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  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Skyfall - 28/10/2012 7:07:04 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1839
Joined: 30/9/2005
An attempt from a rival newspaper to gain some publicity!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/27/daniel-craig-better-than-sean-connery-as-james-bond?newsfeed=true

Quite funny.


_____________________________

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 Private Hudson)
Post #: 151
RE: Skyfall - 28/10/2012 7:13:22 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
Do they mention that he Craig still hasn't fucked up his character as Connery did in DAF? Cause that's a reason Connery looses points for me.

_____________________________

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 #: 152
RE: Skyfall - 28/10/2012 7:25:14 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
Also, I think the gadgets will be back, but they will be down-to-Earth gadgets rather than something as outlandish like a car which turns into a sub or a jetpack like the one in Thunderball.

_____________________________

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 Deviation)
Post #: 153
RE: Skyfall - 28/10/2012 8:39:18 PM   
musht


Posts: 1868
Joined: 21/1/2009
From: Oireland

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

An attempt from a rival newspaper to gain some publicity!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/27/daniel-craig-better-than-sean-connery-as-james-bond?newsfeed=true

Quite funny.



I've always thought it was quite difficult to compare the Bonds as each actor had a different approach and their films were very much influenced by the historical context of the time they were made. FRWL and DAF are films of completely different tones and although it's the same actor it's hard to believe it's the same Bond at times.

Connery's Bond was always a smooth bastard when it came to women and you could tell had little respect for (except Moneypenny of course) and so I find it difficult to imagine Connery's Bond in OHMSS.

Moore's Bond was just outright lecherous, it was disturbing at time. Comparing Moore and Craig is like comparing Adam West and Christian Bale, it's not fair to either party as both were trying to do something different.

Craig's Bond is easily the least out going Bond we've ever seen, he's far more introverted and I think it works brilliantly and fits in with the tone of film EON are now going for.

Regarding gadgets, I was OK with Craig using the DB5 but giving him a crocodile sub or an invisible car just wouldn't work at all, it would be completely out of place.

_____________________________

"SAVE ME, BARRY!!"

"What the hell are Regionals!?"

"color=#F1F1F1" Spoiler text "/color"

(in reply to Private Hudson)
Post #: 154
RE: Skyfall - 28/10/2012 8:42:32 PM   
Deviation


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: musht


quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

An attempt from a rival newspaper to gain some publicity!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/27/daniel-craig-better-than-sean-connery-as-james-bond?newsfeed=true

Quite funny.



I've always thought it was quite difficult to compare the Bonds as each actor had a different approach and their films were very much influenced by the historical context of the time they were made. FRWL and DAF are films of completely different tones and although it's the same actor it's hard to believe it's the same Bond at times.

Connery's Bond was always a smooth bastard when it came to women and you could tell had little respect for (except Moneypenny of course) and so I find it difficult to imagine Connery's Bond in OHMSS.

Moore's Bond was just outright lecherous, it was disturbing at time. Comparing Moore and Craig is like comparing Adam West and Christian Bale, it's not fair to either party as both were trying to do something different.

Craig's Bond is easily the least out going Bond we've ever seen, he's far more introverted and I think it works brilliantly and fits in with the tone of film EON are now going for.

Regarding gadgets, I was OK with Craig using the DB5 but giving him a crocodile sub or an invisible car just wouldn't work at all, it would be completely out of place.


Yeah, I agree, it's bizarre to just see how Connery's Bond went from FRWL to YOLT, which is only rivalled by Moonraker and DAD in OTT.


_____________________________

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 musht)
Post #: 155
RE: Skyfall - 28/10/2012 8:48:50 PM   
Filmfan 2


Posts: 1048
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Also, I think the gadgets will be back, but they will be down-to-Earth gadgets rather than something as outlandish like a car which turns into a sub or a jetpack like the one in Thunderball.


Gadgets that have a grounding in reality are the only way that they can make a comeback. Any attempt to get back to the gadgetry nadir seen in DAD would be a backward step of colossal proportions. That won't happen now as the current run of movies has set a stylistic precedent for Bond films in the way that they are made and, barring a few souls longing for 'the good old days', I don't think audiences would accept it; it would seem incredibily anachronistic.

