quote:

ORIGINAL: londonnut

ORIGINAL: Jobloffski

quote:

'get your filthy hands off her!!'

lol! a line like that is worthy of Austin Powers not Bond Oh fuck off! It's all about delivery what is inside the character at the time, and whether the line is being said as the throwing to the floor is being done, for example, M is his achilles heel for his humanity coming out of him, and obviously, if you say the above line in an AP way, it's ridiculous. If the words escape from you in a hissed way as you are throwing someone who was attacking the one person you have left in the world that you care about, they would sound very different.

He didn't need a line here; not giving him a line says more about the character than giving him one - the (professional) writers knew that; throw a knife off screen - job done.



The clue was in Kilcade's earlier line delivered when he layed their meagre collection of weaponry (incl. dagger) on the table, saying something along the lines of the old ways being best. (Yes I am aware of the concept of 'foreshadowing', and it was painfully obvious that the knife would be the kill weapon from the nano second it was referred to. That was where no line was necessary, and a moment of directorial lingering on that knife more than other weapons, almost imperceptible at first view, very noticeable ever after like foreshadowing is supposed to be, whenever possible, even for 'professional' writers, thanks for that very fucking snarky 'put down', there dude. Everyone's an amateur until they're paid, but sometimes you have to be a 'professional' writer to be this writing class 101 about how foreshadowing is presented and be allowed to get away with it. Foreshadowing is supposed to be something when you look back you might kick yourself for not noticing, or is then something seen again with a knowing feeling. The line here may as well have been 'when the bad guy arrives, you might want to stab him with this'. The foreshadowing moment here was also a cheat/misdrection moment to make it look like they had less to work with than they actually had, when by lucky chance there was also a car with twin machine guns trained on the front door where the large group of assassins very politely congregated so most of them could die straight away, and enough material in the house to make nail bombs that were on CEILINGS and effective enough to kill instantly anybody there just for cannon fodder with no maiming or surviving to shoot at anyone at all. A smaller group of assassins and more cat and mouse would have fit the location better, this was pure 'line up up to die' henchman inclusion made more silly than necessary by the spookiness of the location. Way too showboaty for the story that was being told. The ending of Witness (with which the ending invites comparison) was much more effective with fewer gunmen, in daylight). .


Brings the whole end sequence to a fitting conclusion where the message was Bond - having being stripped of gadgetry (except for the twin machine guns in the car that allowed him to take out almost all the first group of assassins walking together en masse to their prey like idiots, which is not out of place for a Bond film per se, but more out of place in a remote location where there are no distractions from the action) - is simply a bloody good agent who relies on his skill experience and ingenuity. And miraculous recovery from not being able to fire straight with a gun to being able to kill someone with one flying stab through someone's clothes, to somewhere guaranteed to kill him instantly and not allow either the survival of the person or the death clench of the hand holding the gun to put a bullet through the brain of the person he was trying to save. There's being true to to the stripped down to basics Bond theme and there is silliness contradicting the avowed realism of the modern Bonds. An assassin, with only one weapon at his disposal, and a talky target, you time the mental torture of M so that at the point he;s trying ot make her pull the trigger the knife is pushed in, baddie taken by surprise, bond and baddie face to face as the light of life goes out of his eyes. Simple, clean, clinical, with no ludicrousness. or at least break a chair over the cunt's back before going in for the kill to extend the 'gotcha' moment and create the sudden break in the tension that was being built up (and create a moment of apparent triumph to then accentuate the tragedy that followed. Drama is all about creating a moment that the next moment is made more dramatic by, and a more 'yesss!! dispatching of the baddie would have set up a greater realisation of the tragic event to follow. It was a very damp squib conclusion to an often slow burn of a film, with the dramatic punch of the final 'showdown' hampered by the break to the oppressive atmosphere of waiting for the showdown by the false large group of faceless goons showdown pre the real showdown carnage all over the house. In my 'non-professional' opinion

quote:

ORIGINAL: bozo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Filmfan 2

I have to asmit that I'm slightly perplexed as to the praise being heaped upon Bardem's Silva. Sure, Bardem plays him well and he's a fairly charasmatic screen presence, but best Bond villian ever? I'm not so sure.

What exactly is it about his character that makes him so great? I'm not asking this to be contentious, but I just don't see it myself. Sure, he's a nicely twisted reflection of our protagonist and there's his connection with M, but it's not like he's a chatacter of massive levels of depth. We do get a nice scene with him when he initially meets Bond and again with M in the glass cage, but they're not scenes layered with lots of nuance, or full of any real sense of threat. There's obviously a history with Silva and MI6, but it's not laid out in such great detail that you ever empathise to a great degree with Silva, and his relationship with M isn't explored in the way that it could have been. Silva doesn't push Bond to the limit in any particular way, and the way he gets at M when he pursues her with the intent of killing her is only the product of massive plot contrivances that are quite weak if held up to any kind of real scrutiny.

I'm not a tub-thumper for the older Bond movies, but a few of the Connery era villians beat Silva hands down imo. I'd be curious to read the thoughts of those who think that Silva is the best, and their reasoning for it.

