just couldn't understand what all the fuss was all about, a total turkey for me. actually made Quantam of Solace look like a masterpiece, an achievement in itself.
The acting was diabolical (how judi dench could be touted for an oscar is beyond me, her performance was the worst i've ever seen from her) and i'm now largely bored of craig's brooding menace.
As for javier bardem, he camped it up more than louis spence on a jimmy carr special. really felt he lacked credibility.
but you can't just blame the acting, the script was leaden, there was very little in the way of drama and excitement, and the ending was laughably predictable. best bond film ever? you're having a laugh. i'd actually rank this as one of the worst bond's ever, along side other damp squibs like a view to a spill and tomorrow never dires.
after a great comeback bond with casino royale, the series as a whole has now ground to a halt.basically bond has had his day. time to move on before it gets any worse.
Saw it last night. Bit long, bit slow but it was watchable. But best Bond ever? Hmm...
Found it difficult to make out what Daniel Craig said some of the time. I know he has a tendency to mumble, but it might have been the crap sound system at the cinema I was watching the film in.
The baddie was quite convincing. Reminded me of the bad guy in No Country For Old Men.
New identity for Bond after Craig? I suggest Matt Damon.
I was exactly the same!! I kept thinking he was mumbling and struggled to understand what he was saying at times, but had no issues with the rest of the cast. I also watched in a cheapo Cinema (The Rex in Elland) which doesn't have surround sound so that may have been the problem.
Well, I've just managed the first hour thanks to the usual sources. Not sure I can bothered with the second hour and a quarter. Most boring Bond film ever made. There have been some stinkers in the past. . Thunderball, Diamonds Are Forever, but so far Skyfall tops them all.
Makes me want to watch a good bit of Roger. At least his films had action scenes in them.
This. James failed to do his job properly. He should be sacked.
This discussion is quite interesting really..
What was more important? Killing Silva, or saving M's life? Was it not possible to keep M off the grid, and have Bond face Silva alone at Skyfall? He followed the trail Bond laid down for him (via Q) - a decision which ultimately led to her death.
She was being used as bait yes, but how did that get put in to the trail? A big pop up saying "SHE'S HERE, COME QUICK?"
Well, I've just managed the first hour thanks to the usual sources. Not sure I can bothered with the second hour and a quarter. Most boring Bond film ever made. There have been some stinkers in the past. . Thunderball, Diamonds Are Forever, but so far Skyfall tops them all.
Makes me want to watch a good bit of Roger. At least his films had action scenes in them.
Yes, because pigeons doing double-takes while gondolas turn into hovercrafts positively reek of quality action, don't they...?
Yes, because pigeons doing double-takes while gondolas turn into hovercrafts positively reek of quality action, don't they...?
At least there was humour, and the films were enjoyable. I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than sit through Skyfall again, a 2 hr 17 min film so short on story and plot that it could've been done in 90 mins. QofS was terrible, but at least it had a decent car chase and was properly paced. The end of Skyfall was just a copy of the end of QofS mixed in with shades of Die Hard.
In many respects, Skyfall reminded me of The American with George Clooney. An art house movie desperately trying to pretend it was an action film. No surprise given Skyfall was directed by Mendes.
And a terrible death scene from Judi Dench. Are we supposed to be believe she died from a bit of blood loss from a fairly superficial flesh wound?
At least there was humour, and the films were enjoyable.
Well many people found Skyfall enjoyable. I've not seen people raving about a Bond film like this ever before on social networks. And that's both sides of the atlantic. And I don't just mean the pre release hype. I see plenty of people saying how much they enjoyed the film and the box office figures tell their own story. So in that respect, it did what it needed to do, and has been a huge success. Which is great news because it means the brand is still healthy and perhaps could go on for another 50 years.
Which boxes it ticks or doesn't tick is of course personal preference. But for me this was not a typical Bond film. For starters they were marking the 50th Anniversary of Bond. And I don't speak for the director or writer here, but it seems pretty clear to me that the anniversary was heavily influential in the writing of the plot. For example it's no coincidence they were driving around in Sean Connery's Aston Martin. In fact there is even talk Sean was set to have a role in the film but they decided against it. So we can conclude from this that the movie was never supposed to be 'just another Bond film' like others before it.