I don't ever want to see Bond wind-surfing on a tsunami wave ever again, or whatever it was he did in that toilet of a film. Bond's current form factor is infinitely more satisfying in the same way that I vastly prefer Nolan's interpretation of the Batman universe to Joel Schumacher's.

< Message edited by Filmfan 2 -- 28/10/2012 9:04:34 PM >


_____________________________

I am not drinkin' any fuckin' Merlot!

"All I wanted me was a piece of cornbread, you motherfuckers!"

Defender of all things Batman Begins


(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 156
RE: not quite as amazing as you're hoping - 28/10/2012 9:10:35 PM   
Gazz


Posts: 873
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson


quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat


quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

Well, you're not a mod so you don't get to tell people what people what they can and can not post. Also, this part of the forum is partly meant for posting reviews, most of which are well written.


It is simply my opinion.

I want debate and opinion as much as anyone, but it makes me laugh when someone writes a review as if it is going to appear in Empire (and it is not just on this thread).

But I suppose they are only about 15 right enough.


You are a moron. That's my last post on the subject.



Why lower yourself to personal insults?

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them 'a moron'.

I find that pretty offensive actually.



From you, earlier in this thread -

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson



The Fleming Bond which all the pretentious tw@ts love to quote




Yes, was that personalised at one person?



No, instead it was insulting to a group of people rather than just one individual.

I don't see how the defence of aiming an insult at more people somehow makes it a lesser insult. If a poster had joined a discussion with "Like those pretentious tw@ts who hate the film like to say..." they would have been rightly called on it just the same.


< Message edited by Gazz -- 28/10/2012 9:43:22 PM >

(in reply to Private Hudson)
Post #: 157
RE: Stars.... - 28/10/2012 9:30:04 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
Not read up on this thread, but would have no idea why fans of the mythological "proper Bond" would dislike Skyfall. It pretty much had everything those films contained.

_____________________________

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.

Post #: 158
RE: Skyfall - 28/10/2012 9:30:30 PM   
Quentin Black

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 2/10/2005
Skyfall is one of the best Bond films and a definite step in the right direction for the franchise.

The well acted characters and clever plot give Bond much needed emotional and dramatic weight while still being a definite Bond film. Bond changes and grows through the course of the film as he is tested physically, mentally and emotionally. The villain is one that matches Nolan's Joker - intelligent, confident, terrifyingly strange and a distorted reflection of the protagonist. The Bond girls are beautiful and layered people that leaving you wanting more of them. The artistic yet adrenaline inducing action is visually stunning and unlike anything we've seen before. The reintroduction of the traditional elements (exotic locations that serve the plot, a quartermaster and gadgets that make sense for our times, little details and wordplay that enhance the film etc) are done in a logical and subtle way that takes the franchise out of the shadow of the Bourne series while still delivering a Bond that you can believe in a post 911 world.

Looking forward to the next two.


< Message edited by Quentin Black -- 28/10/2012 9:33:01 PM >

(in reply to Filmfan 2)
Post #: 159
RE: not quite as amazing as you're hoping - 28/10/2012 9:38:14 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

Also, when will people realise that we really don't want to read their reviews on here?!#

We have the Empire review and that is what we are debating, and indeed the film itself.

If I want third rate, amateur reviews I will buy Total Film.


What a horrible comment Hudson.


_____________________________

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 #: 160
RE: Stars.... - 28/10/2012 9:56:49 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005
Re-Skyfall - I liked it. That in itself is a great achievement, as I'm not a great fan of the Bond flicks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: echoalpha92

Question....

Just seen a trailer for Argo on tv...I think it quotes empire giving the film 5*.....can't find the review online though...so has it been reviewed and not posted or has the rating been given before its been reviewed officially...?


It's in the magazine this month, presumably it'll be up on the website tomorrow (in advance of its release on Friday).