I think you're overthinking this. It's a fast-paced action-adventure movie, not a profound deliberation on the meaning of life. A memorable, menacing and scary villain is enough and Silva ticks all those boxes. Were you expecting Iago or something?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Filmfan 2

I have to asmit that I'm slightly perplexed as to the praise being heaped upon Bardem's Silva. Sure, Bardem plays him well and he's a fairly charasmatic screen presence, but best Bond villian ever? I'm not so sure.

What exactly is it about his character that makes him so great? I'm not asking this to be contentious, but I just don't see it myself. Sure, he's a nicely twisted reflection of our protagonist and there's his connection with M, but it's not like he's a chatacter of massive levels of depth. We do get a nice scene with him when he initially meets Bond and again with M in the glass cage, but they're not scenes layered with lots of nuance, or full of any real sense of threat. There's obviously a history with Silva and MI6, but it's not laid out in such great detail that you ever empathise to a great degree with Silva, and his relationship with M isn't explored in the way that it could have been. Silva doesn't push Bond to the limit in any particular way, and the way he gets at M when he pursues her with the intent of killing her is only the product of massive plot contrivances that are quite weak if held up to any kind of real scrutiny.

I'm not a tub-thumper for the older Bond movies, but a few of the Connery era villians beat Silva hands down imo. I'd be curious to read the thoughts of those who think that Silva is the best, and their reasoning for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin Black

It seems that many of the comments on this board are criticizing the film for either not being the same old smooth action flicks of the good ol' days or not being the gritty Bourne-inspired films that we've become accustomed to.

The problem with the good ol' days is that many of the Bond films (apart from the true greats) have not dated well and simply don't cut it in a post 911 world. The formula is too black and white, too misogynistic and too unrealistically simple. Many of those films didn't have much of an emotional core because they were pure fantasy and the girls were disposable sex objects.

The problem with the reinvented Bond films is that they've never really stepped out of Bourne's shadow. After Die Another Day tried to hard to match action films like Triple X, Casino Royale tried to hard to match the Bourne films to the extent that they even hired their stunt team to do all the action. Bond is just too glossy to exist in the same gritty world as Bourne and if audiences want gritty they should just watch the Bourne films.

I don't really understand the criticisms of Skyfall. It nails it. With some clever plotting it delivers a Bond that is both traditional and serious. It reintroduces all the elements that make a Bond film a Bond film in a logical and understated way, while delivering action and set pieces that are visually stunning and original. At the same time the characters and relationships are more developed and complex. The world is less black and white and more relevant to our times. This provides the films with a emotional and dramatic core that the audience can believe in.

Skyfall has taken the franchise out of the shadow of the Bourne series while still delivering a Bond that you can believe in a post 911 world. I struggle to understand why people are so opposed to this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin Black

It seems that many of the comments on this board are criticizing the film for either not being the same old smooth action flicks of the good ol' days or not being the gritty Bourne-inspired films that we've become accustomed to.

The problem with the good ol' days is that many of the Bond films (apart from the true greats) have not dated well and simply don't cut it in a post 911 world. The formula is too black and white, too misogynistic and too unrealistically simple.

Well said. Take the reviews that say Skyfall's a great film but not a ''proper'' Bond film. Compared to what, Moonraker? yeesh.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin Black

It seems that many of the comments on this board are criticizing the film for either not being the same old smooth action flicks of the good ol' days or not being the gritty Bourne-inspired films that we've become accustomed to.

The problem with the good ol' days is that many of the Bond films (apart from the true greats) have not dated well and simply don't cut it in a post 911 world. The formula is too black and white, too misogynistic and too unrealistically simple.

Well said. Take the reviews that say Skyfall's a great film but not a ''proper'' Bond film. Compared to what, Moonraker? yeesh.

Moonraker is proper Bond! How can you not like Moonraker. Yes it is OTT but it is great fun. And it was topical in its day with the Space Shuttle Enterprise in the news long before Columbia became the first shuttle into space.

quote:

ORIGINAL: musht

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin Black

It seems that many of the comments on this board are criticizing the film for either not being the same old smooth action flicks of the good ol' days or not being the gritty Bourne-inspired films that we've become accustomed to.

The problem with the good ol' days is that many of the Bond films (apart from the true greats) have not dated well and simply don't cut it in a post 911 world. The formula is too black and white, too misogynistic and too unrealistically simple.

Well said. Take the reviews that say Skyfall's a great film but not a ''proper'' Bond film. Compared to what, Moonraker? yeesh.

Moonraker is proper Bond! How can you not like Moonraker. Yes it is OTT but it is great fun. And it was topical in its day with the Space Shuttle Enterprise in the news long before Columbia became the first shuttle into space.

Moonraker is a terrible, terrible film let alone a terrible Bond film. It's awful!! Proper Bond? How can you say that, it's because of Moonraker and Moore's Bond in general that Austin Powers exists. Now if you want to defend Moonraker as a bit of fantasy fun that's fine BUT it is not "proper Bond", it's just not. IMO none of Moore's films can be put in that category as Moore was essentially a caricature of Bond.

