"Skyfall" - James Bond 23

[perlman]

The action scenes were terrible. That crane on the train thing was dumb as fuck.

[jamrage]

The action scenes were terrible. That crane on the train thing was dumb as fuck.

[stype_ones]

Thought it was really good, aside from the some of the predictable moments. Action was very good and the film was shot beautifully. I just think that Craig does an amazing job at capturing and portraying the true essence of what James Bond is at his core. When you read the books, you see that the true Bond is a hybrid of Connerey and Craig. I was never a fan of the Roger Moore era because it became just an outrageous parody of itself and the time in which occurred. I was not much of a Brosnan fan either, although I prefer him to Moore. And there was nothing wring with Roger Moore, he was pretty ill, it was just the way they made those films that I really hate.

I need to watch this one or two more times to truly rank it, but upon the first view, I thought it was pretty damn good and one of the best Bond films. I am really partial to From Russia with Love and Goldfinger, and I think I put Casino right after those. Not sure if I think this is better than Casino just yet.

[drizzle]

Loved the shit out of it, this is more or less what the followup to Casino Royale should have been. The opening action sequence is maybe the best opening for a Bond movie ever (top 5 definitely), and this might be the best photographed modern action movie I've ever seen. Even if the rest of this movie was absolutely awful, it would be worth seeing just for how its shot.

As awesome as it is there are some flaws. The plotting is janky, not just in details but even certain things about the larger story don't really add up. This goes beyond the regular suspension of disbelief required for the genre, certain things don't even make sense in the context of what's going on. Still, this is a Bond movie after all, so narrative coherence is somewhere near the bottom of the deal breaker list. The ponderous backlash from the 'OMG WITH DEAKINS AND MENDES AND BARDEM ON BOARD I'M OUTRAGED THIS ISN'T A FINELY NUANCED CHARACTER DRAMA THAT MOVES LIKE A SWISS TIMEPIECE' camp can eat a dick.

Thun has a good point about the movie not having enough of a certain fantastic grandiosity that's present in the better entrees of the series. I suppose it's an inevitable side effect of the series trying to become a little more gritty and grounded, I hope they can find a better balance between the two sides of the coin in the following movies.

For example, I understand that the idea behind the villain is that he can wreck shit with just a few clicks of a button, but making his layer a stripped down server room somewhere on a set left over from 28 Days Later still feels off. The same with the anti-gadget stance, especially considering how many of Bond's previously fantastical spy toys could now probably be free apps on the iphone. Going further, settling into a more classical mode with the introduction of Moneypenny and the new M (in Connery-era M's office!!!!), I hope the villains will get a little grander and we'll start seeing cooler henchmen and more traditional Bond trappings updated to modernity.

[Pronay]

Home Alone + M's swan song, zzzzzz

I'd put it above Quantum, far below Casino. There were a lot of things that were excellent, but the villain & standoffs underwhelmed me in their scale

[The Afronaut]

Going further, settling into a more classical mode with the introduction of Moneypenny and the new M (in Connery-era M's office!!!!)

That was so damn dope to me.

Also, Finnes was great.

[chump change]

Going further, settling into a more classical mode with the introduction of Moneypenny and the new M (in Connery-era M's office!!!!)

That was so damn dope to me.

Also, Finnes was great.

If he would have done the gun switch... i would have shit myself

[Spartan]

Hopefully we'll have Vin Diesel as Blofeld in the next one.

[Tweak Da Leak]

Good movie, seemed to incorporate parts of both the Dark Knight and TDKR, villian wasn't as grandiose as I would've liked.

Dr. No
Goldeneye
On Her Majesty's Secret Service
Casino Royale
Skyfall

was never a fan of the oft dick ridden Goldfinger.

EDIT: When Bardem shot the bond girl and he replied that it was a waste of good whiskey, a Ru went wild.

[Dan]

Bardem was a great villain, but would've been so much better if he played him like Anton Chigur.

