SKYFALL: FANS' REACTIONS - GUARANTEED SPOILERS

1192022242599

Comments

  • Posts: 3,276
    HASEROT wrote:
    the truth is, the Bond that the producers and Craig have recreated since Casino Royale, is a Bond that IS flawed - a Bond that IS beaten down a bit - a Bond that IS grounded - and more importantly, a Bond that IS human -
    So in other words, Bond is no longer different than any other action film characters these
    days. Sadly so I think.

    Boy, do I miss the classical chauvinistic archetype alpha male always on top of his game.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    I heard the "where are all our cousins" from Dimi and others so never fear, Sir Henry has returned and man did I ever miss everyone! I have a lot to read and catch up on. Below are my thoughts after catching the Saturday matinee yesterday and chewing on what I saw. I'll be seeing it again next weekend for sure so my opinion may and likely will further evolve, and this is the best I can recall for the moment.

    - The PTS was on the long side but the best one since LTK and the Dalton era. Beats every one of Brosnan's short of TWINE's with "considerable ease", and just felt more fulfilling than TWINE in general. It added depth to why Eve Moneypenny would opt for desk duty later on as well as establishing Patrice as a legit tough guy. Some have ventured how he was rescued but a hand is clearly shown grabbing his just as the titles kick in- my bet is that it was Sotiropoulou's character hence why he was with her for some months before hearing MI6 was under attack and deciding he was needed. Pay attention and you won't miss the little things.

    - The theme song and titles worked really well together, this may be Kleinman's best work to date and what was shown really fit the theme of the movie.

    Craig's performance was top shelf, from start to finish. But one of two parts due to the script. I was expecting him to get all his old skills back before he did considering it was only a few months as opposed to years, it made his Bond still feel a bit too "rookie" and made the film feel it was still a bit of an extension of CR/QOS minus QUANTUM and Vesper references. But he progressively got it all back after he removed the bullet fragments and had it all when it counted. My thoughts now are that I feel his Bond is going to mirror the style of classic Connery more than anyone else. Which is the best possible scenario as far as I am concerned. I didn't think I saw enough of it consistently to be convinced 100% of this, but there is no question in my mind that he's tied with Dalton for #2 and now equally great in my book. If the next one is even more classic type of Bond start to finish, I can see him taking #2 entirely and maybe even challenging Connery for the top spot more than Dalton. His final scene with M was incredible, his tears and face were stoic without revealing the level of emotion or shock we'd seen in CR and OHMSS. And the bulldog she left him in her will and his reaction to it was priceless.

    Bardem was simply amazing, an incredibly classic yet uniquely modern villain. And just the right amount of screen time. The physical deformity with his teeth (I still wondered how old that molar cyanide must have been and had trouble believing it didn't kill him) was classic, the homoerotic element was unique and well conceived with Craig displaying just the right amount of uncomfortability. His menace was in making you believe that if he could outwit Q, M and Bond were far from safe. He didn't need a big punch up to establish that, for that we had Ola Rapace who was physically plenty tough enough in the fight sequences and a worthy adversary. As far as villains go, which includes his silent thugs and Severine, it was all as good as I'd hoped.

    The women were not at a premium here due to the focus on M and our new Moneypenny as the lead females. I agree with thoughts that Marlohe should have had more screen time and thought she was needlessly killed off. Why did Silva do it is a question. Was it because she brought Bond to his HQ, or because she was his woman? I got the latter impression. Not having a girl in the end was disappointing and lent to my earlier thought that we weren't seeing the fully finished product, as did the scenes with our new M. But for what screen time she did have, Marlohe was all that and a bag of chips. She had a background, she's gorgeous, dresses well. Letting her smoke the way she does made her all the hotter to me, just a perfect and classic Bond girl in general short of her not being in his arms in the end as the distressed damsel he rescues. Was also disappointed that we didn't see more of Tonia Sotiropoulou past a brief shot of her in bed with Bond. The good part- between her and Severine we know he shagged more than one girl so that was an improvement, as a guy I want to see this way more often than not.

    Those who think Craig can't deliver the humor and has a stone face need not reply and need to reconsider that. This movie only solifidied for me that this prior criticism is both unwarranted and less credible than it was before. The postcard bit to M, the threat of using the ejector seat on her, the "good luck with that" when Silva's Chinese henchman tried to use the signature gun, the "I always hated this place" in reference to Skyfall while it was being blown to smithereens, "last rat standing", etc, everything he did with the new regulars was classic repartee, it was all funny and got laughs in the theater and struck a near perfect balance.

    All the action scenes were fine, no complaints with anything done to this point. My brother noted that Craig didn't seem quite as physical as he had been and I agree, because now he is using his wits and experience in a more classic manner.

    The locations and cinematography were fantastic, particularly in Shanghai. Top, top marks, it really felt like a classic Bond movie all the way around and if I were English I'd have been very proud to see my homeland so properly featured.

    Gadgets were kept to a minimum. The mini location transmitter was a strong part of the narrative. The signature gun and Aston Martin never added much and just seemed to be tribute type of stuff. Horrified to say the least that the old AM got blown up. More of this in my thoughts about Q.

    That leads me to the supporting cast, which was such a strong part of the overall effort and due to the changing of the guard, needed the appropriate focus it got.

    Judi Dench- we all knew she was done and for me it was obvious she would either die or be forced to retire. It was her finest performance to date in the role, by far. And well, well, well, it was just like I said, she wasn't Bond or Silva's mother as some had this irrational fear of her being. I saw a real boss as opposed to the mother figure of the last 2 films, wanting her best man on the job even if she had to lie about it. Much more reminiscent of her Brosnan era work. But I could see why Silva wanted her dead, she was quite ruthless but made one bad decision too many over the years and this time it cost her more than just her career and pension. I really laughed when she told Bond about his flat being sold, his belongings in storage, and that she wasn't putting him up. The only reference to "mommy issues" was when he rightly told her that she needed to trust he would have won the fight with Patrice and retrieved the hard drive, therefore he wasn't taking the blame for this one.

    Ralph Fiennes- Giving him a background as a man who knows how tough it is in the field gives him real creedence for the future when he gives orders, as opposed to a stuffy father figure who we don't know understands more than how to rise in the military. Great to see the old office back and him giving Bond a new assignment in the end, although it was never a focus of disappointment to me. Having it back when it was shown was another reason that made me think how I do, which was that the film was both an extension of the past yet a gradual return to the classic. I think he's going to be a fine M, and he sure doesn't come cheap so kudos to EON for spending the money.

    Ben Whishaw- A mixed feeling for me as the new Q. The "exploding pens are a thing of the past" bit was rather funny, he had a good and classic sense of dry English wit and interacted well with Bond. This Q is the ultimate computer geek. I do still hope to see more gadgets in the future, but the times have changed and computers make formidable weapons in the proper hands. Having Silva outwit him in the area where's he's supposed to be expert helped the villain but didn't inspire confidence, so I got the sense that the new quartermaster will be growing into the position. I would have liked to see him angry or frustrated or even shocked more than he was, after all he says he invented this technology. I always knew that replacing Desmond would be the toughest job of all, so I expected I'd be the most critical of this particular addition. But I think he has the right stuff as a whole to entertain us, and am willing to be patient.

