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:

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: - 20/11/2012 4:28:58 PM   
hatebox

 

Posts: 942
Joined: 14/2/2008
This felt far more like a Bond film for me than Casno Royale did.

The problem is, no can unanimously agree what a 'Bond' flm feels like.

< Message edited by hatebox -- 20/11/2012 4:29:16 PM >
Post #: 391
RE: A Leap In The Right Direction - 1/12/2012 12:39:33 PM   
Sotto Voce

 

Posts: 788
Joined: 5/9/2009
I thought all the nods and winks were far too heavy-handed and self-aware. The exploding pen and ejector seat gags, for instance. It didn't really pull off the tonal shift it was supposed to. One minute you're watching the straight-down-the-line Bond, the next you're in Roger Moore territory.

_____________________________

All things digested have a similar hue.
Post #: 392
RE: A Leap In The Right Direction - 4/12/2012 3:55:00 PM   
Don_a_van


Posts: 98
Joined: 30/1/2007
OK, finally got to watch this at the weekend so he are my thoughts. This film had been getting massive hype so going in I have to say I was quite excited. Did it deliver? Yes and no,

What it got right -

The pre-credit chase scene was superb I thought, good stunts, brutal, frenetic and it set the tone perfectly for the rest of the film. For the first 10 minutes I thought YES GAME ON. The cinematography is also superb. Hats off to Mendes as he has done a stunning job here and the film looks absolutely beautiful in places with the Shanghai night time Skyline\ Mirrored Office and the "Island Lair" being stand outs for me. Daniel Craig has also come into his own and despite early misgivings, I think he IS Bond now with the just the right mix of brutalness, suave and anguish in the mix to make a truly interesting character. The fact that we got to explore some of Bond's roots was also very interesting and I thought the final scene was a nice departure from what we've seen before although again it did have certain "flaws"

What it got wrong -

I thought the villain was a bit weak, don't get me wrong Bardem did very well with what he had but this masterminds genius plan had so many wholes in it and was so convoluted\contrived that the middle part of the film started to flag for me. There are so many instances of Deux Ex Machina that it kept taking me out of the film as I kept thinking WTF? (Mild Spoiler Alert) A small example is Bardem's all too convenient escape scene and how an alleged computer expert decides to plug in a known hackers Laptop, directly into the M16 network and then is gob-smacked when surprise surprise, they get hacked!

The knowing nods\references to previous Bond movies and the Bond origin timeline in general where a mess. Yes it might have seemed like a "cool idea" to throw in the DB5 with the ejector seat in there but how the hell do they explain the existence of that in this new Bond World? Also in CR and QoS we are back at the start of Bonds career and all of sudden in this, Bond is a grizzled old veteran who is past his sell by date, how did that happen? It's like they've completely forgotten what has happened in the two previous films and gone off on a tangent, the Quantum\Spectre storyline isn't even mentioned at all. It almost feels like they've decided to reboot the reboot. Was this the plan all along or was this some sort of knee jerk reaction to the poor box office from QoS? I thought these films were supposed to be picking up from scratch and doing something new with the franchise but by the end of this film, especially the last scene, you are left in no doubt that we are firmly back on familiar territory. It's not a massive problem but along with the insistence of unneccesary references to Bond's of old it just feels a bit incongruous at times.


So while it was a very good Bond film, I don't think it deserves it's billing as "the best Bond film ever" as it has a few too many flaws for that. It's not even Craig's best Bond outing as the superb Casino Royale still takes that honour but it is infinitely better than QoS and a pretty decent action film to boot, it's just a shame that they couldn't stick to their convictions about taking Bond in a new direction.

7/10

(in reply to Sotto Voce)
Post #: 393
RE: Meh - 8/12/2012 9:48:27 PM   
princessa


Posts: 734
Joined: 6/6/2006
I enjoyed the movie. But i don't think its the best Bond ever.

What worked was the script, action and acting. Ralph Fiennes was brilliant as was everyone else.

What didn't work was the last 40 minutes and also the villan. Its not his fault but Javier Bardem was way too camp and not really menancing enough for a villan.

Still a good movie and one i would see again.
Post #: 394
RE: Meh - 13/12/2012 12:01:34 AM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1263
Joined: 31/3/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: empirequeen

That's how i can sum it up with 1 word...even if it's a made up word!


