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
Thankfully the producers had the foresight to reboot the formula, both with Dalton and Craig, when things went a little too silly. I just hope that path laid out by Skyfall continues.
That's a bold statement! Let's not. They already spent six years and three movies rebuilding Bond. Enough already!
Yes, if only GL had been around in Cubby's day. She could have taught him a thing or two about making Bond movies.
Good luck with that.
Health and Safety.
.....my first time.
Last rat...
Spots...
Pyjamas...
Put in on red circle of life
No major organs...
Some good, some ok, one naff, all delivered with style. What's not to like?
I think I agree with you overall. There has to be a place for humour in Bond. The way it's done in SF is not too bad. For me there was nothing as good as the 'Do I look like I give a damn' line in CR, but at least they made a bit of effort. For me the problem is the quality of writing. When I go back to the Sean movies and even the Roger ones, I am always amazed by just how good the scripts often are. The humour is often cutting and is almost always of a pretty high order. It's actually genuinely funny. The line I mentioned above in CR was a good one although perhaps it's a little too self-referential.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/social-care-network/2012/nov/12/skyfail-bond-villain-mental-health-stigma
The film I saw did that very clearly. Did that writer see the film?
I don't know, did he?
It's a movie, pal. And the fact that he used "Skyfail" as his title makes him and his article even more asinine. It's truly hard to believe that this Guardian author actually saw the film when he thinks that Silva's hate for M is unexplained. Sorry if everything cannot be P.C. enough for you, Mr. Beresford - but next time you should actually watch the movie instead of sitting in the theater thinking about how you could get more hits on your site.
Of course.
Remember him sitting in his glas cage. Whining how they hurt him etc and that M had let him down. Later then M's explanation to Bond, that Silva was a brilliant agent, who got 'what was the word?' and hence she needed to give him up in return for 6 other agents etc. He got captured for 6 month, tortured, finally he bite at the deadly capsule in his tooth, which didn't kill him but left him scarred for life. He did dig his own grave, but would just feel like a victim.
Somehow this sounds familiar ;)
It's pretty much blatant in the film that he's a bit upset with M.
Overall an excellent action film and surprisingly a good Bond film.
What I liked; I really enjoyed the overall ‘atmosphere’ of the film. There was a jaded brilliance from the visual greys and blacks that dominated the British scenes to Bond's physical breakdown.
Performances were very good all round. Fiennes was excellent and I really enjoyed Harris (was not expecting that). Craig was very good (look I will never be a fan of his Bond purely on the visual factor but I am not a fan of Moore’s Bond and he was a handsome man) I really enjoyed his portrayal though I feel his Bond will always be a bit dour and hurt. I thoroughly enjoyed the scenes in China.
Finally Dench’s M is no more. That is welcome.
What I didn’t like; I have primarily two, one minor and one not quite so. Firstly, and this gripe can be applied to many Bond films and movies in general, the older I get the less tolerant I am of films whose plot relies on what I call the Domino Effect.
Essentially plot point P cannot take place unless plot point C follows B follows A etc. These linear plot films have to make sense and in the case of Skyfall it does not. So Siva wanted to be caught by MI5? This important plot point, in relation to Skyfall, relied on Bond, firstly, removing the shrapnel from his shoulder, then finding the casino chip in the case (by the way why did Bond let the assassin kill the chap viewing the picture?) and finally the lovely Marlohe falling for him and bringing him to Silva.
What if these points did not take place? What would poor Silva do? However this is a film and the Domino Effect is used in many films.
The second gripe is harder to ignore. I have never been a fan of the reboot Bond idea. I have always felt it was a sop to ‘popular’ trends in films (Bourne and Batman) and that it was a borderline two-fingers to Bond’s visual history. Yet a reboot is a reboot, a clean slate. You should stick to your guns. What went before does not exist! Yet in Skyfall we have several nods to Bonds visual antecedents from Q’s quip that we do not deal in exploding pens and of course the Goldfinger Austin Martin.
