Escape to the Movies: Skyfall

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

IronMit:
SPOILERS!!!!!! SPOILLLLLLLERSSSSS! SPOILERS!

This is the worst Bond movie ever made. Forgot Bond movie....it's the worst action film I have seen.
What is wrong with everyone??!

Every single time the plot advances there are several new plot holes and contrivances.

How does Craig continue fighting with a bullet in him? I know his awesome hard but his not terminator

Bond was being held up by the throat on the train in the specific angle? this was the most imaginative way they could use to 'kill off Bond' and make him all upset about being betrayed?
Not only is it overdone but it's still full of plot holes.

Bond could hear the order- he could of just dropped to the floor

Why didn't Naomi keep shooting?

How did Bond survive 2 bullet wounds and that fall? Bourne or the punisher survive..because this is how their journey begins...it's what makes them special. You can't do something like that to an already special established character

So we are just going to explain everything by hacking magic? can we have hacking defined in this universe because it's a bit vague- like how, the context, the limitations...kind of like how die hard 4, goldeneye do it? for all i know silva could of programmed a satellite to fall on people.

Bond pulls a uranium tipped bullet shrapnel out of his chest? led poisoning? does this isotope of uranium cause cancer? Only 3 baddies in the world use this bullet?!! his a ghost! but here's his flight manifesto! This is how we are going to advance the plot??!?!

Bond can't shoot and has crap fitness? is it mental or physical? -i need to watch it again.
Half way through the film his 100% again

Bond follows an assassin and allows him to kill people. But in casino royale and QoS he grew into a character that at first didn't care (half monk half hitman) but then became a good guy (fell in love, saved cammille- even though he didn't have to). As part of a trilogy this is inconsistent.

The bad guys escape- the joker's was creative; silva had a convenient trap door? are you kidding me?!! I know lets put the hacker in a cell that's connected and controlled by our computer network. Lets not connect Silva's laptop to an isolated computer..this is hollywood hacking 101 stuff since 1997.

Silva hacks everything and has planned everything but his master plan is a firefight in a courtroom?! Why not just kidnap M with hacking.

Now i think about it..what did silva achieve by being caught? He could of had a convo with M at any time because hacking can do everything now. The joker got that chinese accountant person...silva got a free flight to london!

knowing all this lets go back to the start;

Why are there only 2 agents (+ 1 dead) trying to get the macgiffin list?

How did the bad guys get it...what was it doing in turkey?

What happened to the list half way through?

I thought this was a good way to start it...but looking at the lack of imagination & creativity throughout the rest of the film it was clear they just couldn't think of a reason. Even charlies angels 2 thought up those '2 rings'.

I'm going to stop here...the plot holes and stupidities of every character involved continue and i probably missed a lot out.
The point is a film like dark knight will have far fewer plot holes and stupid moments and when they do occur atleast Nolan isn't regurgitating easy plot devices and is being a bit more creative about it. You can do mind gymnastics to answer questions but after about 5 major ones narrative coherence goes into the toilet.

Why is Q, the quartermaster a master hacker, programmer? These are completely different skill sets.

The themes are lame; james Bond in a new world. we did this in goldeneye already. and the last 2 movies, financing terror/civil wars, natural resources....i don't think we need this theme...just a harvey dent conference moment for skyfall.

There is nothing 'deep' about going back to skyfall/parents house. I can make a dozen fanfictions about the main character going to his old house to get cheap applause.

QoS wasn't well made. but the story was good. part of the origin story, same book. Bond is on a rampage trying to get revenge/understanding/solace about what happened to vesper. At the same time all this Quantum stuff is going on, CIA and his own government are involved with them. At the end the issues for casino royale are resolved and he becomes the more balanced Bond we know.
Craig is 'angry' throughout the entire movie because he is supposed to be;Bond doesn't talk about his feelings so he does it mostly through action. the audience are left wondering if he really is out of control.
If they didn't execute this so the typical audience member didn't get it..then fair enough.. but i expect a movie critic/reviewer to be able to appreciate what they were trying to do and comment on it- Not like mark kermode who complains because he can't even understand the title! youtube his review if you want to see useless.