All words are made-up, aren't they...?
Post #: 395
RE: Meh - 13/12/2012 12:10:59 AM   
elab49


Posts: 54577
Joined: 1/10/2005
They maybe think it's a neologism. Not, as 'meh' is, a word you'll find in most dictionaries now 

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 396
RE: Disappointing - 14/12/2012 7:55:31 AM   
Phubbs


Posts: 658
Joined: 3/4/2012
Skyfall

Ah good old blighty, red letter boxes, bubble n squeak and now Bond seems to be back home for most of this new adventure. So no more glorious locations and outrageous set pieces involving overly tanned women and Lotus Esprits? well kinda.

Bond film number 23, geez! does this franchise really need to carry on?. Well yes and no if you ask me, yes he's pretty much one of the UK's best known fictional heroes alongside 'Sherlock Holmes' and practically a tourist attraction. On the other hand these films really are getting somewhat repetitive now come on.

The films poster is rather uninspired also, plus the title seems rather obscure and meaningless (yes I know its the name of 'Bond's' family estate, weird name though innit?).

The one issue I have with this film and the previous Craig 'adult' Bond films is they can't decide what to do with them. On one side the films are showboated as gritty, hard edged, realistic super spy films, yet on the other side they are still quite stupid, cheesy, cliched and camp in places. So which is it guys? we've had classic Bond, camp Bond, serious Bond and smarmy Bond, is Craig suppose to be adult Bond?. The other issue is Bond used to be special, this franchise owned the super spy genre and each new film was the mother of all spy films, the new Bond film was like a religious/holy coming we were blessed with.

Unfortunately these days, like most genres, we are spoilt for choice and there are numerous super spy films/franchises that all do the same thing. So this whole deary hype we have to go through for every new Bond now seems pointless as it has all been done before, but now in various other franchises too.

So leaving my moaning aside what about this new effort. Well its actually a reasonable spy/action flick but not really much of a Bond flick. Most Bond flicks tend to have HUGE set pieces, one after another with little in between. Now that is admittedly rather tedious these days so its nice to see that this film does not have that problem. Thing is this film seems to swing right over to the other extreme and have virtually no decent impressive action set pieces in it.

The opening sequence is very good, well thought up, directed, edited, tense, great stunts and surprisingly not overly over blown (although I've never seen a JCB crush cars on a moving train before, that's a new one). After that there isn't really much else that impresses. There are a few good shoot outs, some good fighting and the assassination sequence with silhouettes against a backdrop of neon lights is really nice visually but that's it.

The film does seem more violent with plenty getting gunned down but at the same time it also harks back to classic Bond with plenty of silly humorous moments, which is OK. Although the addition of the old classic Bond car (Aston Martin DB5) wasn't really needed, over doing the homage there. Overall though the film feels very low key action wise, the ending is an incredible anti climax, especially for Bond.

The other strange thing here is the baddie (Bardem) is also incredibly weak and hardly threatening a tall. He has the 'Max Zorin' appearance from 'A View to a Kill' with a nasty blonde hairdo but isn't really very bad a tall, in fact he comes across as quite an OK guy haha. The most shocking thing he does in the whole film (apart from shoot a sexy female in the head, although he was nice about it) is touch up 'Bond' when he has him tied to chair!. That was an eye opening surprise right there, his mannerisms in the following dialog was quite amusing too I must say.

Like most films these days I can't help but notice silly things, I just can't!. 'Bond' and 'M' escape from the shootout in London together, next minute they're in the depths of Scotland? the UK ain't that small folks. At the start when 'Bond' gets shot and falls off the train and that rather large drop into the cold river below, don't really think he would have survived that but hey.

When 'Bond' holds on to the elevator that goes up that skyscraper, when it arrives at the top, one minute 'Bond' is underneath the elevator, next minute he's inside the building? oh and he only had the use of one arm!. Would Komodo Dragons really attack and eat a human just like that?. Also when 'bond'...ah who cares.

I did like the new casting for 'Q', the nerdy computer whizz, thought that would be awful but he was quite good actually. Fiennes naturally was good but felt he would make a much better baddie really, could just see it. Finally 'M' despite being a miserable looking cow, you gotta love her really, she has that strict but loving 'mum' thing about her which many of us can relate to. It was also kinda neat to see 'M' and his office return to their routes at the very end of the film. not sure how 'Moneypenny' is able to still be around, is 'Moneypenny' a code name like 'Bond'? must be.

Overall it is a good action film, a good low key action film, but it doesn't really feel like a Bond film. I understand what they have tried to do toning down the Hollywood aspect but maybe it did need just a bit more kick assery. But like I say there isn't really much you can do with this franchise now, its up against a lot of other very slick spy action films and altogether the genre is now flooded much like the superhero genre. Maybe give it a rest for some years.

