It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I think it's a good film. It's my favourite Craig film and it's in my top 10. But I think it's overrated because everyone is saying it's one of, if not the, best Bonds ever.
In my opinion, Skyfall is a good film with a crap story. The linear plot is full of holes and Silva's plan is stupid and pointlessly convoluted. The film manages to get away with this because of the great acting, dialogue, cinematography and characterisation but SF is one of those films where if you stop and think about it for a minute, it all falls apart a bit (another good example of this type of film was the latest Batman).
And that's part of the reason it's overrated. Some fans don't want to admit that it has any shortcomings and refuse to acknowledge that the plot could've been better, instead coming up with convoluted explanations or when that fails, just using the old "it's a Bond film!!!" excuse. Yes it's a Bond film. But it's hardly Moonraker. It's a Bond film that's an arty spy thriller, desperate to be taken seriously, a Bond film that people want to win Oscars. So I think if you want people to take the film seriously, you can't just check your brain at the door and go along with the ride.
There are other things I don't like too. Some references/call backs don't work, like the casino fight. That was very out of place imo. We go from hearing Severine's tragic backstory to Craig acting like a poor mans Roger Moore: stepping on a komodo dragon and cracking not one, but two one liners.
I also don't like Harris, who seemed pretty wooden. And they messed with the f***ing gunbarrel again, even though it was the 50th anniversary. And the whole thing had a generic Zimmer type score coming from Thomas "he'll be way better than Arnold guys!" Newman.
I'm being harsh here because the film was overall fantastic. Dialogue, cinematography, acting, etc, all top notch. But I think there's definitely plenty of room for improvement, while most fans seem to think that it was perfect, and that's why I think it's overrated.
You seem to see things that are not there. Noone hailed CR as any second coming, James Bond has come more often than that already before. Noone compares James Bond to any Jesus. And if you see a missed opportunity, that´s a shame, and I admit that the novel would have offered a variety of different films, but it´s also a shame to insist on comparing the film to the novel instead of letting the film just do its own thing.
A very good film indeed, don't get me wrong, but with it being the last untouched book, I think it could have been even more.
Being a purist for CR is evidently your main issue here, and as such, you obviously weren't in favor of a reboot or as I see it, a retro retelling of the story. There's theories for both and I'm not here to argue which is correct as there is evidence for either school of thought, in the case of the retro retell I thought that's why it opened in black and white. Either way they wanted the audience to see how Bond got his 00, and how he developed his tastes, something I don't recall Fleming ever mentioning. Perhaps he did. Either way I didn't have a problem with it, obviously you would have preferred that they just carried on as usual, for me it made sense that if Barb and Mike were going to do this and put their stamp on a new era, this was the time to do it. Now we can see why Bond had his "bachelor's taste for freedom", which makes the events of OHMSS even more meaningful now then it was back then. There are lots of references to the novel that make it recognizable as a film based on the novel, and as @Boldfinger correctly points out, "the faithfulness of a film to the novel it is based on can never be a criterion for judging the quality of the film". By that standard, you aren't fairly judging the film.
Wow! I thought that as hardcore Bond fans we were all on an honor system here. I've never heard anyone here in 5 years question that someone was on a set or someone met someone associated with the series. And you, a newbie around here, is going to call me a liar? Fook off! I'll only say that my friend is a long time associate of the recording band Living Colour, he works in the music industry and has been around the world many times, and is a Manhattan resident like the late Mr.Barry. The rest you don't need to know and aren't entitled to know. And if you ever come at me like that again, I will go out of my way to make your time here a living hell. You owe me an apology for an inconsiderate and unnecessary insult that I didn't deserve for simply engaging in a honest debate with you. If not, it's on. Make your choice Rosie.
Death by an overdose of pills is so boring and a modern audience would have never stood for it. This isn't the 1950's where something like that may have shocked a few people. Do you really think EON or 99.9% of the people who enjoy CR really care about your disappointment? What an ego you have!
You are completely ignorant to how Hollywood works. The franchise's first and primary goal is to be financially successful, and thus popular. Cubby and Harry didn't start making the movies for any other reason. They were businessmen. If critical acclaim came with it, great, but their goal was to entertain and to give the viewer the maximum value they could. If they succeeded, they would make money. And that's exactly what they did, and what CR 2006 did to the point that it became a huge success, and now we have a billion dollar Bond film which I don't think Cubby could have ever imagined possible and would have been delirious about if he were still alive. They stopped being 100% true to Fleming in many cases the minute he died and couldn't interfere with the screen adaptation.