Post #: 161
RE: Skyfall - 28/10/2012 10:00:40 PM   
earnest

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 4/11/2010
On the bond franchise including the books were all OTT. BUT the worst in my opinion was Octapussy even die another days invisable car did not come as close to a mike myers parody as Octapussy oh the gondala in moonraker that was stupid even at the time 70s when moonraker was released.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 162
RE: Stars.... - 28/10/2012 10:21:55 PM   
matty_b


Posts: 14559
Joined: 19/10/2005
From: Outpost 31 calling McMurtle.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Not read up on this thread, but would have no idea why fans of the mythological "proper Bond" would dislike Skyfall. It pretty much had everything those films contained.


Mainly because they're incapable of admitting when they're in the wrong.


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.


(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 163
RE: Stars.... - 28/10/2012 10:44:51 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Not read up on this thread, but would have no idea why fans of the mythological "proper Bond" would dislike Skyfall. It pretty much had everything those films contained.


Mainly because they're incapable of admitting when they're in the wrong.



Read up on the rest of the thread.

Yikes.

_____________________________

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 matty_b)
Post #: 164
RE: Stars.... - 28/10/2012 10:45:14 PM   
Frank Castle


Posts: 2687
Joined: 14/10/2005
From: Parts Unknown
As a daniel craig hater,maybe hater is a bit strong as it wasnt him per say was the problem it was the films,he was just unluckly cast at the time.casino royale they tried to be to dark and moody and wasnt a "bond" film and quantum of solace was just plain garbage. Seems even the makers of those films agree and have decided rebooted the series again,ignoring almost everything from those films,thankfully thats for the better.
Daniel craig shines as bond here,This was a bond film in every sense of the word.Cracking action,massive gun fights,plenty of little nods to the series,an awesome villian,dodgy stunt doubles and the most important factor missing from his previous films it was fun!! Wasn't to hard was it.This is the reboot that should have happened 7 years ago!!

_____________________________

" guys its ok, he just wanted his machette back"!!

(in reply to matty_b)
Post #: 165
RE: Stars.... - 28/10/2012 11:31:32 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
Correct me if I am wrong, but was Silva an agent in the time between License to Kill and Goldeneye? Can't remember the dates he gave. Cute nod if so.

_____________________________

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 Frank Castle)
Post #: 166
RE: Stars.... - 28/10/2012 11:38:58 PM   
manwihtheplan

 

Posts: 99
Joined: 11/9/2012
On the subject of the gunbarrel being moved, this is how it should have been done in Quantum of Solace:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gayqFoKipVY&feature=related&ytsession=ubgkUY4QzXdBw7IC5ua7fi36NG2n_uEDg6eiHrY2ut2fR2alrBh8i65evxpd8tcFGl911Tfc8fs89sdtz6tYN1-Dt0IsxRnhS8T0J2Tdh8Uvj4AxvlWByFqTLBEI8y56E9GBbMLxntN1nridVO96_sv52VcCOB7dySAyDs1vUxKDI7CydhnbgJcEddFln0ILuyuFTHtO1N6oIeRZNIFGAMkflSWInwCrkGTEYAKEtMhQL7AkEpK1bviFZrU94aH7SHNBk5I4_uR6M3l2kr9JjiREUpzuh41i9vpdwienVqsoGrkxlWZ5O_0NiUBzxE9jrYQ6Uaa2B3cGuKz8dg9tQ4J-L2ZN39Fy4y4SMkPFibgQ8LLm_9qSQ5VbxW7d2v92kHoHfKl9iWQvkY28RSGba9lgtB4UngcIbie1Wh5xaVGS2I9xwMhenOE4fNhkYXLm_pOigGasLzWgam6f8IB7SOHJ4w1HZ4mO3GG4YPFP-nfqM3ND1CuuPG39clvUBDjg4ARJa-82s6vFtKYvO8lV5PiwlAGOKOdHREEjOGh8ME5zRQYtAP2yj0ju5ihzoXM1WyOBQNVXyTSXWVv9ToW5dxPhk5xGliQIbX8VQqpVpkn_ajBlsCBnSN2dS4wTTyyKVVi6jh1OqqBKFjOVXZYpsjTL36h6zMNHb0bRtFwukTXIxDfZLXKEZtR7hlXYdViC

And it should have been done the saw way in Casino Royale and the new film Skyfall. The producers have totally messed it up.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 167
RE: Stars.... - 28/10/2012 11:44:11 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
Who cares?

