, and then they move back
indoors, and so forth.

The nearly two-and-a-half hour runtime
of ‘Skyfall’ is unwarranted. Most scenes
are too long, especially the “Peter and
the Chicken” action sequences. It would
all be over much earlier had Bond taken
the shot one of the many times in the
movie that the opportunity was readily
in front of him, but he unexplainably and
consciously decides not to. For example,
why didn’t Bond just shoot Silva in the
face during the scene where Silva tried
to drop a train on him?

My final gripe with flick is M’s fate. Did
anyone not see M’s death coming from
the moment we met Ralph Fiennes’
character? If you didn’t catch it then,
you must have caught it when her real
name was revealed. The movie’s ending
was spoiled two hours before we got to
it.

Btw, DTK, that's an impressive rundown. I don't agree with everything you've said there, but it certainly beats reading another 'best Bond ever' review.

I think as some others have said, when it boils down to it my problem is that I found it a strangely unengaging story and generally not very enjoyable. When you're not really carried along by the movie, you inevitably start picking up on the plot flaws. If the film is engaging and takes you along on the ride you will forgive all manner of dodgy plot issues. That said, I do think SF is riddled with unexplained character motivations and an extremely ropey story, to such an extent that you just cannot ignore it. Add in what was for me was a dreary and forgettable score (does any one really think it was any good?) and it's sleep time.

JamesCraig · November 2012

Many reviews don't talk of THE BEST EVER, including mine. By your logic, I could say that the negative reviews might say THE WORST EVER.

NapoleonPlural · November 2012

JamesCraig I can't figure out if you're for or against the movie, your posts seem a bit contradictory.

JimThompson45 · November 2012

JamesCraig wrote:

I meant that the whole film was not explained enough.

Not interested anymore in Bonds 24 & 25. [-(

I'm just the opposite; I can't wait to see what they have in store next!

oorogers · November 2012

DRESSED_TO_KILL wrote:

I apologize for any offending comments from the Skyfall fan review thread, but I can no longer post in that thread due to flaming . I feel like we disappointed skyfall viewers need our own thread to discuss our negativity on the film . I may be in the minority here but I know there are others out there who feel the same way as I. Anyways here is my final say on skyfall. Thank you

As I said in Friday’s review, I love both
‘Casino Royale‘ and ‘Quantum of Solace‘,
and really wanted ‘Skyfall’ to follow
through with the new rebooted series,
which modernized and humanized James
Bond, and did away with corny
unrealistic fluff such as dumbass
gadgets and riding down ski slopes on
musical instruments. Unfortunately, I
feel that ‘Skyfall’ takes Bond back into
the nearly brainless mode that most of
the previous 20 films functioned on.

The first sign that something wasn’t
right with ‘Skyfall’ happened during the
overly-long introductory sequence. After
finding a dead agent and his now hard
drive-less laptop, Bond chases a random
henchman for what feels like 20
minutes. Cranes, trains and automobiles
– this action sequence is cool, but way
too long, and lacks continuity in every
way possible. Bond gets shot twice, but
we later only see him with one gunshot
wound. He drives a dirt bike off a city
bridge onto a train that is suddenly in
the middle of wide open plains – no city
in sight. Two minutes later, he’s in the
mountains.

Due to an on-the-spot call that M
makes, Bond is shot and possibly left for
dead, but we sure as shit know that isn’t
the case. The dumb aspect of this scene
is that M is willing to risk killing Bond in
order to get the hard drive back, but had
she not made the call, both Bond and
Henchman #1 would have smashed into
the train tunnel. While they both would
have died, the hard drive would have
been retrieved and I never would have
been made to suffer through ‘Skyfall’.

This is the first of many times where
‘Skyfall’ steals an element from another
very popular movie. Guess what was on
the hard drive that the henchman got
away with? A list containing every MI6
agent, his/her whereabouts,
pseudonyms and infiltrated
organizations. Wait, isn’t that the exact
same plot from Brain De Palma’s
‘Mission: Impossible‘? You bet your ass it
is, and the plot stealing doesn’t stop
there. Ethan Hunt’s NOC list is only the
beginning.

