How many times have you seen/will you see Skyfall

179111213

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Back in 1995 I obviously went to the cinema to see GE. It was most definitely a case of loathe at first sight. It was so dreadful it made me cringe. So what did I do? Yep, I went to see it a further nine times. Why? Altogether now: "because it's Bond."

    You went to see a film you hated at first 9 times just because it was a Bond film? Did you ever think that it might make you hate it even more?

    Why would anybody see a film they hated 9 times, Bond or not? If you don't like it you don't like it.

    Textbook masochist.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11
    Seen SK twice think it is excellent.
    Saw CS twice in the cinema and thirty plus times on dvd.Easily the best IMO.
  • Posts: 2,107
    Four times and that's enough for me. Now I'm just going to wait for the dvd. Heck of a movie, I say.
  • Being quick, Last night was a third viewing, and that would seem sufficient. I can't quite comprehend why some would want to see any movie about nine or ten times, I'd get damn bored by that time, James Bond or not. Yes, seen it three times, and you just feel you're simply going over old ground now, or obviously, seen it all before. Can only wait for the home release now, although nothing quite beats a theater experience
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    Once will do me. I have a huge tv at home and can wait until March for the DVD. I got the story the first time.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Being quick, Last night was a third viewing, and that would seem sufficient. I can't quite comprehend why some would want to see any movie about nine or ten times, I'd get damn bored by that time, James Bond or not. Yes, seen it three times, and you just feel you're simply going over old ground now, or obviously, seen it all before. Can only wait for the home release now, although nothing quite beats a theater experience

    Some people just enjoy seeing one movie a lot more than others. I'm not sure why that's a bogus thought.

    I've seen it four times, and I'll be seeing it a fifth this weekend, possibly a sixth, seventh, and/or eighth by the end of the year. I throw as much money as I can at Bond when he makes his rounds at the local theaters.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 23
    At theaters once--and I'm glad the crowd was a Bond-crowd: nobody shushing, "who is that one?" "Why did he do that?" (or even worst <unfortunately> whistling a main theme). But at home, as soon as the BluRay is release, it will be a high number for sure. I tend to have a mini Bond-fest every once in a while, 3 movies back to back, usually. I think the one that I have seen the most is Goldfinger.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,682
    If all works out, later on I'll watch CR/QoS, then go see Skyfall for the first time tonight. Where I live, it's been out for two weeks already, but I'm waiting for the audiences to die down a bit so I get minimum interruptions. Patient. Shockingly patient... ;)

    Obviously, I already know to much about the film, so I can tell it's going to be epic. What's also highly exciting is the fact that I'm seeing it with my flatmate, who has somehow managed to avoid all things Skyfall-related, and over the past year I've really struggled not to reveal anything about the film to them. So, I can't wait to see their reaction to the film. No doubt I'll see it a second time on the big screen. Bring it on, I say!
  • SF is the first film I've seen twice at the cinema since Rocky Balboa. Before that, the last film I saw twice was GE.

    I don't like rewatching films at the cinema, I get bored. I normally see it once, twice if I really enjoyed it, then I just wait for the DVD.
  • Posts: 2,599
    Yeah, Rocky Balboa is a good film and I'm still afan of Conti's music. :) I only saw Balboa once in the cinema but I've watched it a good few times on DVD.
  • quantumofsolacequantumofsolace England
    Posts: 279
    There was certainly nothing unlucky about the number 13 for me this evening as I was lucky enough to see the finest film of the decade for the 13th time. That makes it my joint second most viewed Bond on the big screen (until Wednesday) and, appropriately enough in this 50th anniversary year, the 50th time I have seen DC as JB at the cinema.

    Why do I keep watching it over and over? Because I absolutely love it. Simple as that. I can think of no better reason.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 4,622
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    ......, and you could just look and see what my favorite film is on my profile, but whatever.

