Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Skyfall

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Skyfall Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Skyfall - 11/11/2012 2:50:15 AM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1200
Joined: 31/3/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper

Have been reading a few of the reactions from Stateside, and in particular pissing myself at some of the bollocks being thrown about on AICN Talkbalks. They make the crazy talk here seem well reasoned and accurate.

I'm still amazed that people are trying to tie up continuity in Bond films to correctly work all films into a proper chronology of films in Bond's world. I really can't beleive people are complaining that certain films dont fit a chronology. The producers clearly dont worry too much about it, neither do the individual directors. I've always seen the Bond films as just individual films, Bond is the certal character and is the same character in all, none of this 'James Bond is a code name, the same as 007'. Utter rubbish. This was the best chronological order I could find being put forward, but it's riddled with faults to be honest. Thoughts? Is there a real chronological order to the Bond films?


Nope. Not since they started filming the books out of order in the 60s. Which is why Bond meets Blofeld for the first time twice - YOLT and OHMSS!

quote:

Spoilers.....

Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are Bond's first ever missions after making 007 status. Following Quantum of Solace we have the Brosnan movies, Goldeneye through to Die Another Day. This is based on the fact that Dench M promotes Bond and continues to be his boss in the Brosnan movies. It ties up the missing missions between QoS and Skyfall. Skyfall follows the Brosnan years and removes Dench M. After Dench M dies and Mallory assumes the role, the remaining Craig movies will take place before the Sean Connery years, as Mallory hands over to his successor who would appear in Dr No, From Russia With Love etc. The Lazenby and Moore Era follows, Bond marries, looses his wife, and then were into the Dalton movies. Essentially meaning License to Kill is the last Bond movie in the current chronological order. As mentioned, the idea being that Craigs remaining years would fill the gap between Mallory M and his successor, and the next Bond, whoever it is, would pick up the order from Dalton. Madness. What do people think? Does this theory hold water, or is it, as I suspect, a load of old bollocks. My opinion is there is no order to Bond. No continuity, only with certain aspects of the characters history and with the movies formula. Each Bond exists with the same character traits and history, is the same character but exisits outside the others seperately. There is no real connection between the Connery Era, Craig Era or Brosnan Era, outside the cute nods to fans. Those nods are for the fans and not really meant as in movie continuity between each series of films..


A great man - I believe it was Steven Moffat - said: the fannish impulse to make sense of all continuity is indeed a noble endeavour. He might even be serious. On the other hand, Guillermo Del Torro says "Continuity is for pussies!"

(A noble effort, BTW. Skyfall could almost be the last Bond film. And the first. With M, Q, Moneypenny and M's leather-cushioned door all in place by the end, the "next" Bond film could be Dr No. It's the Circle of Life and Let Die! For the record though, while a bit of internal consistency doesn't go amiss, anyone who puts continuity ahead of telling a good story is an assh*le. Fact. It's been proved scientifically in tests.)


< Message edited by chris kilby -- 11/11/2012 2:08:05 PM >

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 361
RE: FLIPPIN' GOOD..... - 11/11/2012 1:35:05 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1200
Joined: 31/3/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: manwihtheplan

quote:

And I bet the gun barrel’s at the start of the next one.


It's not as if the producers have milked the franchise for close on six hours of running time to get to the point where James Bond is a fully fledged 00 operative.

Oh, well they have, actually.

They've spent three films to get Craig's Bond to end up in the same starting point as in Dr No. What took Cubby Broccoli about ten mins to do has taken Babs and MG six hours and three films to do.


Talk about missing the point...

(in reply to manwihtheplan)
Post #: 362
RE: Skyfall - 11/11/2012 1:38:32 PM   
manwihtheplan

 

Posts: 99
Joined: 11/9/2012
"You mean the stunt guy will do the gun barrel scene for Craig's next bond film? It took Connery 3 films before he did it, surely it annoys you more that it's not Connery doing it in the first (and arguably best) Bond films"

I didn't mean the gun barrel. I mean it's taken the producers three films - over six hours of running time - to end up with a fully fledged 'no angst' Bond meeting up with Moneypenny and a male M. Cubby Broccoli/Harry Saltzman took ten mins of Dr No's running time to do that!