I am a contrarian in that these probably added to my enjoyment of Skyfall but as I said a reboot is a reboot. They should not be there. The reboot Bond is like a rebellious teenager who finally realises that maybe his parents were right after all.
What I am saying, badly, is why did we have to have the reboot? Could we not have had Skyfall straight after Die Another Day. It would have made more sense and added to, at least, my enjoyment.
Overall I enjoyed Skyfall and I don’t mind Craig as Bond anymore (though I am a fickle man).
P.s I was brought to Skyfall under due arrest by my brother.
P.P.S Silva really did have a legitimate case against M. She traded this 'brilliant agent' simply because he became reckless! Harsh very harsh.
I think with DAD they went too OTT and with CR/QOS they might've gone too serious. They've refound that middle ground with SF (that was in Daltons films, most of Connerys, Brosnans first 3), and they need to try and keep it.
As far as I'm concerned, Brozza's films are not part of the franchise. We had LTK, then CR a few years later.
:)>-
I'll just have to disagree with you but not part of the franchise? I think that's going a bit far. I think every film has it's place in the series, even the films I don't like that much.
Agree there is a film for every fans taste in the bond series, every perceived bad movie ultimately led to a good movie somewhere down the line. I am not a PB fan, though probably like most bond fans i have watched his films more than most films outside the franchise.
I find myself getting angry the minute I see Brozza pull one of his pain faces.
I respect your opinion, sir, but I disagree with it in all directions.
The Brosnan era, for me, has always been somewhat confusing. It's the era I had to grow up with as a teen (wishing I had been several years older so that I could have said that but with Dalton as Bond). GE was a blast! I remember 1995 as the year that GE came into my life. It had the power of a religious experience and that feeling never went away. I am a GE slave. Can't say I've ever not liked watching the film. For me, the GE love runs through my veins like a physical condition that never goes away...
... and this is probably the main reason for my sour disliking of what came after it. TND wasn't GE 2, which the 15 year old me had naively hoped it would be. Though I've come to hold it in a higher esteem through the years, in '97 it all but stripped me of my Bond optimism. TWINE went even further down the sewer for me. I can still see glimmers of good ideas and sparks of brilliant execution, but the overall experience isn't quite to my liking. At this point my scientific career was taking off rather well and Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist was too much to handle.
Then came DAD, a film that I found blissfully simple and light at first (versus the extremely belaboured and in my opinion flawed complexity of TWINE) but annoyingly unintelligent and almost insultingly ridiculous after a short while.
However, all four films are part of the franchise for me. For even if three of these four aren't exactly bright spots in my book, there's always an occasion where they seem to be fitting very well. The nights exist where I feel like watching DAD or even TWINE. I may curse each time I relive some of the old annoyances, but despite their flawed nature I can still have a fun time with them.
Call me a Bond apologetic. ;-)
I was a bit let down by TND but I've always really enjoyed TWINE. The less said about DAD the better but even that has a great first half.
Cmon there are worse films than Brosnans Bond movies. It seems like you dislike Brosnan even more than @Getafix!
GF was the first Bond film I ever saw, and grew up on Connery films. I found the Moore films silly, but the first 4 for me are guilty pleasures, like yours are with Brozza's films.
Dalton was the saviour for me, then it all went downhill when Brozza came on the scene. Lucky that Craig and CR turned up when it did.
Brosnan's films are highly flawed but (for the most part) not unwatchable. If anything part of me is - after 17 years - growing tired of GE because I've watched it TOO many times.
Secondly, too often, both in Brosnan's and Craig's tenure, she plays too dominant a role. An emotional raison d'etre (TWINE, Skyfall). This should not be. Bernard Lee's portrayal (just like the books) is the template that should be followed. They did it probably because she is a lady.
AAGGH!! Why does this bother people? She was in the reboot because she was a great actress and the producers did want to get rid of her. Her M is not the same M as it was in the Brosnan era.