Personally I think they did a good job. Yes there wasn't much of a deep plot. But I felt Sky Fall was more a look at James Bond as a person, rather than James Bond as a film. It cut through all the suits and the guns and the women and examined him as a person like we've never seen before. I mean James Bond, missing target practice?! Getting old? Talking about his childhood? Having psychological evaluations?! We've never seen any of those things before. And I think they did a pretty good job of mixing that new exploration of the character (perhaps to mark 50 years) with a good dose of action and a plot. Had they not needed to explore the character and give M a more prominent role.. then perhaps they'd have had more room for action. But I think they struck the right balance really.
Perhaps the next film will return to having big action car chases and long fight scenes and tick all the usual boxes again. But I quite like the direction they're going in. And this version of James, the more gritty.. questioning himself.. moody.. dark.. alone version suits Daniel Craig perfectly.
Finally went to see it earlier this week after letting it die down a bit so as not to have too many f**kwits intent on spoiling everyone else's enjoyment/viewing experience. As to the actual movie,was ok but not as good as I was expecting from the publicity,for me personally it fell rather flat in places,nowhere near being the 'best Bond film ever' IMHO. I do like the way Daniel Craig portrays Bond but left the cinema feeling a little let-down.
Having read through the thread,earlier posters bring up a point that I've often wondered,I agree that continuity isn't really an issue and you can watch bond films in pretty much any order you please but I did always wonder whether there's an established timeline or chronological order in which the films are meant to have taken place?
What concerned me a lot about Skyfall was the apparant lack of regard to the timeline. Casino Royale was effectively a reboot with Bond not having 00 status at the start of the film. Quantum of Solace was the sequel which carried straight on from the end of Casino Royale, and now we have Skyfall with Bond suddenly being portrayed as an old has been who's lost his touch and his abilities to hit a target from 20 yards all because he took a bullet in the shoulder.
Daniel Craig is now too old (and looking it) to be playing a version of Bond who supposedly has only been a 00 agent for 3 films.
And the huge gaping plot holes in Skyfall are unmissable.
Most people talk about feeling "let down" by the film and perhaps after the hype that's understandable. I too was beginning to feel a little disappointing with the way the film was going.
Not that I think there was much wrong with the plot. As far as the placement of the main action sequences was concerned, it kind of reminded me of Goldeneye. Little snippets of action sandwiched in between the closing and ending sequences
Until the "payoff" at the end, I was starting to feel a little bored. I'm not trying to say a Bond film needs wall to wall action for a good story but I did feel the film needed a satisfying ending and, Skyfall delivered that for me and made the film as a whole worthwhile.
I thought it was interesting that it's taken 3 films and 6 years to bring all the traditional Bond elements back.
What concerned me a lot about Skyfall was the apparant lack of regard to the timeline. Casino Royale was effectively a reboot with Bond not having 00 status at the start of the film. Quantum of Solace was the sequel which carried straight on from the end of Casino Royale, and now we have Skyfall with Bond suddenly being portrayed as an old has been who's lost his touch and his abilities to hit a target from 20 yards all because he took a bullet in the shoulder.
Daniel Craig is now too old (and looking it) to be playing a version of Bond who supposedly has only been a 00 agent for 3 films.
And the huge gaping plot holes in Skyfall are unmissable.
That's understandable is it not? Chronologically speaking 6 years have passed between Skyfall and Quantum of Solace.
Well, I've just managed the first hour thanks to the usual sources. Not sure I can bothered with the second hour and a quarter. Most boring Bond film ever made. There have been some stinkers in the past. . Thunderball, Diamonds Are Forever, but so far Skyfall tops them all.
Makes me want to watch a good bit of Roger. At least his films had action scenes in them.
the second hour does pick up a bit , Javier is pretty good .
Hey! Diamonds isn't boring ! bit silly but never dull . it's one of my faves ("as long as the collars and cuffs match ..." great line)
That's understandable is it not? Chronologically speaking 6 years have passed between Skyfall and Quantum of Solace.
Not quite sure what you mean. Craig having markedly aged in real life over the last 6 years, or him having been a 00 for 6 years in the Bond universe? I can't see how his 3 films cover 6 years of his life as a 00 agent. For a start, Casino Royale and QofS are effectively one film.