[drizzle]

That girl might become the next Monica Belucci. I googled her when I got home after, no noodz that I could see off hand but even so she's something else

[Thun]

Loved the shit out of it, this is more or less what the followup to Casino Royale should have been. The opening action sequence is maybe the best opening for a Bond movie ever (top 5 definitely), and this might be the best photographed modern action movie I've ever seen. Even if the rest of this movie was absolutely awful, it would be worth seeing just for how its shot.

As awesome as it is there are some flaws. The plotting is janky, not just in details but even certain things about the larger story don't really add up. This goes beyond the regular suspension of disbelief required for the genre, certain things don't even make sense in the context of what's going on. Still, this is a Bond movie after all, so narrative coherence is somewhere near the bottom of the deal breaker list. The ponderous backlash from the 'OMG WITH DEAKINS AND MENDES AND BARDEM ON BOARD I'M OUTRAGED THIS ISN'T A FINELY NUANCED CHARACTER DRAMA THAT MOVES LIKE A SWISS TIMEPIECE' camp can eat a dick.

Thun has a good point about the movie not having enough of a certain fantastic grandiosity that's present in the better entrees of the series. I suppose it's an inevitable side effect of the series trying to become a little more gritty and grounded, I hope they can find a better balance between the two sides of the coin in the following movies.

For example, I understand that the idea behind the villain is that he can wreck shit with just a few clicks of a button, but making his layer a stripped down server room somewhere on a set left over from 28 Days Later still feels off. The same with the anti-gadget stance, especially considering how many of Bond's previously fantastical spy toys could now probably be free apps on the iphone. Going further, settling into a more classical mode with the introduction of Moneypenny and the new M (in Connery-era M's office!!!!), I hope the villains will get a little grander and we'll start seeing cooler henchmen and more traditional Bond trappings updated to modernity.

on everything.

[Ramen]

may not have been the best bond film, definitely the best looking bond film.

the fight scene back lit by the neon was

[Employee]

Worst movie I've seen all year. Fucking dreadful. How the fuck do you have Javier Bardem in your film as a gay, violent, deformed, technological genius and underutilize him to the point that he basically isn't introduced until essentially halfway through the film? Why the fuck did they not shoot waaaaaaaaay more scenes on that abandoned island/city?

0/108 mics

[jamrage]

Worst movie I've seen all year. Fucking dreadful. How the fuck do you have Javier Bardem in your film as a gay, violent, deformed, technological genius and underutilize him to the point that he basically isn't introduced until essentially halfway through the film? Why the fuck did they not shoot waaaaaaaaay more scenes on that abandoned island/city?

0/108 mics

Welcome back.

These are fair criticisms I think, but I feel that you're being way too harsh. James Bond masterminds have been introduced later in the movies to great effect. I felt like that's what they were trying to do here, and I didn't have a huge issue with the way it played out.


Here were my issues with the film:

There were huge plot holes in the film. Why didn't they just bring a shit ton of special forces to Skyfall to protect it for instance? The chopper shows up, it gets shot down, game over. Surely they could have kept that from Bardem? I mean, they were essentially able to lead him into the Skyfall trap by dropping obscure internet hints. There's more than I care into right now, but even for a Bond film these were pretty blatant.

Another thing, how many films do we need to establish that THIS IS THE NEW BOND!?!?!? It's like every director has tried to redefine the character since Casino Royale where Bond was....redefined. We've gone from seeing this Bond's first kill to him becoming a doddering old coot who can't pass his fitness tests in three fucking movies. Meanwhile Judi Dench essentially hadn't aged.

I'd actually like a few more classic James Bond cliches utilized. I understand that the filmmakers have been saying they aren't going to be as campy as before, but we're getting perilously close to Bourne territory. A ridiculous device here and there isn't going to hurt anyone's feelings. Hell, the biggest reactions in the theater I was in were the old Bond throwbacks.