We are in a new era of stupid.

We are in an era of stupid, yet you liked QoS, and no one else.
"Nono, its not me who's stupid, its everyone else!"

Besides, ever heard of the word "opinion"? You have one, everyone else has another. Its not the end of the world.

I really wasn't much of a fan of the newer, Daniel Craig James Bond movies. As such I wasn't planning to see it. However I ended up getting asked and it was an Orange Wednesday and thought why not - and I'm so glad I did.

I agree with Bob on this one, as a James Bond its good, as an action movie it is great.

Saw it last week and it's not only without a doubt the best Bond movie ever, but also probably as good a Bond movie as you could possibly make, given the material.

So it's James Bond VS ANONOMYS... -_-
Not to be confused with the times he took on Bill Gates and Richard Branson.

Remember the days when Bond took on REAL villains?

I think the next bond villain should mark the return of the only villain to be in more films than any other AND was NEVER caught... Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

Gizmo1990:
I loved it but is it just me or is Daniel Craig starting to look a little old for the part? I think he could still do another one but if they wait too long then they will have the same problem that Roger Moore had. He looked like he needed a wheel chair and a tank of oxygen in A View to a Kill.

In fairness yes but the movie itself deals with that, asking the question of Bond and M that are they too old for this modern world of cyber terrorism?

It's a great movie and worth a watch, without revealing much the central plot of this is fantastic and watching it all escalate and unfold is some of the best film this year.

About Arnold reprising the role of Conan: it's not going to be as bad as the extremely brief summary Bob gave us makes it out to be. Basically, the movie is going to be a direct sequel to the original Conan movie, except 30 years later. Conan has been King for 30 years, and grown fat on a life of excess. Now what? Basically, it's going to take a look at the part of action movies that reliably gets neglected, being "what happens once the action's over?" So he's returning to the role of Conan, but not in the way that we're used to seeing Conan.

jFr[e]ak93:
I have not seen Casino or Quantum. Will this still make sense to me if I check it out?

OT This looks awesome. Assuming I don't need to catch the previous ones, this will be watched this week.

Casino, sure.

Here is a summary:

Quantum... a lot of people die. It was a bad film... There was something about oil, then water and then everyone died, almost. Fuck buddy survived this time. ahh... but which one...

If you watched the other 2 films then you may look back and think, oh! That makes a bit more sense now... otherwise, you've missed little in terms of back story.

Summary: Bond starts as thug...then bit less thug... now bond.

my biggest problem with this movie is that it felt that it did not have a middle part.
it sorta just went from here is the bad guy to here is his big reveal in like 5 minutes.
i felt that it could have done with a little more build up.

Pretty much mirrors my thoughts. The instant the real trailers started coming out I was like "Another one? Come on, didn't everyone hate Quantum of Solice?.... Wait... is that Q? Oh hell yes."

I was just excited to see the first actual James Bond movie to come out in ten fucking years, instead of a Jason Born movie with some guy named James Bond running around doing stupid shit that should end with him getting executed for causing international incidents.

I got more of a Hannibal Lecter feel from Silva. Or maybe some hybrid of Lecter and Joker. And there's a terrifying concept.

Really happy they added back in the elements that make up the James Bond universe. While I enjoyed Casino Royale it felt just a little too much like any spy thriller instead of a James Bond movie.

So we get the little touches that make it a James Bond movie while still keeping the things that bring James Bond into the modern world again. Nice of the production team to find that wonderful middle ground to make both old and new fans happy.

Callate:

Arnold Schwarzenegger, 65 year-old former Governor of California, will return to the role of Conan The Barbarian in 2014. This is a thing that is actually supposed to happen. Really.

Will happen, perhaps. Likely to happen. Slated to happen.

Supposed to happen?... Might be a bit of a stretch.

I understand that it will be a spin on the Conan the King style story, where Conan is already the head of a nation, and will even have a son. This would take it down the lines of the King Conan series by Marvel. If so it could be pretty darned good. It probably wont be, but it could be.