I think I used the name 'Bond' there plenty don't you? lets count.

(in reply to Stryder)
Post #: 397
RE: Disappointing - 16/12/2012 4:15:03 AM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12151
Joined: 30/9/2005
Saw it again. I really liked it the first time, but I bloody loved it the second time! I actually had no idea the introductory scene between Silva and Bond was so homoerotic though, when I first saw it this scene was interrupted by hundreds of people walking in from another screening (presumably their viewing had been halted for some unforeseen reason), which pretty much ruined Silva's introduction after the rat chewing story.

A worthy contender for best Bond film ever

< Message edited by Hood_Man -- 16/12/2012 4:18:30 AM >

(in reply to Phubbs)
Post #: 398
First Bond I won't want to watch again - 16/12/2012 4:30:02 PM   
wolds

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 16/12/2012
I have to own up I love most of the Bond film, except the last of the Roger Moore ones when the budgets were thin and the plots thinner (I even love OHMSS). But along came Barbara Brocolli and Timothy Dalton who rescued the franchise from oblivion. The Piers Brosnan ones were adequate placeholders if a bit lame. Then along came Daniel Craig in Casino Royale and suddenly we had a truly good film in every sense on the word with only a little bit of "not real world" action (the defib machine in the car). Actually a truly brilliant film, follwed up by the excellent Quantum of Solace. Fleming would surely not just have approved but applauded Craig; furthermore he moved Bond from the 1950's to the current world seamlessly and effortlessly. David Arnold was an inspired choice to score these films, being a protege of John Barry - he knew the power of the music and how Barry used it to make the films outstanding.

So, after the financing problems delaying Skyfall, the additional time might have created a great script you would think. What went wrong? Well, the film opens with Bond failiing. That is not what Bond is about, and then to disappear hitting the booze, in some far away place brooding only to come back as a drunken has been, just isn't him is it? We watch Bonds because he gives us belief that you don't give in and can always triumph. What this film does is attempt to show Bond as a normal man. As for the plot- did it take two or three minutes to think up? Sorry Mr Mendes, this is NOT real life. The tough, slightly saddistic, smirking snob is the truth. As for the score- did anyone even know it had a score? I doubt. It was hopeless excepting Adele's opening song.

The actual film looks under-funded too- a CGI train crash and the final part of the film in Scotland were to be frank, feeble and boring. I suspect people went to see this film partly on the basis of Daniel Craig and the peceding two films and the great trailer that the Olympics opening cerem

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 399
RE: RE: - 16/12/2012 5:28:41 PM   
The Puddled Duck

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 16/12/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: hatebox

This felt far more like a Bond film for me than Casno Royale did.

The problem is, no can unanimously agree what a 'Bond' flm feels like.


I walked out. The problem for me is that Skyfall itself didn't seem to know what it was about, schitzo Bond IMHO, it nodded to the past, then made fun of the past, the did a Die Hard, bit of Bourne, bit of Mission Impossible, bit of Deer Hunter, nod again to the passed, takes the piss out of its self, all over the shop IMHO, poor plot, poor script.

Lasted one hour then walked out.

(in reply to hatebox)
Post #: 400
RE: First Bond I won't want to watch again - 16/12/2012 5:34:12 PM   
The Puddled Duck

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 16/12/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: wolds

I have to own up I love most of the Bond film, except the last of the Roger Moore ones when the budgets were thin and the plots thinner (I even love OHMSS). But along came Barbara Brocolli and Timothy Dalton who rescued the franchise from oblivion. The Piers Brosnan ones were adequate placeholders if a bit lame. Then along came Daniel Craig in Casino Royale and suddenly we had a truly good film in every sense on the word with only a little bit of "not real world" action (the defib machine in the car). Actually a truly brilliant film, follwed up by the excellent Quantum of Solace. Fleming would surely not just have approved but applauded Craig; furthermore he moved Bond from the 1950's to the current world seamlessly and effortlessly. David Arnold was an inspired choice to score these films, being a protege of John Barry - he knew the power of the music and how Barry used it to make the films outstanding.

So, after the financing problems delaying Skyfall, the additional time might have created a great script you would think. What went wrong? Well, the film opens with Bond failiing. That is not what Bond is about, and then to disappear hitting the booze, in some far away place brooding only to come back as a drunken has been, just isn't him is it? We watch Bonds because he gives us belief that you don't give in and can always triumph. What this film does is attempt to show Bond as a normal man. As for the plot- did it take two or three minutes to think up? Sorry Mr Mendes, this is NOT real life. The tough, slightly saddistic, smirking snob is the truth. As for the score- did anyone even know it had a score? I doubt. It was hopeless excepting Adele's opening song.