After a few minutes of being led to
believe that Bond is dead, we of course
learn that he isn’t. Bond is content to
stay off the radar in his tropical hiding
place, tossing back shots of tequila with
stupid scorpions on his hands and
boning random local chicks (and possibly
dudes too) – that is, until he sees
something on the news that stirs him
up. With the NOC list out there, agents
are being killed and someone has
infiltrated MI6 headquarters, blowing up
M’s office in the process. Who did it? Of
course, it’s Javier Bardem’s character,
Silva. How did Silva do it? Who knows?
Like many other major plot points in
‘Skyfall’, we’re never given an answer.
Lazy little ‘Skyfall’ works in a brain-dead
manner. Don’t ask the “how” questions
because there aren’t any answers to be
found.

Shortly thereafter, Bond comes back
from the dead and visits M. She takes
him to the new MI6 headquarters, and
the ‘Casino’ and ‘Quantum’ apologies
begin rolling in. Taking us full circle with
the original Bond flicks, we get all the
goofy stuff that old fans want. The MI6
HQ is now underground and resembles
the hideout of old. We meet Q and some
gadgets are teased. Jokes are made
about not using them as much as MI6
did in the past, but then we proceed to
rely on them. Had it not been for the
transmitter, Bond would have died on
Silva’s island. Had it not been for the
Aston Martin machine guns, many more
henchmen would have entered Bond
Manor during the climax. As much as I
didn’t want ‘Skyfall’ to dig into this has-
been, gadget-filled territory, I initially
didn’t mind because it seemed to be a
minimal joke, a throwback. Sadly, it’s
really just one of the “apologies.”

Through unmotivated and coincidental
actions, at the one-hour mark Bond
finally discovers the identity of the
villain behind the attack on MI6. For the
first time in the film, we meet Silva – a
flamboyant former Double-0 agent with
mommy issues and a desire to bring
down MI6.Wait a second, isn’t this the
exact same antagonist type as seen in
‘GoldenEye‘?! Ding-ding-ding! Instead of
stealing a villain from ‘Mission:
Impossible’, ‘Skyfall’ steals one from its
own franchise. Bardem isn’t bad, but his
collective 15 minutes of screen time
don’t come close to portraying the
fleshed-out three dimensional villain he
could be. His flamboyance is just a
notch down from Jim Carrey’s portrayal
of the Riddler. That removing any
potential he had of being a menace and
kills the serious tone.

Another pointless aspect of Silva comes
across as an apology. I’m fine with
minimal nods back to the original films
(like the subterranean headquarters),
which is why I didn’t mind Le Chiffre’s
bleeding eye in ‘Casino Royale’ being a
throwback to the randomly disfigured
villains of old – but Silva’s ridiculous
disfiguration is damned absurd. The
reveal of Silva’s glass jaw caused me to
groan out loud. Making matters worse is
the fact that the filmmakers try to tie
this disfiguration into a coherent part of
the plot. You see, Silva is disfigured
because of a job gone bad. Things went
sour and M made a call that resulted in
his deformity. Because of the opening
sequence where Bond is shot and left
for dead due to M’s decision, Silva
explains that they have a lot in common.
Mind you, Bond’s involvement in this
whole ordeal stems from coincidences
and random acts. Silva never planned to
get Bond in this position. It was all
chance, but that’s not what we’re led to
believe. Bond randomly finds Silva and
we’re supposed to think that Silva set it
all up.

Bond stumbles into Silva’s lame lair and
gets caught, but it turns out that Bond
wanted to get caught. Because of the
gadgets that Bond now has, M and MI6
are able to intervene, rescue Bond and
capture Silva. It was a twist! (Please
note my sarcasm.) But then Silva is
taken back to the brand new secret
underground HQ and it’s revealed that,
like Loki in ‘The Avengers‘, Silva wanted
to be caught and brought back to their
new hideout all along. Double twist!
What follows is a scene that I deem the
most braindead of the whole movie.
Bond chases Silva through subway
tunnels, catches up to Old Glass Jaw in a
large subterranean room and fires a few
shots. Bond can shoot two rungs on the
ladder Silva climbs, but not Silva
himself. And just when he gets the bad
guy in his sights, he freezes and doesn’t
take the shot just so that Silva can drop
an empty train on him. (P.S. I’ve been in
London’s tubes during the day, and no
train is ever empty.) Considering that
Silva had no idea where the new MI6
HQ was located, how lame is it he
somehow knew the exact place that
Bond was going to catch him, and would
have a bomb rigged so that he could
drop a train on Bond? Absolutely absurd.

