Just saw Skyfall last night but wasn't very impressed. For someone who really likes the Moore/Brosnan era I found the current movie very lacking in light humour and only really two action sequences - the pre-titles and the end set piece. I don't rate Craig as an actor and haven't seen either QoS or Casino Royale, but was expecting more from Skyfall than just a run of the mill TV drama with a train crash and exploding house! Not a film I'd want to own own DVD (or indeed ever see again on TV).
Are you serious?
So you slept through the big fight sequence in the empty building in Shanghai, and the big set piece with the chase through London and the tube train crashing?
Anyone who can come away from this movie and not remember those sequences either clearly fell asleep or were perhaps texting on their phone or something similar.
Hey, I have no issues with anyone saying they didn't like it, each to their own...but comments like the above just beggar belief.
The fight in Shanghai wasn't very memorable (in fact the whole Shanghai sequence could easily have been dropped) and I mentioned the "empty" tube train crashing.
The fight in Shanghai wasn't very memorable (in fact the whole Shanghai sequence could easily have been dropped) and I mentioned the "empty" tube train crashing.
Not very memorable? I've already said on this thread how Skyfall is some distance from being one of the best Bonds ever, but that particular section was one of the most beautifully shot action sequences I've seen in any film ever, the standout moment of Skyfall IMHO.
Oh, you mean Macau, not Shanghai, for me the Macau sequence was up there with the worst of the Moore era of Bond, mainly down to the stupid Komodo dragon bit.
Have to say I missed the Macau reference, thought it was all set around Shanghai. Also thought that the "baddie" was one of the worst I've ever seen in a bond film - in fact I thought he was in disguise for most of the movie and was going to reveal himself for the climax, but apparently not.
The cinematography was wonderful and Dame Judy was brilliant, but for me it looked like a great TV drama rather than a "fantastical" James Bond movie.
Have to say I missed the Macau reference, thought it was all set around Shanghai. Also thought that the "baddie" was one of the worst I've ever seen in a bond film - in fact I thought he was in disguise for most of the movie and was going to reveal himself for the climax, but apparently not.
The cinematography was wonderful and Dame Judy was brilliant, but for me it looked like a great TV drama rather than a "fantastical" James Bond movie.
I really do respect everyones opinion, however to say that it was more like a tv drama, is just ludicrous.
You also say there were only 2 set pieces in the entire film? Did you actually watch it. I can think of 4 or 5 off hand.
I understand you like the more cheesy Bond movies, well I presume that, given that Brosnan and Moores films were probably the most farcical (in a good way). However I do think Bond has had to move in a different direction. I still love the old films, but I also like the grittier Bond played by Daniel Craig and it has had to go that way to appeal to todays generation.
I thought Skyfall was very good, not totally amazing, but definitely up there with some of the best Bonds. I also thought the villain was very good, like a cross between Hannibal Lector and a sleazy version of Quentin Crisp. He generally made you feel a bit uneasy and the opening set piece was truly spectacular!
Just saw Skyfall last night but wasn't very impressed. For someone who really likes the Moore/Brosnan era I found the current movie very lacking in light humour and only really two action sequences - the pre-titles and the end set piece. I don't rate Craig as an actor and haven't seen either QoS or Casino Royale, but was expecting more from Skyfall than just a run of the mill TV drama with a train crash and exploding house! Not a film I'd want to own own DVD (or indeed ever see again on TV).
You mention the 'Moore / Brosnan' era which suggests you're a bond fan and yet you haven't seen qos or casino royale??... I'm not surprised you don't rate him as an actor if you haven't seen his films (at least the bond ones)
Anyway - saw the film on Wednesday. Fantastic. Loved the references to past films, the old music and so on - top notch! Can't wait to buy on DVD / watch it on tv....
I saw it tonight and was disappointed as well. I personally felt the plot was more like an episode of Spooks than a James Bond film. I want to see grand, global conspiracies (Tomorrow never dies), far fetched death weapons (Golden Eye) and evil villains. What I got was a load of not very interesting naval gazing.