    Naomie Harris- our new Moneypenny. While I was gone I happened to read that she, Fiennes, and Whishaw were scheduled to resign and return, so it was fairly obvious to me at that point that she would likely be who she turned out to be. And I must say what they did and how they did it met my expectations when it was revealed. What a relief too! No more smutty dialogue or virtual masturbation, the flirting was well done and CLASSY and never crossed the line. I think she and Craig worked very well together in establishing their on screen chemistry and professional relationship and how she came to be in her position. She wasn't overly competent as a field agent and her decision made sense. Loved the "don't touch your ear" and dropping his microphone in her drink, a great nod to CR but updated. As I said, what an improvement and as far as I can tell, he did not sleep with her which I would have found inappropriate.

    Albert Finney and Helen McCrory- We've probably seen the end of the "Potterites", but both were perfect in their roles as far as I was concerned and my son, who's an even bigger Potter fan than a Bond fan, enjoyed seeing them.

    The gunbarrel was nothing special- I feel it needs to be back in the beginning but I also see why it was again at the end due to the anniversary and the mixed tone. I don't know if it would have worked for me in the beginning with Craig being in the shadows at the end of a unfocused hallway, and then having them gradually focus like they did on his face. A minor sticking point.


    Thomas Newman- after hearing the music with the film, a job well done. I still think Barry is the man and that Arnold's TND soundtrack was superior. The romance bits can't remotely compare to the sheer emotion of what we heard in CR, which were at Barry's level and something the master acknowledged to a mutual friend, but I could let that go considering the way the women were used. Technically it was all fine and it didn't hurt the film in any way, but I wouldn't say at this time that it was demonstrably better than Arnold in the way of a Bondian feel.


    Overall, on one showing alone I am rather unsure where among the 23 films I would place it. That will take time and a few more viewings for me to define a position in my rankings, but based off of one showing, I would definitely say that Skyfall is great and definitely a top 10, perhaps even a top 5 type of film, that felt more like a Bond film than any since the early Brosnan era and was well worth the wait. My brother felt CR was a bit better, my son says SF is now his favorite. A great addition to the series and today I am very proud to be a fan and that EON worked hard to give us a great film to make up for the delay and for the prior entry. My complaints are very minor as opposed to the prior entry, which never got itself together until the latter half of the film. And I don't agree at all with the usual anti-Craig blowhards, whose reactions were both predictable and nonsensical as always. Go watch your tick the box, half assed, boringly predictable Brozzer films and have a good cry, time has passed you dinosaurs by. This one felt nearly complete all the way around, action augmented storyline, which in turn built depth of character and invested me in the film. I was so engrossed that it didn't seem as long as it's runtime, which for me was great because I'm one of those people who correctly notices too rushed or too long if a movie isn't done close to perfection, and I felt I got my monies worth. Will be recommending it highly to family, friends, and co-workers waiting to hear what I thought.

    Comments good and bad on what I wrote are welcomed.


    A characteristically well written and enjoyable review.

    I find it hard to believe that that shaving scene with Bond and Eve was not followed by more than just a good night kiss! The way Harris looks in that scene he would not be the Bond we know and love if nothing happened. But at least they left us guessing.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Apparently there was to be a line in the script the confirmed they didn't sleep together but Mendes decided against it. It could always turn up in the next film.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Apparently there was to be a line in the script the confirmed they didn't sleep together but Mendes decided against it. It could always turn up in the next film.

    I am sure Mendes would never have wanted to suggest that they do actually get it on - he has too much respect for the history. It's just difficult to see where that scene goes next, if not into the bedroom... I suppose that would be my main issue with Harris in the role - you can't quite believe that Bond wouldn't bed her. That aside, I am happy to have Moneypenny back for Bond 24 and also loved to see classic M office back at the end.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited November 2012 Posts: 13,355
    I'm sure I did get that right, Mendes wanted the line taken out. It's all in the podcast with Purvis and Wade. Very worthwhile if you haven't listened to it yet.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I don't think it needs to be delved into any further. In the rebooted era it's clear that Bond and Moneypenny have history, but how far that history goes does not need to be spelled out.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited November 2012 Posts: 13,355
    It's just one line of dialogue, I doubt the history was delved into with that line. I can't see anything coming of it either but if it appears in the next film, I'm fine with it.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    There was a documentary in one of the old DVD collections with Lois Maxwell about Moneypenny where she talked about constructing the character based on what Ian Fleming told her. I haven't watched it for years and I don't have the collection with me to check it but I seem to recall that Fleming told her that she and Bond had had something in the past when they met, but realized it was not going to work and had remained friends. Could someone confirm? Anyway, I don't think anything happened between the 2 of them in SF, from her reaction when he tried to unbutton her dress.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Ah @SirHenryLeeChaChing, good to have you back. Interesting review, and one I agree with, emphatically. I didn't realize that it when on for so long, I was that engrossed.

    Some points;

    -I really enjoyed Bond's character arc, and Craig plays the role superbly.

    -Talking of Craig, as you said, he's a lot less physical in Skyfall. In Casino Royale he was
    immense, this time he's more like the Bond we know. Which is what Craig has wanted; he looks like he's just gotten out of the army in CR, in SF he's much more lean. Bond is relying on his wits.

    -I'm not the biggest Adele fan, but, combined with Kleinman's amazing graphics, I got goosebumps.

    -Silva is quite simply fantastic. Camp, unerring and quite, quite mad.

    -I didn't mind not having a Bond girl, this time round, providing it doesn't become a habit.

    -The final scenes made me proud to be a Bond fan.

    -The old and the new motif worked well.

    -The cinematography is stunning.

    -Fleming's spirit haunted Skfall; Silva's introduction, Skyfall Lodge etc.

    The only things wrong is the CGI, and that is nit-picking in the extreme!
  • DRESSED_TO_KILLDRESSED_TO_KILL Suspended
    Posts: 260
    Let’s start with the opening scene. Someone
    steals a list of secret agents from a computer
    in a hotel room. First, this has already been
    done with Mission Impossible – start with
    something a little more original. Second, why
    was this information on a laptop in Turkey? At
    least Mission Impossible had this info stored
    in an embassy

    After Bond gets picked up in the SUV and they
    take off after the bad guy (Patrice), they end
    up in a gunfight where Patrice takes out this
    gun with a double barrel supply of bullets. He
    obviously can’t carry that in his jacket which is
    the point of a handgun for this. Why wouldn’t
    he just use automatic assault rifle? Also, how
    many bullets were fired during this scene –
    and now one gets hit? What is this, GI Joe (the
    cartoon)? You are a spy and an assassin and
    neither of you can shoot your target?

    Next. So Patrice apparently uses depleted
    uranium bullets. These are supposed to be
    used because uranium is a denser material so
    it can pierce through more materials such as
    metal but they don’t go through the metal of
    the Caterpillar when Bond is in it? Also, MI6 is
    able to find out how this guy is as apparently
    only three “bad guys” in the world use
    depleted uranium bullets. Only three guys in
    the world use this type of bullet? Do they not
    know that government agencies could track
    them this way? Smooth moves Patrice!

