Skyfall

[mech986]

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.

I agree on this issue. I felt Brosnan played Bond very well when the writing was generally serious in tone and the situations more realistic. Light humor was fine but some of the gags and over-the-top one liners just made the films less enjoyable. The opening of Goldeneye was a great intro to Brosnan and should have carried right on through. Same with Bond's betrayal and escape from Die Another Day.

If Brosnan had been given the material he asked for (tough, realistic, but with more character development) he would have made the films even better.

 

[Andyman]

Connery nailed the character, and no one else has come close yet.

I like Connery the most so far, but your comment got me thinking. Since he was the first Bond and basically defined the character for us, I wonder how we'd feel if he and Roger Moore were switched? Say someone today was introduced to bond first via the Moore films and used that as a baseline , and then shown the Connery works? Since Moore would have defined the character would they feel that Connery had strayed too much?

FWIW, I liked most of the Bonds and really had no problem with Dalton or Brosnan. Actually, I would have liked to seen more Dalton, but he got outed once Brosnan was available.

The next film should be telling, as they've basically set the stage for a new direction Hopefully this ensemble will gel into a new renaissance for the series.

 

[Bigerik]

I like Connery the most so far, but your comment got me thinking. Since he was the first Bond and basically defined the character for us, I wonder how we'd feel if he and Roger Moore were switched? Say someone today was introduced to bond first via the Moore films and used that as a baseline , and then shown the Connery works? Since Moore would have defined the character would they feel that Connery had strayed too much?

FWIW, I liked most of the Bonds and really had no problem with Dalton or Brosnan. Actually, I would have liked to seen more Dalton, but he got outed once Brosnan was available.

The next film should be telling, as they've basically set the stage for a new direction Hopefully this ensemble will gel into a new renaissance for the series.

Actually, Connery was so good, he redefined the character for Fleming. After being unimpressed with the choice of Connery as Bond originally, Ian Fleming loved Connery so much in the role that he created a back story in which Bond was half Scottish and half Swiss.

If you read about the attributes that defined the type of man who actually did that type of work, Connery nailed it.

If Moore would have started the series, we likely would not be discussing it now. Dr No was one of those defining motion picture moments that was better than the sum of its parts. Moore played Bond the same way he played Simon Templar, and I think it just would not have worked. Not to the same level anyway.

Btw, Dalton wasn't dumped as Bond. He quit after the 5 year delay between movies. It would have been interesting to see him in Goldeneye.

 

[Andyman]

If Moore would have started the series, we likely would not be discussing it now.

Agreed!!

Btw, Dalton wasn't dumped as Bond. He quit after the 5 year delay between movies. It would have been interesting to see him in Goldeneye.

Didn't know that. I thought Brosnan was tied up with "Remington Steele" contracts and wasn't available, so Dalton was hired, and once Brosnan was available, he was replaced.

I like both of Dalton's movies, aside from David Hedison as Leitner. Every time I see him I have "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" flashbacks..

 

[Bigerik]

Agreed!!

And I don't dislike Moores portrayal. But someone different was needed to define the character.

Didn't know that. I thought Brosnan was tied up with "Remington Steele" contracts and wasn't available, so Dalton was hired, and once Brosnan was available, he was replaced.

You aren't wrong. Just there is oddly more to the story. Dalton was originally considered to replace Connery, but then he felt he was too young. Apparently he was talked to again in the late 70's, but it never happened then. When Moore was ready to be replaced, they picked Brosnan over Dalton, but that didn't happen because of the games played by the Remington Steele producers. So Dalton got the role finally.
When it came time to start production on what eventually became Goldeneye, he was involved and seemed to be ready to take up the mantle again. Then out of the blue, he bailed and they hired Brosnan.

I never know what to think of Dalton. I think his performance in the first half of The Living Daylights was about as good a Bond portrayal as I have ever seen. Then the movie went off the rails right about when the love story started. I found License to Kill to be kind of uneven and half-hearted. I think he tried to go back to a very purist, original Bond, but the writers and producers didn't know exactly what to do with him. Too many echoes of the over the top Moore movies still.

That all being said, I think Craig got very lucky, in that he was given one of the best written Bond movies in ages, based on my favorite Bond book, Casino Royale. I think both Dalton and Brosnan were strong enough actors and gritty enough in their performances to do great things in that movie too. I think that was actually the movie Dalton was trying to make.

I like both of Dalton's movies, aside from David Hedison as Leitner. Every time I see him I have "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" flashbacks..

I never get why I don't like David Hedison as Leiter, in either of the movies. He has all the makings of a great Leiter, yet it just never sits quite right. You could be right tho - I might also be having too many Commander Crane flashbacks!

 

[qdrone]

What killed Brosnan for me

I agree on this issue. I felt Brosnan played Bond very well when the writing was generally serious in tone and the situations more realistic. Light humor was fine but some of the gags and over-the-top one liners just made the films less enjoyable. The opening of Goldeneye was a great intro to Brosnan and should have carried right on through. Same with Bond's betrayal and escape from Die Another Day.

If Brosnan had been given the material he asked for (tough, realistic, but with more character development) he would have made the films even better.

his stunt double. No really the double was at least 15 pounds heavier in the shoulders and it just ruined the continuity for me. I could tell when the double was in it was so obvious. I remember one of his Bonds when he had a skiing scene and it was like watching three card monty,mid edit I could spot him in then out. I watched one of his Bonds the other night and I liked it,it was the one where madonna did the opening song.

 

[Bigerik]

Just saw the movie and I have to say.......

Meh.