Also people have mentioned how silly it is that in the previous Craig Bond films he is a rookie Bond, too reckless, too cocky or whatever you want to call it, but in the beginning of Skyfall he's jaded, out of condition. So how did that happen? Did he retire from the 00 division for a while after QOS and eat hamburgers all day?

< Message edited by manwihtheplan -- 11/11/2012 1:41:51 PM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 363
RE: Skyfall - 11/11/2012 1:49:19 PM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12121
Joined: 30/9/2005
Why release films at all when you could just upload the plot outline on Wikipedia or IMDb?

(in reply to manwihtheplan)
Post #: 364
RE: Skyfall - 11/11/2012 1:57:38 PM   
Darth Marenghi

 

Posts: 3194
Joined: 10/10/2010
From: Manchester
quote:

ORIGINAL: manwihtheplan

Also people have mentioned how silly it is that in the previous Craig Bond films he is a rookie Bond, too reckless, too cocky or whatever you want to call it, but in the beginning of Skyfall he's jaded, out of condition. So how did that happen?


There's been a few 00-missions between QoS and Skyfall (i.e. why his Aston Martin is now tricked out with the guns and ejector seat). Plus he's still recovering from the injuries sustained in Istanbul - he was shot with a depleted uranium bullet, remember?

_____________________________

Invisible Text for SPOILERS: "color=#F1F1F1" Spoiler text "/color" , then change the quotation marks to square brackets.


(in reply to manwihtheplan)
Post #: 365
RE: Skyfall - 11/11/2012 2:03:05 PM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12121
Joined: 30/9/2005
Also, one look at our world leaders like Barack Obama, Tony Blair, David Cameron, Gordon Brown etc, will show just how much someone can age in a short space of time with a stressful job.

And they're not being shot at on a daily basis.

(in reply to Darth Marenghi)
Post #: 366
RE: Skyfall - 11/11/2012 2:13:07 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1200
Joined: 31/3/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

Why release films at all when you could just upload the plot outline on Wikipedia or IMDb?


More to the point, why bang on endlessly about films you claim not to have seen? Indeed, why profess to be a "true fan" of films that you clearly HATE with an almost sexual passion? It all sounds a bit Annie Wilkes/Mark Chapman to me - you COCK-A-DOODIES!

(Not you, obviously.)


< Message edited by chris kilby -- 11/11/2012 2:16:29 PM >

(in reply to Hood_Man)
Post #: 367
RE: Skyfall - 11/11/2012 2:15:31 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1200
Joined: 31/3/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

Also, one look at our world leaders like Barack Obama, Tony Blair, David Cameron, Gordon Brown etc, will show just how much someone can age in a short space of time with a stressful job.

And they're not being shot at on a daily basis.


It's not the years, honey. It's the mileage.

No wonder Craig's Bond has aged. Osama Bin Laden didn't get the kind of press he got before Casino Royale was released. That's what I love about fanboys - nuthin'!


< Message edited by chris kilby -- 11/11/2012 2:17:46 PM >

(in reply to Hood_Man)
Post #: 368
RE: Skyfall - 11/11/2012 6:13:35 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19039
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
Good luck to people wanting their "proper" Bond - it seems the film going public are pouring money into these terrible Craig films. Hold your Moore collections close.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 369
RE: Skyfall - 11/11/2012 7:27:52 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27268
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
Oh, I was going to post that. I won't watch Killer Joe now, just to spite you.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 370
RE: Skyfall - 11/11/2012 8:07:52 PM   
KrygerandKlub

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 11/11/2012
Hi from your Movie Man: Abdul Majid

Come check out my you tube channel where I will review some of the best up and coming films to be shown in a cinema near you.

First up we have Skyfall

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B7Byl-MF-s&feature=plcp

As I love to say......

Love it or hate it, just make sure you rate it!

The Movie Man
www.youtube.com/user/KrugerrandKlub

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 371
RE: Skyfall - 11/11/2012 9:39:26 PM   
manwihtheplan

 

Posts: 99
Joined: 11/9/2012
Spectacular US box office for Skyfall:

quote:

The action thriller grossed a truly massive $87.8 million in its first three days (and an additional $2.2 million during Thursday night previews). Skyfall‘s debut marks the seventh-best November opening weekend of all time — behind two Twilight films and four Harry Potter titles.


