skyfall

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 70 Responses
  • Ironmonkey0

    Casino Royale > Skyfall > Solace
    I liked the movie.

    Negative: I caught myself finding the bad guy more comical than dangerous. The last sequence was a big build up, but I wanted to go home 20mins before it happened. It was too long at some points and prolly said too much about the most famous spy ever.

    Positive: Cinematography, DB7, Moneypenny (as said before)

    would watch it again on Netflix or the $4 movie theatre.

  • twooh0

    Really disliked the film. The screenplay was poorly written, and the action ended up being a lot like a Rambo movie in the last few scenes. It ended up being totally unrealistic and ungraceful as a spy film with 20 mercenaries fighting 2 people holed up in a house.

    How many references to "evil" and "shadow" were there? As if the audience needed their hands held to get it.

    Some of the editing felt awkward and out of place.

    And my last complaint was the direction under Sam Mendes. He clearly has attempted to bring the Bond franchise back into the comical and nostalgic era, which has undone everything that was great about the precedent set in Casino Royale.

    Yes, the car was cool, but it's the 21st century, and we don't need to see two machine guns coming out of the headlights anymore.

    Aside from that, the passing of M was well done, Javier Bardem was awesome as usual, and the angle of Bond getting too old for the game was interesting.

  • MrT0

    I thought it was OK... Bond films are always silly, and what action blockbuster isn't these days? Javier Bardem never really got going, he was far more menacing in No Country For Old Men and had a far sillier haircut.

    To tick all those Bond boxes and still have a generally coherent film was no mean feat. There was almost too much self-aware referencing of old movies and Bond clichés – and all that unnecessary bumf about his parents – some might call it a reboot but I reckon they should leave it there.

    I mean is a totally straight, emotionally vulnerable, mechanical gadget-less Bond who doesn't drive a tricked out classic British sports car really Bond any more?

    • Not the Bond that we knew, which is what I liked about the last 2. It was change at the right time.CygnusZero4
    • Now we're going back to the goofiness of the 80s and 90s. Way too soon for that.CygnusZero4
  • yurimon0

    I saw it this week. I liked the more raw style that they started off with in the first new bond appearance of Daniel Craig. This seems like the makers of this bond film cant help over sensationalize the action.

    Though the story lacked, the cinematography, composition was ok but not enough to carry the film.

    If you had a choice who would you think would be a good alternative director or producer for the film?

    • Its just so hard to know who could make a good Bond movie.CygnusZero4
  • CygnusZero40

    "And my last complaint was the direction under Sam Mendes. He clearly has attempted to bring the Bond franchise back into the comical and nostalgic era, which has undone everything that was great about the precedent set in Casino Royale."

    This guy said it best. It went from being gritty, realistic and badass with the last 2 movies to reverting back to what they were doing in the 80s and 90s, and I hate all of those movies.

    • I think there is alot of potential with this Bond to be more intricate with story and be deep in developing the characters. everything was there but put together like shit. like a committee based design.yurimon
    • everything was there but put together like shit. like committee based designed movie..yurimon
    • < This,..my point exactly, they pissed away the successful reboot they had with Casino Royale.jonnypompita
  • ukit20

    I'd like to see a more minimal Bond movie. Maybe something more along the lines of this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0165…

    Of course explosions and 3D hacking scenes are what sells tickets, so they'll keep going with that.

    • Luis Guzman should be the next Bond, obviously!nb
    • hahaukit2
    • if you were to do a movie like that, how much of the fanbase you think would like opposed to reject it for a bond movie?yurimon
  • twooh0

    Christopher Nolan could direct a really badass Bond film. He's the only one (other than perhaps Alfonso Cuaron), who I think could pull off a really different, badass take on the Bond franchise.

    • nahhh i like his vision and style for the movie. but the cuts are still feeling weird to me. jumps around too much like a giant trailer.pango
    • trailerpango
    • Nolan's style is too on the nose. Same reason why I wouldn't like a Tarantino 007.inteliboy
    • Would it be four hours long with a villain nobody could understand?webazoot
  • webazoot0

    I thought it was enjoyable, nicely shot but some of the action scenes and stunts were too ott, which took some of the drama away from them. Also the plot was all a bit basic and unambitious, felt more like something from a 1980's straight to video film.

  • CygnusZero40

    I actually think Chris Nolan's vision would be too complex for a Bond movie. It doesnt even seem like they are trying to go more 'complex' with it.

    You let Nolan work on it and it would have a very deep story thats pretty smart, which I would enjoy, but I get why the producers of Bond wouldnt want him. They seem like they are dying to get back to the Brosnan style Bond movies.

  • hellobotto0

    Best reimagining of Home Alone yet.

    • Yeah that whole ending sequence was ridiculous.CygnusZero4
    • mom get inside... we need to prepare, marv and harry are comingprophetone