SKYFALL: the 23rd James Bond adventure

Cracker Funk said:
H44, homage is not a form of borrowing!

:bang:
Click to expand...

MOVIE SPOILERS BELOW



Well some of it felt like homages such as bringing back the old Ashton Martin. But bringing back the same palm print gun gadget, that was used in Licence to Kill, or same idea of a gadget, does feel like borrowing rather than an intended homage.

Bond pretending to be dead, feels like borrowing from You Only Live Twice, rather than paying homage. Bond returning to a new world MI6 also feels like borrowing from Die Another Day. The villain wanting revenge on M feels like The World is not Enough. The villain being a former MI6 agent feels like Goldeneye. But maybe they are paying homages to all of these movies, and I'm just not seeing it that way.

simondo said:
I was really disappointed with Skyfall. It looked gorgeous, it has easily the best cinematography of any bond film. The bad guy, was a great character. A problem that I had with Skyfall was, Craig felt like a completely different character from the last two, he makes a joke after something quite horrendous happens. The biggest problem, was the story, it was predictable, it went from A to C with no interesting reveals or twists. It has a great opening, but nothing comes close to that during the rest of the film. To sum it up, Home Alone Dies Harder
Click to expand...

I liked this movie a lot actually, and loved the ending! I didn't like the cinematography in this one though, and actually felt like camera wise, they got carried away with some of the techniques. I had no problem with Craig, and felt like he was acting a little different but things have changed since Casino Royale, so he's developing and changing with it. He is getting darker, and his remarks show that. I agree it's a more simpler story, but I like it for a lot of individual moment ingredients. Even though it may be predictable, one thing I can't deny is this movie did not have one bad scene in it. The only think I mainly hated was the new Q, and felt like he was such a dud, and don't get why they wanted Q to be this way at all. But that's just my personal taste.
 
This is how you hide spoilers:

screenhunter12nov131821.jpg
 
Meh... plenty of stupid things in it (
Bardam can defeat MI6's firewalls but can't find M's home? [JB has done it twice!] Bring a helicopter to an old stone house carrying a chain gun and small arms but no air-to-ground missiles to level the mini-fortress
), several good ideas (
All you old people gotta go, the world has changed. DNA ID confirming pistol that's good for a single gag
...) ... but the don't go anywhere.

WTH would I want a pistol with three green lights effing up my aim + potentially disclosing my position?

WTH would Q plug Bardam's computer directly into MI6's computer?

Where did that shrapnel in JB's shoulder come from? I thought Miss MoneyPenny :rolleyes: shot him there?
 
Last edited:
The shrapnel came from the machine gun fire hitting Bond when he was operating the Crane. He was shot more than once.

I love Craig as Bond, but also wanted more surprises from the story. Good flick, though!
 
I didn't love it liked I hoped to. But it's fairly decent. Not as good as the previous Craig films, I think, at this time. There are plenty of stupid things like those you pointed, Ray. I like Javier Barden being cast as a Bond villian. But, I think I would have liked to use him differently. Yeah, I suppose he might have become the goofy kind of man that he is in Skyfall due to having been betrayed by M and being tortured by the PRC (for years?). But it just didn't seem to feel quite right for my taste. Really, it would have been much better to have Barden's Anton Chigurh as Silva. Or, something new. Then again, of course, Bond villians have a long history of being loopy and garish...maybe it just comes with the pedigree.
 
I liked it, and I like the emphasis on the new world that is emerging. But, as stated before, the final fight scenes weren't credible -
the villain would have brought far more people just to overwhelm any contingent guarding M, and M was stupid to depend on just one agent for her protection.

Anyway, I enjoyed it - it was different from the others, which was why it felt good. I'm anxious for the next one.
 
Last edited:
I really want to watch it, but I HATE the new bond song from Adele. It's a good song on it's own, but rather weak compared to the other two before.

Maybe I should take earplugs with me.
 
For me, the story telling was weakened significantly by the over frequent need to pay homage to the past.
It tried too hard IMHO to fill in the gaps to the early Bond film thematic strands and characters. The only character development (rather than establishment) beyond the early Bond films was of Bond himself, which was played far more darkly and darker even than the previous Craig Bond films and reminded me of the character Craig played in The Trench.

The glamour and action is also rather subdued, compared to the expectation of a Bond film, even accounting for the heightened sense of realism of the previous 2 films. Together with the hampered storytelling, Skyfall felt compromised to me and more like a transitional film than one which stands on it's own and has you sitting on the edge of your seat.

I'm not saying it was a bad film, it wasn't, Skyfall is still a very good film with good acting, obviously top quality production (and post-production) values and well worth anyone's ticket price.

G
 
The glamor and action are subdued, but that attracted me, because it's not as cheesy.

BTW, the part where the villain tricks MI-5 into capturing him - wasn't that done by Heath Ledger's Joker?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top