Skyfall
- Thread starter Andyman
- Start date
Cool_Manchu
Time to play B-sides...
I went and saw the movie last night. After hearing from many folks, both here and elsewhere, that this was the "BEST BOND FILM EVER!" I was really excited and had high expectations. Sadly, it didn’t live up the hype. It wasn’t a bad movie, but it didn’t push the right buttons for me personally.
I don't understand why this was anything close to the best Bond film. I really like Daniel Craig, just not as Bond. He doesn't pull off the Bond mystique for me. This franchise is going its own way and not staying true to the merits of earlier Bond films. I know that this was made to be a transitional film, but I don’t care for the new Q. He’s much too young. I miss the lack of gadgets and cool cars. Throwing in the old Aston Martin was cool, but giving him that gun, which was used for essentially a single scene.
I love Javier Bardem as an actor, but as noted earlier, his character was under developed and even convoluted. He seemed like an amalgam of other villains and didn't have a clear defined aspect to him. Sure he wanted revenge, but he was this jack of all trades that made absolutely no sense. This entire movie seemed like a patchwork of ideas and was done by committee without a clear defined idea. Other characters in the movie seemed to be throw aways as well. The minor love interest from the casino, I didn’t fully understand her role and why she was so terrified of Bardem’s character. His island didn’t make any sense. Why would he want “that” island? The guy who stole the hard drive, again under developed. And why did he kill that guy with the painting? How did that tie into the overall movie? Maybe I missed the importance of it. He could have been set up as a great henchman, which this movie was missing. Where was the Jaws or Oddjob equivalent?
Was it a bad movie? No, I wouldn't say that. It had great prolonged action scenes. But seeing a broken down James Bond wasn't entertaining to me. I particularly enjoyed the filming in China. It was beautiful and many of the scenes reminded me of Blade Runner. The movie also gave us more insight to Bond’s past, but I really felt like it wasn’t original, if anything it was Batman’s origin story, complete with the caretaker.
It’s worth seeing, but I would give it a “B” at best, but for me I needed more to see this as a classic. Connery still personifies the true James Bond. And it’s time for Craig to hang up the martini glass as he looks too old to be James Bond, but given how the movie ended, we will get at least one or two more movies with him. While the creators looked to make Bond and his world more realistic with the real world…personally I don’t want that. I want arch villains who are more epic, have real minions, crazy underground lairs with death rays and put Bond in situations where he is going to be sawed in half by a laser. But then again, I am getting older and might be an anachronism…Go see it and enjoy it.
I don't understand why this was anything close to the best Bond film. I really like Daniel Craig, just not as Bond. He doesn't pull off the Bond mystique for me. This franchise is going its own way and not staying true to the merits of earlier Bond films. I know that this was made to be a transitional film, but I don’t care for the new Q. He’s much too young. I miss the lack of gadgets and cool cars. Throwing in the old Aston Martin was cool, but giving him that gun, which was used for essentially a single scene.
I love Javier Bardem as an actor, but as noted earlier, his character was under developed and even convoluted. He seemed like an amalgam of other villains and didn't have a clear defined aspect to him. Sure he wanted revenge, but he was this jack of all trades that made absolutely no sense. This entire movie seemed like a patchwork of ideas and was done by committee without a clear defined idea. Other characters in the movie seemed to be throw aways as well. The minor love interest from the casino, I didn’t fully understand her role and why she was so terrified of Bardem’s character. His island didn’t make any sense. Why would he want “that” island? The guy who stole the hard drive, again under developed. And why did he kill that guy with the painting? How did that tie into the overall movie? Maybe I missed the importance of it. He could have been set up as a great henchman, which this movie was missing. Where was the Jaws or Oddjob equivalent?
Was it a bad movie? No, I wouldn't say that. It had great prolonged action scenes. But seeing a broken down James Bond wasn't entertaining to me. I particularly enjoyed the filming in China. It was beautiful and many of the scenes reminded me of Blade Runner. The movie also gave us more insight to Bond’s past, but I really felt like it wasn’t original, if anything it was Batman’s origin story, complete with the caretaker.
It’s worth seeing, but I would give it a “B” at best, but for me I needed more to see this as a classic. Connery still personifies the true James Bond. And it’s time for Craig to hang up the martini glass as he looks too old to be James Bond, but given how the movie ended, we will get at least one or two more movies with him. While the creators looked to make Bond and his world more realistic with the real world…personally I don’t want that. I want arch villains who are more epic, have real minions, crazy underground lairs with death rays and put Bond in situations where he is going to be sawed in half by a laser. But then again, I am getting older and might be an anachronism…Go see it and enjoy it.
This. Just saw it last night. I think that after 50 years, they really nailed what James Bond should actually be.
AGREED, and thank you. Well, except the Dragon tattoo part (wasn't a fan of the American version :/) I hate Daniel Craig as Bond, he is not beautiful by any means and is just awful. I miss Sean Connery more but definitely the Roger Moore films...just somehow combine the two, dammit! Makes me so angry. Also, the old Bond films on Blu-Ray....AMAZING, just sayin'
Yes...just, yes. You nailed it.
You want theatrical Bond, not literary Bond. They've been taking the films much closer to a blend of the previous theatrical versions and the way Fleming wrote the character, rather than the over-the-top and often cheesy portrayal of many of the films.
Did they even think about asking Sean Connery to play the part played by Albert Finney? Oh well, it would have been a nice "passing of the baton" moment. Anyway, in my top five Bond films (so far). Why the hell would someone want to recapture the Bond-ness of films made decades ago? You either update, or you imitate.