My thoughts, as I left the theatre:
Casino Royale +
Quantum of Solace +
Skyfall =
James Bond: Year One.

I'm hearing good things about Skyfall across the board from my friends. I think I'll wait and make it a day one purchase on DVD.

Gizmo1990:
I loved it but is it just me or is Daniel Craig starting to look a little old for the part?

I'm pretty sure he had makeup effects done to look older, because Bond is older and worn out in this movie. It goes to show how well it was done when people believe it.

Personally after seeing this movie, I have come to the following conclusion. As a movie in it's own rights, it's a great movie. As a Bond movie, I think it's "Ok". Mainly because the classic Bond movies were a kind of spy thriller about a charming attractive man risking his ass to save the world while getting all the tail at the same time. Much more like a fantasy. The new Bond films don't have the same kind of charm and fantasy that I would personally categorize as being a "Bond" film.

As you've mentioned, the Craig films are more focused on characters and Bond himself, showing that he's only human and is still vulnerable to the vices and trauma that any normal person would suffer.

Now do I prefer the old formula over the new, definitely. Does that mean that the old formula was better, I don't think so. I only bring it up because classic Bond is just more "fun".

Basically I both agree, and disagree on some of your points.

P.S This movie proved that the best of the Bond series was Goldfinger. Why you may ask? Because out of all the cars they used over the 50 years of the Bond franchise, they bring back the Aston Martin DB5 from Goldfinger. Fucking sweet car.

So the critics are all in awe and reverence for this movie, they're calling it THE BEST BOND MOVIE EVER.

Me? Wonderful movie indeed! One of the best Bond movies for sure, but still it's most definitely not THE best. Obviously that's a subjective matter, it just struck me that the criticism I read (not MovieBob's, because you know, as far as I know he still hasn't given his position here) acted a single entity to point matter-of-fact that this movie was the best of them all. And it's not not, it's very good, but not the best.

Daniel Craig's movies, in my opinion, brought 007 to back to life. It reminds me of Doctor No, with Sean Connery playing that barbaric James Bond (who had, despite all his brutality, a lot of "Bond charm"), and not that many gadgets around, Craig's movies lack, however, those crazy out-of-this-world villains, which were pretty cool (until Pierce Brosnan's series went a "bit too far" even for Bond standards). That said it really itched me that part of the critics would point out that Craig's performance was "brilliant, granting the public with the most humanized James Bond we've ever seen".

Sorry but... WHAT THE FUCK GUYS??? Didn't they watch Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace? The whole deal with his lover, him going nuts in a most unprofessional killing spree, the evident conflict when

Spoiler: Click to View
Quantum of Solace was jaw dropping for most of the time: the music was great, the scenes, that shooting scene with the opera taking over all sound was simply beautiful. In my opinion that was the movie that should have received all the praises. Skyfall brings another kind of show: it's all about bringing back old figures (such as Q) and hinting at/setting up for events from the old "Sean Connery and thus forth" movies, specially as the movie reaches it's conclusions (those who've seen the movie know what I'm talking about).

All in all my feeling was: those critics probably didn't do their homework, they remember at best, the worst of the worst in 007, that is Pierce Brosnan's run (excluding Goldeneye, which was pretty good), and maybe a few of those classic great-but-cheesy Roger More moments that are always on TV such as Moonraker; but they don't seem to know the bulk of the series, which is the glamour of the Sean Connery era and even Roger Moore's, excusing one movie or another. I dunno, critics seem not to even care about what they're talking about lately, it's like they're doing it to be "cool", do your homework people, you don't know squat about 007? Seeing 5 movies won't cut it for a series of about 25 films, go review something else, or simply judge it for the movies' merits and defects, don't compare it to the rest of the series if you don't know the series...

Milanezi:
So the critics SNIP

I disagree with you about skyfall - I hated it..but whatever.

I do agree with you about Casino Royale and QoS. There's a long list of things they praise skyfall for that CR & QoS had anyway and skyfall didn't have that they criticised CR and QoS for that having.

'Critics' and 'fans' seemed more upset that Bond was not overly cheerful in QoS. It's not a classic Bond film but it's a much needed part of the collection. What did they want? Bond to be unrealistically happy after CR?