At this point in the film, halfway
through, the plot is completely
discarded. Do you remember that NOC
list that Bond and MI6 have been
tracking down? Well, the characters sure
don’t. The story that we’ve been
wrapped up in for over an hour is tossed
aside. You might assume that the hard
drive was retrieved when Silva was
captured, but you’d think that this was a
plot point worth resolving. After all, at
least five agents had their identities
revealed and were executed. This is a
major part of story, something greater
than leaving up to presumptions – but
it’s not resolved. Ever. After Silva breaks
into MI6, only to escape (without
achieving a thing), the MI6 mission
shifts from the unresolved NOC list to
protecting M from Silva. Bond and M
don’t look for the hard drive any longer.
Eff every other agent in the field – Mum
is in danger! All energy and efforts go
towards keeping M safe. Bond and M
run from Silva, becoming the prey and
not the usual predators.

The NOC list is ditched just so that the
franchise can be given yet another new
origin. We’re suddenly force fed a
splinter of Bond’s back story. A plot
point is revealed that other reviewers
claim digs deep into Bond’s roots,
origins and motivations. I disagree with
those statements. ‘Casino Royale’
created a three dimensional character.
Through the death of Vesper in the
climax, Bond was given a dark
motivation that we could all connect
with. In ‘Skyfall’, that motivation (what
I’m calling “The Vesper Motivation”) is
completely dismissed for a newer,
shallower one – his parents died. Why is
Bond the cruel, heartless and brutal
beast that he is? It’s not because of
Vesper. It’s because he’s an orphan.
Once again, we’re supposed to make the
connection that Bond is like Silva – he
has parent issues too. Boo-hoo and
bullshit. The final act character
development is worthless, but not as
worthless as the ripped-off anticlimax
that follows.

Do you know how every Bond movie has
a wild adventurous finale? ‘Skyfall’
doesn’t. The movie wraps up with Bond
and M playing ‘Home Alone‘ against the
strangest set of henchmen ever. They
lock themselves in Bond Manor with
Albert Finney (who pops up just for the
film’s climax) and re-enact ‘Straw Dogs’.
Bad guys climb inside the boarded up
house, but fall for boobytrap after
boobytrap, failing to ever take out either
of the geriatric geezers shuffling around
inside. When Bond, M and Finney
complete the first wave, then enters
Silva in a helicopter shooting sequence
that would have been any other villains’
first attack choice. This scene just keeps
going on and on and on. They move the
fight outdoors, and then they move back
indoors, and so forth.

The nearly two-and-a-half hour runtime
of ‘Skyfall’ is unwarranted. Most scenes
are too long, especially the “Peter and
the Chicken” action sequences. It would
all be over much earlier had Bond taken
the shot one of the many times in the
movie that the opportunity was readily
in front of him, but he unexplainably and
consciously decides not to. For example,
why didn’t Bond just shoot Silva in the
face during the scene where Silva tried
to drop a train on him?

My final gripe with flick is M’s fate. Did
anyone not see M’s death coming from
the moment we met Ralph Fiennes’
character? If you didn’t catch it then,
you must have caught it when her real
name was revealed. The movie’s ending
was spoiled two hours before we got to
it.

If you do not like bond movies do not go watch them simple as and all you did was re write the whole plot in a rant that makes no sense at all its just a rant and a load of bull.
so you did not like skyfall who cares

Germanlady · November 2012

NapoleonPlural wrote:

JamesCraig I can't figure out if you're for or against the movie, your posts seem a bit contradictory.

He is all for it and is playing you off.

Getafix · November 2012

NapoleonPlural wrote:

JamesCraig I can't figure out if you're for or against the movie, your posts seem a bit contradictory.

That's exactly what I was thinking. I think there's some 'sarcasm' in there.

Apparently this thread is too boring for the SF fans and yet they just don't seem to be able to avoid dropping by to dole out a bit of abuse.

Apparently winding people up for a laugh is okay if your an SF fan. Next they'll be coming along and accusing us of being 'trolls' again.

RC7 · November 2012

NapoleonPlural wrote:

JamesCraig I can't figure out if you're for or against the movie, your posts seem a bit contradictory.