For a film that was mostly shot in the UK, and so lacking in scope regarding action sequences, I'd love to know where $200m went. Probably paying off the mainstream media for favourable reviews.
That's understandable is it not? Chronologically speaking 6 years have passed between Skyfall and Quantum of Solace.
it's understandable but it's as if we have missed Craig being Bond. We had two films of him becoming Bond and then the next one M is talking to him about being jaded by being in the business so long. what happened to the fun part of being a spy?!
the end of each film keeps seeming to promise a more traditional bond with a greater threat and no personal angle next time but then backs down and goes personal again.
it's understandable but it's as if we have missed Craig being Bond. We had two films of him becoming Bond and then the next one M is talking to him about being jaded by being in the business so long. what happened to the fun part of being a spy?!
the end of each film keeps seeming to promise a more traditional bond with a greater threat and no personal angle next time but then backs down and goes personal again.
He was a spy long before he was permitted 00 status.
The thing is. The Bond films, whether we have it or not, have moved on. As much as I loved Die Another Day, it took things too far. I can look past the "Vanish" car, as I thought that was a fun concept, every bit as I liked the remote controlled BMW in Tomorrow Never Dies. But when we started with the virtual reality stuff, included the unneeded "testing out" scene at the end of DaD, it seems obvious things needed to change.
Casino Royale was the result. Bond films since then have never been the same for me, but it's worked out for the better for me and for the franchise.
Craig is good for the role, and I really don't see that he's grown too old for it at all.
Comments
Given the amount of time Bond has erred in each of his missions, they should have stopped after Dr No!!
should have been called "shortfall"
just couldn't understand what all the fuss was all about, a total turkey for me. actually made Quantam of Solace look like a masterpiece, an achievement in itself.
The acting was diabolical (how judi dench could be touted for an oscar is beyond me, her performance was the worst i've ever seen from her) and i'm now largely bored of craig's brooding menace.
As for javier bardem, he camped it up more than louis spence on a jimmy carr special. really felt he lacked credibility.
but you can't just blame the acting, the script was leaden, there was very little in the way of drama and excitement, and the ending was laughably predictable. best bond film ever? you're having a laugh. i'd actually rank this as one of the worst bond's ever, along side other damp squibs like a view to a spill and tomorrow never dires.
after a great comeback bond with casino royale, the series as a whole has now ground to a halt.basically bond has had his day. time to move on before it gets any worse.
I was really disappointed with the whole movie. Poor, boring story line.
Wooden acting,
I'd only give it 3 out of 10 :yawn::yawn:
I was exactly the same!! I kept thinking he was mumbling and struggled to understand what he was saying at times, but had no issues with the rest of the cast. I also watched in a cheapo Cinema (The Rex in Elland) which doesn't have surround sound so that may have been the problem.
They don't still play the organ before and have an intermission for ice-cream do they?
I've watched it twice at the new Vue in Halifax, one on screen 4 and one of the Extreme screen. Audio both times was immaculate.
Makes me want to watch a good bit of Roger. At least his films had action scenes in them.
Bless.
This discussion is quite interesting really..
She was being used as bait yes, but how did that get put in to the trail? A big pop up saying "SHE'S HERE, COME QUICK?"
Yes, because pigeons doing double-takes while gondolas turn into hovercrafts positively reek of quality action, don't they...?
At least there was humour, and the films were enjoyable. I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than sit through Skyfall again, a 2 hr 17 min film so short on story and plot that it could've been done in 90 mins. QofS was terrible, but at least it had a decent car chase and was properly paced. The end of Skyfall was just a copy of the end of QofS mixed in with shades of Die Hard.
In many respects, Skyfall reminded me of The American with George Clooney. An art house movie desperately trying to pretend it was an action film. No surprise given Skyfall was directed by Mendes.
And a terrible death scene from Judi Dench. Are we supposed to be believe she died from a bit of blood loss from a fairly superficial flesh wound?
http://vimeo.com/53442121
They worked quite a few aspects from the film into it.