Nobody can stop James Bond! (still wish they could put the gun barrel back in the right place, though)

quote:

Good luck to people wanting their "proper" Bond - it seems the film going public are pouring money into these terrible Craig films. Hold your Moore collections close.


Yep, the Connery up to Brosnan Bond era is long gone. I doubt that type of James Bond will ever return. I think most people will find it too silly or cartoonish in the 21st century. Die Another Day was almost like a cartoon Bond film - invisible car?

I think the success of Craig's Bond means all future Bond actors will be an obvious or subtle variation on his interpretation. The days of the super smooth, refined but tough-when-he-needs-to-be James Bond are in the past. People want more three dimensional, flawed action heroes. It's easier to relate to. Oh well... if that's what people want, fair enough. The public have spoken. Whatever your thoughts on Craig as Bond and his three Bond films, you have to give credit to Eon Productions for giving people what they want to see. They seem to gauge the public mood and that is hard to do. The Craig Bond films have been big hits and Skyfall is opening with huge numbers so the producers must be doing something right!

I also believe Daniel Craig's Bond appeals to more women film goers. I reckon they find his tough but vulnerable persona more appealing than the smug matinee idol persona of previous Bond actors. This must have helped boost the box office of Craig's Bond films.

< Message edited by manwihtheplan -- 11/11/2012 10:00:04 PM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 372
RE: Skyfall - 11/11/2012 10:01:06 PM   
Darth Marenghi

 

Posts: 3194
Joined: 10/10/2010
From: Manchester

quote:

ORIGINAL: manwihtheplan

Yep, the Connery up to Brosnan Bond era is long gone. I doubt that type of James Bond will ever return. I think most people will find it too silly or cartoonish in the 21st century. Die Another Day was almost like a cartoon Bond film - invisible car? I think the success of Craig's Bond means all future Bond actors will be an obvious or subtle variation on his interpretation. The days of the super smooth, refined but tough-when-he-needs-to-be James Bond are in the past. People want more three dimensional, flawed action heroes. It's easier to relate to. Oh well... if that's what people want, fair enough. The public have spoken. Whatever your thoughts on Craig as Bond and his three Bond films, you have to give credit to Eon Productions for giving people what they want to see. They seem to gauge the public mood and that is hard to do. The Craig Bond films have been big hits and Skyfall is opening with huge numbers so the producers must be doing something right!


Do you honestly see no similarity between Skyfall and the early Connery Bonds? Serious question.

_____________________________

Invisible Text for SPOILERS: "color=#F1F1F1" Spoiler text "/color" , then change the quotation marks to square brackets.


(in reply to manwihtheplan)
Post #: 373
RE: Skyfall - 11/11/2012 10:15:35 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7932
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire
For me, Skyfall felt like a nice blend of old school Bond (thinking more like Connery era) and the tough, post 9/11 Bond, which is the only kind of Bond that will work in this day in age. Seriously, fuck your eye brow raising, invisible cars and cringe inducing sexism.

Skyfall is lighter in tone than Question of Sport and Casino Royale, but it doesn't sacrifice Craig's grittiness to make it more palatable. It's really fun, a quality which I felt was lacking a little bit from Casino Royale. That's not to say that Royale wasn't a good watch, but I like Skyfall a lot, lot more.

Apologies to Private Hudson for semi-reviewing the film there.

< Message edited by MonsterCat -- 11/11/2012 10:18:46 PM >


_____________________________

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you."

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to Darth Marenghi)
Post #: 374
RE: Skyfall - 11/11/2012 10:37:05 PM   
manwihtheplan

 

Posts: 99
Joined: 11/9/2012
I was thinking about the entire Bond franchise and I think the fundamental problem I have with the Craig Bond era is...

Daniel Craig's James Bond isn't someone I would want to be.

I believe at its core the success of the Bond franchise was due to its ability to tap into every male's fantasy - a very handsome, charming but deadly secret agent going around the world, bedding beautiful women, beating the bad guys, saving the world. Every guy would love to be that man for a day.