My opinion is that Sean Connery and Roger Moore played the parts almost as a cartoon comedy. Yes, I know that intelligence work in real life is way too boring to make a movie about it, but the Daniel Craig version is much more real life, much more dramatic, the agent is much more a human being and less a caricature, and that's what works for me.
qdrone
Music is my mistress
Agree about Moore
Moore for me was the most Campy of the Bonds,the best movie he did as Bond for me was Man With the Golden Gun but that one would probably come in around #10. No, Moore is my least favorite Bond.
Yup, "campy" is the word I was looking for. Agreed.
Saw it yesterday and thought it was very good.
They managed to do a re-boot and pay an homage to the Bond series at the same time.
The references to the Bond series were subtle (except for one obvious exception) and well done. Had they had Sean Connery play the Game Keeper role it would have been a bit blunt and over the top IMO so I think they made the right choice.
They managed to do a re-boot and pay an homage to the Bond series at the same time.
The references to the Bond series were subtle (except for one obvious exception) and well done. Had they had Sean Connery play the Game Keeper role it would have been a bit blunt and over the top IMO so I think they made the right choice.
I loved it, a great Bond movie but the tone was different: I found this movie somewhat schizophrenic.
It had all the stuff we expect in a Bond movie; Hot women, lots of action, at least one tremendous chase scene, glorious scenery and cinematography(particularly in the mini-Imax we saw it in) and a relentless villain.
But, while it did pay homage to the traditional Bond we all know and love by going back to te basic Connery "brute force" style of action and creative ingenuity instead of depending on glitzy gadgets. It also brought back one iconic props, and totally obliterating it as if to signify (and celebrate) the end of an era and the beginning of a new one. That theme resonates particularly throughout the last 45 minutes of this movie.
It also seemed to be acknowledging the age of the franchise by replacing old names with new faces so it seems the franchise will continue with much more flavor of the first few movies, with old "relationships" renewed and before the gadgets took over. Who can ever forget the flying AMC Eagle?
But, how long Daniel Craig will remain does seem to be in question. But, over the past 50years, James Bond seems to be able to regenerate into a new body, not unlike Dr. Who, so I don't think that will hinder the franchise, if they choose the replacement carefully. I never really forgave them for Roger Moore.
I purposely tried to avoid any spoilers here so if this seems a bit disjointed well you're just gonna have to see it, aren't ya? Don't worry. You won't regret it.
It had all the stuff we expect in a Bond movie; Hot women, lots of action, at least one tremendous chase scene, glorious scenery and cinematography(particularly in the mini-Imax we saw it in) and a relentless villain.
But, while it did pay homage to the traditional Bond we all know and love by going back to te basic Connery "brute force" style of action and creative ingenuity instead of depending on glitzy gadgets. It also brought back one iconic props, and totally obliterating it as if to signify (and celebrate) the end of an era and the beginning of a new one. That theme resonates particularly throughout the last 45 minutes of this movie.
It also seemed to be acknowledging the age of the franchise by replacing old names with new faces so it seems the franchise will continue with much more flavor of the first few movies, with old "relationships" renewed and before the gadgets took over. Who can ever forget the flying AMC Eagle?
But, how long Daniel Craig will remain does seem to be in question. But, over the past 50years, James Bond seems to be able to regenerate into a new body, not unlike Dr. Who, so I don't think that will hinder the franchise, if they choose the replacement carefully. I never really forgave them for Roger Moore.
I purposely tried to avoid any spoilers here so if this seems a bit disjointed well you're just gonna have to see it, aren't ya? Don't worry. You won't regret it.
Hard to believe, but he probably will be done after he finishes out the next two. Ironically, Connery was 3 years younger (41) than Craig is now (44) in his last real Bond, "Diamonds are Forever", so another extension for Craig seems unlikely. Then again, Roger Moore is OLDER than Connery and he did ALL his Bond work from age 46 to 58!!!
I like Craig, a lot, and would hope to see him continue in the role as long as he is able. More films like "Casino Royale", and "Skyfall", would certainly enhance the franchise
elgato8905
Nobody special.
Just got back from seeing it... Meh.
Heh, tell us how you really felt! What did your wife think of it?
A few weeks out, I still like it a lot. What I don't get is why this is supposed to be such a departure. Casino Royale had much of the same portrayal of Bond, and in my opinion had a tighter plot, and a bit more subtlety of point, and more importantly stayed with me longer after the fact as a movie I wanted to see over and over. The whole "you're a dinosaur" theme was just handled a bit heavy handedly.
So, still like it a lot and might go see it again. But Casino Royale is still my favorite Bond film.
So, still like it a lot and might go see it again. But Casino Royale is still my favorite Bond film.
Work has been so insane, that I finally am going to see it tonight. Not sure what I am expecting. Casino Royale was a very good movie, while Quantum of Silence was horrible - truly one of the worst Bonds ever. So the jury is still out for me on Craig as Bond. Also, in the quest for "reality", they have added way too much Jason Bourne to the character. Having read about the real people Fleming based Bond on, fighting skills were very low on the list of necessary attributes in the spy world.
Connery nailed the character, and no one else has come close yet. I don't know that at this point I'd rank Craig above Brosnan, who actually played a damn fine Bond. Sadly, the writers let him down.
Anyway, just my two cents going in. I'll definitely update after seeing it.
Connery nailed the character, and no one else has come close yet. I don't know that at this point I'd rank Craig above Brosnan, who actually played a damn fine Bond. Sadly, the writers let him down.
Anyway, just my two cents going in. I'll definitely update after seeing it.
Similar threads
