[grimtales1]

I think that:

Spoiler

Wasnt Javier Bardem - sort of like, M's version of Bond's 'Alec' (Sean Bean) from Goldeneye? A former agent/friend who turned rogue? This film (Skyfall) had an awesome villain

[Legerdemain]

Originally Posted by D.Page

Those female encounters were not in the same league, for me.

You mentioned two 'real' locations. Wow-eee.

So a bit like all the other Bond films till Roger Moore took over then.
Also, don't forget London as a location.

Anyway, the films aren't meant to be a travelogue. The story is what is important, and Skyfall really delivered there.

[f_196]

Certainly not my best Bond film ever (just a touch too long for comfort), but easily the best Craig one - and the Best film, plot and villain since Goldeneye.

I was irritated that David Arnold wasn't asked back to score the film but Thomas Newman's is absolutely beautiful and energetic at the same time.

I wouldn't say no to a Mendez return.

[D.Page]

Originally Posted by Legerdemain

So a bit like all the other Bond films till Roger Moore took over then.
Also, don't forget London as a location.

Oh, yes. I looked at that London skyline, much of it shot in dreary weather conditions (very apt), and my jaw dropped with the visual spendour (!).

Originally Posted by Legerdemain

Anyway, the films aren't meant to be a travelogue. The story is what is important, and Skyfall really delivered there.

You can use the 'travelogue' argument, but Bond films have always included a number of stunning locations. Not many in this one, for some reason.

[D.Page]

I may have mis-heard, but I am sure I heard 'M' use the word f*** at one point in her dialogue with Bond, near to the end of the film.

Did anyone else hear it? If so, I find that quite surprising, and not really something which belongs in a Bond film, not even from a Bond villian, let alone 'M'.

[grimtales1]

I heard it - surprised a bit hearing it from M but its just a word ("I ****ed it up, didnt I?") - delivered off the cuff in the context of a longer speech (very well done).

[-GONZO-]

Originally Posted by D.Page

You can use the 'travelogue' argument, but Bond films have always included a number of stunning locations. Not many in this one, for some reason.

Considering there was a financial crisis at MGM and a new 007 film was seriously in doubt should surely be enough of a reason.

[CJClarke]

Originally Posted by Dr. Linus

Neither did I say you were. I referred to people who ONLY like films like The Avengers. I loved The Avengers too, it doesn't mean I don't like much more hard-boiled or action-free films. That was my point.

Ah right, i seem to have misread your other post, in that case i apologise

[r11co]

Originally Posted by FrankJaeger

I liked the sly dig at the Brosnan films.

I think I know what you are referring to when you say that, but to be sure where do you reckon that happened?

I personally was liking the references to Die Another Day (Hong Kong, "abandoned tube station for abandoned agents") with regards to the main reason for Silva being the villain. Almost an attempt to redeem that otherwise villified movie.

[glyn9799]

Originally Posted by D.Page

You can use the 'travelogue' argument, but Bond films have always included a number of stunning locations. Not many in this one, for some reason.

I'm guessing it's down to money. We are in a recession after all. I'm sure Skyfall had about $50 million less budget than QoS.

Lack of locations didn't have any effect on my whatsoever. Definately the best Bond film for a long time.

[A321]

It was very good. I'm not sure if it was the best Bond film ever though.

[Saigo]

Originally Posted by D.Page

I may have mis-heard, but I am sure I heard 'M' use the word f*** at one point in her dialogue with Bond, near to the end of the film.

Did anyone else hear it? If so, I find that quite surprising, and not really something which belongs in a Bond film, not even from a Bond villian, let alone 'M'.

Thats 'progress' for you.

Also wish Q had said something more nerdy/geeky than "sh*t".

[grimtales1]

It was a bit creepy when Javier Bardem took his teeth out

[taurus_67]

I saw this at the weekend and thoroughly enjoyed it from beginning to end. If I have any negative comment at all it would be, maybe, the film is a little long. But, I suppose that can happen when you have a good story; it gets hard to cut bits out.

Best two scenes: the 'back-lit fight' looked just amazing on the big screen. It just won't be anywhere near the same on TV. And, the 'DB5 moment' . It's the big 'five-oh' anniversary so they are allowed sentimental license as far as I'm concerned. The way it was unveiled, M's sarcasm and driving off to THAT tune, it was wonderfully done and , to my peripheral senses at least, something that brought an appreciative reaction from most in the cinema. It's scenes like these that actually make it worth the effort of going out and seeing a film in the cinema with all the bells and whistles.

(oh, and Silva was a great return of a proper OTT psycho Bond villain.)

The ending was a complete shock for me, but again, I thought they storied it really well with the way they finished off the film. I think in some ways it sort of tidies things up. The producers are in a position where they have a choice of what type of Bond film they want to make next. I'd be quite happy to see them continue to 'soften' (if that's the right word) Craig's character with some pastiche from Bond of old.

[grimtales1]

I loved the bit when Craig tries to use the ejector seat in the DB5 And driving off to THAT theme was just brilliant

[Stansfield]

Originally Posted by XxBlaKOuTZxX

We (the mrs, kids and I) went to see it last night. Fantastic film. It was being shown on (i think) 5 different screens at Edinburgh Fountain Park's Cineworld and all were sold out. We went for the 15:00 screening but it was sold, as was the 15:45, and 17:00 screenings but we managed to get into the 17:30 screening. A quick check on the way out showed the other screenings for later that night were also sold out. The film must be raking in a fortune.

Over £20 million, for the weekend.

And when I was walking out of the cinema, and passing the queues....I wanted to shout out......

Spoiler

M Dies!!!!

I didn't.

[Johnny Clay]

Saw it Saturday. Packed to the rafters, it was.