When you take that fantasy ideal and make it 'realistic' you kill off what made it special in the first place. This is why I will never warm to Craig's Bond, never warm to the character-driven storylines, never warm to the extra character development given to mummy M (it's obvious M is some surrogate mother figure so Bond has someone to love or trust) and I doubt I will ever warm to Craig's successor. When you cast an actor like Daniel Craig you're stuck with a realistic Bond because there's no way Craig will ever act smooth or that charming. He's not that sort of guy or that sort of actor. The Bond franchise had to change to suit his interpretation and in the process it lost so much of the fantasy ideal element fans grew up with. Modern era Bond fans don't get that, don't appreciate that. It's no surprise all the people saying "this is one of the best Bond films ever!!!!" do not mention the gun barrel being shoved to the end. It's like people have such short memories they can't even remember James Bond was the ultimate male fantasy action hero, they can't even remember the Bond theme was an integral part of many action scenes, they can't even remember the films are meant to start with the classic gun barrel.

Craig's Bond films do represent the death (no exaggeration) of the original cinematic James Bond. James Bond may be immortal but the original film version is dead, long gone.

< Message edited by manwihtheplan -- 11/11/2012 10:41:25 PM >

(in reply to MonsterCat)
Post #: 375
RE: Skyfall - 11/11/2012 11:22:38 PM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2197
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet

quote:

ORIGINAL: manwihtheplan

I was thinking about the entire Bond franchise and I think the fundamental problem I have with the Craig Bond era is...

Daniel Craig's James Bond isn't someone I would want to be.

I believe at its core the success of the Bond franchise was due to its ability to tap into every male's fantasy - a very handsome, charming but deadly secret agent going around the world, bedding beautiful women, beating the bad guys, saving the world. Every guy would love to be that man for a day.

When you take that fantasy ideal and make it 'realistic' you kill off what made it special in the first place. This is why I will never warm to Craig's Bond, never warm to the character-driven storylines, never warm to the extra character development given to mummy M (it's obvious M is some surrogate mother figure so Bond has someone to love or trust) and I doubt I will ever warm to Craig's successor. When you cast an actor like Daniel Craig you're stuck with a realistic Bond because there's no way Craig will ever act smooth or that charming. He's not that sort of guy or that sort of actor. The Bond franchise had to change to suit his interpretation and in the process it lost so much of the fantasy ideal element fans grew up with. Modern era Bond fans don't get that, don't appreciate that. It's no surprise all the people saying "this is one of the best Bond films ever!!!!" do not mention the gun barrel being shoved to the end. It's like people have such short memories they can't even remember James Bond was the ultimate male fantasy action hero, they can't even remember the Bond theme was an integral part of many action scenes, they can't even remember the films are meant to start with the classic gun barrel.

Craig's Bond films do represent the death (no exaggeration) of the original cinematic James Bond. James Bond may be immortal but the original film version is dead, long gone.


Much as i dislike manwitheplans rantings on the Dredd thread, i have to agree with him here on why he dislikes the Craig era of Bond.His reasons for doing so mirror my own.As a man in his mid thirties, iv grown up enjoying the Bond movies for the fantasy that they were.The appeal of the character is as manwitheplan stated, a fantasy figure that most men would like to be.I look at Craigs Bond and i would never want to be like him as hes such an unlikeable thug and looks rather creepy.

The James Bond film series for me ended in 2002 with Die Another Day ( Far from the best Bond movie to be sure but despite being rather ridiculous and OTT, it was fun and i would rather watch that than any of the Craig Bonds ).

_____________________________

'' Iv played Oskar Schindler, Michael Collins, Rob Roy Mcgregor, even ZEUS for gods sake! No one is going to believe me to be a green grocer! ''

(in reply to manwihtheplan)
Post #: 376
RE: Skyfall - 11/11/2012 11:36:35 PM   
rich


Posts: 4664
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Neo Kobe

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat
fuck your eye brow raising, invisible cars and cringe inducing sexism.



Amen

_____________________________

Weekend write-ups

(in reply to MonsterCat)
Post #: 377
RE: Skyfall - 12/11/2012 2:20:37 AM   
Deviation


Posts: 27268
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
I want to be Craig's Bond, he still gets Eva Green, Gemma Artenton and Berenice Marlohe, goes to Shanghai and Macua and also visits the Atacama and flirts with Naomi Harris, the womanizing bastard.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 378
RE: Skyfall - 12/11/2012 9:52:55 AM   
Happy Shrapnel


Posts: 17420
Joined: 19/1/2006
From: Wishing for the Clothes of Heaven
I want to be Craig's Bond too, personaly, he's becoming one of fav's but then I always was a Connery man.
Craig looks like an 00, he looks like he can fight, he looks dangerous and I have too say, he looks pretty cool.
He reminds me of Steve McQueen when he's on the motor bike.
I don't hate Moore and Live and Let Die is one of my fav Bond outings, however, he can't fight and he blinks when he shoots his gun !

