[NorfolkBoy1]

Originally Posted by MissDexter

I seem to remember Vesper quivering in a shower because the situation she was faced with was more violent and intense than she had anticipated.

A good point, and that scene is my main niggle with CR, I just find the finger sucking a bit wierd, but that was a particularly violent episode and she wasn't a hardened old bird with decades in the game.

[NorfolkBoy1]

Originally Posted by MissDexter

The core story is brilliantly easy to follow thus avoiding any alienation of the more casual Bond fan, what could be simpler than "they've got something we want, we need to get it back"?
There's minimal globe-trotting which for once is very welcome. Focussing on England and London comes across as a huge thank you to Bonds original audience and a great nod to 2012 which has been a Great British year.
Characters are clear and simple, their motives and allegiances are set out and never change - I don't know about you, but I tire of the "double-crossing" twists that plague many movies these days. Each character truly is part of the story and no one seems to be just dressing the set.

Action wise it's great and almost understated, the story really pushes the movie along - the action happens at the right time and never outstays its welcome. The pre-credits is a classic that nods to Octopussy and The Living Daylights without the need to hammer the point home. For me, the action highlight is the beautifully shot fight scene set against a neon-lit backdrop in Shanghai......less is indeed more.

Performances are spot on, the choice of actors over models and novelty-casting has paid off. Seeing the calibre of Ralph Fiennes and Naomie Harris certainly gives hope for the future.

Agree with pretty much all of that.

[r11co]

Originally Posted by Bob_Whinger

This one leaves a bad feeling. A bit like having a conversation with r11co.

I'll let you make that comment immediately after the first time you have a conversation with me should that ever happen. In the mean time try reviewing what you type before hitting that submit button because your grasp of language is a bit perverse.

It's been a while since I've encountered a forum poster that uses ad hominem as their first line argument.

[r11co]

Originally Posted by NorfolkBoy1

the decision to make the DB5 the one from Goldfinger (the actual car, same number plates and everything) instantly sets off massive continuity alarm bells in my mind,

That did sit a little uneasily with me too, but the point was made very early on in the development of Bond 23 that they were breaking story arc of the previous two films. Then there was the 'need' to recognise the Bond history in the 50th Anniversary presentation and EON had nothing to lose by doing it boldly after the clumsy way it was handled in Die Another Day for the 40th Anniversary.

I've resolved it in my mind - there were plenty references to Bond being an old-stager and obsolete at the beginning of Skyfall so consider it as a post-Brosnan storyline film (with CR and QoS being at the beginning) so Craig's movies frame the entire cannon, and all is then well (sort of).

[NorfolkBoy1]

Originally Posted by r11co

That did sit a little uneasily with me too, but the point was made very early on in the development of Bond 23 that they were breaking story arc of the previous two films. Then there was the 'need' to recognise the Bond history in the 50th Anniversary presentation and EON had nothing to lose by doing it boldly after the clumsy way it was handled in Die Another Day for the 40th Anniversary.

I've resolved it in my mind - there were plenty references to Bond being an old-stager and obsolete at the beginning of Skyfall so consider it as a post-Brosnan storyline film (with CR and QoS being at the beginning) so Craig's movies frame the entire cannon, and all is then well (sort of).

I wasn't aware of that, and I doubt the majority of the audience would be either, but the majority of the audience probably would be aware that that's the Goldfinger car from the moment he flips the gear-knob.

lets face it though, it's a Bond film, continuity has always been WAY down the priority list and it's never been any poorer for it, so what do I know?!

[JEFF62]

Well I tried the IMAX experience. Being a huge Bond fan of 45 years standing a new Bond film is a huge event for me. And I wasnt disappointed. And the IMAX screen did make it more of an event. The opening sequence was jaw dropping. The action scenes were great. The train explosion almost shook the cinema! And as for the last 15 mins. My jaw dropped open. How on earth that has been kept a secret I will never know and I had no idea. Im so glad i avoided reviews and preview shows. I just wish they would put the gun barrel sequence back at the beginning.

