Jump to content

James Bond 23: Skyfall FILM Discussion


Recommended Posts

One of the things I love about the series is its ebb and flow from pure entertainment to seriousness. I think the back-and-forth between those different sides is a big part of what has kept the series vital all this time.

With that in mind, I'd theoretically like to see the series swing back toward the breezier style of things. Not as far as Moonraker, maybe, but maybe as far as Goldfinger. And I think all the pieces are in place for that to happen now.

Really, though, all I want is for the movies to be good; how they accomplish that, and with what tone, is of no consequence to me provided that the result is good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 819
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I can hear that announced by the booming voice of Christopher Lee as Saruman.

I thought it was a great movie. On par with, or at least just a tiny sliver below Casino Royale.

I don't mind seriousness, and I don't know why people think the Craig movies are devoid of humor. Hell, half of Silva's intro was humor. I prefer the tone they set up now (which seemed to be how Brosnan's career as 007 started, before veering off into Moore territory), so let's keep it this way, hopefully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

when Dave and I saw it the other night we were surprised to see Rita Wilson and Tom Hank's sitting on the same row in the theatre with us, she has family in the area. Tom made several of us laugh when near the end he said out loud, there's no crying in a Bond film. I certainly had a tear in the corner of my eye.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I need to rewatch this, as I was in absolutely terrible mood when I watched it. I've never felt so detached watching a movie in a while, so this slew of praise is making me think perhaps was wrong with me

I was hungry as heck first time watching Prisoner of Azkaban. I hated it.

Now I really like it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that was lame about this film, and what I will never be able to forget, is that Bond is drinking Heineken. Horrible choice!

Karol

Ah, but they even handled that reasonably well; he's obviously not in a very good place during that scene, and he certainly doesn't look too happy to be drinking a Heineken. I agree with you in principle, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

when Dave and I saw it the other night we were surprised to see Rita Wilson and Tom Hank's sitting on the same row in the theatre with us, she has family in the area. Tom made several of us laugh when near the end he said out loud, there's no crying in a Bond film. I certainly had a tear in the corner of my eye.

wow that's cool.

Tom hanks is a lousy cinema goer though. Shhhhhhhh! Silence! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the opening scene was very, very over the top but this has been by far my favorite movie this year. Compared to the last two Craig-Bond movies I felt a much more significant depth to the plot. I saw some similarities to the portrayal of the villain to the Joker in the Dark Knight, maybe it was just because they were both nuts. However, overall I thought this was a excellent movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy you really set out to hate this film.

That couldn't be farther away from the truth.

I picked up quite a few comments in the theatre foyer afterwards making similar remarks. My friend with whom I was seeing the film even called the chapel bit a "B-movie ending". While this is certainly a bit too harsh, I'm far from beinig alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy you really set out to hate this film.

That couldn't be farther away from the truth.

I picked up quite a few comments in the theatre foyer afterwards making similar remarks. My friend with whom I was seeing the film even called the chapel bit a "B-movie ending". While this is certainly a bit too harsh, I'm far from beinig alone.

No, you are alone. Or at least in a very small group of people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy you really set out to hate this film.

That couldn't be farther away from the truth.

I picked up quite a few comments in the theatre foyer afterwards making similar remarks. My friend with whom I was seeing the film even called the chapel bit a "B-movie ending". While this is certainly a bit too harsh, I'm far from beinig alone.

Never read any of the Fleming novels I guess. Nor seen For Your Eyes Only, which has a far more ho-hum ending than Skyfall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reading Casino, and Bond is already quite different from the movies. It seems Skyfall is the closest to Fleming we've ever had. But I don't understand how the ending of Skyfall at the church could be seen as B-Movie?

*Shrugs* The only thing in this movie that looked remotely B-Movie was the Komodo dragon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The komodo dragon was the only bad special effect in the entire film. Otherwise, the special effects were PERFECT! Really impressive.

You know what my favorite asthetically pleasing scene is? The one in shanghai, where he's tracking patrice. God that scene was so gorgeous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I thought the Komodo looked good enough. The cheapest moment for me was all the CGI choppers over the deserted island. I dunno, that scene was just too much cheese for me, and so unlike the rest of the film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "b-movie"ness of the ending explained: b-movies were necessarily cheap and therefore prone to extensive use of inexpensive sets. Therefore, since the chapel set was somewhat plain and dingy-looking, it might -- to some -- feel like a b-movie set.

I don't know who on earth would be watching that scene and actually thinking "This looks like a b-movie," though, what with the superb performances and the gorgeous Roger Deakins cinematography. There will undoubtedly be people who decide to not enjoy the movie purely because it is the contrarian thing to do; maybe those people might be looking down their noses and thinking "b-movie," but I don't know who else would be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why a mastermind like Bardem who spend lengths to explain how you can wreak havoc just by pressing a key on a computer now needs a big chopper and a guerilla army to storm a scottish manor did cause minor headaches, though.

I thought that was the point in the context of the film's universe: Skyfall Lodge is off the "grid" so to speak.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question. It seems that I can't find a babysitter and go to see this with the wife. So, anybody...babysitting? Old Inky? :joke:

Ok, the real one: They lowered the rating from 16 to 12 here in Finland, do you guys think it is ok film for a twelve-year old boy?

I do not want make that mistake again what was with the TDKR, too much a neck breaking fiesta...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably more apt to compare it against Casino Royale. The level of violence is similar to that of CR (without the ball torture scene). No blood, a few onscreen deaths but nothing like TDKR in my opinion. Tone, which I believe should be factored in, is more serious than CR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That couldn't be farther away from the truth.

I picked up quite a few comments in the theatre foyer afterwards making similar remarks. My friend with whom I was seeing the film even called the chapel bit a "B-movie ending". While this is certainly a bit too harsh, I'm far from beinig alone.

It was just very theatrical. B-movie ending would be the wrong description.

The komodo dragon actually looked rather good.

no it didnt.

It lacked a lot of shaders and crap like that. it was noticeable CGI, many films have already had very good CGI animals. The komodo looked like CGI from ten years past or more.

I didn't notice anything weird about it. I'm glad I didn't because it seems to have spoiled the experience for you.

I'm still not sure why a couple of people felt the last act did not feel like Bond...

Does anyone want to put forth an explanation? Was it the machine guns and mercenaries?

Well, at least it wasn't a nuclear explosion or an exploding oil platform.

There's been so many machine guns in previous Bond films... Increasing violence since the 1970s... Skyfall was almost moderate...

I don't get that criticism either...

One thing that was lame about this film, and what I will never be able to forget, is that Bond is drinking Heineken. Horrible choice!

Karol

Ah, but they even handled that reasonably well; he's obviously not in a very good place during that scene, and he certainly doesn't look too happy to be drinking a Heineken. I agree with you in principle, though.

You barely saw the beer! But anyway... We could complain about the use of product placement in Bond films in general. But Bond with Heineken is better than no Bond at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...