When I think of Moore, I always think of the scene in TMWTGG when he's at the Kung Fu school, way out of his depth, he just couldn't cut it for me.


_____________________________

In John Le Mesurier's last words........

' Its All Been Rather Lovely '

Happy Trails

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 379
RE: Skyfall - 12/11/2012 10:19:00 AM   
Scruffybobby

 

Posts: 4260
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: My House
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze


quote:

ORIGINAL: manwihtheplan

I was thinking about the entire Bond franchise and I think the fundamental problem I have with the Craig Bond era is...

Daniel Craig's James Bond isn't someone I would want to be.

I believe at its core the success of the Bond franchise was due to its ability to tap into every male's fantasy - a very handsome, charming but deadly secret agent going around the world, bedding beautiful women, beating the bad guys, saving the world. Every guy would love to be that man for a day.

When you take that fantasy ideal and make it 'realistic' you kill off what made it special in the first place. This is why I will never warm to Craig's Bond, never warm to the character-driven storylines, never warm to the extra character development given to mummy M (it's obvious M is some surrogate mother figure so Bond has someone to love or trust) and I doubt I will ever warm to Craig's successor. When you cast an actor like Daniel Craig you're stuck with a realistic Bond because there's no way Craig will ever act smooth or that charming. He's not that sort of guy or that sort of actor. The Bond franchise had to change to suit his interpretation and in the process it lost so much of the fantasy ideal element fans grew up with. Modern era Bond fans don't get that, don't appreciate that. It's no surprise all the people saying "this is one of the best Bond films ever!!!!" do not mention the gun barrel being shoved to the end. It's like people have such short memories they can't even remember James Bond was the ultimate male fantasy action hero, they can't even remember the Bond theme was an integral part of many action scenes, they can't even remember the films are meant to start with the classic gun barrel.

Craig's Bond films do represent the death (no exaggeration) of the original cinematic James Bond. James Bond may be immortal but the original film version is dead, long gone.


Much as i dislike manwitheplans rantings on the Dredd thread, i have to agree with him here on why he dislikes the Craig era of Bond.His reasons for doing so mirror my own.As a man in his mid thirties, iv grown up enjoying the Bond movies for the fantasy that they were.The appeal of the character is as manwitheplan stated, a fantasy figure that most men would like to be.I look at Craigs Bond and i would never want to be like him as hes such an unlikeable thug and looks rather creepy.

The James Bond film series for me ended in 2002 with Die Another Day ( Far from the best Bond movie to be sure but despite being rather ridiculous and OTT, it was fun and i would rather watch that than any of the Craig Bonds ).


When CB's got your back you know you're doomed...

As a man in ihis late thirties I also grew up with Bond as the fantsay figure and as much as I still love those films I think what they're doing with Craig is brilliant. Just as I can like Adam West and Christian Bale as verty different Batmen I can aprreciate different interpretations of Bond as well.

_____________________________

I want to taste you like yogurt.

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 380
RE: Skyfall - 12/11/2012 11:36:40 AM   
Professor Moriarty

 

Posts: 9869
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: the waters of Casablanca
I find the clue to Fleming's Bond to be in the final line of the first chapter of the first book, Casino Royale:

quote:

Then he slept, and with the warmth and humour of his eyes extinguished, his features relapsed into a taciturn mask, ironical, brutal, and cold


For me Daniel Craig doesn't do the warmth and humour. Connery does that easily, which is why for me he's still the best interpretation of Fleming's Bond.

I do get the idea that Bond had to change and be modernised. I mean other elements of the character as described by Fleming have to go. Bond is not so likely now to "light his 70th cigarette of the day" given all the action scenes he does, for one. He also has to roll back on the incredible levels of misogynism in the books. But I still feel that Connery's Bond could smile at your face while shooting you in the back if he had to is missing from Craig's Bond and I think that is the Bond Fleming was describing.