Of course it's your opinion and I respect that even if I strongly disagree with it

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

quote:

ORIGINAL: musht

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin Black

It seems that many of the comments on this board are criticizing the film for either not being the same old smooth action flicks of the good ol' days or not being the gritty Bourne-inspired films that we've become accustomed to.

The problem with the good ol' days is that many of the Bond films (apart from the true greats) have not dated well and simply don't cut it in a post 911 world. The formula is too black and white, too misogynistic and too unrealistically simple.

Well said. Take the reviews that say Skyfall's a great film but not a ''proper'' Bond film. Compared to what, Moonraker? yeesh.

Moonraker is proper Bond! How can you not like Moonraker. Yes it is OTT but it is great fun. And it was topical in its day with the Space Shuttle Enterprise in the news long before Columbia became the first shuttle into space.

Moonraker is a terrible, terrible film let alone a terrible Bond film. It's awful!! Proper Bond? How can you say that, it's because of Moonraker and Moore's Bond in general that Austin Powers exists. Now if you want to defend Moonraker as a bit of fantasy fun that's fine BUT it is not "proper Bond", it's just not. IMO none of Moore's films can be put in that category as Moore was essentially a caricature of Bond.

Of course it's your opinion and I respect that even if I strongly disagree with it

Yes it is my opinion and I disagree with yours completely too.

Bond is fantasy and fun. Proper Bond (in terms of the cinema) has many fantastical elements (jet pack, Aston Martin DB5 etc) and indeed even from Dr No we had a space element which was used again in You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever (all Connery era Bond).

Also to suggest that Austin Powers exists due to Moore is wrong. Matt Helm, Get Smart and many other spy spoofs (even the Casino Royale of 1967) all came about due to Sean Connery's tenure as 007.

Indeed look at Austin Powers... Dr Evil, Goldmember (the SPECTRE influenced meeting room a la Thunderball where Mustafa gets 'killed'), all from Connery's era.

So I think you have that wrong.

So you don't like Moonraker. Fair enough. But I disagree that it is not proper Bond. I would argue that it is quintessential cinematic Bond. Far Out as the old poster went for Thunderball (I think.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: manwihtheplan

I think the Craig Bond era has run out of steam. Anyone notice this...?

Casino Royale - Bond breaks into M's flat, she is shocked.

Skyfall - Bond breaks into M's flat, she is shocked.

Same scene repeated. Repetition of the loose cannon Bond.

This is a clear sign Craig's 'loose cannon' Bond has run its course and needs some reinvention in Bond 24. Why not make him a regular 00 agent with no emotional hang-ups? The new M gives him a mission, off he goes. No emotional connection to the mission, no moping about his past, his parents, Vesper, Tracy. Just Bond as a regular 00 agent. It seems Craig is not a talented enough actor to do a Connery/Moore type James Bond. The writers have to give his Bond 'issues' in the hope this will give Craig sufficient motivation to 'act the part' whereas Moore and Connery had simple 'no emotional subtext' plots and fans were happy with them. I doubt Craig could ever be a charming smooth James Bond.

No amount of actor training can make some actors be smooth or charming or cool. This is why Laurence Olivier would have been a terrible, artificial James Bond and Roger Moore was a cool James Bond. Most people would say Laurence Olivier was a much better actor than Moore but it takes much more than being good at acting to be a credible James Bond. Elements of Bond's character come from within the person, perhaps it's some inner confidence and smoothness that comes to the surface when acting? - and I don't believe Craig has it within him. Having said that, some people believe Craig is a great James Bond because he's not smooth and that slick so I guess everyone has their own view of what James Bond is like but the original film blueprint Bond was Sean Connery and I don't see much of Sean Connery's Bond in Craig's Bond!

quote:

ORIGINAL: manwihtheplan

I think the Craig Bond era has run out of steam. Anyone notice this...?

Casino Royale - Bond breaks into M's flat, she is shocked.

Skyfall - Bond breaks into M's flat, she is shocked.

Same scene repeated. Repetition of the loose cannon Bond.

quote:

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

quote:

It takes itself far too seriously, the suavity of the character is lost; the heartless charmer, the well-dressed psychopath who will unhesitatingly deploy violence to get what he wants – but who wants nothing more, due to an accident of his nature, than the furtherance of British national interests – has been replaced by a gnarled potato-headed bruiser haunted by his own past. Batman without the gear. I miss the jammy sod in the bow-tie whose toast always lands butter side up.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

quote:

ORIGINAL: manwihtheplan

I think the Craig Bond era has run out of steam. Anyone notice this...?

Casino Royale - Bond breaks into M's flat, she is shocked.

Skyfall - Bond breaks into M's flat, she is shocked.

Same scene repeated. Repetition of the loose cannon Bond.

Probably the most desperate criticism I've heard so far, and considering that includes Private Hudson and Cool Breeze posting about Bond that's saying something.

I suppose you've conveniently forgotten how two of your precious Roger Moore films had the EXACT same chase scene (with the riverboats)? So there you go. So desperate and ran out of steam. And in his first two films as well.