    Next. Bond is fighting Patrice on the train
    (with a gun shot to his shoulder) and then gets
    shot off the train. First, where did he get shot
    the second time? I saw where he was shot the
    first time (shoulder) but where was the second
    bullet wound? Also, he gets hit twice, falls off
    a train with enough height to kill someone,
    and still survives? Bourne rip off. Later, we
    find out that there were still bullet fragments
    inside his body – he just left them in there?
    What was the point of that?

    Next. the evil villain who we haven’t met yet
    blows up MI6 by turning on the gas. Really?
    You can access gas to a secured government
    facility by internet? So a haggard Bond comes
    back to MI6 and goes after Patrice in
    Shanghai. First, we see Patrice just walk into a
    building and shoot the security guard – why
    was the front door not locked? No cameras he
    was worried about? No one else in the
    building at all to worry about walking in or out
    (cleaning crew, someone working late) who
    would call the cops while he is stuck in the
    building? We follow him upstairs to find out he
    is about to assassinate some guy in another
    high rise building. At first, I thought “oh, the
    guy who is about to get shot has bodyguards
    so the villain needs an assassin to take him
    out.” Nope, those bodyguards work for the
    villain so that means there are 4 people in
    that room and 3 are with the villain but they
    need to pay an assassin 4 million euros to take
    him out? One of the three could’t have brought
    a gun with them or knife and just saved the 4
    million? Anyway, Bond lets Patrice kill the guy
    before doing anything. I understand Bond is
    supposed to be ruthless but that just sounds
    stupid. You let your enemy kill his enemy – why wouldn’t you save him to see what value he would be, I mean he is the enemy of your
    enemy and all.

    So in a homage to old Bond films, 007 finds a
    clue in a poker chip which Patrice was
    supposed to cash if for the job. Alright, a little
    cheesy but alright (they wouldn’t have done
    that in Casino Royale). Hell, why didn’t they
    just wire him the money? Anyway, Bond fights
    three guys in a casino with a briefcase full of
    money that he throws around like it is empty (I
    am thinking 4 million euros weighs quite a
    bit). Bond has a gun on him and he knows
    these guys want to kill him but he doesn’t pull
    it out and shoot or just say “hey, i have a gun,
    get out of my way or I am going to shoot you.”
    Also, since when do these types of lizards eat
    people?

    Next, he goes on a boat to hook up with the
    typical Bond girl full well knowing that the
    guys on the boat probably work for the main
    villain. They just let him on board the boat?
    And he gets to sleep with the villain’s girl? Did
    she really not know she was going to die for
    doing this? What, she just could’t resist Bond
    so she sleeps with him right below all the
    villain’s bodyguards? Why did they let him on
    board and not immediately cuff him?

    Next, the Bond girl dies (well that was quick).
    Suddenly, Bond is able to take out 5 guys at
    the same time even though he was unarmed
    and they all had guns. Amazing since he
    couldn’t take out Patrice at the beginning of
    the film even while he had a gun.
    About that island. How did the villain (Silva)
    get an entire island? Fear of a chemical leak
    that evacuates an entire island and the world
    press nor any country investigates? Amazing!
    So this former MI6 spy is also a genius
    computer hacker? If he is not the hacker, who
    is? They can just hack into the MI6 whenever
    they want? A little stretched.
    Everyone is back at the new MI6 headquarters
    and the new Q plugs their computer system
    into Silva’s laptop which suddenly hijacks their
    computer system. WHAT? This is the smartest
    computer guy at MI6 and he didn’t think this
    could happen? Really? Anyway, M is in a
    hearing with top government officials when a
    train (with apparently no passengers) plunges
    through a tunnel. When that happened and it
    would most likely be viewed as a terrorist
    attack, they kept on with the proceedings in
    the courtroom? Wouldn’t they stop the
    proceedings to deal with something like this?
    Then Silva and his henchmen just walk in the
    courtroom by only shooting one security guard
    at the entrance? One guard is it? And once
    inside, no one can kill the Silva with all the
    shots fired?

    So Silva miraculously gets away and Bond
    thinks the best solution is to go “off the grid”
    instead of using all British intelligence to track
    this guy down? He is in the UK where cameras
    are everywhere and the they decide to go
    AWOL with M as bait. 2nd, they don’t stop to
    get any weapons along the way? While some
    may like the old Aston Martin as a homage to
    the best, I thought is was too cheesy and absurd. When there is nothing new for a franchise, it inevitably starts to feed on itself with references to what was already done. This is only the 3rd movie in this re-imagined Bond –no need to start referencing the past yet.
    Skyfall? Seriously? Bond is apparently a rich
    orphan? Stop stealing from Batman! He is an
    orphan that did not come from money – that is
    why he has a chip on his shoulder (as
    diagnosed by the Bond girl in Casino Royale on
    the train). This is a rip off of Harrison Ford’s
    Witness (and not done as well). So I don’t
    know why Silva didn’t attack at night under the
    cover of darkness, but whatever. Also, turning
    light bulbs into bombs? Was that M or
    MacGyver? What exactly caused that big
    explosion when the helicopter flew into the
    house? Don’t think even a full fuel tank could
    have caused that.

    Next. M and the caretaker escape to the
    church. Not really a bright idea to use a
    flashlight so that the bad guys can track you.
    Bond of course follows running in the open
    across a frozen pond, not a bright idea to run
    across in the open but whatever. So once he
    was caught and Silva’s henchman is right next
    to him with a gun, why did he not have his gun
    not directly pointed at Bond? Was he hoping to
    ricochet a bullet off the ice at him? Wow,
    didn’t see that coming. Wait, I saw this in
    Cliffhanger

    When Silva reaches the church why were M
    and the caretaker not ready for anyone to
    come after them? Why would they assume no
    one saw them walking over to the church? I
    mean they did have their flashlight on.
    In the end, Silva wants M to kill them both.
    Some Bond villains are driven by money or
    world domination but this guy is driven by his
    mommy issues? Seriously? Silva is apparently
    the best hacker the world has ever seen and
    instead of rigging banks to transfer money
    into his accounts or taking over countries, his
    main plan is to get back at mum?

    To summarize: this movie sucked and is nowhere near the quality of casino royale.
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    edited November 2012 Posts: 2,629
    bondsum wrote:
    I'm surprised by the lack of feedback from our American fan base. Yes, I know @haserot, @Creasy47 and @kerim are Americans but for such a large country I'd have thought there would be considerably more reactions than what we're currently getting.

    No worries my good man, I think most of us colonists are still digesting SF. I'm sneaking out to see it again tonight. My first viewing was for pure enjoyment. I'll be a little more analytical tonight.
  • DRESSED_TO_KILLDRESSED_TO_KILL Suspended
    Posts: 260
    I'm American. Please read my review two post above this one
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Let’s start with the opening scene. Someone
    steals a list of secret agents from a computer
    in a hotel room. First, this has already been
    done with Mission Impossible – start with
    something a little more original. Second, why
    was this information on a laptop in Turkey? At
    least Mission Impossible had this info stored
    in an embassy

    After Bond gets picked up in the SUV and they
    take off after the bad guy (Patrice), they end
    up in a gunfight where Patrice takes out this
    gun with a double barrel supply of bullets. He
    obviously can’t carry that in his jacket which is
    the point of a handgun for this. Why wouldn’t
    he just use automatic assault rifle? Also, how
    many bullets were fired during this scene –
    and now one gets hit? What is this, GI Joe (the
    cartoon)? You are a spy and an assassin and
    neither of you can shoot your target?