< Message edited by Professor Moriarty -- 12/11/2012 11:39:35 AM >

(in reply to Happy Shrapnel)
Post #: 381
RE: Skyfall - 12/11/2012 5:43:43 PM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12121
Joined: 30/9/2005
If I had to choose between being Connery or Craig, I'd choose Craig.

They both have faces that look like jugs, but if I was Craig I'd be tough enough to smash someone to pieces for making fun of me for it.

I don't want no stinking ice packs flattening my manboobs!

(in reply to Professor Moriarty)
Post #: 382
RE: Skyfall - 13/11/2012 2:28:06 PM   
Dannybohy


Posts: 1374
Joined: 7/1/2009
Well, finally got around to watching it. And coming from someone who is not a Daniel Craig fan at all, I really enjoyed it. Much better than his first two movies. Love the new Q and the other new designation. Haven't enjoyed a bond movie that much since Living Daylights

_____________________________

'Man of Steel!,Man of Shit!' -fairyprincess

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 383
RE: Skyfall - 15/11/2012 3:44:29 AM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1200
Joined: 31/3/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: Happy Shrapnel

I want to be Craig's Bond too, personaly, he's becoming one of fav's but then I always was a Connery man.
Craig looks like an 00, he looks like he can fight, he looks dangerous and I have too say, he looks pretty cool.
He reminds me of Steve McQueen when he's on the motor bike.

I don't hate Moore and Live and Let Die is one of my fav Bond outings, however, he can't fight and he blinks when he shoots his gun !

When I think of Moore, I always think of the scene in TMWTGG when he's at the Kung Fu school, way out of his depth, he just couldn't cut it for me.



He couldn't run either. When Moore told Guy Hamilton the director didn't believe him. Then when Hamilton saw Moore "run" on camera he said he "wanted to cry." Watch Moore escaping from said kung fu school in The Man With The Golden Gun (about the only time you ever saw Moore's Bond putting a spurt on - oh behave!) and you'll see why...


< Message edited by chris kilby -- 15/11/2012 4:15:36 AM >

(in reply to Happy Shrapnel)
Post #: 384
RE: Skyfall - 15/11/2012 4:13:22 AM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1200
Joined: 31/3/2010
Sooooo... Is Skyfall the most overrated Bond film of all time, or what?

I loved it. I love all the Bond films. And all the Bonds - except David Niven, obviously. But I can't help feeling that time will be harsher to Skyfall (Bardem's camp, cartoon villain especially) and, paradoxically, kinder to the unfairly maligned Quantum of Solace - not least by its own cast.

Sure, it’s flawed, but Quantum of Solace has a lot going for it. It has some superb action set-pieces – c’mon, that car chase at the start is a classic. It is one of the most Flemingesque Bonds, its sadistic villains especially. And it fair rattles along. At 102 minutes, it is the shortest Bond film so even if you don’t like it, at least it doesn't hang about or outstay its welcome. I even liked the (Fleming) title. Oh, and it’s a sly remake of the equally underrated Licence to Kill (still the most Flemingesque Bond movie of all - ironic as it was the first one made after they'd run out of original books to adapt) which makes a pleasant change. Most Bond films are remakes of You Only Live Twice!

Quantum of Solace does have a (deliberately?) colourless and underwritten villain with the ironically nondescript name of Dominic Green, though. Green? What sort of cockamamie name for a Bond villain is that? Although there does seem to be some sort of colour-coded thing going on with Quantum’s senior personnel. And I have my own suspicions about “Mr White.” Sorta hidden-in-plain-sight suspicions. For a minor functionary, White always seems to be right in the thick of it, wouldn’t you say? Tellingly when Bond reveals himself at the opera and everyone else bolts, Mr White stays put. The Man always stays seated, know wot I mean? He’ll be stroking a white cat before you know it, I’m telling you.

Quantum of Solace will be critically reappraised some day the same way OHMSS was. They used to laugh at me for suggesting that was underrated too! Underrated? It's only the best bloomin' Bond film of all time, innit! Decades ahead of its time, it's been a huge influence on the Craig films as well as a certain Christopher Nolan - Inception especially.