@VijayGalore, You are being most unfair with this comment. @SirHenryLeeChaChing tries to discuss matters in a polite, adult manner and working from honest arguments. To throw 'hearsay' in the debate, is to draw first blood and that was uncalled for. I think we can agree that SirHenry's reply was respectably modest; I thank him for that. I would appreciate it, and so would SirHenry, if you could please take back what you said in an apologetic manner. This discussion has a lot of potential, let's not send it down the sink by resorting to empty accusations. Thank you.
I actually consider Seanery's performance in DN to be the greatest of any Bond actor. He set a benchmark that has not been reached again.
************************************ above are all quotes *******************
Well, what can I say @SirHenryLeeChaChing, except that I completely agree with you on all points. I feel, however, that you are wasting your breath trying to have a civil, thorough, and mature debate with this new poster - unless he can back up, apologize, and change his tone.
I disagree with your opinions, @VijayGalore, but that is not the issue. Your attitude and the way you choose to enter into discussion is the issue at hand that I am addressing.
You may enjoy CR the novel all you like and dislike CR the film all you want to, that is your right - but to state your opinions the way you did was basically talking trash, inciting arguments with kindergarten level accusations, and is no way respectful to our forum members. So stop it now. I enjoy these threads, and I also do not want my experience tainted by the kind of remarks you have been making.
And yeah, you owe an apology to SirHenry as @DarthDimi mentioned. If you cannot debate without resorting to this kind of lousy attitude, then just follow your own blunt advice and "get out." There may be other Bond forums out there on the net where you can spout that stuff all day long; I wouldn't know and don't care.
But an apology and a change in tone would be more welcome than your actual leaving. This forum thrives on discussion and lively debate, albeit with decent civility. The ball is in your court, @VijayGalore.
Casino Royale did not have to be a period piece, to properly espouse the meanings and themes of it's source material, but it was too busy with Bond Begins nonsense to do it.
I did not call you a liar. I just can't see how? quoting a friend of a friend of a mutual friend? of which I am no friend, by the way, how that proves any point at all.
Thank you for the elaboration. Get out? is an American expression saying, forget it. And I did not think it would cause such a nonsense storm.
I did'nt come at anyone. I asked of you to name your source, so hopefully? I could see the point you were trying to make about David Arnold's music. Sad to say, I still do not. I respect Barry, but? I do not have to agree with his views, any more than I have to agree with Fleming's choice of Niven for Bond.
I don't think so.
I apologize. Now, will you apologize? for these ad homonym attacks of yours?
I take it, Anger issues? I am putting something in bold.
Boring? I would most rather Vesper's death be meaningful, than "exciting" for kids, such as yourself. A low-key, down to earth, heart-felt Bond story would have been the real refreshment after all so long. It has nothing to do with my ego, and, if I thought EON cared, I would write them a letter. But, you're the one representing them now? No.
First WillyGalore calls me ignorant, now you. I know moneys are important to moviemakings, but box office is no indicator of a film's quality. Please don't delibrately misinterpret my comments, to try and make me look like the braying donkey. The balls are in your court.
IFM
I think that part of CR as well as the Miami Airport sequence, was a commercial decision to bring in a lot of well-choreographed slam-bang action to please general audiences who expect it from a Bond film. While I enjoy that stuff, too, I would have been happy without it and instead had more emphasis on the gambling and the relationship between Bond and Vesper. Of course, I can watch "Funeral in Berlin" without yawning so I don't expect EON to neglect mass audience expectations and cater to my own bias, even if it meant producing a gem like OHMSS.
As I said, it is amazing how they got everything right in DN from the first shot. And even the low budget is an asset to the film that some later productions utterly lack.
However, it was subsequently given a new lease of life on DVD in 2006 when it was digitally remastered and the sound quality was upgraded to 5.1 DTS. It had never looked or sounded better. Since it has been released on Blu-Ray, it is simply gorgeous. It's like watching the film for the very first time. Dr No is quite honestly a quintessential Bond film and a must own.
I had the same reaction. It's amazing how a properly-formatted/restored video presentation can improve the experience of viewing a film.
Indeed. The area I find particularly astonishing is how well Ken Adam did with the set design on a minute budget.
Author's note : Look, closely, this is on topic . ;;)
I think it's a film that's full of fresh, great ideas and even though some of those ideas aren't executed brilliantly (like Renard's invincibility), there's still some cool action sequences, great characters (Elektra and Zukofsky being the standouts), a great theme song, an interesting story that covers a fair bit of new ground for the franchise, a fantastic PTS and a good performance from Brosnan.
Yes it has it's faults (visually it looks a bit grey and depressing sometimes and although Denise Richards was a good bit of eye candy she was pretty crap), but I don't think it deserves to be tossed in the skip with the likes of DAF and DAD.
I still enjoy the PTS a lot as well we the first half of the film. Wish we had someone other than Richards, though. It is not at the very bottom of my Bond list, no.
I'd agree with this, although TWINE is in my bottom five along with those you've mentioned.