Skyfall (aka Bond 23)

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
But in all seriousness...people forget the older movies, which consist mostly of Bond walking around, talking, and trying to figure out the plot.

This movie did more of that. They actually developed the characters, allowed you to take in the emotion, and never rushed things to compensate for a "kewl action scene".
 
Agreed, I think some people have very short term memories, and forget that some of the best Bond movies from the past are slow to get going and have very litte action in them. They are mostly scenes of discussion, following leads, developing characters, and an occasional fist fight or gun fight.

Take "From Russia With Love", for example. One of the most loved Bond movies, yet it takes a very long time to get going and very little happens in terms of action.

Skyfall is awesome, 'nuff said
 
Yeah, some of the older Bond films are boring snooze fests full of exposition.

I can't sit through You Only Live Twice. Not now, not ever.
 
Agreed, I think some people have very short term memories, and forget that some of the best Bond movies from the past are slow to get going and have very litte action in them. They are mostly scenes of discussion, following leads, developing characters, and an occasional fist fight or gun fight.

Take "From Russia With Love", for example. One of the most loved Bond movies, yet it takes a very long time to get going and very little happens in terms of action.

Skyfall is awesome, 'nuff said

I love every minute of Dr. No and Goldfinger, both being in my top five. FRWL is another story. From the point where Bond meets Tania to the very end, it has some of the greatest moments in the series. But almost everything, from when Bond arrives in Istanbul up until that former point in the film, is slowly paced filler. Yes, even the gypsy camp scene and the Kerim Bey spying scenes. I get this is a more grounded Cold War "thriller," but for me it really doesn't get started until the midpoint. But then it's a classic, and you forget about the boring parts.
 
Agreed, I think some people have very short term memories, and forget that some of the best Bond movies from the past are slow to get going and have very litte action in them. They are mostly scenes of discussion, following leads, developing characters, and an occasional fist fight or gun fight.

Take "From Russia With Love", for example. One of the most loved Bond movies, yet it takes a very long time to get going and very little happens in terms of action.

Skyfall is awesome, 'nuff said
I bet those movies would have been less if they had tried to make it run 30 min longer, I never remember thinking is it over yet in any of those old Bond movies.
 
Yeah, some of the older Bond films are boring snooze fests full of exposition.

I can't sit through You Only Live Twice. Not now, not ever.

I love every minute of Dr. No and Goldfinger, both being in my top five. FRWL is another story. From the point where Bond meets Tania to the very end, it has some of the greatest moments in the series. But almost everything, from when Bond arrives in Istanbul up until that former point in the film, is slowly paced filler. Yes, even the gypsy camp scene and the Kerim Bey spying scenes. I get this is a more grounded Cold War "thriller," but for me it really doesn't get started until the midpoint. But then it's a classic, and you forget about the boring parts.

Absolutely, I wasn't trying to say that the slow paced nature of FRWL is a negative thing. At all. FRWL is one of my favourite Bond movies! I was just trying to illustrate the point that a Bond move doesn't need to be reduced down to sequence after sequence of action and fighting strung together.

I enjoy every single movie in the Bond series for what they are (obviously some much more than others). I guess some people's attention spans fade away when a movie requires an element of thought or brain activity, and there isn't a pretty flashy bangy scene to entertain them. :lol
 
I AM saying it's a negative thing. When I think about how great the movie is, I only remember the really awesome 50 minutes and I'm always surprised how slow it is when I rewatch it. Same with Thunderball. But for some reason, Dr. No and Goldfinger are perfection.
 
Great movie. I enjoyed it more than TDKR. I'd say this is definitely on par with "Casino Royale," if not better than it. I think it borrowed a lot of elements from previous films. In fact, I saw 3/4 of Brosnan's movies redone a new way.

Silva reminded me of 006 from "Goldeneye" as an MI6 agent gone rogue. The villain going after M for their past history reminded me of Elektra King in "The World is Not Enough." Bond disappearing for a time and being presumed dead reminded me of the opening of "Die Another Day."

That said, I didn't mind some parts feeling familiar. This was the follow up to CR QoS should have been.
 
Went and saw it earlier, loved it from beginning to end, highly enjoyable.