The actual film looks under-funded too- a CGI train crash and the final part of the film in Scotland were to be frank, feeble and boring. I suspect people went to see this film partly on the basis of Daniel Craig and the peceding two films and the great trailer that the Olympics opening cerem


Bond just wrecked havoc in the first hour I watched, watched three people die, four actually just to let the plot move forward in a dramatic action way (neon scene), walking disaster zone, plot was all over the shop and fundamentally absurd.

(in reply to wolds)
Post #: 401
RE: RE: - 16/12/2012 5:38:21 PM   
The Puddled Duck

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 16/12/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: hatebox

This felt far more like a Bond film for me than Casno Royale did.

The problem is, no can unanimously agree what a 'Bond' flm feels like.


I walked out. The problem for me is that Skyfall itself didn't seem to know what it was about, schitzo Bond IMHO, it nodded to the past, then made fun of the past, the did a Die Hard, bit of Bourne, bit of Mission Impossible, bit of Deer Hunter, nod again to the passed, takes the piss out of its self, all over the shop IMHO, poor plot, poor script.

Lasted one hour then walked out.

(in reply to hatebox)
Post #: 402
RE: RE: - 17/12/2012 1:10:59 PM   
NCC1701A


Posts: 4384
Joined: 12/3/2011
From: Space Dock

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Puddled Duck


quote:

ORIGINAL: hatebox

This felt far more like a Bond film for me than Casno Royale did.

The problem is, no can unanimously agree what a 'Bond' flm feels like.


I walked out. The problem for me is that Skyfall itself didn't seem to know what it was about, schitzo Bond IMHO, it nodded to the past, then made fun of the past, the did a Die Hard, bit of Bourne, bit of Mission Impossible, bit of Deer Hunter, nod again to the passed, takes the piss out of its self, all over the shop IMHO, poor plot, poor script.

Lasted one hour then walked out.




How can you give an opinion on a film that you walked out on. For me skyfall was excellent.

_____________________________

Trench: I'll be back.

Church: You've been back enough. I'll be back.

[leaves]

Trench: Yippee-ki-yay.


The Expendables 2 (2012)

(in reply to The Puddled Duck)
Post #: 403
- 20/12/2012 3:39:02 PM   
AC1993

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 21/11/2012
I would have given this 4.5 but there's no option for half-star ratings.

This is a really superb Bond film. Considering how Casino Royale reinvented the character so successfully, this is a worthy successor to the legacy of both the classic and the newer versions of Bond, and manages to blend the two almost perfectly.

Superb acting, great story,brilliant direction and stunning cinematography, this film really was the perfect way to celebrate the 50th anniversary of one of cinemas most successful and beloved characters.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 404
Best Bond ever ? - 23/12/2012 10:26:18 AM   
Uncle_Ethan

 

Posts: 86
Joined: 7/1/2006
I just don't see what all the fuss was about with Skyfall, claims that it is the best Bond ever are ludicrous. The plot of a former agent seeking revenge was done with far more menace and conviction by Sean Bean in Goldeneye and Daniel Craig had a far meatier role in Casino Royale, no coincidence the director on both occasions being the king of the 007 reboot - Martin Campbell. Javier Bardem's camp performance would have been better suited to the later Roger Moore era and was a far cry from his sinister turn in No Country For Old Men. The film was at least half an hour too long, which could be forgiven, if not for the fact that the ending lacked any of the emotional impact of Vesper's demise in Casino Royale.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 405
RE: Best Bond ever ? - 24/12/2012 2:07:42 AM   
england_cmr


Posts: 77
Joined: 1/4/2008
From: Whistler, British Columbia
I'd give Skyfall 4/5. It just seemed like classic Bond in everyway. I think it worked as a modern take on the series and yet it could be considered amongst the likes of 'The Spy Who Loved Me', 'Goldfinger' etc. However, I didn't think it was as good as Casino Royale, and I found it just a tad anti climatic. I hope for the next Bond we have a climax more akin in scale to perhaps 'You Only Live Twice'. I'd love to see a modern / grounded take on the classic 'Supervillian' with a MENTAL plan. I think its time for Spectre to return.