< Message edited by chris kilby -- 15/11/2012 4:44:24 AM >

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 385
RE: Skyfall - 15/11/2012 4:35:59 AM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1200
Joined: 31/3/2010
And while I'm at it, sure, 007 should never have jumped on the Star Wars bandwagon and gone into space in the first place. But Moonraker is actually a judicious edit away from being a much better film.

Cut all the annoying slapstick (especially anything Jaws-related), that fucking gondola and those double-taking pigeons and you’d actually have quite a good Bond movie. Though not as good as a straight adaptation of the original book would have been – the plot of which has been pilfered by both Goldeneye and Die Another Day.

Michel Lombard’s unusually restrained Hugo Drax is one of the great, underrated Bond villains. More languid and, well, French than the usual twitching histrionics, he affects a sort of disdain which borders on a George Sanders-like bored indifference. Look how Drax delivers such smooth zingers as “James Bond – you appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season,” which sounds more like Noel Coward than Ian Fleming. Not bad for the writer of Confessions of a Window Cleaner! When Drax sets his dogs on Corinne it is a moment of real Fleming sadism which is truly horrifying and hauntingly scored by John Barry at his very best.

And Moore’s Bond shows a rare moment of real human vulnerability when he stumbles, half-dead from that centrifuge. Tragically, Moore's Bond never recovered from this terrible ordeal and was to stumble, half-dead, through the rest of his tenure.

< Message edited by chris kilby -- 15/11/2012 4:37:40 AM >

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 386
RE: Skyfall - 15/11/2012 4:42:45 AM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1200
Joined: 31/3/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scruffybobby

As a man in ihis late thirties I also grew up with Bond as the fantsay figure and as much as I still love those films I think what they're doing with Craig is brilliant. Just as I can like Adam West and Christian Bale as very different Batmen I can aprreciate different interpretations of Bond as well.


Same here. I like all the Bonds because they are different. Although I like some more than others. The fact that Bond can be Roger Moore and Daniel Craig ("code name" my ass!), the same way Batman can be Adam West and Christian Bale proves just how iconic they are.

(in reply to Scruffybobby)
Post #: 387
RE: Skyfall - 16/11/2012 6:02:40 PM   
Dannybohy


Posts: 1374
Joined: 7/1/2009
I enjoyed skyfall, even if it is just Home Alone for grown ups. Terrible and uninspired plot when you think about it.

_____________________________

'Man of Steel!,Man of Shit!' -fairyprincess

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 388
RE: Skyfall - 17/11/2012 8:16:51 PM   
Coyleone


Posts: 557
Joined: 13/10/2008
I've never liked Bond, (apart from Royale, which I thought was good) ever. So this being even 'good' would have probably made it my favourite Bond movie. I thought it was very good, so this is by far my favourite Bond movie ever. I really liked the grittier feel of the previous Craig films being there, but with an added likeability to the character and the film in general. I can't stand the old movies, but even I enjoyed the light hearted callbacks to those films, and the humor in the film was well done, without losing that grittier tone. I thought it made for an enjoyable combination. The start before the opening credits was as good of an opening sequence as any Bond movie. I really liked Bardem in this, don't think he was as outstanding as some people, but I'd say he was the best part of the film. I liked the character development of Bond, and the emotional side of him coming through, instead of the cheesy, smarmy one-liner bloke in the old films who didn't really have any character other than being sarcastic. Here Bond's past and emotions are looked into which was a very welcome addition to the franchise for me. Some of the action set pieces are great, especially liked the chase through the underground. Saying that, there was nothing in it to raise it to 'great' standards for me, the action and humor was enjoyable throughout, but there was nothing especially thrilling or gripping, or anything that sucked me totally in to the film. The finale at the house didn't do anything for me, but it wasn't bad or anything, just kind of...there. I will also say that the comparisons to TDK/TDKR are extremely apt, and that also kind of took me out of the film in places. Overall I thought it was very good, enjoyable and I'm glad I watched it, but it's not brilliant and it's not up there with the best of the year. It's still the best Bond movie ever for me though.