Go and be a proper fan and look down on the rest of us who don't care about it - but please stop going on and on about it.

_____________________________

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 manwihtheplan)
Post #: 168
RE: Stars.... - 28/10/2012 11:50:41 PM   
Gazz


Posts: 873
Joined: 30/9/2005
Complaining about how the gun barrel scene's placement impacted the film is like complaining how the title font sullied the film's quality.

It just doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 169
RE: Stars.... - 28/10/2012 11:58:05 PM   
Deviation


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Correct me if I am wrong, but was Silva an agent in the time between License to Kill and Goldeneye? Can't remember the dates he gave. Cute nod if so.


It was somewhere around 85-89 I think.

I was expecting the word Quantum to just appear.

_____________________________

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 #: 170
RE: Stars.... - 29/10/2012 12:03:40 AM   
Darth Marenghi

 

Posts: 3213
Joined: 10/10/2010
From: Manchester

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Correct me if I am wrong, but was Silva an agent in the time between License to Kill and Goldeneye? Can't remember the dates he gave. Cute nod if so.


I think Silva was '86-'97 (the HK handover was part of his backstory).

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 171
RE: Stars.... - 29/10/2012 12:11:20 AM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Correct me if I am wrong, but was Silva an agent in the time between License to Kill and Goldeneye? Can't remember the dates he gave. Cute nod if so.


It was somewhere around 85-89 I think.

I was expecting the word Quantum to just appear.


I actually half expected him to mention them when he talked about selling information.

_____________________________

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 Deviation)
Post #: 172
Skyfall - 29/10/2012 1:34:06 AM   
Lang


Posts: 1456
Joined: 15/8/2006
From: The Wall, Aberdeenshire

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Correct me if I am wrong, but was Silva an agent in the time between License to Kill and Goldeneye? Can't remember the dates he gave. Cute nod if so.


It was somewhere around 85-89 I think.

I was expecting the word Quantum to just appear.


I actually half expected him to mention them when he talked about selling information.



What happened to the list Bond was after? I'm guessing it was recovered but can't remember.

Can't wait to see this again just terrific stuff

_____________________________

#6 member of The Wire fan club. PM Dantes Inferno to join.

PS Tag Riddle_Me_This

'Winter is Coming'

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 173
RE: Skyfall - 29/10/2012 2:13:45 AM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
Probably found them on the deserted island where Silva had his base. It was never directly mentioned but they kinda lost importance once Silva was closer to M.

_____________________________

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 Lang)
Post #: 174
RE: Empire, you're becoming increasingly guilty of... - 29/10/2012 8:10:34 AM   
jonson


Posts: 9089
Joined: 30/9/2005
SPOILERS

Really enjoyed this, the best of the Daniel Craig Bonds.
Best one ever? Far too early to say, considering we've had 50 years of them.
I think the hype is still overshadowing the film at the moment.
Talk of Silva (Javier Bardem) being the best Bond baddie is way off the mark IMO. He was suitably evil, gloriously camp, and honestly very good, but he's not Blofeld, he's no Goldfinger, he's not even in the same league as Scaramanga. He was kind of a cross between an evil madman and a twisted henchman.
Loved the fact M has so much more to do. Dench is compelling as always, I loved Fiennes as Malory (will be a great future edition - more traditional Bond than Judi Dench has been) and the introduction of a new Q and Moneypenny keeps the franchise going a bit and probably links a bit of familiarity for the next Bond film.
All in all a good fun cinema experience.
I thought the last 30 minutes were brilliant (it could have been a bad parody of Home Alone but I thought it was dealt with quite well), apart from the horrendous explosions to Skyfall (which really looked like stock footage from an 80's Bond) and the destruction of perhaps the most beautiful car ever made, it fitted perfectly and almost made me forget the horrors of QOS
And Adele's song fits wonderfully in the brilliant opening credits - one of the best ones for years.
4/5

_____________________________

I've got all the Barbie ones!!!

Yeah but you're old. Really old. Old. Old. Old. Old.
Post #: 175
RE: Skyfall - 29/10/2012 11:56:53 AM   
Castor Troy


Posts: 7076
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Rocky's graveside
Contains spoilers...