_____________________________

1) Inception
2) Wall - E
3) Beetlejuice
4) Big Fish
5) Terminator 2: Judgement Day
6) Spirited Away
666) Battleship

(in reply to Uncle_Ethan)
Post #: 406
RE: Best Bond ever ? - 24/12/2012 4:52:33 AM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: england_cmr

I'd give Skyfall 4/5. It just seemed like classic Bond in everyway. I think it worked as a modern take on the series and yet it could be considered amongst the likes of 'The Spy Who Loved Me', 'Goldfinger' etc. However, I didn't think it was as good as Casino Royale, and I found it just a tad anti climatic. I hope for the next Bond we have a climax more akin in scale to perhaps 'You Only Live Twice'. I'd love to see a modern / grounded take on the classic 'Supervillian' with a MENTAL plan. I think its time for Spectre to return.


Aren't Quantum the new franchise's SPECTRE? They could go for something more global or bigger (well they did have a Bolivian coup d'etat in Quantum of Solace) next time without looking ridiculous.

_____________________________

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 england_cmr)
Post #: 407
RE: Best Bond ever ? - 24/12/2012 5:57:28 AM   
england_cmr


Posts: 77
Joined: 1/4/2008
From: Whistler, British Columbia
Oooh, is that what they are planning? I think that could be really good if they do it right. But as you say it will be difficult to make it not ridiculous.

_____________________________

1) Inception
2) Wall - E
3) Beetlejuice
4) Big Fish
5) Terminator 2: Judgement Day
6) Spirited Away
666) Battleship

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 408
RE: Brilliant - 24/12/2012 7:18:50 AM   
Joserabal

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 4/12/2012
Skyfall is a great movie and thanks for article with trailer of the movie..............

(in reply to manwihtheplan)
Post #: 409
RE: A Leap In The Right Direction - 24/12/2012 5:58:51 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1832
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sotto Voce

I thought all the nods and winks were far too heavy-handed and self-aware. The exploding pen and ejector seat gags, for instance. It didn't really pull off the tonal shift it was supposed to. One minute you're watching the straight-down-the-line Bond, the next you're in Roger Moore territory.


Roger Moore Bond movies are great family entertainment. It all swings and roundabouts. Taste moves in cycles. I am sure than in a few years Bond will be more like cinematic Bond should be: a little more fantastical and OTT.

The lust for 'realism' will go away in the same way it did after Dalton (and I love Licence to Kill).

_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to Sotto Voce)
Post #: 410
RE: Disappointing - 24/12/2012 6:00:49 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1832
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

Skyfall

Ah good old blighty, red letter boxes, bubble n squeak and now Bond seems to be back home for most of this new adventure. So no more glorious locations and outrageous set pieces involving overly tanned women and Lotus Esprits? well kinda.

Bond film number 23, geez! does this franchise really need to carry on?. Well yes and no if you ask me, yes he's pretty much one of the UK's best known fictional heroes alongside 'Sherlock Holmes' and practically a tourist attraction. On the other hand these films really are getting somewhat repetitive now come on.

The films poster is rather uninspired also, plus the title seems rather obscure and meaningless (yes I know its the name of 'Bond's' family estate, weird name though innit?).

The one issue I have with this film and the previous Craig 'adult' Bond films is they can't decide what to do with them. On one side the films are showboated as gritty, hard edged, realistic super spy films, yet on the other side they are still quite stupid, cheesy, cliched and camp in places. So which is it guys? we've had classic Bond, camp Bond, serious Bond and smarmy Bond, is Craig suppose to be adult Bond?. The other issue is Bond used to be special, this franchise owned the super spy genre and each new film was the mother of all spy films, the new Bond film was like a religious/holy coming we were blessed with.

Unfortunately these days, like most genres, we are spoilt for choice and there are numerous super spy films/franchises that all do the same thing. So this whole deary hype we have to go through for every new Bond now seems pointless as it has all been done before, but now in various other franchises too.

So leaving my moaning aside what about this new effort. Well its actually a reasonable spy/action flick but not really much of a Bond flick. Most Bond flicks tend to have HUGE set pieces, one after another with little in between. Now that is admittedly rather tedious these days so its nice to see that this film does not have that problem. Thing is this film seems to swing right over to the other extreme and have virtually no decent impressive action set pieces in it.

The opening sequence is very good, well thought up, directed, edited, tense, great stunts and surprisingly not overly over blown (although I've never seen a JCB crush cars on a moving train before, that's a new one). After that there isn't really much else that impresses. There are a few good shoot outs, some good fighting and the assassination sequence with silhouettes against a backdrop of neon lights is really nice visually but that's it.

The film does seem more violent with plenty getting gunned down but at the same time it also harks back to classic Bond with plenty of silly humorous moments, which is OK. Although the addition of the old classic Bond car (Aston Martin DB5) wasn't really needed, over doing the homage there. Overall though the film feels very low key action wise, the ending is an incredible anti climax, especially for Bond.