One issue I have is that it is obviously trying to be more realistic and have 'darker' plots yet the action scenes are still ludicrous (in the sense of being extremely unrealistic). Sure they are fun but they don't fit in with the rest of the tone.
I find some of the comments on here quite pathetic.
You get the impression there are a lot of fans of the older movies who have not seen the Craig movies, and probably watch the older movies quite regularly and yearn for a return to that style.
But didn't most people agree that Bond movies had run out of steam and become quite ridiculous by the time of Die Another Day?
Bond had to change with the times...and he did. Took a while for the new films to find their feet, but though far from perfect the new film seems to have found the right tone, and most definitely an audience.
And these fans of the old movies have started to hear the hype about the new movie, and have suddenly come out of the woodwork, and for some reason have assumed the franchise has reverted to the films of old.
Is it possible we can send out a message to all of these saddos to tell them that this is not Moonraker, it's not Goldeneye, it's not bloody Goldfinger - it's a new Bond for today's era, but with a few nods to the older movies.
Then we won't have to listen to their tired old, inane prattle about how the film is not like the old ones etc...
One issue I have is that it is obviously trying to be more realistic and have 'darker' plots yet the action scenes are still ludicrous (in the sense of being extremely unrealistic). Sure they are fun but they don't fit in with the rest of the tone.
That's a very good point. There's a huge gulf between the dour, 'serious' Bond in M's office etc, and the totally laughable scenes on the train when someone with sub-machine gun manages to destroy everything around him without hitting him directly.
Having said that, what's the alternative? Bond is, and always has been, a rubbish secret agent who gets himself caught by baddies almost immediately but then gets out of inextricable situations as a matter of course. As time has gone on, the bar has been raised and Fleming's stories have run out, so if the next Bond film were to be *realistic*, he'd be caught in the first few minutes and killed.
But that wouldn't rake in billions at the box office, would it?
I find some of the comments on here quite pathetic.
You get the impression there are a lot of fans of the older movies who have not seen the Craig movies, and probably watch the older movies quite regularly and yearn for a return to that style.
But didn't most people agree that Bond movies had run out of steam and become quite ridiculous by the time of Die Another Day?
Bond had to change with the times...and he did. Took a while for the new films to find their feet, but though far from perfect the new film seems to have found the right tone, and most definitely an audience.
And these fans of the old movies have started to hear the hype about the new movie, and have suddenly come out of the woodwork, and for some reason have assumed the franchise has reverted to the films of old.
Is it possible we can send out a message to all of these saddos to tell them that this is not Moonraker, it's not Goldeneye, it's not bloody Goldfinger - it's a new Bond for today's era, but with a few nods to the older movies.
Then we won't have to listen to their tired old, inane prattle about how the film is not like the old ones etc...
One issue I have is that it is obviously trying to be more realistic and have 'darker' plots yet the action scenes are still ludicrous (in the sense of being extremely unrealistic). Sure they are fun but they don't fit in with the rest of the tone.
That's a very good point. There's a huge gulf between the dour, 'serious' Bond in M's office etc, and the totally laughable scenes on the train when someone with sub-machine gun manages to destroy everything around him without hitting him directly.
Having said that, what's the alternative? Bond is, and always has been, a rubbish secret agent who gets himself caught by baddies almost immediately but then gets out of inextricable situations as a matter of course. As time has gone on, the bar has been raised and Fleming's stories have run out, so if the next Bond film were to be *realistic*, he'd be caught in the first few minutes and killed.
But that wouldn't rake in billions at the box office, would it?
I agree to an extent with the points here. Die Another Day was ridiculous and it is fair enough that they wanted to take the film in another direction. My complaint is that I don't think they've done that very well.
The films jar so much between the serious, dourness of the plots and the ridiculous action and need to put in the standard casino/random sex/chase scene. I don't care about anyone in the films as they are completely unbelievable, which has always been the case with Bond, but at least in the older versions there was the intrigue, style and excitement.