[NorfolkBoy1]

I must admit the gun barrel isn't something that bothers me either way, and it was clearly referenced in the opening shot.

As for the conclusion, I hadn't read any spoilers but had figured it out, it's been clear since Dench revealed her sight problems that she would have to step down at some point soon, and Feinnes is such a perfect fit for a new M that I'd put 2+2 together months ago. I LOVE the new (old) office BTW.

Oh, and a colleague has just pointed out to me that Vesper's apparent strength of character (shower scene notwithstanding) is completely torn apart by the fact that everything she does is for her Algerian lover, which kind of destroys my earlier point that she's the paragon of strong female characters in modern Bond.

[JEFF62]

Originally Posted by r11co

That did sit a little uneasily with me too, but the point was made very early on in the development of Bond 23 that they were breaking story arc of the previous two films. Then there was the 'need' to recognise the Bond history in the 50th Anniversary presentation and EON had nothing to lose by doing it boldly after the clumsy way it was handled in Die Another Day for the 40th Anniversary.

I've resolved it in my mind - there were plenty references to Bond being an old-stager and obsolete at the beginning of Skyfall so consider it as a post-Brosnan storyline film (with CR and QoS being at the beginning) so Craig's movies frame the entire cannon, and all is then well (sort of).

Are we meant to assume that this is Bonds first mission since CR and QOS or do we assume he has since been on loads of missions and this is the latest? One reviewer said its like his first two films were his first mission and this one picks up after Die Another Day as if we assume he has been on all the missions in the first 20 films. But Casino royale was clearly set in 2006 so its six years since the events of the first two films. So between then and now he has taken on 20 missions, got married and widowed, been into space, stopped several villains blowing up the world, been on missions in jamiaca, The bahamas, Switzerland, Japan, Las Vegas, Rio, Sardinia, Mexico and numerous other countries. He has also bedded loads of women and all this in just six years. No wonder he is knackered at the start of this one!!

[MissDexter]

Why do people look for continuity in Bond films and make out that the "lack of it" is a new thing?

It isn't.

As someone said earlier, continuity in Bond is always way down the list of priorities. Please don't make this into another "bash NuBond" thread.

[NorfolkBoy1]

Originally Posted by JEFF62

Are we meant to assume that this is Bonds first mission since CR and QOS or do we assume he has since been on loads of missions and this is the latest? One reviewer said its like his first two films were his first mission and this one picks up after Die Another Day as if we assume he has been on all the missions in the first 20 films. But Casino royale was clearly set in 2006 so its six years since the events of the first two films. So between then and now he has taken on 20 missions, got married and widowed, been into space, stopped several villains blowing up the world, been on missions in jamiaca, The bahamas, Switzerland, Japan, Las Vegas, Rio, Sardinia, Mexico and numerous other countries. He has also bedded loads of women and all this in just six years. No wonder he is knackered at the start of this one!!

I think that's looking at it a little too deeply, but yes, it could work like that!

[Michelle32]

Originally Posted by MissDexter

Why do people look for continuity in Bond films and make out that the "lack of it" is a new thing?

It isn't.

As someone said earlier, continuity in Bond is always way down the list of priorities. Please don't make this into another "bash NuBond" thread.

I think 'R11Co' and 'Bob_Whinger' have already tried to turn this into a 'bash each other' thread.

[MissDexter]

Some interesting notes on cut scenes in this article, one which explains Severine's first appearance in the film:

http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/movie...ovies&id=03347

[r11co]

Originally Posted by Michelle32

I think 'R11Co' and 'Bob_Whinger' have already tried to turn this into a 'bash each other' thread.

Excuse me, but I was quite happy critiquing the film and being light hearted about the whole obsession with the gay villain thing when Bob inappropriately and rather strangely accused me of homophobia (not to mention accusing other people of being nasty).

Apologies to the rest of you for my retaliation - had I known Bob has a strange way of inflating comments and running with them I'd have refrained.

Anyhoo - back to the point of continuity. In case anyone hadn't noticed Bond's face has changed 5 times.....

