Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Zeze, Nov 10, 2012.
I was let down. Too long, and the last hour with the scotland mansion was a bore.
I saw Quantum of Solace a couple of weeks ago, and that was a boring snooze fest.
LOL, my mom hasn't seen a movie in the theater since she was forced to sit in the back on my birthday 20+ years ago at Total Recall! and she said she wants to see this in the theater!
I saw it last night and agree that I was let-down. I thought that Mendes had some great parts of direction and the cinematography was beautiful (as were the sets...aside from Instanbul. Everybody's seen that now. )
That said, I think Javier Bardem was wasted - he is a brilliant actor who LIVES his characters but then Silva just got all weird and ruined it. The plot was definitely contrived...Bond and M versus an army. A curiously small one, considering that the villain can manipulate entire countries and stock exchanges?
Oh well, I still like Craig as Bond for the most part. They said that this might be the start to a "trilogy" involving the QUANTUM organization even though it wasn't in this installment.
Actually, I thought the best scene in the entire movie was the first one with Bardem. Very creepy.
Came across as trying too hard for me.
Maybe I didn't word it correctly - I also thought his character started off strong but quickly melted down.
"Only you can kill us", or whatever it was...seriously?
I thought Skyfall was a decent action movie; however, as I mentioned in the movie rating thread, I didn't think it was a great Bond film. I was watching the BBC-produced 50 Years of Bond Car show (hosted by Richard Hammond from Top Gear), and I think they mentioned the difference that I subconsciously picked up on. They had mentioned that Bond changed to adapt to the action-heavy movies that we have today. Films such as Die Hard were mentioned as being a catalyst. I think that made it obvious as Bond went from being that suave guy that foils the bad guy's plan with help of Q's crazy gadgetry to a British version of John McClane with a suit.
Although, as others have mentioned, it's hard to be worse than Quantum of Solace. I think I fell asleep during that movie, and I can't even tell you who the bad guy was... mostly because the movie never really gave me a reason to give a damn about any characters or their plights.
Also, did anyone else feel like the plot of Skyfall was too obvious?
When they captured the bad guy, it felt too much like The Avengers. I recall saying to myself, "He planned this and he's going to escape."
I made a reference to Die Hard earlier, and this guy's methodology was a lot like Thomas Gabriel from Die Hard 4. Although, at least Justin Long wasn't in this movie.
Really? The point of that name was Moriarty working from the shadows.
I understand what you're saying. But my idea of a "game" is a back-and-forth series of moves. And if it's a "game of shadows" I expect those moves to be very subtle, revealed/explained only during the denouement.
i think the whole villain wanting to be caught as a part of his master plan has been beaten to death already. Heath Ledger executed it masterfully, the copying is pathetic.
Goldeneye brings back so much memories back in high school. Remember seeing this movie with my buds when it was released. They tore down the theater a couple years later. The opening scene was without a doubt one of my favorite movie scenes ever. Of course, now that I think about it, those sons of biscuits stole it and used it in the recent Captain American movie. I like that movie though.
Pretty much how I felt. Definitely not worth the praise it's getting. I do think the villain was pretty good but it was wasted on some terrible pacing.
I think my biggest issue with this one is trying to tie it all together with the old movies and such, but changing stuff. I liked thinking of each movie separately but they sloppily decided to chain them all together. It was also much too long.
Oh, I agree with the OP.
The film was just bad.
The OP and others have already picked at several horrible plot points.
There's more stuff picked up here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1074638/board/flat/206938977?p=1
I'll just add a few of my own:
1) The hard drive disappears as a plot device for the last third of the film, and is never heard about again.
2) Three months elapse between Bond being shot and his reappearance in M's living room (Incidentally, if it was so easy for him to do so, why didn't Silva do it as well?)
But here's the kicker: for all of this time, Bond just walks around with shards of depleted uranium still in his chest. Only after returning to MI6 does he extract them (all by himself, with a knife, no less!) and submit them for analysis.
Absolutely preposterous. They call that uranium "depleted", but it still has enough radiation to poison your blood if it stays in your body for three months.
weird, I thought it was entertaining, of course it had plenty of loopholes, but what movies don't.