The other strange thing here is the baddie (Bardem) is also incredibly weak and hardly threatening a tall. He has the 'Max Zorin' appearance from 'A View to a Kill' with a nasty blonde hairdo but isn't really very bad a tall, in fact he comes across as quite an OK guy haha. The most shocking thing he does in the whole film (apart from shoot a sexy female in the head, although he was nice about it) is touch up 'Bond' when he has him tied to chair!. That was an eye opening surprise right there, his mannerisms in the following dialog was quite amusing too I must say.

Like most films these days I can't help but notice silly things, I just can't!. 'Bond' and 'M' escape from the shootout in London together, next minute they're in the depths of Scotland? the UK ain't that small folks. At the start when 'Bond' gets shot and falls off the train and that rather large drop into the cold river below, don't really think he would have survived that but hey.

When 'Bond' holds on to the elevator that goes up that skyscraper, when it arrives at the top, one minute 'Bond' is underneath the elevator, next minute he's inside the building? oh and he only had the use of one arm!. Would Komodo Dragons really attack and eat a human just like that?. Also when 'bond'...ah who cares.

I did like the new casting for 'Q', the nerdy computer whizz, thought that would be awful but he was quite good actually. Fiennes naturally was good but felt he would make a much better baddie really, could just see it. Finally 'M' despite being a miserable looking cow, you gotta love her really, she has that strict but loving 'mum' thing about her which many of us can relate to. It was also kinda neat to see 'M' and his office return to their routes at the very end of the film. not sure how 'Moneypenny' is able to still be around, is 'Moneypenny' a code name like 'Bond'? must be.

Overall it is a good action film, a good low key action film, but it doesn't really feel like a Bond film. I understand what they have tried to do toning down the Hollywood aspect but maybe it did need just a bit more kick assery. But like I say there isn't really much you can do with this franchise now, its up against a lot of other very slick spy action films and altogether the genre is now flooded much like the superhero genre. Maybe give it a rest for some years.

I think I used the name 'Bond' there plenty don't you? lets count.


Are you for real? Bond repeats itself often. But who cares? Some of us want a meglomaniac villain who lives in a volcanic lair and is holding the world, yes, WORLD, to ransom.

Others want an effete gigolo who wants to scratch little Jimmy's eyes out.


_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to Phubbs)
Post #: 411
RE: Best Bond ever ? - 24/12/2012 6:02:19 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1832
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: england_cmr

I'd give Skyfall 4/5. It just seemed like classic Bond in everyway. I think it worked as a modern take on the series and yet it could be considered amongst the likes of 'The Spy Who Loved Me', 'Goldfinger' etc. However, I didn't think it was as good as Casino Royale, and I found it just a tad anti climatic. I hope for the next Bond we have a climax more akin in scale to perhaps 'You Only Live Twice'. I'd love to see a modern / grounded take on the classic 'Supervillian' with a MENTAL plan. I think its time for Spectre to return.


Agreed! Only I do think Quantum is SPECTRE.

But that might not be a bad thing.

I am sure would could have a global virus threatening mankind? Haven't had that since OHMSS and Moonraker.

_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to england_cmr)
Post #: 412
RE: Best Bond ever ? - 24/12/2012 6:04:20 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1832
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: england_cmr

Oooh, is that what they are planning? I think that could be really good if they do it right. But as you say it will be difficult to make it not ridiculous.


But who cares? Bond is not real nor lives in the 'real' world (as if any film is really real!).

Why did they make all those copycat movies and spoofs of Bond in the 60s and 70s? Because Bond was something different. Bond's USP was guns, girls and gadgets. He was stylish beyond compare. He was living the Playboy lifestyle by night and behaving like a vodka fuelled Charlie Bronson by day.


_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to england_cmr)
Post #: 413
RE: First Bond I won't want to watch again - 24/12/2012 6:08:02 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1832
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: wolds

I have to own up I love most of the Bond film, except the last of the Roger Moore ones when the budgets were thin and the plots thinner (I even love OHMSS). But along came Barbara Brocolli and Timothy Dalton who rescued the franchise from oblivion. The Piers Brosnan ones were adequate placeholders if a bit lame. Then along came Daniel Craig in Casino Royale and suddenly we had a truly good film in every sense on the word with only a little bit of "not real world" action (the defib machine in the car). Actually a truly brilliant film, follwed up by the excellent Quantum of Solace. Fleming would surely not just have approved but applauded Craig; furthermore he moved Bond from the 1950's to the current world seamlessly and effortlessly. David Arnold was an inspired choice to score these films, being a protege of John Barry - he knew the power of the music and how Barry used it to make the films outstanding.