Well many people found Skyfall enjoyable. I've not seen people raving about a Bond film like this ever before on social networks. And that's both sides of the atlantic. And I don't just mean the pre release hype. I see plenty of people saying how much they enjoyed the film and the box office figures tell their own story. So in that respect, it did what it needed to do, and has been a huge success. Which is great news because it means the brand is still healthy and perhaps could go on for another 50 years.
Which boxes it ticks or doesn't tick is of course personal preference. But for me this was not a typical Bond film. For starters they were marking the 50th Anniversary of Bond. And I don't speak for the director or writer here, but it seems pretty clear to me that the anniversary was heavily influential in the writing of the plot. For example it's no coincidence they were driving around in Sean Connery's Aston Martin. In fact there is even talk Sean was set to have a role in the film but they decided against it. So we can conclude from this that the movie was never supposed to be 'just another Bond film' like others before it.
Personally I think they did a good job. Yes there wasn't much of a deep plot. But I felt Sky Fall was more a look at James Bond as a person, rather than James Bond as a film. It cut through all the suits and the guns and the women and examined him as a person like we've never seen before. I mean James Bond, missing target practice?! Getting old? Talking about his childhood? Having psychological evaluations?! We've never seen any of those things before. And I think they did a pretty good job of mixing that new exploration of the character (perhaps to mark 50 years) with a good dose of action and a plot. Had they not needed to explore the character and give M a more prominent role.. then perhaps they'd have had more room for action. But I think they struck the right balance really.
Perhaps the next film will return to having big action car chases and long fight scenes and tick all the usual boxes again. But I quite like the direction they're going in. And this version of James, the more gritty.. questioning himself.. moody.. dark.. alone version suits Daniel Craig perfectly.
Having read through the thread,earlier posters bring up a point that I've often wondered,I agree that continuity isn't really an issue and you can watch bond films in pretty much any order you please but I did always wonder whether there's an established timeline or chronological order in which the films are meant to have taken place?
Daniel Craig is now too old (and looking it) to be playing a version of Bond who supposedly has only been a 00 agent for 3 films.
And the huge gaping plot holes in Skyfall are unmissable.
Not that I think there was much wrong with the plot. As far as the placement of the main action sequences was concerned, it kind of reminded me of Goldeneye. Little snippets of action sandwiched in between the closing and ending sequences
Until the "payoff" at the end, I was starting to feel a little bored. I'm not trying to say a Bond film needs wall to wall action for a good story but I did feel the film needed a satisfying ending and, Skyfall delivered that for me and made the film as a whole worthwhile.
I thought it was interesting that it's taken 3 films and 6 years to bring all the traditional Bond elements back.
Timothy Dalton played Bond like this 25 years ago. It's not a new portrayal by any means. And he had much better scripts to work with.
That's understandable is it not? Chronologically speaking 6 years have passed between Skyfall and Quantum of Solace.
the second hour does pick up a bit , Javier is pretty good .
Hey! Diamonds isn't boring ! bit silly but never dull . it's one of my faves ("as long as the collars and cuffs match ..." great line)
Not quite sure what you mean. Craig having markedly aged in real life over the last 6 years, or him having been a 00 for 6 years in the Bond universe? I can't see how his 3 films cover 6 years of his life as a 00 agent. For a start, Casino Royale and QofS are effectively one film.
For a film that was mostly shot in the UK, and so lacking in scope regarding action sequences, I'd love to know where $200m went. Probably paying off the mainstream media for favourable reviews.
it's understandable but it's as if we have missed Craig being Bond. We had two films of him becoming Bond and then the next one M is talking to him about being jaded by being in the business so long. what happened to the fun part of being a spy?!
the end of each film keeps seeming to promise a more traditional bond with a greater threat and no personal angle next time but then backs down and goes personal again.
He was a spy long before he was permitted 00 status.
The thing is. The Bond films, whether we have it or not, have moved on. As much as I loved Die Another Day, it took things too far. I can look past the "Vanish" car, as I thought that was a fun concept, every bit as I liked the remote controlled BMW in Tomorrow Never Dies. But when we started with the virtual reality stuff, included the unneeded "testing out" scene at the end of DaD, it seems obvious things needed to change.
Casino Royale was the result. Bond films since then have never been the same for me, but it's worked out for the better for me and for the franchise.
Craig is good for the role, and I really don't see that he's grown too old for it at all.