If Skyfall was the film they made as Daniel Craig's first Bond outing, the return of 007 after its long hiatus, then I don't think I would be writing this.

Casino Royale began a new era for Bond. It stripped everything back - made the franchise fresh, exciting and a real contender in a post-Bourne world after the overblown franchise it had become with Die Another Day (only that film mind - Brosnan's other efforts ranged from enjoyable (The World Is Not Enough) to fantastic (Goldeneye). All that was left was the name, his gun and M. Personally I think Casino Royale has its flaws but what I loved about it was the brutal action. Bond with a bloodied face. This carried over into the fantastic (I'm realising more and more what an unpopular opinion this is) Quantum Solace. Once again Bond had depth, grittiness and that fresh, different take - not necessarily the character but what a Bond film could be.

It's because of these things that Skyfall quite surprised me. The reviews for it have been quite overwhelming - along the lines of 'one of the best films of the franchise' and I really enjoyed it. I'm just not sure how much. The first thing I wasn't expecting was the referencing to other films and the knowing nods to the franchise as a whole. It was clear that this was due to this year being Bond's 50th cinematic anniversary. The problem was it reminded me of Die Another Die which did similar things due to that being the 20th Bond picture. That had a room full of Bonds past gadgets, reminiscing of past adventures. This had references like "what were you expecting, an exploding pen?" or a reference to the Aston Martin's ejector seat. Or just the Aston Martin for that matter. It wasn't just a car Bond drives, it was made into a feature - one of many knowing nods to the audience to say 'look! It's just like from the old Bond films!'

I think this sort of thing is very much to do with this year. This year of unusual patriotic self pride that the country has been swimming in since the Jubilee and The Olympics. It felt like Mendes very much wanted to remind the world that Bond is one of our great institutions, with much of it being set in the UK. 'Skyfall: presented to you by Sony, Omega, Heineken and The Year 2012.

So as well as the references to the past, Skyfall also is very keen to bring back traditions into the present. For the most part they were done well, but it just seemed a little too keen to do so after only 2 films of trying to rid itself of them. As I said, Casino Royale was stripped bare. This brought back Q, Moneypenny, a male M (and his old office complete with coat rack and oak desk which liked), humorous quips, a shaken martini. It really did try and fit in the greatest hits. But as I said, for the most part it was done well (except for when it crossed over into being too self aware) - it just surprised me that they wanted to bring all this back, all at once, so soon. Also, the scene with the Komodo dragons could easily have been lifted from one of the Roger Moore offerings.

Other things I didn't like - simplistic plot, lack of action and the Home Alone style montage at the end.

But I did like it! Craig showed great depth, the climax was fantastic, Bardem was superb. As I said at the start, if this was Craig's first Bond film I might have felt different. It was a very good 'classic' Bond film. It's just that wasn't what I was expecting.

4/5

_____________________________

The individual human mind. In a child's ability to master the multiplication table, there is more holiness than all your shouted hosannas and holy holies. An idea is more important than a monument and the advancement of Man's knowledge more miraculous than all the sticks turned to snakes and the parting of the waters.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 176
RE: Your Review is Missing a Star - 29/10/2012 12:06:51 PM   
MOTH

 

Posts: 3479
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Sittin' on the dock of the bay
Well, it took them three attempts, but the Craig incarnation of the franchise has finally delivered the goods. AUDI. What's the difference this time round? They've hired a bloody good director, that's what, one who knows how to construct a good story, rather than simply throw together a pile of action sequences. HEINEKEN. So all the usual Bond ingredients are respectfully included, but in the right balance, in the right order and with the right look, thanks to Mendes' (and cinematographer Roger Deakins') eye for a classy shot, which results in some stunning visuals. JAGUAR. Appropriately enough in this 50th year of Bond, it pays affectionate, crowd-pleasing homage to some favourite moments from previous films, but it also finds ways to freshen up some of Bond's traits, as well as characters such as Q and Moneypenny. It's also a smart move to increase M's role, effectively re-inventing her character into a Bond girl for the second half of the film which lends the film more emotional depth. (Although thankfully Bond never makes a move on her - OAP sex would be freshening up the franchise a bit too much, methinks.) VAIO. Craig continues to impress in the role and there's good support from Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Ben Wishaw and Berenice's Marlohe's corset.

