Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

"Skyfall" (2012)


joefilmone
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well, I liked it, but I wouldn't go quite that far. I did like Javier Bardem. I like to consider *Skyfall* as sort of a sequel to *No Country for Old Men*, because the psycho-killing machine finally gets his due. I like some of director Sam Mendes earlier films. That, and Bardem is why I went to see *Skyfall*, but I haven't seen *Quantum of Solace*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked it, but like other films of this type, thought it was a half hour TOO LONG. Why cant they make films like this for 2 hrs??? I thought it interesting the changes they made for the future franchise. It needed some changes.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you haven't liked any of the non-Connery films I can't imagine why you'd like this one. I liked it and like the direction it is going.

 

To the other poster who mentioned "Quantum of Solace." It is not in the league of this one or "Casino Royale" but "QOS" does continue the story from "CR."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bond films have morphed into more of what I'd call suspense/adventure films. They've had to change with the times. I do miss the 60's Bond. But it just wouldnt work today...........Just wish they'd make them at an acceptable LENGTH. Over 2 1/2 hrs is WAY too long. (and there were some slow spots)..........

 

 

One thing I did miss was the humorous quips. Wasnt much humor in this one. There hasnt been much in the Craig Bond.............

 

Edited by: Hibi on Nov 19, 2012 5:07 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=LonesomePolecat wrote:}{quote}Was this film worth seeing to someone like me who hates every Bond film NOT starring Sean Connery? See, to me, after the originals, they're all lame. That's why I hesitate to see this one. Thoughts?

 

Connery is definitely my favorite Bond, by far. If you could like someone else as Bond, Craig would be the one. He's sort of a working class Bond, tough and determined, smart, but not as upper-class sophisticated as Connery.

 

 

 

Spoilers below:

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

 

I like the new M, and the new Moneypenny. But, the new Q is going to have to work at it, before I can appreciate him. I like the title *Quantum of Solace*, so I guess I should borrow the DVD and watch it.

 

Edited by: ValentineXavier on Nov 20, 2012 12:36 AM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I think you could like this film. Connery will always be the best but this film is a darker Bond, like Connery in Dr. No. I have seen all the films, including seeing the Connerys duing the 1960s in my youth, but this could well be the best Bond film of all. Definitely the best opening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=filmlover wrote:}{quote}Valentine, you might like to add a spoiler alert because you've mentioned two things that people who haven't seen it yet may regret hearing ahead of time.

 

Well, it's all telegraphed well ahead of time in the film, so I didn't think it would be a problem, but I took your advice anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote}

> > {quote:title=filmlover wrote:}{quote}Valentine, you might like to add a spoiler alert because you've mentioned two things that people who haven't seen it yet may regret hearing ahead of time.

> Well, it's all telegraphed well ahead of time in the film, so I didn't think it would be a problem, but I took your advice anyway.

 

 

Normally, I can guess what is going to happen quite early, but those two totally eluded me until the moment they occured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL. I have to thank tv (commercials and all) for acess to most of the Bond films. I never saw any of the later films at a theater until the last decade.........In fact, now that I think of it, I've only seen On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I was too young to be allowed to see the Connery ones...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that Connery is still the best Bond. I saw "Skyfall" and enjoyed it very much, Craig was excellent. "Dr. No" is my sentimental favorite, but for my money the best Bond film ever is "From Russia, With Love" This was before all the gadgets became so popular in the series, aside from his attache case,he was on his own. Pedro Armendariz as Karim Bey was recommended to director Young by John Ford. Sadly, he was ill with cancer { another victim of "The Conqueror" curse?} and died by his own hand a month after finishing his scenes.

The fight scenes between Connery and Shaw aboard the train were some of the best ever and they had to do a lot of it themselves.

Another sad note. This was the last film President Kennedy saw at the White House. He viewed it on Nov. 20, !963 {today} and two days later he was in Dallas. 49 years this Thursday....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}

>2 of the 3 changes werent revealed till the end...............

 

But one of those two changes is a major plot point, from the get-go, and continuing through the film, even if it isn't resolved until the end. It's also pretty obvious from the beginning HOW it will be resolved.

 

The other of those two changes is rather inconsequential, even if it is of interest to Bond fans.

 

I'm also one of the few who like *On Her Majesty's Secret Service*. In fact, it's my favorite Bond film, even though Lazenby isn't my favorite Bond. It's nonstop action, and has Diana Rigg - what more could I ask!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to all those that like Mr. Craig's Bond, I don't and here is why. My theory is that what makes characters like James Bond or Sherlock Holmes so universally popular isn't the brute force that is a signature aspect to Mr. Craig's portrayal of Bond. But instead the composed lethality that was Mr. Connery's impersonation. We all know that Bond has a license to kill, so it becomes fundamental not to over play that facet of his character. If you do, then you diminish the composure that the character must possess to make the audience feel comfortable with that power and as a result, Bond becomes just another street thug with a gun. Also, Mr Craig is way too angry. He rarely displays any charm or indulgence with anyone no matter the circumstance. He reminds me of the boss who is never happy with his employee's performance, regardless of their efforts. He is physically up to the task but emotionally he isn't and that accounts for the Bond persona and without it, you just have another modern day Don Quixote with no where to go. Which just about sums up the last four 007 films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"One thing I do like about Craig's Bond is that we get the idea that he actually could lose to the bad guys"

 

Well VX, the first question that pops into my mind is, just how many people do you think are motivated to go see a Bond movie to watch James get his butt kicked?

 

I can understand making changes in something to improve on a flaw but to make changes simply for the sake of making a change can be counterproductive. Recall Coke changing it's taste a few years back and the company almost went out of business.

 

Well, it seems that the Bond franchise is doing okay with Craig in the lead role, due in part to the action sequences and special effects that are often very impressive. But my gripe with Craig is that he seems angry most of the time and way too serious. He totally lacks the self-assured, sophisticated charm that Connery had down pat and Moore was able to sell in a more cartoonish way. Craig seems more like a mad bully with a gun.

 

The one thing that made Bond unique in this type of movie was his suave, sophisticated and witty characteristics in the face of danger. No matter what peril he found himself in, you just knew he would find a way to win the day and do it with style. In my view, that isn't only a critical aspect to his character, it is essential. When the producers dropped that characteristic in favor of the Craig interpretation. Then you no longer have James Bond. But just another double-oh agent without the substances. If that is what you want, then Craig is your man.

 

But the series has more problems than just having Craig as Bond. Over the years we have lost M, Q and Miss Moneypenny with no adequate replacements. Instead of the characters driving the effort, today a good Bond film seems to depend more on special effects and stunts with virtually no viable mission to save the world from the menacing evil psychopath out to either rule or destroy all of us.

 

Now I understand that the success of films like "Die Hard" or "Lethal Weapon" could have caused the producers of Bond to consider making a change. But I would argue that doing what others do isn't as good as just finding a good Bond. However, that may be easier said than actually done. So I guess we will have Craig around a few more years before the search starts all over again. Hopefully with better results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...