IronMit:

Milanezi:
So the critics SNIP

I disagree with you about skyfall - I hated it..but whatever.

I do agree with you about Casino Royale and QoS. There's a long list of things they praise skyfall for that CR & QoS had anyway and skyfall didn't have that they criticised CR and QoS for that having.

'Critics' and 'fans' seemed more upset that Bond was not overly cheerful in QoS. It's not a classic Bond film but it's a much needed part of the collection. What did they want? Bond to be unrealistically happy after CR?

It's fine if you like QoS better than Skyfall, but you're missing the point when it comes to why Quantum was bad.

The problem with Quantum of Solace wasn't that it was lacking any of the ingredients for a proper, humanized Bond looking for closure after the events of Casino Royale. The problem with QoS was that it was poorly written, poorly shot (with slight exceptions, opera being one of them), and in general poorly executed. Quantum had all the ingredients to be great, and I really wish it had been, but the final product simply didn't work.

Skyfall, on the other hand, works brilliantly with its own themes of resurrection and rising above our nurturing, and that's why it gets all the praise, even if some critics are incapable of properly pointing it out.

IronMit:
Every single time the plot advances there are several new plot holes and contrivances.

Kuomon:

IronMit:

Milanezi:
So the critics SNIP

The problem with Quantum of Solace wasn't that it was lacking any of the ingredients for a proper, humanized Bond looking for closure after the events of Casino Royale. The problem with QoS was that it was poorly written, poorly shot (with slight exceptions, opera being one of them), and in general poorly executed. Quantum had all the ingredients to be great, and I really wish it had been, but the final product simply didn't work.

Some parts of QoS had some random writing. It's a revenge/solace story but the thing he wants revenge for happened in the previous movie. Unless you had seen Casino Royale 2 weeks before you just wouldn't care.

There's a quick scene at the start of the film where Bond says he doesn't care but he puts the picture of vesper in his pocket.(blink you miss it). He only mentions vesper twice between then and the end scene. The way it happens between crazy action, audience members just didn't take it in.
The irony is the girl he meets, camille, also wants revenge, and then Fields and Mathus also die so Bond really really wants revenge. It's a revenge & solace story through and through.

The point is critics (from what i read) and audience members (not saying you) couldn't identify with the revenge flex even though the film was littered with it. So in that aspect it's writing failed.

The action and editing is actually a metaphor for his feelings. M and the audience are left wondering it his gone over the edge or not, it's not till the end it's confirmed he hasn't.

At the same time there's an organisation called Quantum that are involved in a quantity of endeavours (clever name) and there's a conspiracy/bad guy plot he has to unravel and stop.
However, the real reason Bond is trying to get to Greene at the end is to find out more about how they tricked/used vesper & find the man that tricked her(most people don't get this).

It's a revenge story with so much other awesomeness going on. It also marks how new Bond becomes classic Bond(surprisingly a few people don't get this either!). All this in 97mins!

why Bond wants Greene;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8vxHwNHyww

most charcter development in any Bond;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sqm4GYDaag#t=5m30s

Brilliant story, possibly not executed well. But execution is subjective, everything the film tried to portray and show resided in me (and a minority) when I saw it. Probably due to Craig's awesome acting if you saw my last link.
I tend to think of it as a film treating me with respect and not spoon feeding me everything in real time. A one line explanation or hint to why something happened happens well after the incident in question. I like it a lot but it didn't work for the majority.

I can respect your opinion to why you didn't like it. It's funny because critics (i don't respect) say the opposite-that the film didn't have the ingredients!

Awesome movie, agree with MovieBob, best Craig Bond movie yet.
Best part: Bond uses simple violence to get the job done, while the world trips over technological issues.

Yes, i like your way James Bond!
*smacks random Ipad person*

I saw it and I cant think of any type of person not liking it, bring your family, they will all like it for various reasons.

Nice review, thanks Bob.
It did feel like the other two Bond Origins flicks were not a Bond movie... just very good action ones. This one was terrific

Excludos:

IronMit:
SPOILERS!!!!!! SPOILLLLLLLERSSSSS! SPOILERS!