    Next. So Patrice apparently uses depleted
    uranium bullets. These are supposed to be
    used because uranium is a denser material so
    it can pierce through more materials such as
    metal but they don’t go through the metal of
    the Caterpillar when Bond is in it? Also, MI6 is
    able to find out how this guy is as apparently
    only three “bad guys” in the world use
    depleted uranium bullets. Only three guys in
    the world use this type of bullet? Do they not
    know that government agencies could track
    them this way? Smooth moves Patrice!

    Next. Bond is fighting Patrice on the train
    (with a gun shot to his shoulder) and then gets
    shot off the train. First, where did he get shot
    the second time? I saw where he was shot the
    first time (shoulder) but where was the second
    bullet wound? Also, he gets hit twice, falls off
    a train with enough height to kill someone,
    and still survives? Bourne rip off. Later, we
    find out that there were still bullet fragments
    inside his body – he just left them in there?
    What was the point of that?

    Next. the evil villain who we haven’t met yet
    blows up MI6 by turning on the gas. Really?
    You can access gas to a secured government
    facility by internet? So a haggard Bond comes
    back to MI6 and goes after Patrice in
    Shanghai. First, we see Patrice just walk into a
    building and shoot the security guard – why
    was the front door not locked? No cameras he
    was worried about? No one else in the
    building at all to worry about walking in or out
    (cleaning crew, someone working late) who
    would call the cops while he is stuck in the
    building? We follow him upstairs to find out he
    is about to assassinate some guy in another
    high rise building. At first, I thought “oh, the
    guy who is about to get shot has bodyguards
    so the villain needs an assassin to take him
    out.” Nope, those bodyguards work for the
    villain so that means there are 4 people in
    that room and 3 are with the villain but they
    need to pay an assassin 4 million euros to take
    him out? One of the three could’t have brought
    a gun with them or knife and just saved the 4
    million? Anyway, Bond lets Patrice kill the guy
    before doing anything. I understand Bond is
    supposed to be ruthless but that just sounds
    stupid. You let your enemy kill his enemy – why wouldn’t you save him to see what value he would be, I mean he is the enemy of your
    enemy and all.

    So in a homage to old Bond films, 007 finds a
    clue in a poker chip which Patrice was
    supposed to cash if for the job. Alright, a little
    cheesy but alright (they wouldn’t have done
    that in Casino Royale). Hell, why didn’t they
    just wire him the money? Anyway, Bond fights
    three guys in a casino with a briefcase full of
    money that he throws around like it is empty (I
    am thinking 4 million euros weighs quite a
    bit). Bond has a gun on him and he knows
    these guys want to kill him but he doesn’t pull
    it out and shoot or just say “hey, i have a gun,
    get out of my way or I am going to shoot you.”
    Also, since when do these types of lizards eat
    people?

    Next, he goes on a boat to hook up with the
    typical Bond girl full well knowing that the
    guys on the boat probably work for the main
    villain. They just let him on board the boat?
    And he gets to sleep with the villain’s girl? Did
    she really not know she was going to die for
    doing this? What, she just could’t resist Bond
    so she sleeps with him right below all the
    villain’s bodyguards? Why did they let him on
    board and not immediately cuff him?

    Next, the Bond girl dies (well that was quick).
    Suddenly, Bond is able to take out 5 guys at
    the same time even though he was unarmed
    and they all had guns. Amazing since he
    couldn’t take out Patrice at the beginning of
    the film even while he had a gun.
    About that island. How did the villain (Silva)
    get an entire island? Fear of a chemical leak
    that evacuates an entire island and the world
    press nor any country investigates? Amazing!
    So this former MI6 spy is also a genius
    computer hacker? If he is not the hacker, who
    is? They can just hack into the MI6 whenever
    they want? A little stretched.
    Everyone is back at the new MI6 headquarters
    and the new Q plugs their computer system
    into Silva’s laptop which suddenly hijacks their
    computer system. WHAT? This is the smartest
    computer guy at MI6 and he didn’t think this
    could happen? Really? Anyway, M is in a
    hearing with top government officials when a
    train (with apparently no passengers) plunges
    through a tunnel. When that happened and it
    would most likely be viewed as a terrorist
    attack, they kept on with the proceedings in
    the courtroom? Wouldn’t they stop the
    proceedings to deal with something like this?
    Then Silva and his henchmen just walk in the
    courtroom by only shooting one security guard
    at the entrance? One guard is it? And once
    inside, no one can kill the Silva with all the
    shots fired?

    So Silva miraculously gets away and Bond
    thinks the best solution is to go “off the grid”
    instead of using all British intelligence to track
    this guy down? He is in the UK where cameras
    are everywhere and the they decide to go
    AWOL with M as bait. 2nd, they don’t stop to
    get any weapons along the way? While some
    may like the old Aston Martin as a homage to
    the best, I thought is was too cheesy and absurd. When there is nothing new for a franchise, it inevitably starts to feed on itself with references to what was already done. This is only the 3rd movie in this re-imagined Bond –no need to start referencing the past yet.
    Skyfall? Seriously? Bond is apparently a rich
    orphan? Stop stealing from Batman! He is an
    orphan that did not come from money – that is
    why he has a chip on his shoulder (as
    diagnosed by the Bond girl in Casino Royale on
    the train). This is a rip off of Harrison Ford’s
    Witness (and not done as well). So I don’t
    know why Silva didn’t attack at night under the
    cover of darkness, but whatever. Also, turning
    light bulbs into bombs? Was that M or
    MacGyver? What exactly caused that big
    explosion when the helicopter flew into the
    house? Don’t think even a full fuel tank could
    have caused that.

    Next. M and the caretaker escape to the
    church. Not really a bright idea to use a
    flashlight so that the bad guys can track you.
    Bond of course follows running in the open
    across a frozen pond, not a bright idea to run
    across in the open but whatever. So once he
    was caught and Silva’s henchman is right next
    to him with a gun, why did he not have his gun
    not directly pointed at Bond? Was he hoping to
    ricochet a bullet off the ice at him? Wow,
    didn’t see that coming. Wait, I saw this in
    Cliffhanger

    When Silva reaches the church why were M
    and the caretaker not ready for anyone to
    come after them? Why would they assume no
    one saw them walking over to the church? I
    mean they did have their flashlight on.
    In the end, Silva wants M to kill them both.
    Some Bond villains are driven by money or
    world domination but this guy is driven by his
    mommy issues? Seriously? Silva is apparently
    the best hacker the world has ever seen and
    instead of rigging banks to transfer money
    into his accounts or taking over countries, his
    main plan is to get back at mum?

    To summarize: this movie sucked and is nowhere near the quality of casino royale.