< Message edited by Coyleone -- 17/11/2012 8:18:43 PM >

(in reply to Dannybohy)
Post #: 389
RE: Disappointing - 20/11/2012 12:18:52 AM   
Stryder

 

Posts: 114
Joined: 15/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: howiet1971

I was disappointed; often style over substance. (A couple of scenes were shot beautifully - the entrance to the casino and the glass office). But there was no 'Bond'; a few (poor) one liners that seem to get worse, hardly anything from the Bond girls, little glamour, no gadgets, no car scenes, and an unfortunate scene in Instanbul which mirrored (the awful) Taken 2 . Updating Bond should not mean losing what made Bond 'Bond'.
It was no where near as good as Casino Royale, better than Quantum, enjoyable but ultimately disappointing.



Just come back from watching this movie and i hate to say it but i agree with you entirely on every point - You have summed it up exactly as i did ;) In a nutshell - A great film in it's own right, enjoyable but disappointing and definitely a little over-rated. No where near as good as Casino Royale as you say, but better than Quantum :)

Casino just had the 'perfect' balance, of keeping it Bond but taking it somewhere new with a different grittier style tone and treatment akin to the Bourne Identity movies and it worked brilliantly. Skyfall just takes it a step too far for me. It's too gritty, too heavy, too dark, too melodramatic, too dull and too depressing. Too much realism and not enough fantasy - though ofc i'd rather take too much realism over too much fantasy, the last thing we want is a Roger Moore throwback!

I thought the pace was too slow and it took far too long to get going. The flow was just not quite right somehow. Apart from the opening sequence ending with the train Craig never seemed to get going in full flow. In fact i can hardly think of anything memorable or thrilling action-sequence-wise at all. From Casino for example, we had nice car chase, opening island action sequence, fights at the casino in stairwells, explosive chases at the airport and a venitian finale. In Skyfall we had a few fisticuffs in the shanghai casino, MI6 blowing up and a bleak scottish set-piece. None of which was sustained or exciting for me. With the much talked about train crashing subway sequence being a huge disappointment, lasting all of 30secs and seemingly serving no real purpose. What was Bardem trying to do? Hit Bond with a train?! He might as well have just shot at him a few times instead!

Character-wise the villain only appeared i'm sure what seemed like half-way through and yes Bardem as always was brilliant but he hardly had 'that much' screen time. I found him a little freaky but hardly menacing and certainly not a great or memorable villain. Similar to the villain from Quantum in a way - weird more than anything. The Bond girls again, seemed to hardly figure that much. We had the gorgeous girl Bond meets in Shanghai, who lasted all of 5mins. In fact the whole of the Shanghai casino scenario looked great but it would have been nice to have spent more time there, or in Shanghai in general (Bond could have actually gambled a little we could have a had a more elaborate action sequence, more screentime for the Bond girl and perhaps even Bardem could have showed up somewhere). In Casino we had really great female character in Vesper who had lots of screentime and some brilliant dialogue and chemistry with Craig. Which was the other thing missing for me - the wit, humour and dialogue in the 'lighter' fashion. Yes there were some nice exchanges of dry wit between Craig and Winshaw and M and Bond, but nothing that rivaled the complexity or 'fun' of conversations such as that between Vesper and Bond when they meet for the first time on the train. I found a similar issue with Quantum. Perhaps it's just that Casino was better written, but either way after a promising opening, Skyfall just didn't grab me and by the time the film was coming to it's Scottish finale i'd lost all interest somehow.

However, i don't want to appear as if im shooting holes left right and centre here! There was also much that was great about it. I liked the opening sequence, the style and shooting of the casino entrance, the Adele song and the Shanghai scenes and the glass office - gorgeous. I love Judi Dench's performance and the dialogue between her and Bond. I absolutely loved the various throwbacks to the Connery-era Bond with the Aston Martin, Craig being a little less feral and ever so slightly more refined (straightening his suit after jumping on the train) and the whole clever ending with the new M, his office, Miss Moneypenny and the whole 60's throwback. I do think it's a slow burner and i do think that it'll grow on me more over time.

Ultimately it felt almost like it was trying too hard? A sense of it's a step 'too' far from the film-makers and in the process it's lost it's sense of fun and action and the feel of 'Bond'. It just seemed too 'serious' - i can't think of any other way of putting it. It was a gamble to do what they did with it this time and don't get me wrong, the execution was great and i'm not saying the treatment doesn't work - it was just not for me ;)
Post #: 390
Page:   <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Skyfall Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.094