This is the worst Bond movie ever made. Forgot Bond movie....it's the worst action film I have seen.
What is wrong with everyone??!

Every single time the plot advances there are several new plot holes and contrivances.

How does Craig continue fighting with a bullet in him? I know his awesome hard but his not terminator

Bond was being held up by the throat on the train in the specific angle? this was the most imaginative way they could use to 'kill off Bond' and make him all upset about being betrayed?
Not only is it overdone but it's still full of plot holes.

Bond could hear the order- he could of just dropped to the floor

Why didn't Naomi keep shooting?

How did Bond survive 2 bullet wounds and that fall? Bourne or the punisher survive..because this is how their journey begins...it's what makes them special. You can't do something like that to an already special established character

So we are just going to explain everything by hacking magic? can we have hacking defined in this universe because it's a bit vague- like how, the context, the limitations...kind of like how die hard 4, goldeneye do it? for all i know silva could of programmed a satellite to fall on people.

Bond pulls a uranium tipped bullet shrapnel out of his chest? led poisoning? does this isotope of uranium cause cancer? Only 3 baddies in the world use this bullet?!! his a ghost! but here's his flight manifesto! This is how we are going to advance the plot??!?!

Bond can't shoot and has crap fitness? is it mental or physical? -i need to watch it again.
Half way through the film his 100% again

Bond follows an assassin and allows him to kill people. But in casino royale and QoS he grew into a character that at first didn't care (half monk half hitman) but then became a good guy (fell in love, saved cammille- even though he didn't have to). As part of a trilogy this is inconsistent.

The bad guys escape- the joker's was creative; silva had a convenient trap door? are you kidding me?!! I know lets put the hacker in a cell that's connected and controlled by our computer network. Lets not connect Silva's laptop to an isolated computer..this is hollywood hacking 101 stuff since 1997.

Silva hacks everything and has planned everything but his master plan is a firefight in a courtroom?! Why not just kidnap M with hacking.

Now i think about it..what did silva achieve by being caught? He could of had a convo with M at any time because hacking can do everything now. The joker got that chinese accountant person...silva got a free flight to london!

knowing all this lets go back to the start;

Why are there only 2 agents (+ 1 dead) trying to get the macgiffin list?

How did the bad guys get it...what was it doing in turkey?

What happened to the list half way through?

I thought this was a good way to start it...but looking at the lack of imagination & creativity throughout the rest of the film it was clear they just couldn't think of a reason. Even charlies angels 2 thought up those '2 rings'.

I'm going to stop here...the plot holes and stupidities of every character involved continue and i probably missed a lot out.
The point is a film like dark knight will have far fewer plot holes and stupid moments and when they do occur atleast Nolan isn't regurgitating easy plot devices and is being a bit more creative about it. You can do mind gymnastics to answer questions but after about 5 major ones narrative coherence goes into the toilet.

Why is Q, the quartermaster a master hacker, programmer? These are completely different skill sets.

The themes are lame; james Bond in a new world. we did this in goldeneye already. and the last 2 movies, financing terror/civil wars, natural resources....i don't think we need this theme...just a harvey dent conference moment for skyfall.

There is nothing 'deep' about going back to skyfall/parents house. I can make a dozen fanfictions about the main character going to his old house to get cheap applause.

QoS wasn't well made. but the story was good. part of the origin story, same book. Bond is on a rampage trying to get revenge/understanding/solace about what happened to vesper. At the same time all this Quantum stuff is going on, CIA and his own government are involved with them. At the end the issues for casino royale are resolved and he becomes the more balanced Bond we know.
Craig is 'angry' throughout the entire movie because he is supposed to be;Bond doesn't talk about his feelings so he does it mostly through action. the audience are left wondering if he really is out of control.
If they didn't execute this so the typical audience member didn't get it..then fair enough.. but i expect a movie critic/reviewer to be able to appreciate what they were trying to do and comment on it- Not like mark kermode who complains because he can't even understand the title! youtube his review if you want to see useless.

We are in a new era of stupid.