[Michelle32]

Originally Posted by r11co

Excuse me, but I was quite happy critiquing the film and being light hearted about the whole obsession with the gay villain thing when Bob inappropriately and rather strangely accused me of homophobia (not to mention accusing other people of being nasty).

Apologies to the rest of you for my retaliation - had I known Bob has a strange way of inflating comments and running with them I'd have refrained.

Anyhoo - back to the point of continuity. In case anyone hadn't noticed Bond's face has changed 5 times.....

6 actually (Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, Craig).

[elasticlove]

Is Skyfall not a prequel anymore?

[NorfolkBoy1]

Originally Posted by Michelle32

6 actually (Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, Craig).

No, that's his face changing five times, for instance Doctor Who: eleven Doctors = 10 regenerations.

[djleekee]

I stumbled across the red carpet premiere of Skyfall on Tuesday and took some photos!

http://djleekee.wordpress.com/2012/1...l-albert-hall/

Im sure there was some famous people in attendance but it was quite hard to try and spot them - I could only name a handful of people I recognised!

Lee.

[CD93]

Originally Posted by elasticlove

Is Skyfall not a prequel anymore?

It's just the next part of the reboot. Casino Royale, for example, was not a prequel of the previous films - rather a complete universe restart.

If you get my meaning..

At least we got the "precise intelligence" quip in the trailers.

[Irma Bunt]

Originally Posted by Chparmar

Okay, just seen it and I am sick of Craig and his street-thug level Bond.

Bond is supposed to be a sophisticated Spy, who never loses his cool, even when the world is falling apart. Please bring back stylish, Connery/Moore! Surely, it's not too much to ask for, even in this modern age?!

No, he's not. That was never Ian Fleming's intention (Fleming, incidentally, thought Connery was "a thousand miles away from my idea of James Bond. Everything is wrong - the face the accent and the hair").

Ian Fleming's James Bond was a blunt instrument of the British government. A paid killer, who was continually beset by moral doubts and uncertainties. In other words, the character that Daniel Craig portrays. Craig is simply perfect as the literary character. And Skyfall is the perfect showcase for him.

I've been a fan of these movies since the md-60s. But I've never been more proud to be a Bond fan than I am this weekend.

[NorfolkBoy1]

As Charlie Higson said the other day on Twitter "Bond never did any spying, he's a government enforcer"

[Bob_Whinger]

Originally Posted by r11co

Excuse me, but I was quite happy critiquing the film and being light hearted about the whole obsession with the gay villain thing....

r11co is now even trying to start arguments with other random posters. The definition of a troll.

[r11co]

Originally Posted by Irma Bunt

Ian Fleming's James Bond was a blunt instrument of the British government. A paid killer, who was continually beset by moral doubts and uncertainties. In other words, the character that Daniel Craig portrays. Craig is simply perfect as the literary character. And Skyfall is the perfect showcase for him.

I've been a fan of these movies since the md-60s. But I've never been more proud to be a Bond fan than I am this weekend.

+1
Perfectly sums up my feelings too, and not bad coming from 'the baggy swollen parts of a sail'

(I'm wholly expecting Bob to miss the reference and assume I am insulting you, btw....).

[grimtales1]

Thought it was a great film Loved all the references to earlier in the series and Bond's history, the humour, an excellent villain and when the DB5 came out I wanted to cheer
Naomie Harris is cute and I loved that

Spoiler

her last name was Moneypenny

Young Q was good though he didnt feel like Q, just a techy geek at this point.
Berenice Marlohe was amazing WOW

[Irma Bunt]

Originally Posted by r11co

+1
Perfectly sums up my feelings too, and not bad coming from 'the baggy swollen parts of a sail'

(I'm wholly expecting Bob to miss the reference and assume I am insulting you, btw....).

I'm taking no offence - I'm from "a Naval family"...

[glyn9799]

Saw this on Friday - on word, BRILLIANT!

Best Bond in a long time and much better than the terrible QoS, partly due to the fact this one was understandable I loved all of the little blasts from the past too, and really enjoyed seeing

Spoiler

Q and Moneypenny return both were sorely missed in Casino Royale and Quantum

Can't wait to watch it again.