He doesn't like the fact you're knocking SF in any way. I think he's probably very young though, bless him.

thelivingroyale · November 2012

DoctorKaufmann wrote:

So lighten up, gentlemen, after all it is only a movie meant to entertain people and give them 145 minutes of fun...

I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.

Getafix · November 2012

thelivingroyale wrote:

DoctorKaufmann wrote:

So lighten up, gentlemen, after all it is only a movie meant to entertain people and give them 145 minutes of fun...

I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.

Exactly. This was the least 'fun' I've had in the cinema since dragging myself to see DAD. It's bad for very different reasons, but had I actually enjoyed it on any level I wouldn't care about the ropey plot.

NicNac · November 2012

Getafix wrote:

RogueAgent wrote:

Why this was not in the original thread i do not know?

Because a few members made it very clear we were not welcome. It's not easy to have a bit of light hearted banter when you've got people screaming 'troll' at you in every other post or going on about how you must be Moonraker fan if you don't like SF. Any way, it's fine like this I think. The other thread's practically dead now any way - just a few 'best Bond ever' reviews and that's it - just how they wanted it.

Well the other thread lasted for 28 pages so if it's slowing up it isn't surprising.
And @Getafix, remember we have allowed you your own thread to bash SF to your hearts content, so please stop the digs at people who actually like the film, yes?

RC7 · November 2012

thelivingroyale wrote:

DoctorKaufmann wrote:

So lighten up, gentlemen, after all it is only a movie meant to entertain people and give them 145 minutes of fun...

I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.

Someone talking some sense. Don't understand why people have so much trouble understanding this sentiment.

JimThompson45 · November 2012

thelivingroyale wrote:

I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.

There's likely an argument to be made in support of this, though I thought Skyfall remained pretty consistent in terms of the story's internal logic and structure.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 · November 2012

thelivingroyale wrote:

DoctorKaufmann wrote:

So lighten up, gentlemen, after all it is only a movie meant to entertain people and give them 145 minutes of fun...

I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.

Skyfall was the most lighthearted of all the Craig films yet, and obviously meant to be more fun. I do think it is equally expected of us to take it seriously in the same token, though.

Zekidk · November 2012

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

thelivingroyale wrote:

DoctorKaufmann wrote:

So lighten up, gentlemen, after all it is only a movie meant to entertain people and give them 145 minutes of fun...

I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.

Skyfall was the most lighthearted of all the Craig films yet, and obviously meant to be more fun.

Yeah, it was quite "funny and lightheated" for some I guess, that Bond hits rock bottom, and that the main Bond girl plus his boss dies.

Getafix · November 2012

Zekidk wrote:

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

thelivingroyale wrote:

DoctorKaufmann wrote:

So lighten up, gentlemen, after all it is only a movie meant to entertain people and give them 145 minutes of fun...

I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.

Skyfall was the most lighthearted of all the Craig films yet, and obviously meant to be more fun.

Yeah, it was quite "funny and lightheated" for some I guess, that Bond hits rock bottom, and that the main Bond girl plus his boss dies.

My better half described the film as 'depressing'. And she's a DC fan.

JimThompson45 · November 2012

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

Skyfall was the most lighthearted of all the Craig films yet, and obviously meant to be more fun. I do think it is equally expected of us to take it seriously in the same token, though.

"Lighthearted" being very loosely used here, perhaps. :)

thelivingroyale · November 2012

@RC7 I think me and youre in the same boat. We liked the film but we're not against any criticism of it.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

thelivingroyale wrote:

DoctorKaufmann wrote:

So lighten up, gentlemen, after all it is only a movie meant to entertain people and give them 145 minutes of fun...

I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.

Skyfall was the most lighthearted of all the Craig films yet, and obviously meant to be more fun. I do think it is equally expected of us to take it seriously in the same token, though.

Yeah it did have fun moments and lines but it wasn't a Moore style romp or anything like that, the story was fairly serious and overall I think it wanted to be taken seriously.

JimThompson45 · November 2012

Getafix wrote:

My better half described the film as 'depressing'. And she's a DC fan.

Really? While the movie certainly had it's share of somber moments, I actually found it to be pretty uplifting when all was said and done.

oorogers · November 2012

you lot are funny i do not get why everyone is moaning about plot holes etc or why you slate sf so much I liked it action packed what more do you want if you do not get the plot or want to fill in the gaps wait for the dvd to come out and watch the extras. otherwise go to the cinema watch a film and enjoy it if you more concerned about plot holes then don't bother just buy a book.