For all my issues, I think this was a really fun movie. The classic Bond car was such a great nod to the old films, and it played well with the things change/nothing lasts forever theme that they were heavily utilizing in the film. I loved Bardem as the villain. I too wish he'd been introduced a bit earlier, but it wasn't a big deal for me. The Skyfall Home Alone third act was highly enjoyable and also hugely different from previous Bond films. I appreciated the chance they took there by staying in one location instead of the sprawling chase/action scenes that usually dominate the Bond films. As has already been said multiple times this was a beautifully shot film.

Are they preparing to bring in another Bond soon? It certainly seems like they're setting us up for a changing of the guard in a movie or two at most.

[Dat_Triflin_Ass_Dude]

Bardem was a great villain, but would've been so much better if he played him like Anton Chigur.

This. I enjoyed the flick, but they wasted Bardem here. They need to get a better, more memorable villain for their next one. Bond didn't even seem like he was in any real danger when face to face with the villain in this one. They've all been faggits thus far, none of them seem truly threatening with the exception of Le Chiffre in Casio Royale. A villain who tortures Bond by whipping him in the testicles is a good villain in my book.

[Vlad Analogue]

Worst movie I've seen all year. Fucking dreadful. How the fuck do you have Javier Bardem in your film as a gay, violent, deformed, technological genius and underutilize him to the point that he basically isn't introduced until essentially halfway through the film? Why the fuck did they not shoot waaaaaaaaay more scenes on that abandoned island/city?

0/108 mics

Welcome back.

These are fair criticisms I think, but I feel that you're being way too harsh. James Bond masterminds have been introduced later in the movies to great effect. I felt like that's what they were trying to do here, and I didn't have a huge issue with the way it played out.


Here were my issues with the film:

There were huge plot holes in the film. Why didn't they just bring a shit ton of special forces to Skyfall to protect it for instance? The chopper shows up, it gets shot down, game over. Surely they could have kept that from Bardem? I mean, they were essentially able to lead him into the Skyfall trap by dropping obscure internet hints. There's more than I care into right now, but even for a Bond film these were pretty blatant.

Another thing, how many films do we need to establish that THIS IS THE NEW BOND!?!?!? It's like every director has tried to redefine the character since Casino Royale where Bond was....redefined. We've gone from seeing this Bond's first kill to him becoming a doddering old coot who can't pass his fitness tests in three fucking movies. Meanwhile Judi Dench essentially hadn't aged.

[RacquetballGangsta]

That girl might become the next Monica Belucci. I googled her when I got home after, no noodz that I could see off hand but even so she's something else

u talkin bout the greek chick he was bangin up against the wall?

[drizzle]

No severine

[RacquetballGangsta]

oh. she was wack. im glad she died. lolz

[Ramen]

^

[Moolah]

This movie is so fucking bad.

[Moolah]

The opening action sequence is maybe the best opening for a Bond movie ever (top 5 definitely)

BANNED

[The Afronaut]

...Okay, list your top 5 Bond Film Openings Mooh.

[drizzle]

you can find a lot wrong with this movie, and you can even reasonably hold a lot of that wrong against it, but the opening sequence is beyond reproach

[Moolah]

Can't do a Top 5, but I'm thinking Goldeneye, Moonraker, and pretty much any I can remember were better than this opening. Am I missing something or are you guys really that cysed on the fact that two people rode motorbikes on rooftops and then fought on top of a train?

[drizzle]

seems like you're missing the finer points of staging, editing, pacing, stuntwork, etc... ie the things that actually make action sequences look exciting

[Moolah]

Lolz, I was originally going to write "or is this some curb nerd shit I don't understand" at the end of my last post.

[Spartan]

Speaking of stunts:

[drizzle]

Dude it's not like some nebulous film theory shit, it's all nuts and bolts of what makes action sequences tick - it's imaginatively conceived, surprising, suspenseful, presented in a way that when somebody gets hit you actually wince. It's not just people going through the routine motions of punching and jumping like you see in so many lesser action movies, it actually draws you in like a dramatic scene should.

I could understand disagreeing with it being one of the best Bond openings, there have been plenty great ones before to contend with. But rejecting it outright as some bullshit is, well... some bullshit.