It was a good movie, I just don't know who the lead character was. It sure wasn't James Bond.

I was most of the way through the movie, and I realized something interesting. Now, I have seen every Bond movie and own them all. I have read every Bond book Fleming wrote, plus all the other writers too. And for the first time, I didn't want to be James Bond. Ever since I was a kid, he was a heroic character to me. But not this guy.

Finally, does every movie have to be a reboot now? I thought we just had a reboot in Casino Royale. As Quantum of Solace was supposed to just the second half of Casino Royale, are they so bereft of new ideas that the have to reboot with every new movie?

 

[elgato8905]

Just saw the movie and I have to say.......

Meh.

It was a good movie, I just don't know who the lead character was. It sure wasn't James Bond.

Yep... That's pretty much how my wife and I felt about it too. IMO... There was a lack of wit and sense of humor with the character in this movie. On top of that... I thought the thing about not giving him cool gadgets because "that was a thing of the past" was a cop out. I mean... It's James Bond for Christ's sake... That's kind of the deal.

I still really can't understand why anyone would ever say that this is the best bond movie of them all. I personally think it was FAR from it. I don't know... Maybe I'm just a Roger Moore guy.

 

[Sandy G]

Saw it last night...Meh. But Judi Densch is out, absolutely, positively, no doubt about it... This Craig character reminds me of the blonde villain dude in, which one was it now-Thunderball, IIRC, who kept calling James "Old Man"... And the villain kept reminding me of Tim Curry...Overall, it wasn't bad, but it wasn't all that great, either. And it seemed to be overly long.

 

[Bigerik]

Yep... That's pretty much how my wife and I felt about it too. IMO... There was a lack of wit and sense of humor with the character in this movie. On top of that... I thought the thing about not giving him cool gadgets because "that was a thing of the past" was a cop out. I mean... It's James Bond for Christ's sake... That's kind of the deal.

I still really can't understand why anyone would ever say that this is the best bond movie of them all. I personally think it was FAR from it. I don't know... Maybe I'm just a Roger Moore guy.

Sean Connery is still my favorite Bond, tho I have enjoyed every other take on him too. I thought Craig was supposed to be the younger, tougher Bond. Yet they were already playing him as the old fart.

There are some nice surprises in there. And some new characters and locales that are wonderful. My first thought was that Craig will not work in those circumstances. Sadly, I'm already looking forward to the next guy to play the part. Maybe he can bring some class back to the roll.

 

[Bigerik]

Oh, and I HATE how Tom Ford is dressing him. I thought some of the stuff in the 70's was bad, but this is horrible. EVERYTHING looks like it is too small. I never thought of James Bond shopping the thrifts to find his clothes, yet that is what he looks like. His look is supposed to be timeless, not trendy. Oh, for the Brioni suits they gave Pierce Brosnan.

edit: Oops. Realized that it is suits by Tom Ford, but he is not the designer. Bond is supposed to be Saville Row, not trendy, off the rack, undersized stuff.

 

[JohnVF]

It's called tailoring Erik . You won't find a high priced suit today without a tight fit, especially in London where the trend has always been tightly fitted. As it should be. A man's suit should fit him, and only him.

 

[Bigerik]

It's called tailoring Erik . You won't find a high priced suit today without a tight fit, especially in London where the trend has always been tightly fitted. As it should be. A man's suit should fit him, and only him.

No, it is NOT tailoring. Saville Row is tailoring. You go in and get a suit made just for you. Tom Ford is off the rack stuff that is then tweaked to kinda fit someone. James Bond would never buy off the rack. Nor would he try to dress like a 18 year old Beverly Hills kid art the prom.

British suits have always far tighter than American suits, which hang on the wearer like a sack. The small armholes, for instance, allow ease of movement. But these are just poorly fitting, overly trendy suits.

Bond ALWAYS suffers when he tries too hard to fit in with the times. And I'll put this movie with Moonraker as being the worst dressed Bond of all time. Althought Timothy Dalton did have some pretty horrible, cheap looking stuff.

Finally, Craigs suits DON"T fit him. They are all too small.

 

[JohnVF]

I honestly don't remember how he was dressed beyond that I thought he looked good. I's just kidding with you. As somebody with a closet full of tailored Brit suits.

 

[Bigerik]

I honestly don't remember how he was dressed beyond that I thought he looked good. I's just kidding with you. As somebody with a closet full of tailored Brit suits.

Clothes are likely as big a passion of mine as audio. One of the thrills for me of seeing Bond movies has frequently been just the enjoyment of the great suits that he wears. But this movie drove me nuts. He looked awful. Not fit. Everything was pulling and wrinkling and too tight.

It's the difference between fashion and style. Bond is supposed to have his own sense of style. He is supposed to lead, while others follow. Now he is just dressing fashionably.

 

[Bigerik]

For instance, a jacket should never bulge and pull:

Same stupid thing here. It just looks too small on him:

What he ends up looking like is a guy who paid big bucks for a suit, and then has let himself go and gained 20 lbs of flab. Not an uncommon look, and very unflattering.

 

[Bigerik]

As compared to perfection:

Craig ends up looking like a bodyguard by comparison, not a super spy.

 

[Bigerik]

Women like it - they think he has muscles.....

Bond shouldn't need to go to silly extremes to attract women.....

 

[slow_jazz]

In the movie he failed his physical but M let him pass anyway. I'm guessing they wanted him a little out of shape....

 

[Bigerik]

In the movie he failed his physical but M let him pass anyway. I'm guessing they wanted him a little out of shape....

I guess having him wear suits that don't fit is one way to make that point...