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
Wreck it Ralph is a polular film, that obviously did a good job in what it wanted to be. Do you believe, a film like that doesn't deserve a good rating?
SF has a high rating, because it did a good ob as an entertaining blockbuster Bond film.
You just say, comparing it to Argo is off, but offer no explanation. So, its not valid.
Germanlady said:
single and few
you are aguing against facts.
ME? ;)
single and few indeed compared to the majority. No maths in the world will change that. Sorry...
My point is you keep dredging up reasons for why this film is successful. You don't need to, it's been a success. You won't convert those who dislike it, because they dislike it, simple. You're like Dan's PR. Stop going on and on and on and on.
You go by double standards, because if you read my post, I said, that what bothers me, is the very same h, you guys are trying to do. Endlessly and way more intense then my poor efforts.
BTW - you still have offered no explanation on the Argo front. I suppose then, there is none. Thought so.
I don't know what you're saying. Are you suggesting that Argo and Skyfall having similar ratings means Skyfall should be an Oscar contender? If you are, you're more of an idiot than I thought. Does the term demographics mean anything to you?
I'm not trying to convert anyone. An opinion is an opinion, which cannot be changed through facts or figures, unless of course that opinion is one held for not wholly honourable reasons. If someone believes what they say it doesn't matter about anything else. This board is for discussion, arguments and counter arguments. You've got your knickers in a twist because you'd like this to be a Daniel Craig love in. That's not how a Bond forum works.
I suggest you pour yourself (not poor, by the way) a cup of tea and face the fact that the consensus is that Skyfall is a great Bond film and a great film in general! I wasn't rude to anyone, I accept that some people didn’t like it (it’s impossible to please everyone), so I expect people to extend me the same courtesy. I am yet to meet someone (personally) who didn’t like it, and my friends and family include hard-core Bond fans, “casual” Bond fans, hard-core cinema fans and people who couldn’t care less. About IMDB, I gave up on it a long time ago, the place in filled with ignorant, nonsensical “experts” who think they know everything about anything.
I am not the one making the comparisons to other movies in a totally different genre. You are!
And honestly, like RC7 is trying to say to you, you really should be paying closer attention to what people are in fact saying - and this also include people who are negative towards SF - rather than incessantly defending SF.
Germanlady. This is not an argument about the overall consensus. The facts are in: Most people enjoyed SF. But another fact is that there are also a lot of people who are frustrated with the movie. And it seems like this frustration usually boils down to "it didn't feel like a Bond movie" I understand where they are coming from. Like I wrote: I don't think it's wrong to expect 3-4 action setpieces in a Bond-movie. Mendes even said that every Bond movie has to have at least 3-4 huge action set pieces. But for the entire rumtime of QoS, there's not a single huge action setpiece in SF. You are okay with this? Because I'm not. Just like this forum! ;-)
Unlike you probably I actually respect other people's opinion. For me it doesn't really matter what they are and where they come from, as long as they know how to present their cases.
See - you bring in IMDB, saying that there are endless negative reviews, but it stands at 8.10, which includes all those neative reviews, so what do you want us to make of it? It feels like desperate clinging to straws, hyping the negative opinions.
Re set pieces. What I disliked about CR was, that I was bored with both - Miami and Venice. Way too long. I hated the Brosnan shootouts at the end, which was just mindless "Ballerei"
I can understand, that you say, I mindlessly defend everything DC. But its not true. I am on record here, saying that QOS was very disappointing and that C&A was a real bad film.
My glasses are not as rosy, as you might think.
But I am actually VERY fine with the way, the action was done here. Short and sweet and the end was bombastic enough for me.
Not a Bond film - none of DC's films are "Bond films" for me. My Bond is Sir Roger and this is "Bond" to me. But this was the closest they have come so far. I totally understand, that they had to shake it up to survive. I can accept that. When I watch older films, I sorta cannot anymore. They seem rather ridiculous and well - old, not up to date. To bring this back would be incredibly stupid.
I believe that is - for me - because Bond films, more then other films (and they always refer to that) reflects the time, they are in. So, its really true, there is a Bond actor with his sort of films for every generation. But in the same way as the times change - rather drastically - the films don't feel "right" anymore.
BTW - thanks for the "idiot". Thankfully I am too much of a Lady to give it back :)
But what a brave word.
Arguing that I try to "hype negative comments" is uncalled for. I was responding to the comment made by Sandy who argued that everyone is "pleased" with SF except "few exceptions", by mentioning that 1/3 of all 800+ user reviews on IMDB are negative.
Also, I have never said that you "mindlessly defend everything" from DC. You are mixing me up with someone else. I'm only referring to SF here.
And my main gripe isn't that SF is "flawed" - actually I think all Bond movies are to some extent.
I just don't like the flawed Bond any more. It has become repetitive. Casino Royale covered this ground already, it has just become redundant character-building now, IMO.
And I certainly don't want the action in Bond-movies to be "short and sweet." For me, that's not a Bond-movie. For me Bond-movies are first and foremost actionmovies.
I totally respect that you find the older Bond-movies "ridiculous." But please understand, that there are fans like me who think they should not infuse a change that takes away the persona of the character from how it was conceived and that they shouldn't fool too much around with the same template that have worked well for more than 40 years.