It does have some missteps - it's a bit overlong, and it takes an age to introduce the wonderful Bardem, whose potential to be one of the great Bond villains is undermined by his lack of screen time and a vaguely unsatisfying fate. A pity, because he's great, and his opening scene in particular is terrific. And, in the climax, there's a rather odd mash-up of Mrs Brown meets Home Alone, which is saved from outright silliness by the sure hand of Mendes and the goodwill built up by what has gone before. OMEGA. But despite these reservations, it's exciting, hugely enjoyable and the best blockbuster of the year. (8/10)

(P.S. Anyone else think Fiennes looked like Roy Slater from those Only Fools & Horses episodes?)


_____________________________

I've only gone and set up a blog! This week I've been mostly reviewing The Lego Movie and Wadjda. Click: The Fast Picture Show
Post #: 177
RE: Your Review is Missing a Star - 29/10/2012 12:35:18 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3969
Joined: 19/10/2005
If you can't be arsed to plough through the review I did, which is admittedly very long, in short; film is good, and miles better than the last Bond, but nowhere being the best one!


MI6 agents James Bond and Eve assist on a mission in Turkey in which an MI6 operative has been killed and a hard drive stolen. The drive contained details of all NATO agents operating undercover in terrorist organisations. During a lengthy chase after the assailant Bond is shot from a train by Eve, who misjudges her shot. He is posted as ďmissing, presumed killedĒ. Five of the agentís names are released onto the internet, with the promise of more the next week, and the head of MI6, M, comes under political pressure to retire. On her return from the meeting, MI6 is hacked and an explosion occurs in the offices, killing a number of MI6 employees. It seems that a ghost from Mís past has come back to haunt herÖÖ


I suppose Iím an unconventional kind of Bond fan. A fan I definitely am, and not just of the films, but Iím that strange kind of fan who prefers Thunderball to You Only Live Twice, Moonraker to The Spy Who Loved Me, thinks that On Her Majestyís Secret Service is possibly the best movie of the whole lot and considers Roger Moore a very good 007. Something I am in agreement though with the majority is that Quantum Of Solace was a disappointment after the stunning Casino Royale, which superbly Ďreinventedí Bond and made him Ďrelevantí while still wallowing in what makes Bond films such glorious fun. In fact, I would go further than that, it was a bloody embarrassment and an insult to Bond. I will never forget coming out of the cinema and wondering what kind of crap I just seen, from the abysmal pacing [o yes, letís start a film really fast and have it get slower and slower] to the atrocious editing of the action to the boring plot. The next Bond film just had to be better, didnít it?

Well, Skyfall has certainly had the best reviews any Bond film has had; being a bit of a Bond freak, Iíve read many reviews of the early films written when they came out and they werenít universally liked by the critics I can assure you. Some are saying Skyfall is the best Bond picture ever. I even read a review that claimed it was one of the best action movies ever! To them I say; did we see a different film? Yes, Skyfall is a huge improvement over the last one, and it is a pretty good film, but it very flawed indeed and I wouldnít even class it in the top ten Bond films, let alone as the best one! Itís certainly enjoyable, has some inspired ideas and scenes and is very well acted throughout, but itís also very awkward and uneven. Itís like three separate films doing battle with each other; a Sam Mendes film, an old-style Bond film with all the ingredients we have loved for years, and a sort of deconstruction of the whole series. Individually there is much to like, but put together the film is somewhat of a mess and in the end doesnít seem to know what to do with itself.