The 'grand scheme' of the previous film was that the 'villain' wanted to increase the price of water in a country - he could have achieved that by going to work at Thames Water rather than engaging in criminal activity! In this film the villain doesn't even seem to have a plan apart from going on a suicide attack against someone he holds a grudge against. There's nothing else to the film apart from the continual self-reference about Bond being out of date in the hope that that legitimizes everything they do.
Having the Aston was a bit strange, as it sort of implied that he'd been around as Connery in the 60's, which defies logic really. The films aren't meant to be a continuous sequence, but this implied they are, with bond having the fountain of youth.
Yeh I did find that a little odd. Fine if it had been the unmodified version he won in Casino Royale - but to have the Connery era DB5 didn't make sense (
I suspect it was only put in for the ejector seat gag
Saw this last night. I really enjoyed the first two thirds of the film, but it lost the plot a bit towards the end. The Highland retreat scenario was utterly ludicrous, even for a Bond movie. I understand why they did it, but it just didn't work IMO.
M should have died in the courtroom gun battle (I was sure that's where the film was going). Then Bond should have avenged her death. Cue a classic stand off with Bond and Silva.
Well, I have been annoying my grumpy, Bond purist loving workmate all week with how amazing it was...and he was determined not to like it when he saw it this weekend.
Saw this last night and came away thinking 'I was expecting less'. From the reviews, which all pretty much praise it to the, uh, sky, I think I was expecting something more grounded in reality, with much more believable and plausible plotting, villian, motivation and action, but everything about it was just as ridiculous, ludicrous, non-sensical and illogical as ever, simply turned up to eleven. Hell, parts of it made Moonraker look like a Discovery documentary on space exploration. This is what always happens with Bond re-boots. The first film dispenses with much of the style of the last run in an attempt to get back to basics, but by film three it usually always decends to the same level of silliness, as each director tries to 'out-Bond' the previous film.
With a new M, Moneypenny and Q introduced, this doesn't bode well for Bond 24.
That's not to say it's a bad film, far from it, but I don't see what makes it any better than QoS. One reviewer, who usually hates anything remotely popular, said something to the effect of not only is it the best Bonds ever, it's one of the best films ever. He even talked about it being the first Bond with a credible chance of non-technical Oscar noms. I couldn't disagree more with all of those statements.
Thats way too soon IMO, I think it will be released on DVD/BD next year - Spring at least like March/April.
OK they have new Moneypenny, M and Q, but my feeling (hope) is they still keep what makes Craig, well, Daniel Craig - it doesnt necessarily mean they'll descend into camp mode or make him more suave just because the traditional elements are there. There are differences - Q seems geekier so different dynamic, and Moneypenny looks like someone the other Bonds would try to sleep with
Comments
Are you serious?
So you slept through the big fight sequence in the empty building in Shanghai, and the big set piece with the chase through London and the tube train crashing?
Anyone who can come away from this movie and not remember those sequences either clearly fell asleep or were perhaps texting on their phone or something similar.
Hey, I have no issues with anyone saying they didn't like it, each to their own...but comments like the above just beggar belief.
The obvious answer to all of these statements is to ignore the hype.
Humans. We learn nothing.
Not very memorable? I've already said on this thread how Skyfall is some distance from being one of the best Bonds ever, but that particular section was one of the most beautifully shot action sequences I've seen in any film ever, the standout moment of Skyfall IMHO.
The cinematography was wonderful and Dame Judy was brilliant, but for me it looked like a great TV drama rather than a "fantastical" James Bond movie.
Boxofficemojo tweet it's had a massive $156m overseas weekend, and a $287m total.
I really do respect everyones opinion, however to say that it was more like a tv drama, is just ludicrous.
You also say there were only 2 set pieces in the entire film? Did you actually watch it. I can think of 4 or 5 off hand.
I understand you like the more cheesy Bond movies, well I presume that, given that Brosnan and Moores films were probably the most farcical (in a good way). However I do think Bond has had to move in a different direction. I still love the old films, but I also like the grittier Bond played by Daniel Craig and it has had to go that way to appeal to todays generation.