    I think while the SF fans on here will dispute some of your points, you amply demomstrate many of the yawning plot holes in the film. It's not that I expect a Bond plot to make total sense, but there is a limit to the unexplained actions that I can tolerate in any film. We are obviously in a tiny minority on the site at the moment, but for me my enjoyment of the film was reduced because nobody's behaviour seemed to make the slightest bit of sense. This is not about stretching plausiblity, as all Bond films do, it's about having characters do things that simply make no sense whatsoever. As you point out, why does Severine, who has just been lecturing Bond on the meaning of fear, invite Bond on board and proceed to shag him, knowing that Silva's guards will find out and that she will probably die. May be she just finds Bond too damn irresistible...? Possible I suppose, although the brief casino encounter does not make it immediately obvious that she is ready to sacrificie herself just so Bond can reach the island. Why not just tell Bond where Silva is hanging out and let him make his own way there? Or may she just decides Silva isn't so scary after all. Either way, you get the sense Marlohe's scenes were heavily cut or edited and something seems to be missing here. Bond's callousness towards Severine, who he has earlier identified as a victim of child prostitution either marks a welcome return to the mysogyny of the 1960s movies or a disturbing new dimension to Bond's character - I'll let you take your pick. Either way, even Connery's Bond would have shown some disquiet over the death of an essentially innocent victim of his actions. Dalton's Bond was a veritable kitten compared to this man. As others have pointed out, is this Bond one that we can still emote with and sympathise with? To me he may be more realistic and 'Flemingesque' but he is also incrasingly difficult to like or look forward to spending two and a half hours with every couple of years.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 12,837
    @SirHenryLeeChaChing Great review, and apart from where you rank the actors I more or less completely agree with you.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    To summarize: this movie sucked and is nowhere near the quality of casino royale.

    To summarize: you judge a Bond film solely on its internal logic which you labour hard to attack by putting minute details under a magnifying glass and spin them around so that you can 'prove' that the writers were clueless when they were working on the film. You grab arguments here and there which could render virtually every Bond film into garbage. Why don't they explain this or that, or why does this or that character not make another choice? If that is the set of rules we are henceforth going to bring to a film discussion, hardly any film will come out unscathed. The same arguments could be used to 'prove' that any of the Hitchcocks, Kubricks, Spielbergs, ... is a failure. We really don't need to be told everything in a film - our mind can fill in the blanks if it wants to. And as for extraordinary characters making extraordinary or even illogical choices, I'd say that's a good thing. It helps to fight predictability and boredom.

    Take your last comment for example. Why not this? Why not that? Because you didn't write the film and because the filmmakers decided to do something that hadn't been done before. Your point is terribly belaboured and invalid. Silva's intentions focus around revenge, pure and simple. Had he been rigging banks, you'd complain this was like GE (much like in your first comment you complain about the similarities to M:I). Had he been willing to take over countries, you would have complained about similarities to DAD and a load of other Bond films. Now, for the first time, a man is passionate about revenge and he uses every talent in his body to get it. What's so senseless about that? For once, FOR ONCE, we get a baddie whose intentions are easy to understand, uncomplicated and perfectly human and not nearly as superficial as many of his predecessors. Another Drax, Stromberg or Graves simply wouldn't fit this era.

    And as for your opening comments, they are very contradictory. You want to understand a ton of things about what that list is doing here and there, yet on the other hand you claim there's too big a resemblance to M:I. You want them to be more original yet you want to learn more about it. By making it a McGuffin with which to get the story kicked off, they avoid further resemblance to M:I. And please, after nearly a century of filmmaking, what hasn't been done before? You seem to praise CR. Wow, you're sure about that? I mean, the African boy running through the rain surely seems quite like one of those boys in Black Hawk Down. Oh and as for the casino, a dozen Bond films have played scenes in casinos too. Hardly original wouldn't you say? Why don't they explain more about the secrets Bond's first and second kill collaborated in selling and how M figured it out? You see? I could take your arguments and lay silly claims about CR being a terrible film - which by the way I know it isn't.

    Also, plot is one thing but there's so much more about a Bond film to be considered before taking out the trash. I guess when one is planning to bash a film, one will desperately seek stuff, no matter how inconsequential, to drive the point home.
  • DarthDimi wrote:
    To summarize: this movie sucked and is nowhere near the quality of casino royale.

    To summarize: you judge a Bond film solely on its internal logic which you labour hard to attack by putting minute details under a magnifying glass and spin them around so that you can 'prove' that the writers were clueless when they were working on the film. You grab arguments here and there which could render virtually every Bond film into garbage. Why don't they explain this or that, or why does this or that character not make another choice? If that is the set of rules we are henceforth going to bring to a film discussion, hardly any film will come out unscathed. The same arguments could be used to 'prove' that any of the Hitchcocks, Kubricks, Spielbergs, ... is a failure. We really don't need to be told everything in a film - our mind can fill in the blanks if it wants to. And as for extraordinary characters making extraordinary or even illogical choices, I'd say that's a good thing. It helps to fight predictability and boredom.

    Take your last comment for example. Why not this? Why not that? Because you didn't write the film and because the filmmakers decided to do something that hadn't been done before. Your point is terribly belaboured and invalid. Silva's intentions focus around revenge, pure and simple. Had he been rigging banks, you'd complain this was like GE (much like in your first comment you complain about the similarities to M:I). Had he been willing to take over countries, you would have complained about similarities to DAD and a load of other Bond films. Now, for the first time, a man is passionate about revenge and he uses every talent in his body to get it. What's so senseless about that? For once, FOR ONCE, we get a baddie whose intentions are easy to understand, uncomplicated and perfectly human and not nearly as superficial as many of his predecessors. Another Drax, Stromberg or Graves simply wouldn't fit this era.

    And as for your opening comments, they are very contradictory. You want to understand a ton of things about what that list is doing here and there, yet on the other hand you claim there's too big a resemblance to M:I. You want them to be more original yet you want to learn more about it. By making it a McGuffin with which to get the story kicked off, they avoid further resemblance to M:I. And please, after nearly a century of filmmaking, what hasn't been done before? You seem to praise CR. Wow, you're sure about that? I mean, the African boy running through the rain surely seems quite like one of those boys in Black Hawk Down. Oh and as for the casino, a dozen Bond films have played scenes in casinos too. Hardly original wouldn't you say? Why don't they explain more about the secrets Bond's first and second kill collaborated in selling and how M figured it out? You see? I could take your arguments and lay silly claims about CR being a terrible film - which by the way I know it isn't.

    Also, plot is one thing but there's so much more about a Bond film to be considered before taking out the trash. I guess when one is planning to bash a film, one will desperately seek stuff, no matter how inconsequential, to drive the point home.

    @DRESSED_TO_KILL Got owned. Nice one @Dimi :)
  • Posts: 6,601

    DarthDimi wrote:
    Also, plot is one thing but there's so much more about a Bond film to be considered before taking out the trash. I guess when one is planning to bash a film, one will desperately seek stuff, no matter how inconsequential, to drive the point home.

    THIS!!! also very true...we can do this with every film, if we so wish. Its easy actually. Give me a 100% reviewed masterpiece and I can rip it to pieces.

