I saw it tonight, and I don't know if anyone mentioned it already, but I was disappointed that they didn't didn't develop Silva's character more through visuals. He gave a brief explaination of his past and why he was doing what he was doing, but what would have made a huge difference were flashbacks. If they did that it would have made a huge difference in the character development. Instead it's a halfass story from him and a quick 2 lines for M. Not a great movie, but among the better Bond films.
Saw it today, was okay, not nearly as good as Casino Royale. Pretty ridiculous how a heavily armed militia can just drive up to Scotland. I'm not expecting realism but I don't want corny.
I believe they re-inserted the Bond touches because people were saying the movies were going away from what made it Bond and it was just another Mission Impossible/Bourne type generic action movie. As long as Bond avoids ski scenes, I'm okay with going back to some classic Bond touches.
Spoiler!
I didn't feel like Bond had any chemistry with this Moneypenny. The new M is great and I was looking forward to Judi Dench getting replaced since Golden Eye.
This would never happen but just because they kept Judi Dench as Bond between two different actors in two different eras, I thought it would have been great, continuity-wise, if the bad guy turned out to be Pierce Brosnan's Bond that M betrayed 10 years ago (Bond is simply a code name given to different agents just like how Silva was a code name) and he's all twisted and evil now.
I didn't feel like Bond had any chemistry with this Moneypenny. The new M is great and I was looking forward to Judi Dench getting replaced since Golden Eye.
This would never happen but just because they kept Judi Dench as Bond between two different actors in two different eras, I thought it would have been great, continuity-wise, if the bad guy turned out to be Pierce Brosnan's Bond that M betrayed 10 years ago (Bond is simply a code name given to different agents just like how Silva was a code name) and he's all twisted and evil now.
Spoiler!
Bolded part: I don't know about this, after seeing the tomb stones with his parent's names on them. Or is that part of the disguise of being named Bond?
Bolded part: I don't know about this, after seeing the tomb stones with his parent's names on them. Or is that part of the disguise of being named Bond?
Bond is his real name. I think his parent's tombstones and the grounds keeper calling him James even though he hadn't seen him since he was a little kid confirms this.
The movie came out over a week ago. If you are in this thread and still haven't seen it then you'll just have to deal with spoilers.
I meant that they could have used Bond as a codename if they went in that direction to explain the different actors all called Bond (which they never would of course). The ending obviously personlizes his character and backstory more which I appreciate too.
Loved the film. Couldn't get over the fact that his suits didn't fit him properly. I mean, come on, Hollywood.
Only peter12 could come up with this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theinfinitejar
I'm amazed nobody's written about how beautifully shot and lit this movie is. Mendes and company did an incredible job making the film great to look at. The scenes that stand out most are the Macau scenes and the climax at the chapel. Technically speaking, this is the best Bond film ever made and I don't think another one comes close.
I think the bar has just been raised for what a Bond film should look like.
This post was thanked by two people with an interest in photography.
As for the movie, I'm in the "not that good" camp. Plot was lacking.
Anyone have the Sony Experia T phone that Bond uses? Are there apps for fighting crime?
__________________
We may curse our bad luck that it's sounds like its; who's sounds like whose; they're sounds like their (and there); and you're sounds like your. But if we are grown-ups who have been through full-time education, we have no excuse for muddling them up.
I liked it better than either of the previous Craig movies. Its harder to compare it to older movies, because they're really a different kind of movie now. Its like comparing Batman Begins and one of the Michael Keaton or Val Kilmer Batmans. On the surface, its easy to say that the rebooted Batman movies are just better, but really they weren't going for the same thing. That said, while I will wait to see it again, I think its probably my favorite Bond movie to be released in the last 30 years.
I'll just spoiler the rest for anyone that hasn't seen it.
Spoiler!
I thought it would surely be Sean Connery playing the groundskeeper, and apparently he was considered for the part.
I think the intro song lyrics make more sense once you know that Skyfall is a place.
When Silva shows his screwed up teeth, I was totally thinking he would survive the movie and we'd see a rebooted Jaws.
As soon as M started reading poetry I had a pretty strong feeling this was her last movie.
I loved some of the callbacks to earlier Bond stuff. The ejection seat was the best, although I thought it kind of ruined it to have M actually spell out what that button did. My wife isn't a Bond fan, so the joke would have gone right over her head. Like an inside joke for actual Bond fans.
I thought they did a good job at the beginning of making the eventual new M seem like he was probably the villain in the story.
A few of the scenes from Skyfall were eerily similar to Dark Knight. I am disappointed that they don't have any interesting bad guys. Maybe they are going for more realism, but a guy like Odd Job or Jaws would be cool. The fellow who played Jaws is still alive, surely a cameo is in order before he dies in real life.
A few of the scenes from Skyfall were eerily similar to Dark Knight. I am disappointed that they don't have any interesting bad guys. Maybe they are going for more realism, but a guy like Odd Job or Jaws would be cool. The fellow who played Jaws is still alive, surely a cameo is in order before he dies in real life.
Javier Barden as Silva was fantastic.
The Following User Says Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
Very good Bond film, I agree with the general sentiment as better than QoS, but not as good as Casino Royale.
Spoiler!
I guess what I found lacking was a missed opportunity between Silva and Bond. They've got similar histories... they're almost the "we're not so different, you and I", cliche. Except that Bond never really seems to grapple with the questions of loyalty that Silva did. Bond is just the unquestioning foot-soldier here, despite M's authorizing the shot that nearly killed him. Silva asks him supposedly meaningful questions, and it feels like Bond dismisses them rather than carrying those things with him. A bit more conflict and growth in the hero is what separated Casino Royale from every other Bond film, and it was an opportunity that was missed here.
Wasn't a bad movie but it was far from great like the hype suggested. I felt like the story was way too simple and predictable and the action wasn't anything to write home about.
It was still an okay movie. I'd say I enjoyed it about as much as I enjoyed The Bourne Legacy for comparable movies this year. Maybe even a little less. Definitely not better than Casino Royale.
7/10 Just wasn't worth the hype.
The "It's the new thing from Q department, it's called "Radio" " line really cracked me up though.