So, after the financing problems delaying Skyfall, the additional time might have created a great script you would think. What went wrong? Well, the film opens with Bond failiing. That is not what Bond is about, and then to disappear hitting the booze, in some far away place brooding only to come back as a drunken has been, just isn't him is it? We watch Bonds because he gives us belief that you don't give in and can always triumph. What this film does is attempt to show Bond as a normal man. As for the plot- did it take two or three minutes to think up? Sorry Mr Mendes, this is NOT real life. The tough, slightly saddistic, smirking snob is the truth. As for the score- did anyone even know it had a score? I doubt. It was hopeless excepting Adele's opening song.

The actual film looks under-funded too- a CGI train crash and the final part of the film in Scotland were to be frank, feeble and boring. I suspect people went to see this film partly on the basis of Daniel Craig and the peceding two films and the great trailer that the Olympics opening cerem


I actually think GoldenEye and The World is Not Enough are first rate Bonds.

And as for 'later' Roger Moores... well. Octopussy is pure entertainment, delivered with some panache, wit and style, which has been sadly lacking of late.

I still think there is an issue with Daniel Craig as Bond. He may be called James Bond, but he isn't really James Bond 007. His 3 Bond films have been the most un-Bond-like of any of the actors. I agree they have to freshen things up, but they need to start thinking about getting back to basics (and I don't mean rebooting) I mean back to the formula that made Bond last 50 years.

_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to wolds)
Post #: 414
RE: First Bond I won't want to watch again - 24/12/2012 6:33:27 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
What on Earth is the Bond formula of the last 50 years? The franchise has changed so much throughout the ages, it is asinine to claim there was a constant one, especially if you don't consider Skyfall to follow it.

Also, Octopussy is rubbish.

< Message edited by Deviation -- 24/12/2012 6:35:29 PM >


_____________________________

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 Private Hudson)
Post #: 415
RE: First Bond I won't want to watch again - 24/12/2012 11:03:46 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1832
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

What on Earth is the Bond formula of the last 50 years? The franchise has changed so much throughout the ages, it is asinine to claim there was a constant one, especially if you don't consider Skyfall to follow it.

Also, Octopussy is rubbish.


There is a formula. Skyfall follows it to some extent but the main diversion from the formula is there isn't a proper Bond girl (something that could be claimed about QoS).

Go read Roald Dahl's view on the formula and the idea of 3 Bond girls (the sacrifice, the villainess, and the heroine).

To suggest there is not a formula is poppycock. The formula was there straight from the off in Dr No and it did disappear in From Russia With Love, but then it was cemented in Goldfinger.

Bond's formula has been regurgitated regularly, even by Eon themselves . A View to a Kill has the same basic plot as Goldfinger, and The Spy Who Loved Me is a remake of You Only Live Twice. Roger Moore and Lewis Gilbert have confirmed this often enough. One could also argue that Tomorrow Never Dies is similar in plot to those films also.

From Russia With Love and Licence to Kill are possibly the only two before Craig that didn't follow the formula closely with cosmetic changes.

If you don't believe me, then you should read what other writers of the films have said over the years, who all know they have to keep certain elements to keep the audience happy. One can forgive Casino Royale for being a bit different as it is the first ever Bond mission and is the beginning of the so called reboot.

QoS was a bit of a mess and did have elements of the formula (ie the villain's lair etc) but again the lack of a bona fide Bond girl was poor. I would also include the lack of using the James Bond theme as going off the formula. One of the writers said that there was always one or two action sequences that had to be written in where they could play the James Bond theme. It might have been Richard Maibum who said that, I can't remember.

Skyfall was let down again by a lack of a Bond girl and lack of a threat from the villain. What became of the files? Where was the threat to the UK? Bond didn't even achieve his objective to save M! So it could be argued that Silav won.

And Octopussy is not rubbish. It's brilliant family entertainment. That's what Bond is. He's not Bourne or Lethal Weapon or Die Hard. Bond is more in line with Indiana Jones, Tarzan, Robin Hood etc. He is a classic hero.

And I am specifically talking about the cinematic Bond.

Merry Christmas.

_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 416
RE: First Bond I won't want to watch again - 25/12/2012 2:00:07 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
I love Bond "fans".

"This movie isn't following a pre-set formula! I don't want any surprises or interesting approaches to the series. Just the same thing over and over and over!"