As much as I love Judy Dench, how amazing the way they folded this into the end with Bond coming full circle now with the male M with his assistant Moneypenny. Nice way to end it. I also like the new Q as well.
 
He's a weirdo (which I guess is the point) and a lame villain in my opinion.

I thought he was a very enjoyable villain.

As for "that scene" and the character in general...

"I realized we were dealing with something that was fun to create and also that will bring an opportunity to pay humble homage to the Bond classics with something more modern in the combination of creating somebody that above all is a human being rather than a larger than life character and who is broken person with a very specific goal to achieve, which is way easier to portray than a symbolic idea, which is what it was more or less in 'No Country For Old Men,'" Bardem explained. "A deity of violence and horrible fate itself was what Chigurh was, but there was no human being behind him. Here, there is a broken person. We wanted to create somebody that creates uncomfortable situations, rather than being somebody scary or threatening. Somebody who really creates a scenario of insecurity of something unexpected to happen for another person who he is dealing with."

One example of how Silva tries to accomplish this is a scene in which he flirts with Bond, who is tied to a chair.

"The main goal was to create this uncomfortableness. Within that, you can read anything you want or you wish," Bardem said, addressing buzz about his character's sexuality. "He's more into the thing of putting the other person in an uncomfortable situation where even James Bond himself doesn't know how to get out of it."

Suffice it to say, secret agent 007 handles the situation with his trademark calm and wit, as did Craig when he was asked at a separate press conference about the scene.

"Someone suggested that Silva may be gay," Craig said. "And I'm like, 'I think he'll [expletive] anything."
 
Well, I'm sorry to say I'm in with the "disappointed" crowd.

One could feel the strain with this movie. It just didn't click for me. After a decent, well-staged opening (which, unfortunately ended with it's "Bourne/Fugitive" too-familiar-now water plunge), it just meandered along.

The Shanghai sequence was beautifully shot and well-staged, but after that...well, that was it.

Silva was more a half-baked idea than a well-thought out adversary (a rogue agent? Really? That's it?)...and the "controversial" introduction/confrontation sequence between him and Bond had no sense of menace...it was just played for a cheap laugh.

But the movie really took a right turn into "bad" for me when it took the character of Bond
and just reduced him into another cliche "damaged" kid from a well-to-do family. As an audience, we didn't need to know this...part of what has made Bond thrilling and intriguing over the years is the NOT knowing anything abut his past...he's a killing machine, a super spy, a secret agent...please, not just another messed up sap with "issues". It neuters the character and makes him dull. We didn't need to visit the family retreat. Colossal mistake.
THAT was the moment this movie tanked and never recovered for me.

It's too bad...Craig makes a great "Bond" as "Casino Royale" proved.

Wanted to like this so much....but just didn't.
 
Giving a character more depth makes them dull? :huh :cuckoo:

Why is it such a big deal to learn more about Bond the character? It's not like they pulled that part of his history out of their ass. It came from the original novels. This is what I love about the Craig era. The character can be a lot more deep than most of the movies would leave you to believe.

Sorry they neutered your 2-dimensional fantasy image. :monkey2:monkey2:monkey2
 
Giving a character more depth makes them dull? :huh :cuckoo:

Why is it such a big deal to learn more about Bond the character? It's not like they pulled that part of his history out of their ass. It came from the original novels. This is what I love about the Craig era. The character can be a lot more deep than most of the movies would leave you to believe.

Sorry they neutered your 2-dimensional fantasy image. :monkey2:monkey2:monkey2

Gotta agree, it lends a little more depth to the character.
 
Also, Silva isn't a rouge agent like Alec was. Alec had a vendetta from long ago. Silva was ****ed over by his government, and wanted revenge. Rightfully so.

I loved his character. He was a better villain then Le Cheffre and Green.

He had a real purpose for doing what he did. And I appreciated that. I enjoyed the more down to earth personal Bond storys, more then the radical super weapon ones.
 
Another thing I liked about Silva was just how screwed up he was.

He could kill anyone at all, but couldn't kill the one person he claimed he hated most of all. He had M dead to rights a couple times and didn't do the deed, wanting her to kill both of them in the end. I think he actually did feel like the prodigal son.
 
Back
Top