    1. Diamonds Are Forever
    2. Thunderball
    3. The Living Daylights
    4. From Russia With Love
    5. Licence to Kill
    Bravo! DAF at #1, and I'm not a fan of the re-boot series either.
    I've given SF it's three requisite viewings. I found it dragging by the 3rd viewing.
    It's an excellent film in many ways. Quite interesting thematically but it doesn't grab me as re-watchable must-see again-and-again Bond adventure.
    Now its back to regularly scheduled re-watches of the Guy Hamilton classics, the other golden era Connery/Laz epics and the post-Hamilton Rog and Dalts adventures.
    I'll even do the odd Brozzathon, but I can't be motivated to watch the re-boot films. They just sit on the shelf. They aren't as much fun.
  • I have been a huge Bond fan for 35 years now.
    For me, seeing a movie I love again and again about twice a year is completely normal and I love that: I have seen Octopussy (my favourite) about 50 or 60 times since 1983, A View to a Kill (second best) about 50 times, and so on. And even so, there are plenty of tiny details to discover each and every time...
    The 'reboot' of the series was very disturbing for me, because I felt it was unnecessary and extremely deleterious; moreover, I think D. Craig is NOT Bond at all (as some have already said, he would have been a tremendous baddie, such as Grant in FRWL, but as Bond I say it: NO!!!).
    I thought CR was the worst Bondfilm ever made: not bad, but really mediocre (9/20); it was the only time in the series I was disappointed seeing a Bondfilm (beforehand, I thought Dr. No was the 'less good' Bondfilm: 13/20, and Dr. No is not disappointing).
    I wanted not to go and see CR, but I went to see it and... So I did not go and see QoS (which I discovered on DVD and considered as an average Bondfilm, despite the presence of Craig, much more acceptable in such a fast-paced and stressed movie...).
    In such circomstances, I will NOT go and see Skyfall, because I hate to go to the pictures and be disappointed: loss of time, loss of money, and the feeling to have been deceived... I've read to many negative reviews on the IMDB, so I will wait. Of course, I will see it one day... Will I consider it a master-piece? a piece of crap? Of course, I cannot say. And it is very disturbing after 35 years being a Bond fan...
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    @DavidMoore, your loss. Go on IMDB, and I guarantee you'll find some negative reviews for both 'Octopussy' and 'A View To A Kill.' EVERY film out there will garner negative reviews, no matter what it is. SF having some is nothing new.
  • Bounine wrote:
    Yeah, Rocky Balboa is a good film and I'm still afan of Conti's music. :) I only saw Balboa once in the cinema but I've watched it a good few times on DVD.

    2 and 3 were good, and 4 was fun (the less said about 5, the better), but I think Balboa was the first Rocky film to actually come close to matching the original.
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    I just saw Skyfall for the first time last night and it was good! I think I might try to get in another viewing while it's still in theathers.
  • quantumofsolacequantumofsolace England
    Posts: 279
    Earlier this evening SF became my second most watched Bond on the big screen when I saw it for a 14th time. Still 10 behind QOS - but SF certainly has "legs" so who knows how long it will stay on our cinema screens. Forever would be nice!

    One thing about this new fangled digital presentation: the film is in as pristine condition now as the first time I saw it. In the old celluloid days as the weeks went by the print would get more and more scratched and dirty. There would sometimes even be a jump where the film had broken and the projectionist had just chopped out the damaged section and spliced the two halves back together again.
  • Posts: 1,871
    10 times so far. Octopussy and A View To A Kill got some bad reviews..........How is that possible? Next thing you are going to tell me is that DAF got some as well.
  • Is it bad that I can see it as many times as I want in Imax for free and I've only seen it 5 times?
  • I was reading all the comments here. Interesting ones I might add. But, I saw Skyfall. And hadn't seen any J.B movies before, and I thought it was great. I mean. I LOVE SPIES! Since then, I have re read all my spy books, brought a $50 iTunes gift card and brought C.R and Q.
  • Creasy47 wrote:
    @DavidMoore, your loss. Go on IMDB, and I guarantee you'll find some negative reviews for both 'Octopussy' and 'A View To A Kill.' EVERY film out there will garner negative reviews, no matter what it is. SF having some is nothing new.