Fans, who unlike you, don't find the older Bond movies "ridiculous."
I brought in Argo, because a similar rating shows the value of SF for what it is. An action blockbuster Bond film, as Argo is what you say or Wreck it another thing alltogether.
Also and just saying - there have been enough articles about SF having a slight chance at Best Picture. So - its not even THAT much off the road. But I didn't bring in Argo because I suggested, it SHOULD get a nod.
Like @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said, let's just leave it and stop prolonging this debate with little asides.
I think some people are trying to use this thread as a substitution for the Disappointed thread, since it is now closed, for some reason comments from the other thread were copied into this one. I tried to keep things quiet in here, tried to respond as politely as possible to an attack, and in return I'm accused of not being respectful to other people's opinion. Behaviour like thin, in my opinion, have only one purpose, try to create havoc in this thread as well. As for me, if there is a next one it will not be answered, which doesn't mean I'll keep my arms closed.
And this review partially outlines why...
http://markoconnell.co.uk/?p=85
Good to see you back ;)
I've been meaning to review it on imdb, but if one is going into the plotholes, one ends up writing a heck of a lot, as you have done. So I put it off.
What I find almost sinister is how the producers seem to insist on plot holes, almost the way a personality cult leader or conman will throw in an implausible statement early on on the basis that if you can believe that, you can swallow anything. Hence the responses along the lines of, to hell with you, SF is regarded as the best Bond by all my mates. No attempt to really respond to your individual points.
NP
Not that I mind scrolling and scrolling and scrolling...
..and I am sure, there is no need for worry, that he will NOT post it in every place possible. :) Believe me, he didn't write this, to NOT get lots of attention and pats on the shoulder.
BTW - I think, you are DEFINTELY wrong in this:
I appreciate great acting, drama and cinematography. However, if "Skyfall" is supposed to be the new direction of Bond -- all the dumb story and plot faults we've come to expect of the franchise but none of the special effects, set-pieces, thrills, stunts, gadgets, sets, panache and fun -- the series will never make it close to another 50 years. Happy Birthday anyway Mr. Bond.
I feel,. we have reason to hope, that because of this film, we do have indeed hope, it will last for a long time to come.
Good argument.
The series would've carried on anyway even if SF wasn't getting all this praise. It's survived Sean Connery quitting in the 60s, a few legal battles, a rival Bond film, countless other spy series', etc.
Since Goldeneye (during the big gap after LTK I did worry that it might be over) I've never really thought the series will ever end.
Exactly. Even if there was a 20 year gap before releasing Bond 24 it would still be massive. I can't see how it would end. It's the only franchise that can have any relevance year on year. There are only so many times, for example, you can do an Indiana Jones films. Bond has that one advantage over a lot of it's competitors in that it can be one step away from reality but it is not bound by fantasy.
It is quite outstanding Bond has managed to survive without the gaps needed by Indy and Star Wars, so many times i have heard critics say this can't go on much longer. some characters will remain as long as movies survive.
Same thing with me my friend!
Why is that strange?
Strange because I've heard none of the mixed word of mouth, only overwhelmingly positive word of mouth; yet a lot of other people are saying that they're hearing mixed reviews. Strange because it's such a different experience to what I've had.
It was good - very good. But Best Bond ever ?
I'm torn between it and some of my very favorites. It's great for action, what an improvement on Quantum of Nausea, I couldn't quite choose between it and Royale, but I think this time they may even have gone one better
I didn't like the gunbarrel at the end, I wasn't that thrilled with the theme song, that kid just can't sing and it was another poor choice (and overall effort), but the credits by Kleinman were surreal and memorable, and the locations exotic and spicy
That fight with Craig and that guy in Shanghai, after Bond hangs on to an elevator, and the backdrop of the lights and window, almost looked like a credits intro for a time, and you see how far up they were, and Craig was hanging on all that way up ?
Bardem, was OK, but not menacing or indeed creepy, and he gets killed off with a knife to the back ? Aris Kristatos all over again...
What a lame ending for such a pivotal figure of the movie. That was really disappointing
Craig can hold his breath underwater for three minutes, while in a life or death struggle, and that water must of been damn icy..
The ending at Skyfall was incredible, real tension, and the explosions at the end, what a finale. But why, after 50 years of Bond, at least in movie format, I don't remember any mention in any novel, do we only discover the name of Bond's ancestral home at this point in time. Why wasn't it mentioned before and only now after half a century, do we learn of the name of Bond's family residence ?
Sad to see Dench go, I enjoyed her M character, but it seems they decided it was time for the actress to depart, I wait to see what Mallory can come up with, but the end scenes in the chapel were quite touching
And a colored Moneypenny ? I didn't like that at all.
OK it's not a real pivotal character, but Penny has been white for half a century and they change it now. I wasn't quite happy with what they did, and lo and behold she had been getting involved all through the film as 'Eve' and putting herself in harms way before the disclosure. Just seemed questionable if nothing else
The subway incident seemed a bit too 'Die hard with a Vengeance' it seemed. Just seemed too implausible and dumb rather than exciting
Odd bit with the Komodo dragons in China was silly but fun
All told, Craig proves yet again he can be considered as one of the Best Bonds yet, but I still can't place him above Dalton or Connery despite another good performance, sometimes great in actual fact
Overall score 8.5/10