We are in an era of stupid, yet you liked QoS, and no one else.
"Nono, its not me who's stupid, its everyone else!"

Besides, ever heard of the word "opinion"? You have one, everyone else has another. Its not the end of the world.

This was a bad rip-off of the Jason Bourne series. With an even worse rip-off of MacGyver at the end. I can't think of a worse Bond movie. I'm even trying to work on memories of Moonraker where there's an friggin moon base. I want my money back.

Nimzabaat:

Excludos:

IronMit:
SPOILERS!!!!!! SPOILLLLLLLERSSSSS! SPOILERS!

This is the worst Bond movie ever made. Forgot Bond movie....it's the worst action film I have seen.
What is wrong with everyone??!

Every single time the plot advances there are several new plot holes and contrivances.

How does Craig continue fighting with a bullet in him? I know his awesome hard but his not terminator

Bond was being held up by the throat on the train in the specific angle? this was the most imaginative way they could use to 'kill off Bond' and make him all upset about being betrayed?
Not only is it overdone but it's still full of plot holes.

Bond could hear the order- he could of just dropped to the floor

Why didn't Naomi keep shooting?

How did Bond survive 2 bullet wounds and that fall? Bourne or the punisher survive..because this is how their journey begins...it's what makes them special. You can't do something like that to an already special established character

So we are just going to explain everything by hacking magic? can we have hacking defined in this universe because it's a bit vague- like how, the context, the limitations...kind of like how die hard 4, goldeneye do it? for all i know silva could of programmed a satellite to fall on people.

Bond pulls a uranium tipped bullet shrapnel out of his chest? led poisoning? does this isotope of uranium cause cancer? Only 3 baddies in the world use this bullet?!! his a ghost! but here's his flight manifesto! This is how we are going to advance the plot??!?!

Bond can't shoot and has crap fitness? is it mental or physical? -i need to watch it again.
Half way through the film his 100% again

Bond follows an assassin and allows him to kill people. But in casino royale and QoS he grew into a character that at first didn't care (half monk half hitman) but then became a good guy (fell in love, saved cammille- even though he didn't have to). As part of a trilogy this is inconsistent.

The bad guys escape- the joker's was creative; silva had a convenient trap door? are you kidding me?!! I know lets put the hacker in a cell that's connected and controlled by our computer network. Lets not connect Silva's laptop to an isolated computer..this is hollywood hacking 101 stuff since 1997.

Silva hacks everything and has planned everything but his master plan is a firefight in a courtroom?! Why not just kidnap M with hacking.

Now i think about it..what did silva achieve by being caught? He could of had a convo with M at any time because hacking can do everything now. The joker got that chinese accountant person...silva got a free flight to london!

knowing all this lets go back to the start;

Why are there only 2 agents (+ 1 dead) trying to get the macgiffin list?

How did the bad guys get it...what was it doing in turkey?

What happened to the list half way through?

I thought this was a good way to start it...but looking at the lack of imagination & creativity throughout the rest of the film it was clear they just couldn't think of a reason. Even charlies angels 2 thought up those '2 rings'.

I'm going to stop here...the plot holes and stupidities of every character involved continue and i probably missed a lot out.
The point is a film like dark knight will have far fewer plot holes and stupid moments and when they do occur atleast Nolan isn't regurgitating easy plot devices and is being a bit more creative about it. You can do mind gymnastics to answer questions but after about 5 major ones narrative coherence goes into the toilet.

Why is Q, the quartermaster a master hacker, programmer? These are completely different skill sets.

The themes are lame; james Bond in a new world. we did this in goldeneye already. and the last 2 movies, financing terror/civil wars, natural resources....i don't think we need this theme...just a harvey dent conference moment for skyfall.

There is nothing 'deep' about going back to skyfall/parents house. I can make a dozen fanfictions about the main character going to his old house to get cheap applause.