I thought Skyfall was very good, not totally amazing, but definitely up there with some of the best Bonds. I also thought the villain was very good, like a cross between Hannibal Lector and a sleazy version of Quentin Crisp. He generally made you feel a bit uneasy and the opening set piece was truly spectacular!
You mention the 'Moore / Brosnan' era which suggests you're a bond fan and yet you haven't seen qos or casino royale??... I'm not surprised you don't rate him as an actor if you haven't seen his films (at least the bond ones)
Anyway - saw the film on Wednesday. Fantastic. Loved the references to past films, the old music and so on - top notch! Can't wait to buy on DVD / watch it on tv....
One issue I have is that it is obviously trying to be more realistic and have 'darker' plots yet the action scenes are still ludicrous (in the sense of being extremely unrealistic). Sure they are fun but they don't fit in with the rest of the tone.
You get the impression there are a lot of fans of the older movies who have not seen the Craig movies, and probably watch the older movies quite regularly and yearn for a return to that style.
But didn't most people agree that Bond movies had run out of steam and become quite ridiculous by the time of Die Another Day?
Bond had to change with the times...and he did. Took a while for the new films to find their feet, but though far from perfect the new film seems to have found the right tone, and most definitely an audience.
And these fans of the old movies have started to hear the hype about the new movie, and have suddenly come out of the woodwork, and for some reason have assumed the franchise has reverted to the films of old.
Is it possible we can send out a message to all of these saddos to tell them that this is not Moonraker, it's not Goldeneye, it's not bloody Goldfinger - it's a new Bond for today's era, but with a few nods to the older movies.
Then we won't have to listen to their tired old, inane prattle about how the film is not like the old ones etc...
That's a very good point. There's a huge gulf between the dour, 'serious' Bond in M's office etc, and the totally laughable scenes on the train when someone with sub-machine gun manages to destroy everything around him without hitting him directly.
Having said that, what's the alternative? Bond is, and always has been, a rubbish secret agent who gets himself caught by baddies almost immediately but then gets out of inextricable situations as a matter of course. As time has gone on, the bar has been raised and Fleming's stories have run out, so if the next Bond film were to be *realistic*, he'd be caught in the first few minutes and killed.
But that wouldn't rake in billions at the box office, would it?
I agree to an extent with the points here. Die Another Day was ridiculous and it is fair enough that they wanted to take the film in another direction. My complaint is that I don't think they've done that very well.
The films jar so much between the serious, dourness of the plots and the ridiculous action and need to put in the standard casino/random sex/chase scene. I don't care about anyone in the films as they are completely unbelievable, which has always been the case with Bond, but at least in the older versions there was the intrigue, style and excitement.
The 'grand scheme' of the previous film was that the 'villain' wanted to increase the price of water in a country - he could have achieved that by going to work at Thames Water rather than engaging in criminal activity! In this film the villain doesn't even seem to have a plan apart from going on a suicide attack against someone he holds a grudge against. There's nothing else to the film apart from the continual self-reference about Bond being out of date in the hope that that legitimizes everything they do.
Yeh I did find that a little odd. Fine if it had been the unmodified version he won in Casino Royale - but to have the Connery era DB5 didn't make sense (
And he loved it! Result, I knew he would.
That's not to say it's a bad film, far from it, but I don't see what makes it any better than QoS. One reviewer, who usually hates anything remotely popular, said something to the effect of not only is it the best Bonds ever, it's one of the best films ever. He even talked about it being the first Bond with a credible chance of non-technical Oscar noms. I couldn't disagree more with all of those statements.
Way way too soon. Try around March,April or May.
OK they have new Moneypenny, M and Q, but my feeling (hope) is they still keep what makes Craig, well, Daniel Craig - it doesnt necessarily mean they'll descend into camp mode or make him more suave just because the traditional elements are there. There are differences - Q seems geekier so different dynamic, and Moneypenny looks like someone the other Bonds would try to sleep with