_____________________________

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 Private Hudson)
Post #: 417
RE: First Bond I won't want to watch again - 25/12/2012 2:10:38 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

I love Bond "fans".

"This movie isn't following a pre-set formula! I don't want any surprises or interesting approaches to the series. Just the same thing over and over and over!"


Bottom line: If the franchise doesn't roll with the times, Bond ceases to exist.

You may not like the changes and that's fine but you cannot expect the franchise not to change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

Where was the threat to the UK?



I liked that the stakes of the film were much more personal than Bond looking after the best interests of Queen and country. Making him less imperialist makes him easier to root for. It was one of the few things that was interesting about Pond of Wood.

quote:

Bond didn't even achieve his objective to save M! So it could be argued that Silav won.


Yes, Bond in this film is more human and prone to being fallible. Again, it makes him more three dimensional as opposed to a shallow cypher for men to project their playboy spy fantasies upon

< Message edited by MonsterCat -- 25/12/2012 2:31:56 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 Rgirvan44)
Post #: 418
RE: First Bond I won't want to watch again - 25/12/2012 3:39:04 PM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12151
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson
Bond didn't even achieve his objective to save M! So it could be argued that Silav won.

Silva's aim was to get revenge on M himself, but in the end she died from the wounds of a stray bullet fired by one of his henchmen. His instructions were for his men to take out Bond and leave M for him, her eventual death was a mistake.

Not only that but the last thing he saw before he died was M's current "favourite," the last rat standing, 007. Not M. Not the woman he'd been obsessed with for the last 20 years.

Silva failed.

(in reply to Private Hudson)
Post #: 419
RE: First Bond I won't want to watch again - 27/12/2012 1:35:53 AM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1263
Joined: 31/3/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

What on Earth is the Bond formula of the last 50 years? The franchise has changed so much throughout the ages, it is asinine to claim there was a constant one, especially if you don't consider Skyfall to follow it.

Also, Octopussy is rubbish.


There is a formula. Skyfall follows it to some extent but the main diversion from the formula is there isn't a proper Bond girl (something that could be claimed about QoS).

Go read Roald Dahl's view on the formula and the idea of 3 Bond girls (the sacrifice, the villainess, and the heroine).

To suggest there is not a formula is poppycock. The formula was there straight from the off in Dr No and it did disappear in From Russia With Love, but then it was cemented in Goldfinger.

Bond's formula has been regurgitated regularly, even by Eon themselves . A View to a Kill has the same basic plot as Goldfinger, and The Spy Who Loved Me is a remake of You Only Live Twice. Roger Moore and Lewis Gilbert have confirmed this often enough. One could also argue that Tomorrow Never Dies is similar in plot to those films also.

From Russia With Love and Licence to Kill are possibly the only two before Craig that didn't follow the formula closely with cosmetic changes.

If you don't believe me, then you should read what other writers of the films have said over the years, who all know they have to keep certain elements to keep the audience happy. One can forgive Casino Royale for being a bit different as it is the first ever Bond mission and is the beginning of the so called reboot.

QoS was a bit of a mess and did have elements of the formula (ie the villain's lair etc) but again the lack of a bona fide Bond girl was poor. I would also include the lack of using the James Bond theme as going off the formula. One of the writers said that there was always one or two action sequences that had to be written in where they could play the James Bond theme. It might have been Richard Maibum who said that, I can't remember.

Skyfall was let down again by a lack of a Bond girl and lack of a threat from the villain. What became of the files? Where was the threat to the UK? Bond didn't even achieve his objective to save M! So it could be argued that Silav won.

And Octopussy is not rubbish. It's brilliant family entertainment. That's what Bond is. He's not Bourne or Lethal Weapon or Die Hard. Bond is more in line with Indiana Jones, Tarzan, Robin Hood etc. He is a classic hero.

And I am specifically talking about the cinematic Bond.

Merry Christmas.


In a lot of ways, Quantum of Solace is virtually a remake of Licence to Kill - both underrated in my opinion. As is Octopussy, the only other Bond film in the spirit of From Russia With Love - the most conventional Bond film of all. But then I think Skyfall is a more mature re-hash of Die Another Day which looks like a Roger Moore Bond movie by comparison. (DAD also lifts the same plot elements from Fleming's Moonraker that Goldeneye did...)

Oh, and Bond definitely fucks up in Skyfall. Though not as badly as he does in Licence to Kill where, frankly, he's a bit of a div.

And a happy New Year.


< Message edited by chris kilby -- 27/12/2012 1:37:04 AM >

(in reply to Private Hudson)
Post #: 420
Page:   <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   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