QoS wasn't well made. but the story was good. part of the origin story, same book. Bond is on a rampage trying to get revenge/understanding/solace about what happened to vesper. At the same time all this Quantum stuff is going on, CIA and his own government are involved with them. At the end the issues for casino royale are resolved and he becomes the more balanced Bond we know.
Craig is 'angry' throughout the entire movie because he is supposed to be;Bond doesn't talk about his feelings so he does it mostly through action. the audience are left wondering if he really is out of control.
If they didn't execute this so the typical audience member didn't get it..then fair enough.. but i expect a movie critic/reviewer to be able to appreciate what they were trying to do and comment on it- Not like mark kermode who complains because he can't even understand the title! youtube his review if you want to see useless.

We are in a new era of stupid.

We are in an era of stupid, yet you liked QoS, and no one else.
"Nono, its not me who's stupid, its everyone else!"

Besides, ever heard of the word "opinion"? You have one, everyone else has another. Its not the end of the world.

This was a bad rip-off of the Jason Bourne series. With an even worse rip-off of MacGyver at the end. I can't think of a worse Bond movie. I'm even trying to work on memories of Moonraker where there's an friggin moon base. I want my money back.

And yet most reviews hail it as the best bond movie yet, and most user review sites have it pegget at anywhere between 90 to 100%. It MUST be the worst bond movie of all times.

There is a 25 page thread on TeamLiquid about this movie, and those who fault it because of plot holes in the movie have been proven wrong.

I loved the movie, but I will also be the first to say there was a lot wrong with it (pacing from the midpoint and onwards, and the bond girl dying 10 minutes after entry pops to mind). But the worst bond movie ever? I don't see how anyone can be that blind..especially when Quantom of Solace was the one before this one (Hint: that one might be the worst bond movie ever..).

But like I said: opinions are just that. You can have yours. But try not to spew (specifically looking at the first quoted post here) bullshit about it not making sense because you weren't paying attention. Do you really need Morgan Freeman to come in halfway and explain the movie to you?

Excludos:

Nimzabaat:

Excludos:

We are in an era of stupid, yet you liked QoS, and no one else.
"Nono, its not me who's stupid, its everyone else!"

Besides, ever heard of the word "opinion"? You have one, everyone else has another. Its not the end of the world.

This was a bad rip-off of the Jason Bourne series. With an even worse rip-off of MacGyver at the end. I can't think of a worse Bond movie. I'm even trying to work on memories of Moonraker where there's an friggin moon base. I want my money back.

And yet most reviews hail it as the best bond movie yet, and most user review sites have it pegget at anywhere between 90 to 100%. It MUST be the worst bond movie of all times.

There is a 25 page thread on TeamLiquid about this movie, and those who fault it because of plot holes in the movie have been proven wrong.

I loved the movie, but I will also be the first to say there was a lot wrong with it (pacing from the midpoint and onwards, and the bond girl dying 10 minutes after entry pops to mind). But the worst bond movie ever? I don't see how anyone can be that blind..especially when Quantom of Solace was the one before this one (Hint: that one might be the worst bond movie ever..).

But like I said: opinions are just that. You can have yours. But try not to spew (specifically looking at the first quoted post here) bullshit about it not making sense because you weren't paying attention. Do you really need Morgan Freeman to come in halfway and explain the movie to you?

There's other levels of stupid in this movie. The bad guy, Jason Bourne, is going after M for revenge. That's stupid. There's no profit in revenge. There's no way like-minded people would go "let's kill someone you don't like and nobody makes any money? Awesome!". All the previous Bond villains had an agenda that made some kind of sense, frikkin moon base notwithstanding. Not to mention the movie is about old vs new, with the old methods being touted in the movie FAILING. Sp- you know, you can't spoil a movie this frikkin bad, M dies. The whole goal of the good guys is to protect M, not by doing anything smart like beefing up security or anything. But by sticking her out in an isolated farm house and trying to use the MacGyver defense. The bad guys call in backup. Bond doesn't have a cell phone? M doesn't have any cognitive function all of a sudden? Then their MacGyver defense doesn't even work and she dies. Jason Bo... uh Silva get his revenge and gets to die, all his plans come to fruition. The bad guy wins, Bond loses, nobody seems to get that Bond's incompetence is behind M's death. Worst Bond movie ever.