The opening is fantastic. Well, it would be, except for one small but important detail. The gun barrel that appears at the start of each film. Where is it? Casino Royale just about got away with having it at the end of the pre-title sequence leading into the song, but Quantum Of Solace had it at the end of the film. Yes, the end of the film. Sadly, Skyfall does the same thing. I just donít see the point of doing it because it makes it slightly less of a Bond film right from the very beginning, but then again, Iím not a fan of many of Barbara Broccoliís decisions, so Iíll just leave it at that. Anyway, the opening scene proceeds with some superb action with a chase through a Turkish market that Iím sure I saw Liam Neeson go through a few weeks ago and a truly Bondian bit of business involving a crane and a train. A fight on the top of the train is not earth shattering, but it does the job and, unlike in Quantum Of Solace, you can see what is going on. Then we see Bond surprisingly hit and fall to his death [though we know it know heís not really dead, donít we?], after which we go into Adeleís theme song. Itís a brave stab at a more traditional sort of Bond song after the last three, but is partly undone by its insipid arrangement and Adeleís extremely limited skill at tune writing. The titles are very good though, and things are very promising indeed.

Well, the film carries on being good for the most part, but, to be honest, Iím not sure if it ever reaches the heights of the opening sequence. The early scenes are all serious and sombre before 007 goes into the field again and here I must say that Roger Deakinís photography soon becomes outstanding. A scene in Macau with lanterns everywhere is simply beautiful to look at and really seems to capture a sense of the archetypal exotic place that we dream of going to but never will, while a sequence in Hong Kong has Bond in a room while light from various neon signs outside stream in through the windows in an almost psychedelic fashion. An early fight scene is shot in silhouette, and it seems that director Sam Mendes has really found a way of combining artistry with the usual Bond elements we expect [remember the opera scene in Quantum Of Solace which was interesting but stuck out like a sore thumb?].

As the film progresses through it becomes less and less sure of itself. Some potentially great scenes are almost thrown away, such as a fight in a pit with Komodo dragons. The CG reptiles look poor and the sequence lasts just a few seconds. Compare this, for instance, to the famous bit of Roger Mooreís Bond on that tiny island surrounded by alligators in Live And Let Die? Despite being in a generally light hearted film, the sequence takes its time, is allowed to build, and the first time you see it you even fear for Bond. The film is even a little dull at times. After a while it seems that Mendes and his writers Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and the incredibly erratic John Logan, are fond of supposedly witty references to Bondís past [o look, itís the Aston Martin DB5!], but are almost ashamed of typically Bond things like cool action where you go ďwowĒ and Bond charming every woman he sees. Come the end, when thereís lots of rather mundane shooting in some admittedly gorgeous orange/yellow lighting, itís evident that Skyfall has become a ĎSam Mendesí film more than a Bond film. Thatís not automatically a bad thing; Mendes is a good filmmaker, and itís nice when a Bond film tries a few different things, but if an auteur tries to stamp his mark on it you end up with something too different from what a Bond film should be. You would have thought they would have learnt their lesson from the last one.

Something else you would have thought they would be stopped doing would be to rely on crappy CGI but sadly they havenít [look out for an atrocious bit with a train]. One wonders how on earth films used to manage without it, but they did. I must emphasise that Iím certainly not saying Skyfall is poor. In fact, it is quite good, but makes some seriously poor decisions and actually Mission Impossible 4: Ghost Protocol, which had in part a similar plot, is a slightly better picture overall and certainly more entertaining. Itís good to see Bond spending a lot of time in London for a change, and the climactic scenes have some wonderfully eerie shots of the Scottish Highlands that make them resemble an alien landscape, but by then it doesnít really feel like you are watching a Bond film at all. The script has its interesting aspects, most notably an overall theme of the modern computer-dominated way of doing things taking over old-fashioned ways, and itís nice to have both a new Q and a villain who has personal reasons for doing things rather than just doing them for the sake of it.

The story manages a couple of decent surprises at the end and you may even cry, but there are some glaring plot holes [whatever happened to that list that was supposedly so important?]. Skyfall is badly missing certain things, including sex. Bond should be the old smoothie and isnít, and even when he does sleep with women we donít even see them [except for one near the beginning] in bed! Conneryís Bond was considered Ďpast ití in Never Say Never Again, yet still tried to Ďscrewí everything in a skirt. You should feel that Bond can walk into a room and Ďhaveí every woman in it. The near-avoidance of one of 007ís defining traits in this film makes we wonder if that dreadful term Ďpolitical correctnessí [the thing thatís destroying freedom of speech] is responsible, but then why is one of the major female characters [Berenice Marholeís role is truly thankless] little more than a sex object [though damn fine she does look!]? In any case, Craigís Bond [like Timothy Daltonís] seems more interested in violence than sex.