    The negative reviews about SF many times mention things that are completely new: especially that it is not a Bond movie (!!!).
    About Octopussy and A View to a Kill: of course there are negative reviews, but:
    - At the time, it was impossible for me to be disappointed by a Bond movie - no matter the negative reviews: in the 80s the Bond movies were so exquisitely made;
    - None of those reviews said these movies were not Bond movies or things like that; things have changed, because the series has undergone so many changes that it is barely recognisable (FUBAR, see what I mean?). And THAT is new. Sadly new...
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    edited December 2012 Posts: 4,012
    DavidMoore wrote:
    I have been a huge Bond fan for 35 years now.
    For me, seeing a movie I love again and again about twice a year is completely normal and I love that: I have seen Octopussy (my favourite) about 50 or 60 times since 1983, A View to a Kill (second best) about 50 times, and so on. And even so, there are plenty of tiny details to discover each and every time...
    The 'reboot' of the series was very disturbing for me, because I felt it was unnecessary and extremely deleterious; moreover, I think D. Craig is NOT Bond at all (as some have already said, he would have been a tremendous baddie, such as Grant in FRWL, but as Bond I say it: NO!!!).
    I thought CR was the worst Bondfilm ever made: not bad, but really mediocre (9/20); it was the only time in the series I was disappointed seeing a Bondfilm (beforehand, I thought Dr. No was the 'less good' Bondfilm: 13/20, and Dr. No is not disappointing).
    I wanted not to go and see CR, but I went to see it and... So I did not go and see QoS (which I discovered on DVD and considered as an average Bondfilm, despite the presence of Craig, much more acceptable in such a fast-paced and stressed movie...).
    In such circomstances, I will NOT go and see Skyfall, because I hate to go to the pictures and be disappointed: loss of time, loss of money, and the feeling to have been deceived... I've read to many negative reviews on the IMDB, so I will wait. Of course, I will see it one day... Will I consider it a master-piece? a piece of crap? Of course, I cannot say. And it is very disturbing after 35 years being a Bond fan...

    If you don't go watch a Bond film you can't consider yourself a Bond fan, it's as simple as that.
    DavidMoore wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @DavidMoore, your loss. Go on IMDB, and I guarantee you'll find some negative reviews for both 'Octopussy' and 'A View To A Kill.' EVERY film out there will garner negative reviews, no matter what it is. SF having some is nothing new.

    The negative reviews about SF many times mention things that are completely new: especially that it is not a Bond movie (!!!).
    About Octopussy and A View to a Kill: of course there are negative reviews, but:
    - At the time, it was impossible for me to be disappointed by a Bond movie - no matter the negative reviews: in the 80s the Bond movies were so exquisitely made;
    - None of those reviews said these movies were not Bond movies or things like that; things have changed, because the series has undergone so many changes that it is barely recognisable (FUBAR, see what I mean?). And THAT is new. Sadly new...

    I'm sorry to disappoint you but based on what you wrote so far, in my opinion, you don't have a clue about what makes a Bond film a Bond film.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    My third and final viewing will be this weekend.
  • Going next Wednesday for the 4th and last. :) AMAZING MOVIE!!!!! :D :D :D
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited December 2012 Posts: 28,694
    @DavidMoore, let me get this straight... You are saying the Craig era is so far away from anything Bond films (yet they have Fleming elements) are, yet you stick up for films like OP and AVTAK which have the absolute opposite of who James Bond is with no dimensions to him to the point of parody? Ok...
  • OP is a brilliant Bond film. Some of the tensest scenes in the series, Moore is on fire, there's great locations, a good cold war story and some brilliant stunt work. The only bad things about the film are the sound/sight gags.