Overall, a fairly sterling romp with enough bangs, chases and quips to sate the crowds and ring the tills. Two winners here: Mendes, whose sober, clear-headed approach keeps it all briskly in focus throughout (and budget moaners be damned - it was about time we saw a bit more of Blighty in Bond films). Then, of course, there's Craig, who now makes the more intimate exchanges as enjoyable as his thuggery (which is always good). Surely this is what Fleming had in mind?

But...it's started to get a little self-reverential. The joke about exploding pens, that car etc. Bond is always absurd one way or another, but it largely carries on as if it isn't. We don't want it winking at itself, or at the audience. I'd also question the decision to humanise Bond with back-story and whatnot. It may fulfill certain plot requirements on this occassion, but we risk denting the character's mystique - a large part of his appeal, and something Craig is very good at putting across.

Skyfall will doubtlessly be huge - maybe the biggest Bond ever. But where next? It is more apparent here than in the much-lambasted QoS that you can only re-arrange the old furniture so many ways, and anything truly new is out of the question. But then Bond is a franchise identified by its components as much as its character(s) - and there lies its probably eternal problem. 7/10

[Stansfield]

Originally Posted by Johnny Clay

Saw it Saturday. Packed to the rafters, it was.

Overall, a fairly sterling romp with enough bangs, chases and quips to sate the crowds and ring the tills. Two winners here: Mendes, whose sober, clear-headed approach keeps it all briskly in focus throughout (and budget moaners be damned - it was about time we saw a bit more of Blighty in Bond films). Then, of course, there's Craig, who now makes the more intimate exchanges as enjoyable as his thuggery (which is always good). Surely this is what Fleming had in mind?

But...it's started to get a little self-reverential. The joke about exploding pens, that car etc. Bond is always absurd one way or another, but it largely carries on as if it isn't. We don't want it winking at itself, or at the audience. I'd also question the decision to humanise Bond with back-story and whatnot. It may fulfill certain plot requirements on this occassion, but we risk denting the character's mystique - a large part of his appeal, and something Craig is very good at putting across.

Skyfall will doubtlessly be huge - maybe the biggest Bond ever. But where next? It is more apparent here than in the much-lambasted QoS that you can only re-arrange the old furniture so many ways, and anything truly new is out of the question. But then Bond is a franchise identified by its components as much as its character(s) - and there lies its probably eternal problem. 7/10

A 50 year problem......and 23 films.

Back-Story I think, has always been in the Books.....

[Blofeld]

I very much enjoyed Skyfall. I am a big Bond fan* and this one was certainly Daniel Craig's best outing so far. I almost wish the last two didn't happen and this was his first. It certainly feels like this one should have followed Die Another Day, or even The World Is Not Enough.

Spoiler

Since the people currently in charge have decided that, like other franchises, the Bond movies are to be "reborn" then this was kind of marking that. New Q, New Tanner, New M, Killing off of an Old M, New HQ, New Moneypenny, blowing up Bonds childhood home, as well as his Aston Martin. It all signified a passing of a certain era and as such I do feel as though this was the true re-birth and that perhaps now would have been the time to follow with stories such as Casino Royal and QoS.

Now, I love the old films and I do wish that perhaps some of the old stuff made it in to the new era. I do miss the "Shaken, Not Stirred" and the silly puns, as well as at least one over the top gadget and a serious Q to keep 007 in place, rather than the other way round. Those things have all been missing from the new formats which kind of took away from the movies IMHO. Bond films used to be all about that stuff and it certainly did them no harm in the past, it's the worlds biggest and longest running film series after all. Even if they didn't reboot it and it stayed as a pun filled, over the top gadget fest the films would still rake it in.

This one did have Q, A car chase, a rooftop chase and a superb villain which actually had a pretty topical and believable storyline, so that is also good. The personal link to M was very well done.

I certainly hope we see more of the quality which Skyfall had, but I'd also like to see some things creeping back in.

One of my mates said the cottage scenes were a bit 'Home Alone' and I can certainly see where he's coming from!

*My rather weak link to the franchise-My dad worked in the accounting department at Pinewood Studios when For Your Eyes Only was being made and thus he was invited to the premier screening with all the cast etc.

[grimtales1]

I dont mind if they slowly slot the "traditional" elements in place (Moneypenny, gadgets, Q etc) but I kinda want Craig to keep his hard edge as well and not get too silly.
Also the sexual tension between Bond and Moneypenny was very tangible this time round, bloody hell

[RebelScum]

Originally Posted by grimtales1

I dont mind if they slowly slot the "traditional" elements in place (Moneypenny, gadgets, Q etc) but I kinda want Craig to keep his hard edge as well and not get too silly.

I know what you mean. In fact, can't put my finger on exactly why, but the Moneypenny "reveal" scene at the end kinda felt like a step backwards in that respect to me. Maybe it just reminded me of some the Bonds of old, most of which I found cheesy.

Overall I enjoyed it very much though. Head and shoulders above most other Bond movies. Second only to Casino Royale IMO.

[Chparmar]

Originally Posted by Saigo

Thats 'progress' for you.

Also wish Q had said something more nerdy/geeky than "sh*t".

Yeah, real 'progress'! Standards have really risen.

Too much sex, violence and strong language! It's a disgrace the BBFC waived this as "12A", should have been a stone-wall "15".

[TheDemiurge]

I must have seen a different film to everyone else. I thought it was utter pants and by far the worst entry in the Bond canon to date.

[yakutz]

Thoroughly enjoyed it. Think it's definitely the best Bond since Goldeneye, possibly going back to the Connery films. Bardem and Whishaw were particularly excellent, I thought.

[FrankJaeger]

Originally Posted by TheDemiurge

I must have seen a different film to everyone else. I thought it was utter pants and by far the worst entry in the Bond canon to date.