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 think that's a little harsh. Maybe it's because I'm a big fan of the Tanner character from the books but I think Kinnear gave a great performance. Again, he's not a star in this film. Just something I noticed
What, do you expect him to join the fray with Bond? Not likely. And just because a role doesn't demand any physical work doesn't make it a simple performance. The hardest performances are ones where you aren't give anything to do, because the focus will be on you and you alone and you must be able to make the audience become interested in you regardless.
I think he did well with what he was given but he was given basically nothing, his performance didn't really stand out to me.
I think Tanner is a fairly boring character and I don't really care about him but Kinnear does seem pretty dedicated to it. He returned for SF after the 4 year break and he's done all the recent video games, so I think he's a fan and he enjoys it.
Actually I have read favourable reviews about him before, so you are not the only one. For me, for the first time, he turned into something like a real character, which he was not in the other two.
Two? Was he in Casino Royale?
Actually was he even in the Brosnan films? Or did we not see him from the 80s up until QOS?
Tanner was not in CR. He was played by a different actor in GE and TWINE.
I liked Michael Kitchen. I thought he was fantastic in GE.
Agreed. His 'evil queen of numbers' line and subsequent reaction when he realized M was there was well done.
True. Sorry. A younger geeky guy. I remember him now.
Should add that I agree with you, esp on the DB5, but also it's not as crazy as Craig not even finding out her name until the final scene... WTF?
You'd be surprised, I've been working with someone for many months and only today did I find everyone else calls her by a nickname I didn't know.
Gun barrel sequence at the end -- didn't bother me. It's the meat in between that counts. There have been quite a few mediocre Bond films with a traditional gun barrel sequence.
Like the new Q a lot. Couldn't help watching the "laying a false trail" scene thinking this is how Jack Bauer's day would have gone if he had competent leadership in CTU!
The CGI scenes didn't bother me. The helicopter did look strange, but I couldn't place my finger on why. All in all audiences have been spoiled. CGI will no more take me out of a movie than a model shot or a dummy falling out of a plane if it's in there to serve the story. The komodo dragon's. It wasn't bad CGI and it wasn't CGI just for the sake of having it. I don't know how else could you do that scene as the beasts are untrainable last time I checked. CGI creatures that exist in the real world have never been completely believable, and other than not having the scene, I don't know how else they'd have achieved it.
The pluses for me were seeing well-choreographed stunt sequences filmed in a way that I could appreciate the work these brilliant people put into it. [This one a primary flaw of QoS].
The score was adequate, but I did appreciate the inclusion of the Bond theme more than once. It really is a great theme, and a sorely missed when it's not there.
All in All 5 out of 5. Money well spent and worth a second and third viewing.
While I've only been a fan for about 15 years, I agree with what you said in the latter half of your comment: after four years - and being such a different outing than Craig's last Bond film - I expected a lot, amped myself up too much (which I said I wouldn't do), and left the theater feeling indifferent. I enjoyed it much more the second time when I picked out what I loved and took it for what it delivered.
Agreed. Her recitation of the poem juxtaposed with Bond running, heroically determined to get to the hearing was brilliant and for me tops the Tosca shootout.
I get that people have issues with the DB5 but really is it that bad? I kind of stopped caring about Superfluous stuff like that the moment Dench was brought back for CR (which was less of an issue than the kitted out DB5) amongst fans, which is why such criticisms I respect but in no way agree with at all. Hell, Bobd didn't get the DB5 until GF but he wins it at a card game in CR? Honestly, people need to relax and take tge time to understand that the time line and continuity of the Bond movies is messed up and it's something your supposed to just go with. In the Crsig era it's been numerous years that sets the events of CR/QoS apart from SF, it's more than logical that the car would have been kitted out within that time. Also, most importantly, the kitted out DB5 was included as a treat for the fans, which seems to have gone largely unappreciated. I just thank God that Mendes decided to destroy the damn car because all this moaning about it is quite ridiculous to me. Now the series can start a new with a different car(s).
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/4494/skyfall-2012#Item_2
I haven't been around here for at least a year because I didn't want to be spoiled for this movie. What I knew going in was the two trailers and the title. That is all.
I have to share my excitement and deep satisfaction with other Bond fans.
When I was 12 years old I read my first Ian Fleming novel, "The Man With The Golden Gun". Naturally, I was shocked by the content of the book. But when I put it down I thought, "Why aren't the movies like this?" Over the years the Bond movies have flirted with the idea of putting Fleming's Bond on the screen, just as written. There were stand-outs like HMSS, TLD, LTK and CR, but I always felt that there was some vital element missing that kept even the best of the films from truly capturing Fleming's Bond. Today I finally saw "my" Bond on screen: a human being who happens to be a skilled agent, a man (not a superhero) with an interesting personality who you end up rooting for.
They've finally done it. "Skyfall" is a character-driven espionage mystery adventure, written for adults, with an actual flesh and blood human being at the center of it. I know there are some fans of the movie franchise who don't like these types of Bond films, and I know there are many on these boards who probably hated this movie. For me, I finally saw the Bond movie I would have made. I'm so glad they dropped the whole "killer instinct" thing: this Bond is intelligent, experienced, that's where his strengths as an agent are, a Thinking Bond. I love how Skyfall is rooted in classic British espionage fiction, I was frequently reminded of Fleming, Le Carre, and John Gardner.
I panicked a little early on: big action sequence (cool, but how is that new?), then pouty Bond drinking and sexing it up. Fortunately that was just the lead-up to the actual film. It's like they got the "James Bond Movie" out of the way in the first 20 minutes and then simply made a gripping spy thriller with Fleming's Bond at the heart of it. Maybe that is what they did! I don't know. But I had a good vibe sitting through the opening credits: for the first time, I believe, they work as a short film, exploring the psychology of Bond, laying out the symbols and subtext of the film, it reminded me so much of the surreal psychological sequences from Hitchcock movies. Visually this easily the best looking of the series, with images that are more than simply polished, they have psychological depth, these are modern images, not just flash, they work as images do in films by directors like Hitchcock, Scorsese, Coppola etc.
I can't go into detail, having only seen the movie once. But I was 100% pleased. The last 10 minutes are simply the best in the entire series. What really excited me was where it leaves off. With past Bonds, age became an issue because they still had Bond diving out of rockets and seducing 20 year old girls. With this version of Bond, M, Q, and Moneypenny, they could easily do two or three more. There's nothing absurd about this Bond. Give him a good script, a gripping story, and a first class director, and age becomes a non-issue.
I wish I had written it!
I suppose, this is how pretty much people see and enjoy tis film. I have read many views, where people stated, they were not necessarely Bond fans, but enoyed this film.