Definitely the best Daniel Craig Bond movie yet**
LOL** People that are bothered by things like that amuse me** It's a James Bond movie for christ sake**
I thought it was great** Daniel Craig remains - by far - the most gifted actor to take on this role** The cinematography and art direction were brilliant** I thought Bardem was perfect as the villain, and the injection of Ralph Fiennes makes me optimistic that the franchise will remain on a good footing for the foreseeable future**
Was it a perfect film? No** Are there aspects of the plot that can be second-guessed? Most definitely (just as there are with every single Bond film)** Those things don't, from my standpoint, take away from the strength of the movie as a whole**
Lol @ plot holes in a Bond movie**
Sean Connery > Pierce Brosnan > Roger Moore > George Lazenby > Timothy Dalton > Daniel Craig imo
I would've preferred they had given the role to Clive Owen@#@# Casino Royale was pretty decent though@#@#
But Goldeneye > any Craig Bond film@#@#
^ lol wtf? Pierce Brosnan?? Roger Moore???
Connery > Craig > Lazenby > Dalton > Brosnan > Moore
But, I too was a little disappointed in Skyfall@#@# I thought it was much, much better than QoS, particularly because Bardem was a decently creepy Bondesque villain@#@#
The main issue with Skyfall, for me, is that the plot, with secondary characters that floated in and out with seemingly no use, was pretty much jettisoned by the midpoint@#@# I didn't really notice it until the end@#@# It's a beautifully shot film--probably the best since OHMSS--and it is easy to be drawn into, but digesting this at the end of it all left me a little empty@#@# I just hope they can recapture the magic of Casino Royale@#@#
The problem I am finding is that while I like the more direct, more "natural" plots of the current crop of Bond films, they are be@#@#@#ing too "personal" or "intimate@#@#" I think this has both made them to be more approachable (the modern audience has somewhat abandoned the fanciful approach to our action plots and superhero stories), it is also anti-Bond, in a way@#@# I don't think it's a bad thing, overall, that Bond is now trying to @#@#@#pete the the Jason Bourne character, but it is losing its Bondness@#@#
This one started grand, with an international flavor, but it quickly boiled down to what we have been seeing: targeted revenge@#@# Perhaps it's an adaption to our contemporary mood: MI6 is no longer this untouchable paragon of security and the enemy is hidden, can strike anywhere and bring any organization to its knees@#@#
I have thought that Judi Dench has been the best M in the series (well, previous Ms weren't even characters, just plot devices), so it's hard not to enjoy these more than most Bond films as they are more character Driven--Craig's Bond is more of a human, @#@#@#pared to the previous Bonds that were simply a type@#@#
I do miss the coolness--Bond was always a loose cannon, and that seems to be the only trait that Craig has retained (and infused it with steroids), but I miss the hyper-knowledge on all things obscure and utter coolness that you get with Connery@#@#
All that being said, this one now appears to be pushing towards a more traditional Bond Universe, so I guess we'll see@#@# Hopefully we get more Connery, and none of that Moore or Brosnan crud that nearly wrecked the franchise@#@#
I think that's one of the faults that I have with it; you lose out on that dashing, debonair aspect that made Bond, James Bond! I always thought that Bond movies were about watching the life of a secret agent/spy as they've always been considered clandestine and mysterious; in a way, they're like the equivalent of the modern day ninja!
(Man, it's hard to avoid using periods! I have to be really excited about everything!!!)
plot holes and details like that don't concern me.
But the problem I found with Skyfall is that so many of the characters are simply transient devices that actually, in the end, serve no purpose
The assassin in Shangai? Seriously? who the *** was that? who was he killing?
I think back to one of the few good Roger Moore flicks (TMWTGG), and that very same sequence (tracking Scaramanga, the assassination) was done much, much better.
This is where the Bond films are losing the Bond "cool" to make room for the visceral action we have come to enjoy in the Bourne flicks. Bond can definitely be done this way, but please bring back the cool.
This is why Casino Royale so so amazing. The best of both.
Golden Eye was definitely good....but every Brosnan film after that was worse than the worst of the Roger Moore films (And these are notoriously bad pieces of turd).
People give Brosnan too much credit simply based on Goden Eye, but he returned Bond to the clownish antics that we got with mid-late Roger Moore.
Same problem with Moore--people remember his first 3: LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, and they were all great Bonde flicks. Everything after....particular Moore's rather pedo turn, were just terrible.
heh, I actually had the same reaction when he was announced
but Casino Royale was so unimaginably perfect, that all of that died instantly. Really, I put it up there with what to me are the 3 best:
From Russia With Love
On Her Majesty's Secret Service
I think of Casino Royal somewhere between FRWL and Goldfinger, tbh.
Call it blasphemy, but I've watched each of these about 15 or more times over the years (no lie), and I can't find a single credible reason that CR is not as good, if not better than these.
Yeah it was boring. Daniel Craig stinks, though I did really like Casino Royale. This movie nearly put me to sleep.