Creasy47 · November 2012

oorogers wrote:

you lot are funny i do not get why everyone is moaning about plot holes etc or why you slate sf so much I liked it action packed what more do you want if you do not get the plot or want to fill in the gaps wait for the dvd to come out and watch the extras. otherwise go to the cinema watch a film and enjoy it if you more concerned about plot holes then don't bother just buy a book.

Again...I loved SF. But, if people despise those who come in to 'appreciation' threads and trash those who liked it, who are we to come in to the 'disappointed' threads and trash them? Seems incredibly hypocritical to me. Let them dish out their opinions, before we derail yet another thread.

DRush76 · November 2012

And no more M for the rest of the film, except, perhaps, in a funny coda.

That's a lovely dream, but M meeting Bond in different parts of the world has been a tradition with the franchise since 1967's "YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE".

But, if people despise those who come in to 'appreciation' threads and trash those who liked it, who are we to come in to the 'disappointed' threads and trash them? Seems incredibly hypocritical to me. Let them dish out their opinions, before we derail yet another thread.

Why are people complaining about those who trash the ones who liked the film, and ignore those who trash the ones who disliked the film? That seems to be a constant theme on this forum.

you lot are funny i do not get why everyone is moaning about plot holes etc or why you slate sf so much I liked it action packed what more do you want if you do not get the plot or want to fill in the gaps wait for the dvd to come out and watch the extras. otherwise go to the cinema watch a film and enjoy it if you more concerned about plot holes then don't bother just buy a book.

Why did you feel it was necessary to criticize those who disliked the film? Why can't you just accept the fact that some people did not like it and found something wrong with it?

craigrules · November 2012

NapoleonPlural wrote:

JamesCraig I can't figure out if you're for or against the movie, your posts seem a bit contradictory.

You can say that again

Getafix · November 2012

DRush76 wrote:

And no more M for the rest of the film, except, perhaps, in a funny coda.

That's a lovely dream, but M meeting Bond in different parts of the world has been a tradition with the franchise since 1967's "YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE".

But, if people despise those who come in to 'appreciation' threads and trash those who liked it, who are we to come in to the 'disappointed' threads and trash them? Seems incredibly hypocritical to me. Let them dish out their opinions, before we derail yet another thread.

Why are people complaining about those who trash the ones who liked the film, and ignore those who trash the ones who disliked the film? That seems to be a constant theme on this forum.

I think the very fact that they've cast Fiennes as M means the character will continue to loom large in the DC era. However, I am looking forward with optimism towards a more 'equal' relationship between them and something a bit more professional and less laden with psychobabble and trust issues.

Loved seeing the padded door back at the end of SF. Have been waiting that for about 20 years!

craigrules · November 2012

Germanlady wrote:

NapoleonPlural wrote:

JamesCraig I can't figure out if you're for or against the movie, your posts seem a bit contradictory.

He is all for it and is playing you off.

Troll you say?

Grant · November 2012

Hello, just a couple of things.

Firstly, I am surprised that people are surprised at how offensive and aggressive people can be on this site. I have always found this.

Secondly, I made a pact, with myself, not to see Skyfall but my brother (who detests Non-Craig Bond with a passion) wants to see it again and agreed to pay for my ticket (I am easily bought).

So I will have my review ready soon. By the way my brother loved Skyfall so that is not a good start.

JimThompson45 · November 2012

Getafix wrote:

I think the very fact that they've cast Fiennes as M means the character will continue to loom large in the DC era. However, I am looking forward with optimism towards a more 'equal' relationship between them and something a bit more professional and less laden with psychobabble and trust issues.

Certainly seems like it'll be a more straight-forward relationship. Looking forward to seeing how it unfolds.

JamesCraig · November 2012

RC7, you still haven't given up on following me around like I don't know what or who. You haven't even responded fo my full review of SF, which proves my theory that you like to provoke until I'm out of your way.

And yes, I was joking in the above posts.

Reporting For Duty

Categories

In this Discussion

A place for disappointed skyfall viewers

Comments

Reporting For Duty

Quick Links

Categories

In this Discussion

A place for disappointed skyfall viewers

Comments