The most sexual scene is actually a very interesting one between Bond and the main villain Silva, which is full of homosexual undertones [or rather overtones]. Despite the overall serious tone, there is slightly more humour than the last two films and Daniel Craig is even given some funny lines that Roger Moore and Sean Connery would have enjoyed. He displays a lighter touch at times while still giving the part great depth, and overall heís getting better and better. Javier Bardem is a wonderfully scenery-chewing villain, reminding me a bit of Christopher Walkenís. Iíve always found Judi Dench a little overrated as sheís virtually the same in everything she does, but she has some great scenes in which she is allowed to shine without going anywhere near the idiocy of her turning up everywhere in Quantum Of Solace. A bit where she drops the ĎFí bomb is really pointless though. Thomas Newmanís score is basically a generic modern action score with lots of drum loops, electronics, ethnic sounds and not one melody, but it works well enough.

I sound like I didnít like Skyfall, and I did; every now and again there is a bit which is really inspired or just screams BOND and itís never unenjoyable, but I just donít see why it has been so loved by the critics. I donít think any film since the 1960ís has approached the style, the sophistication, the sheer panache, of the very early Bond entries. I wouldnít expect Skyfall to do that, but infuriatingly it has a few frustrating flourishes that almost do. But, dare I say it, a few of the Roger Moore efforts were more fun too. Skyfall is pretty good in fits and spurts, but the best Bond film? No way. I wonder what will happen if Christopher Nolan directed a Bond film. People will probably say itís the best film ever made.

Rating: 7/10

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to MOTH)
Post #: 178
RE: Gaping plot holes taint an otherwise excellent film - 29/10/2012 5:56:48 PM   
dolfinack

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 20/7/2011
From: Belfast
The plot holes are beginning to eat away at my conscience slowly but surely.... that ending... blerrghh!!

Still good overall though I haven't changed my mind on that. Just wish they'd written in a more traditional ending.

_____________________________

"I'm as human as the next man"

"Dad! I WAS the next man!"
Post #: 179
RE: Gaping plot holes taint an otherwise excellent film - 30/10/2012 12:06:46 AM   
Deviation


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

1) Security services that don't provide proper security are common enough, but most of them at least try to communicate with one another. Silva was able to march straight into Westminster completely unopposed, despite the fact that Tanner and M were both fully aware that he was coming for them. Tanner could have at least given the Police guards a rough description of his appearance.


I can see why they didn't though.

Court: M, we're taking you and MI6 away for the massive security leaks in your system and lack of safety. You're useless and antiquated.
M: Here's explaining our use and why we should exist.
Tanner: Oh no wait he escaped...
M: Oh dear my career and MI6.
Court: There goes any chance of your career and MI6 continuing existing.

quote:

2) When opening a computer with no security clearance on any kind of business or civil service network, isolating it behind several firewalls is standard practice. Behind 50 million firewalls if it belongs to a known hacker. Silva should not have been able to hack the MI6 network in such a spectacular fashion, and break himself out of prison.


quote:

2) One does not simply survive being shot in the shoulder and chest - at least with no apparent medical treatment. The lack of explanation however is a way of dealing with it in itself.


Wait, really? You're criticizing this? In a Bond film that was slowly leaning to the more OTT stuff of the previous Bonds?

If we're taking this so seriously than both car chases in QoS and Skyfall are a problem since they would demand Britian's leadership giving big explanation to Turkey and Italy's governments on what the hell happened on their soil and what caused all those deaths and who knows how much damage.

quote:

Also - Sťverigne's death got rid of potentially one of the most interesting characters in the film, far too soon.


I agree with you here, but to be honest she should have been kept for another film and not be put at all. If she remained alive she'd be a distraction from the family theme the film has going on between M the mum and Silva and Bond the brothers. But she was hot and a Bond film needs hot women.


< Message edited by Deviation -- 30/10/2012 12:14:48 AM >


_____________________________

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
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Skyfall Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   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

0.141