  • DRESSED_TO_KILLDRESSED_TO_KILL Suspended
    edited November 2012 Posts: 260


    I also thought it was absurd when Silva was blasting music from his helicopter on the way to bonds house. I felt like that scene was made for little kids, how cheesy and out of place that scene was. I'm really disappointed in Daniel Craig and EON for butchering skyfall. The whole movie was just a cliched action movie with a dumb downed plot to appease the mass culture of dumb downed people who can no longer follow a intricate well written story. Casino Royale was great because it relied on story and good writing. It didn't need silly villains or over the top action. I almost walked out of skyfall after I saw Bond hiding in the aston Martin using the machine guns to take out the usual cliched henchman. Seriously that was such a retarded scene, whoever thought of that scene has no artistic value or originality in then at all. Skyfall was just a big money maker for Barbara Brocolli. Ian Fleming intended Bond to be a realistic man, a hitman at its purest root who has a license to kill , not a super hero . I feel like EON is making bond into a super hero. Its a disgrace to see how poorly written Skyfall was. Casino Royale was realistic and showed how bond was vulnerable but a killer at the same time. I can go on and on but it amazes me how many people are praising skyfall.
  • I also thought it was absurd when Silva was blasting music from his helicopter on the way to bonds house. I felt like that scene was made for little kids, how cheesy and out of place that scene was.

    What you think is cheesy and for kids I'd call a great moment that shows how delibarately OTT Silva is.

    Don't call things retarded, it makes you sound like a 13 year old. The DB5 firing machine guns like it did in the 60s isn't meant to have "artistic value" it's meant to be fun.

    @DRESSED_TO_KILL You said you wanted depressng Bond films while everyone working on SF said it was going to have humour, Bond with a capital B, etc. You were bound to be disappointed, and you really should've expected them to include gadgets and all this stuff.
  • Sandy wrote:
    There was a documentary in one of the old DVD collections with Lois Maxwell about Moneypenny where she talked about constructing the character based on what Ian Fleming told her. I haven't watched it for years and I don't have the collection with me to check it but I seem to recall that Fleming told her that she and Bond had had something in the past when they met, but realized it was not going to work and had remained friends. Could someone confirm? Anyway, I don't think anything happened between the 2 of them in SF, from her reaction when he tried to unbutton her dress.

    It's on the DR. NO commentary, during Moneypenny's first scene. There's no mention of Fleming, though: she says that she, Connery & Terence Young came up with the backstory. Here's a transcript if you don't have the disc handy: http://www.authorsden.com/categories/article_top.asp?catid=44&id=67337. (The only correction I'd make to that transcript is that Lois says "When he was a teaboy," not "trainee").
  • Posts: 11,425
    DarthDimi wrote:
    To summarize: this movie sucked and is nowhere near the quality of casino royale.

    To summarize: you judge a Bond film solely on its internal logic which you labour hard to attack by putting minute details under a magnifying glass and spin them around so that you can 'prove' that the writers were clueless when they were working on the film. You grab arguments here and there which could render virtually every Bond film into garbage. Why don't they explain this or that, or why does this or that character not make another choice? If that is the set of rules we are henceforth going to bring to a film discussion, hardly any film will come out unscathed. The same arguments could be used to 'prove' that any of the Hitchcocks, Kubricks, Spielbergs, ... is a failure. We really don't need to be told everything in a film - our mind can fill in the blanks if it wants to. And as for extraordinary characters making extraordinary or even illogical choices, I'd say that's a good thing. It helps to fight predictability and boredom.

    Take your last comment for example. Why not this? Why not that? Because you didn't write the film and because the filmmakers decided to do something that hadn't been done before. Your point is terribly belaboured and invalid. Silva's intentions focus around revenge, pure and simple. Had he been rigging banks, you'd complain this was like GE (much like in your first comment you complain about the similarities to M:I). Had he been willing to take over countries, you would have complained about similarities to DAD and a load of other Bond films. Now, for the first time, a man is passionate about revenge and he uses every talent in his body to get it. What's so senseless about that? For once, FOR ONCE, we get a baddie whose intentions are easy to understand, uncomplicated and perfectly human and not nearly as superficial as many of his predecessors. Another Drax, Stromberg or Graves simply wouldn't fit this era.

    And as for your opening comments, they are very contradictory. You want to understand a ton of things about what that list is doing here and there, yet on the other hand you claim there's too big a resemblance to M:I. You want them to be more original yet you want to learn more about it. By making it a McGuffin with which to get the story kicked off, they avoid further resemblance to M:I. And please, after nearly a century of filmmaking, what hasn't been done before? You seem to praise CR. Wow, you're sure about that? I mean, the African boy running through the rain surely seems quite like one of those boys in Black Hawk Down. Oh and as for the casino, a dozen Bond films have played scenes in casinos too. Hardly original wouldn't you say? Why don't they explain more about the secrets Bond's first and second kill collaborated in selling and how M figured it out? You see? I could take your arguments and lay silly claims about CR being a terrible film - which by the way I know it isn't.

    Also, plot is one thing but there's so much more about a Bond film to be considered before taking out the trash. I guess when one is planning to bash a film, one will desperately seek stuff, no matter how inconsequential, to drive the point home.

    There is a big difference between stretching the bounds of plausibility (as all Bond films do) and having plot holes that distract from your enjoyment of the film. I get the sense that the SF fans here are so keen to see this film as an instant classic that they are not applying some basic standards. Were this anything other than a Bond film the critics would have been tearing it to shreds by now. The SF plot is a mash up of GE and TWINE and really smacks of Purvis and Wade. I really struggle to find the supposed intelligence and mystery in it that people are describing. The mystery is that Mendes and DC were not able to demand something better after 3 year gestation period.

    I can see what they were trying to do and it is all done with the best possible intentions, but it is just a very poorly plotted and executed story.

  • DRESSED_TO_KILLDRESSED_TO_KILL Suspended
    edited November 2012 Posts: 260
    @thelivingroyale




    if I want to see a "fun" movie I'll go see Kung fu panda or maybe rent Mrs.Doubtfire. I dont want to see fun in a james bond movie. Bond is meant to be a field agent, a killer and a loner. Not a "fun" person who quips or makes a cheesy joke every 15 minutes . Were obviously two different kind of Bond fans. Im a Fleming bond fan, not the cinema bond fan.

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,276
    DarthDimi wrote:
    To summarize: this movie sucked and is nowhere near the quality of casino royale.

    the filmmakers decided to do something that hadn't been done before.
    Like what?

    What I saw was a lot of reuse from other movies. There's the fight on top of the train (Octopussy), there's the list of agents (Mission Impossible), there's the flawed "hero" who hits rock bottom and then ressurects to save the day (Batman), there's the cyberattack (Die Hard 4), there's the former disgruntled employee who wants to get back at his boss/country (Goldeneye), there's the fistfight againt a blue background (Moonraker), there's the fight where some creepy animal deals with our hero's foe (Star Wars), there's the Silence of the Lambs cage where the villain is being detained, there's the remotely located house where our hero is holding up against incoming bad guys (Straw Dogs) using homemade traps (Home Alone), there's our hero standing on the rooftop looking over the city he is guarding (Batman again)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited November 2012 Posts: 24,183
    Germanlady wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Also, plot is one thing but there's so much more about a Bond film to be considered before taking out the trash. I guess when one is planning to bash a film, one will desperately seek stuff, no matter how inconsequential, to drive the point home.

    THIS!!! also very true...we can do this with every film, if we so wish. Its easy actually. Give me a 100% reviewed masterpiece and I can rip it to pieces.

    Trust me, I don't want to be such a 'jerk' when commenting. ;-) Whenever someone bashes a film, I go through a short mental exercise in which I try to figure out whether they a) seriously mean what they say or b) simply try to swim against the current for isn't that ultimately the cool thing to do? Some folks want to be part of the YES!-hype and stop thinking for themselves. Others, however, long to be part of the anti-hype and often think too hard or in the wrong places. I don't like either of both.