Some of the set pieces were fun to watch though. It's just I missed a large part of the last bit because of the face-palming.

It's a sad day for humanity when Skyfall is a highly rated movie. It's also a sad day for movie Bob when this, and the latest Twilight movie are apparently worth seeing. Somebody needs a vacation. And the gene pool needs some chlorine.

definitely the best of the Craig Bonds, mostly due to John Logan's script and Sam Mendes great direction. However, Bob, your comment about the fight choreography is kind of suspect. It might have been valid...if the two most prominent melee scenes hadn't been SUSPICIOUSLY obscured, one by trees and the other by silhouette. Hmmmmmm.

Anyway, after the tepid Quantum it's nice to see Bond having some bloody depth and emotion for a change instead of just going into typical Bond formula. Bardem in particular is a great villain, probably my favorite since Sean Bean's Trevelyan due to having some depth and complexity to him. The big twist I saw coming before it happened, but I wouldn't have gone into the movie thinking they'd do that. I do feel like some parts are off, like the Bond Girl who ONLY exists just to have a Bond Girl (seriously they could have cut her out entirely and it wouldn't have affected ANYTHING). They would have been better off toning down the camp even MORE.

Kuomon:

IronMit:

Milanezi:
So the critics SNIP

I disagree with you about skyfall - I hated it..but whatever.

I do agree with you about Casino Royale and QoS. There's a long list of things they praise skyfall for that CR & QoS had anyway and skyfall didn't have that they criticised CR and QoS for that having.

'Critics' and 'fans' seemed more upset that Bond was not overly cheerful in QoS. It's not a classic Bond film but it's a much needed part of the collection. What did they want? Bond to be unrealistically happy after CR?

It's fine if you like QoS better than Skyfall, but you're missing the point when it comes to why Quantum was bad.

The problem with Quantum of Solace wasn't that it was lacking any of the ingredients for a proper, humanized Bond looking for closure after the events of Casino Royale. The problem with QoS was that it was poorly written, poorly shot (with slight exceptions, opera being one of them), and in general poorly executed. Quantum had all the ingredients to be great, and I really wish it had been, but the final product simply didn't work.

Skyfall, on the other hand, works brilliantly with its own themes of resurrection and rising above our nurturing, and that's why it gets all the praise, even if some critics are incapable of properly pointing it out.

You do realize that Skyfall's theme was that Bond is washed up? He doesn't rise above anything. I liked Skyfall until the last act, which was well, Home Alone with guns. The last act in which Bond proves every negative thing that Silva and Tanner said about him. He just doesn't have it any more. That's not the Bond I wanted to see. Though the next logical movie "Milkrun" should probably be a huge hit as well :)

First off, let me say that I've seen most of the Bond films and I'm familiar with and appreciate the Bond formula and have a lot of respect for the Bond franchise.

That being said, I'm frankly surprised that this film is getting as much praise as it is. I'm not saying it's "bad" per se, but there are a lot of problems that marred my enjoyment of it when I watched it for the first time last night, and the group of friends I was with agreed that it wasn't that good.

Part of the problem, in my opinion, was that the villain's plot was really kind of lame:

But the biggest problem is the pacing. There were several points in the movie that really dragged when they should have been moving the plot along more quickly. The most egregious was toward the end when...

And speaking of the ending:

So, yeah, all in all, the movie was disappointing and I feel it really didn't live up to the hype.

EDIT: But on a more positive note, I will say that the scene at the beginning where Bond bridges the gap between the train cars with the steam shovel and then strolls casually on to the train as it's disintegrating behind him was pretty awesome and made Daniel Craig look like a total badass. :)

I just saw this, and honestly...meh. I'll straight up admit I've never been a James Bond fan, I've never really seen any of the pre-Daniel Craig stuff and I found the last two movies to be forgettable. Like I enjoyed them while I watched them, but I can't say I remember anything about either of them today. And this just felt the same to me. A year from now I'll probably just remember that this movie had a blonde Joker guy and practically nothing else.

Oh, and it really didn't need to be two and a half hours long. Really, they could have shaved off a good forty minutes without sacrificing a thing.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here