    AVTAK, I can't really stick up for that much. Walken was great though and Moore was good outside of the action scenes.
  • I said goodbye to Skyfall last week, counting 4 times. I'm so proud of the movie and I already miss it, but I'll just wait for the DVD.
  • Quotes from previous answers:
    1. "If you don't go watch a Bond film you can't consider yourself a Bond fan, it's as simple as that."
    2. "I'm sorry to disappoint you but based on what you wrote so far, in my opinion, you don't have a clue about what makes a Bond film a Bond film."
    3. "Let me get this straight... You are saying the Craig era is so far away from anything Bond films (yet they have Fleming elements) are, yet you stick up for films like OP and AVTAK which have the absolute opposite of who James Bond is with no dimensions to him to the point of parody? Ok..."


    Things cannot be that simple.
    1. The fact that SF is presented as a Bond movie does not make it a Bond movie (I felt that many times while watching CR). Since the 'reboot' of the series, I have the disturbing and puzzling feeling that the producers absolutely want to keep making money with the franchise they own, without respecting the spirit and tone of the previous movies. When I read that B. Broccoli thought her father would have loved Craig, I immediately reacted the opposite way - poor Cubby, he must be turning in his grave...
    So, maybe I'm not a Bond fan any more - I mean, a fan of the new pseudo-Bond...
    2. To me, authentic Bond movies were made in the 60s, 70s and 80s: when I see these movies, I feel the bondian atmosphere in them, that they are part of the cinematic Bond world, no doubt about that. Then came the 90s: the best aspect of the Brosnan movies was... Brosnan himself; as for the rest, the movies were good and enjoyable, rather bondian, but sometimes, such as in GoldenEye, it seemed I was watching rather a copy of a Bond movie, not a genuine Bond movie. To me it is no coincidence: the new films were made after Cubby Broccoli left the series because of his illness: the new producers then took over, but they were unable to be as good as Cubby ever was - I consider Cubby Broccoli was a genius, a hell of a producer.
    3. The fact of putting Fleming elements in a movie does not make it a Bond movie: these elements, combined with new ones (created by the scriptwriters) have to be used properly, like in FYEO, OP or TLD (among the best Bond movies).
    OP and AVTAK develop exactly what the cinematic Bond character should be: a perfect mixture of seriousness and fantasy, a middle-aged man with great experience, able to face any danger and escape unharmed, a character able to create a unique sense of intelligence and danger and smartness and adventure and action... With Craig, Bond has been turned into some kind of a rogue agent, a killing machine with no brains (kill first, think after), who even seems to enjoy himself when killing someone (the CR pre-title sequence, the weakest of them all, was almost shocking because of its gratuitous nonsensical violence). Nothing like what James Bond should be.

    There seems to be several definitions of James Bond and good Bond movies among people...



  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    If you indicate OP (as much as I have fun watching it) and AVTAK as the ideal Bond character then you clearly have no idea how James Bond is supposed to be, I stand by my previous comments more than ever.
  • Posts: 3,327
    DavidMoore wrote:
    I have seen Octopussy (my favourite) about 50 or 60 times since 1983, A View to a Kill (second best) about 50 times, and so on. And even so, there are plenty of tiny details to discover each and every time...
    The 'reboot' of the series was very disturbing for me, because I felt it was unnecessary and extremely deleterious; moreover, I think D. Craig is NOT Bond at all (as some have already said, he would have been a tremendous baddie, such as Grant in FRWL, but as Bond I say it: NO!!!).
    I thought CR was the worst Bondfilm ever made...
    I think its safe to say our tastes in Bond are about as far removed as you can get. If you love OP and AVTAK (which I think are absolute horrors) it makes sense why you don't like CR.

    I suggest you forget the Bond franchise now and become a fan of something else. The new Bond is here to stay, and this is the best era I've ever known to be a Bond fan (having being a fan for over 35 years too.....)

Sign In or Register to comment.