    When criticism comes with too many micro-details extrapolated as if they were the work of the Devil, I will labour hard to expose the critic as someone who knew before watching the film that he would be calling BS on the project.


    I also thought it was absurd when Silva was blasting music from his helicopter on the way to bonds house. I felt like that scene was made for little kids, how cheesy and out of place that scene was.

    Fans of Apocalypse Now will eat those comments for breakfast.
    I'm really disappointed in Daniel Craig and EON for butchering skyfall.

    Over 500 million dollars in under 3 weeks disproves the part where you say 'butchering'.
    The whole movie was just a cliched action movie with a dumb downed plot to appease the mass culture of dumb downed people who can no longer follow a intricate well written story.

    Cliched? I thought you had problems with the fact that Silva is a baddie unlike any one baddie we've ever seen before. I'm confused.
    Casino Royale was great because it relied on story and good writing. It didn't need silly villains or over the top action.

    Can't disagree, although there's more about CR that makes it such an awesome Bond film I'd say.
    I almost walked out of skyfall after I saw Bond hiding in the aston Martin using the machine guns to take out the usual cliched henchman. Seriously that was such a retarded scene, whoever thought of that scene has no artistic value or originality in then at all.

    Yet you complain about the Bond girl dying so fast so you do want them to simply retrace the same stuff we've seen 22 times already? Also, since it worked in GF, why can't it work now? You don't want Bond to go Rambo, you don't want him to use his wits like McGyver and you don't want this? Is there anything Bond can do to satisfy you? Seems to me that however he chooses to take out baddies, you'll just hate it.
    Skyfall was just a big money maker for Barbara Brocolli.

    A bit naive or hypocritical to claim that film producers shouldn't be in pursuit of our money, wouldn't you agree?
    Ian Fleming intended Bond to be a realistic man, a hitman at its purest root who has a license to kill , not a super hero . I feel like EON is making bond into a super hero.

    Funny comment. It seems to me that you prefer those other Bond films, where Bond simply hovers over each fight scene like it's nothing. The CR Bond who jumped off cranes and single handedly shoots up an entire embassy isn't exactly modest or even realistic either, is he? By the way, you'd be surprised how unrealistic Fleming's Bond could be. (This isn't me complaining about Fleming, by the way.)
    Its a disgrace to see how poorly written Skyfall was. Casino Royale was realistic and showed how bond was vulnerable but a killer at the same time. I can go on and on but it amazes me how many people are praising skyfall.

    Uh, between you and me, Bond did get shot, he did fail his tests and whatnot. I don't know how much more vulnerable you can make him without downright killing him.



  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited November 2012 Posts: 24,183
    Zekidk wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    To summarize: this movie sucked and is nowhere near the quality of casino royale.

    the filmmakers decided to do something that hadn't been done before.
    Like what?

    What I saw was a lot of reuse from other movies. There's the fight on top of the train (Octopussy), there's the list of agents (Mission Impossible), there's the flawed "hero" who hits rock bottom and then ressurects to save the day (Batman), there's the cyberattack (Die Hard 4), there's the former disgruntled employee who wants to get back at his boss/country (Goldeneye), there's the fistfight againt a blue background (Moonraker), there's the fight where some creepy animal deals with our hero's foe (Star Wars), there's the Silence of the Lambs cage where the villain is being detained, there's the abandoned house where our hero is holding up against incoming bad guys (Straw Dogs) using homemade traps (Home Alone), there's our hero standing on the rooftop looking over the city he is guarding (Batman again)

    Give me any Bond film that doesn't reuse from other movies. Name one.
    @thelivingroyale

    if I want to see a "fun" movie I'll go see Kung fu panda or maybe rent Mrs.Doubtfire. I dont want to see fun in a james bond movie. Bond is meant to be a field agent, a killer and a loner. Not a "fun" person who quips or makes a cheesy joke every 15 minutes . Were obviously two different kind of Bond fans. Im a Fleming bond fan, not the cinema bond fan.

    Good luck with being depressed when watching a Bond film then.

    Anyway, there's more fun in the Flemings than you might think. No slapstick comedy, I agree, but neither is there in SF or any of the other Craigs - fortunately.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,276
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    To summarize: this movie sucked and is nowhere near the quality of casino royale.

    the filmmakers decided to do something that hadn't been done before.
    Like what?

    What I saw was a lot of reuse from other movies. There's the fight on top of the train (Octopussy), there's the list of agents (Mission Impossible), there's the flawed "hero" who hits rock bottom and then ressurects to save the day (Batman), there's the cyberattack (Die Hard 4), there's the former disgruntled employee who wants to get back at his boss/country (Goldeneye), there's the fistfight againt a blue background (Moonraker), there's the fight where some creepy animal deals with our hero's foe (Star Wars), there's the Silence of the Lambs cage where the villain is being detained, there's the abandoned house where our hero is holding up against incoming bad guys (Straw Dogs) using homemade traps (Home Alone), there's our hero standing on the rooftop looking over the city he is guarding (Batman again)

    Give me any Bond film that doesn't reuse from other movies. Name one.
    You are missing the point. I don't mind reuse or the franchise being inspired from other movies. But in SF it was just too much. It lacked original ideas. Pure and simple!

    You didn't answer my question by the way.
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    DarthDimi wrote:
    To summarize: this movie sucked and is nowhere near the quality of casino royale.

    To summarize: you judge a Bond film solely on its internal logic which you labour hard to attack by putting minute details under a magnifying glass and spin them around so that you can 'prove' that the writers were clueless when they were working on the film. You grab arguments here and there which could render virtually every Bond film into garbage. Why don't they explain this or that, or why does this or that character not make another choice? If that is the set of rules we are henceforth going to bring to a film discussion, hardly any film will come out unscathed. The same arguments could be used to 'prove' that any of the Hitchcocks, Kubricks, Spielbergs, ... is a failure. We really don't need to be told everything in a film - our mind can fill in the blanks if it wants to. And as for extraordinary characters making extraordinary or even illogical choices, I'd say that's a good thing. It helps to fight predictability and boredom.

    Take your last comment for example. Why not this? Why not that? Because you didn't write the film and because the filmmakers decided to do something that hadn't been done before. Your point is terribly belaboured and invalid. Silva's intentions focus around revenge, pure and simple. Had he been rigging banks, you'd complain this was like GE (much like in your first comment you complain about the similarities to M:I). Had he been willing to take over countries, you would have complained about similarities to DAD and a load of other Bond films. Now, for the first time, a man is passionate about revenge and he uses every talent in his body to get it. What's so senseless about that? For once, FOR ONCE, we get a baddie whose intentions are easy to understand, uncomplicated and perfectly human and not nearly as superficial as many of his predecessors. Another Drax, Stromberg or Graves simply wouldn't fit this era.

    And as for your opening comments, they are very contradictory. You want to understand a ton of things about what that list is doing here and there, yet on the other hand you claim there's too big a resemblance to M:I. You want them to be more original yet you want to learn more about it. By making it a McGuffin with which to get the story kicked off, they avoid further resemblance to M:I. And please, after nearly a century of filmmaking, what hasn't been done before? You seem to praise CR. Wow, you're sure about that? I mean, the African boy running through the rain surely seems quite like one of those boys in Black Hawk Down. Oh and as for the casino, a dozen Bond films have played scenes in casinos too. Hardly original wouldn't you say? Why don't they explain more about the secrets Bond's first and second kill collaborated in selling and how M figured it out? You see? I could take your arguments and lay silly claims about CR being a terrible film - which by the way I know it isn't.

    Also, plot is one thing but there's so much more about a Bond film to be considered before taking out the trash. I guess when one is planning to bash a film, one will desperately seek stuff, no matter how inconsequential, to drive the point home.

    standing-ovation-0907-lg1.jpg
  • DRESSED_TO_KILLDRESSED_TO_KILL Suspended
    Posts: 260
    Zekidk wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    To summarize: this movie sucked and is nowhere near the quality of casino royale.

    the filmmakers decided to do something that hadn't been done before.
    Like what?

    What I saw was a lot of reuse from other movies. There's the fight on top of the train (Octopussy), there's the list of agents (Mission Impossible), there's the flawed "hero" who hits rock bottom and then ressurects to save the day (Batman), there's the cyberattack (Die Hard 4), there's the former disgruntled employee who wants to get back at his boss/country (Goldeneye), there's the fistfight againt a blue background (Moonraker), there's the fight where some creepy animal deals with our hero's foe (Star Wars), there's the Silence of the Lambs cage where the villain is being detained, there's the remotely located house where our hero is holding up against incoming bad guys (Straw Dogs) using homemade traps (Home Alone), there's our hero standing on the rooftop looking over the city he is guarding (Batman again)

    AMEN ! I could not agree more. Thank god theres a few others around here with a brain that isn't dumb downed .
  • Posts: 11,425
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Germanlady wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Also, plot is one thing but there's so much more about a Bond film to be considered before taking out the trash. I guess when one is planning to bash a film, one will desperately seek stuff, no matter how inconsequential, to drive the point home.

    THIS!!! also very true...we can do this with every film, if we so wish. Its easy actually. Give me a 100% reviewed masterpiece and I can rip it to pieces.

    Trust me, I don't want to be such a 'jerk' when commenting. ;-) Whenever someone bashes a film, I go through a short mental exercise in which I try to figure out whether they a) seriously mean what they say or b) simply try to swim against the current for isn't that ultimately the cool thing to do? Some folks want to be part of the YES!-hype and stop thinking for themselves. Others, however, long to be part of the anti-hype and often think too hard or in the wrong places. I don't like either of both.

    When criticism comes with too many micro-details extrapolated as if they were the work of the Devil, I will labour hard to expose the critic as someone who knew before watching the film that he would be calling BS on the project.


    I also thought it was absurd when Silva was blasting music from his helicopter on the way to bonds house. I felt like that scene was made for little kids, how cheesy and out of place that scene was.

    Fans of Apocalypse Now will eat those comments for breakfast.
    I'm really disappointed in Daniel Craig and EON for butchering skyfall.

    Over 500 million dollars in under 3 weeks disproves the part where you say 'butchering'.
    The whole movie was just a cliched action movie with a dumb downed plot to appease the mass culture of dumb downed people who can no longer follow a intricate well written story.

    Cliched? I thought you had problems with the fact that Silva is a baddie unlike any one baddie we've ever seen before. I'm confused.
    Casino Royale was great because it relied on story and good writing. It didn't need silly villains or over the top action.

    Can't disagree, although there's more about CR that makes it such an awesome Bond film I'd say.
    I almost walked out of skyfall after I saw Bond hiding in the aston Martin using the machine guns to take out the usual cliched henchman. Seriously that was such a retarded scene, whoever thought of that scene has no artistic value or originality in then at all.

    Yet you complain about the Bond girl dying so fast so you do want them to simply retrace the same stuff we've seen 22 times already? Also, since it worked in GF, why can't it work now? You don't want Bond to go Rambo, you don't want him to use his wits like McGyver and you don't want this? Is there anything Bond can do to satisfy you? Seems to me that however he chooses to take out baddies, you'll just hate it.
    Skyfall was just a big money maker for Barbara Brocolli.

    A bit naive or hypocritical to claim that film producers shouldn't be in pursuit of our money, wouldn't you agree?
    Ian Fleming intended Bond to be a realistic man, a hitman at its purest root who has a license to kill , not a super hero . I feel like EON is making bond into a super hero.

    Funny comment. It seems to me that you prefer those other Bond films, where Bond simply hovers over each fight scene like it's nothing. The CR Bond who jumped off cranes and single handedly shoots up an entire embassy isn't exactly modest or even realistic either, is he? By the way, you'd be surprised how unrealistic Fleming's Bond could be. (This isn't me complaining about Fleming, by the way.)
    Its a disgrace to see how poorly written Skyfall was. Casino Royale was realistic and showed how bond was vulnerable but a killer at the same time. I can go on and on but it amazes me how many people are praising skyfall.

    Uh, between you and me, Bond did get shot, he did fail his tests and whatnot. I don't know how much more vulnerable you can make him without downright killing him.



    Without wishing to spark a rerun of last week's fist fight on here, you are being slightly patronising.

    I think as Bond fans you have to give the guys on here the credit of actually wanting to see a good Bomd movie that they enjoy. I personally didn't wait 6 years after LTK or four years after QoS in the hope that I was going to fimd the next film a total disappointment. Neither am I (self evidently) making myself part of some cool crowd by voicing my criticisms of SF. It is too much to ask that you accept that there are some people on here who genuinely think SF is actually not very good? Not because it doesn't have death spewing lasers or enough cheesy one liners, but because we've seen enough good films in our time to make our own judgement, and because in our view, this is actually one of the worst and least convincingly plotted Bond films in the series?

    I'm not trying to kick anything off here. It's just that it would be nice if some mutual respect was shown and criticism wasn't treaded as a sign of mental retardation or trolling.

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,276
    Zekidk wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    To summarize: this movie sucked and is nowhere near the quality of casino royale.

    the filmmakers decided to do something that hadn't been done before.
    Like what?

    What I saw was a lot of reuse from other movies. There's the fight on top of the train (Octopussy), there's the list of agents (Mission Impossible), there's the flawed "hero" who hits rock bottom and then ressurects to save the day (Batman), there's the cyberattack (Die Hard 4), there's the former disgruntled employee who wants to get back at his boss/country (Goldeneye), there's the fistfight againt a blue background (Moonraker), there's the fight where some creepy animal deals with our hero's foe (Star Wars), there's the Silence of the Lambs cage where the villain is being detained, there's the remotely located house where our hero is holding up against incoming bad guys (Straw Dogs) using homemade traps (Home Alone), there's our hero standing on the rooftop looking over the city he is guarding (Batman again)

    AMEN ! I could not agree more. Thank god theres a few others around here with a brain that isn't dumb downed .
    @DRESSED_TO_KILL

    I think that's a harsh comment. Actually there are many things that I do like about SF, and to some extent I understand why it has gotten great reviews. It's a good movie in itself. Top production value and acting.

    I just don't find it to be a very good Bond-movie, that's all. The pacing is awful and to be honest, I found large chunks of it to be plain boring.
Sign In or Register to comment.