# Skyfall (2012)



## Dave (Oct 22, 2012)

I'm seeing this on Friday; first day it is released. I hope it lives up to the excessive hype, but from the trailers it looks very good. I'll let you know.

The new Bond movie BTW. Just in case you've been on a desert island.


----------



## Dave (Oct 25, 2012)

No Bond fans here?

Some links if you are:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20026367
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19842119
http://www.mjnewton.demon.co.uk/bond/links.htm
http://www.jamesbondfanbook.com/links.htm
http://www.universalexports.net/00Links.shtml
http://www.klast.net/bond/fan_page.html

Only 24 hours to go...


----------



## Moonbat (Oct 25, 2012)

I do like Bond, but I'm not a fan of Daniel Craig's bond, it's not him, it's just the films are pretencious, taking themselves too seriously.
I personally think Casino Royale was over hyped, and this one is hyped waaaaay too much, I'll probably watch it, but I won't enjoy it the way I used to enjoy Bond.


----------



## alchemist (Oct 25, 2012)

My tickets are booked for tomorrow night and I'm looking forward to it. Like Moonbat, I thought CR over-hyped. The first two-thirds was excellent but it just fizzled out. QoS was just poor, with no Bond charm whatsoever. But I do like Craig in the role, so fingers crossed.


----------



## Dave (Oct 25, 2012)

Well, I liked them. It is more gritty. All Bonds are a product of their Time, but Craig is probably the one who most looks like Bond, even if he isn't anything like the book character. There is already a favourite Bond thread somewhere, so I won't go there here, but I do think Bond films lost their way in self parody in the 1980's and have now completely recovered themselves. According to a recent survey based on critics remarks _Die Another Day_ was the most disliked film, where as I would have been sure it would have been _Octopussy_ or _Moonraker_.



alchemist said:


> I thought CR over-hyped. The first two-thirds was excellent but it just fizzled out. QoS was just poor.


The continuation of the story didn't work very well, I'll concede that point. It meant that _Casino Royale _ didn't properly end, and _Quantum of Solace_ seemed to start like you'd missed half an hour.


----------



## clovis-man (Oct 25, 2012)

Dave said:


> Well, I liked them. It is more gritty. All Bonds are a product of their Time, but Craig is probably the one who most looks like Bond, even if he isn't anything like the book character. There is already a favourite Bond thread somewhere, so I won't go there here, but I do think Bond films lost their way in self parody in the 1980's and have now completely recovered themselves.


 
Not counting things like the Lazenby one-off, I find that Sean Connery, even as a relative unknown at the time, really just created the Bond image: dangerous, unscrupulous (except where it comes to queen & country) and oversexed. Roger Moore was just wrong: All suavity and no substance. The first film with Pierce Brosnan (*Goldeneye*, IFIRC) sort of re-energized the series, at least for a while. But it got boring in the end. Craig is a much more down-to-Earth Bond and has again re-energized things. But I wonder how long we can keep going with all this.


----------



## Droflet (Oct 26, 2012)

Clovis Man, you took the words right out of my head. Spot on old chap.


----------



## Dave (Oct 26, 2012)

*Re: Skyfall (2012) SPOILERS*

It isn't the best Bond film but worth seeing. It is a little odd. Not sure how to describe the oddness. It is hard to do so without giving away something that surprised me at the end, although in hindsight you were told about it near the beginning. On reflection, I think it is because the film was back to front, but I have to go into spoiler territory to explain that.

The other thing was that lack of exotic locations. Turkey for the 10 minute warm up at the start and China for the first half, but then Westminster, Subterranean London and the Scottish Highlands in the rain and ice. Hardly world trotting.

It didn't begin well either, when the car chase ended in a market stall of fruit and vegetables. Maybe people expect that to happen in a Bond film, but it didn't bode well for me. Luckily it got better. If it had ended half way through I'd have said it was only about 5/10 but I did like the second half better even though it was unusually for a Bond film.

So, don't read any further if you don't want spoilers:

SPOILERS FOLLOW

seriously



Spoiler



When I say back to front, I mean all the introductions - new M, new Moneypenny, calling in at the new office - they were at the end. While all the exotic locations and all the stunts on bikes and trains and rooftops - they were all at the beginning. Everything was an anticlimax apart from the death of M. Yes, M isn't just replaced, M dies!

One thing I found funny was that when M is shot Bond is pretty calm about it. To be fair, she did tell him that only her pride was wounded. However, when they blow up the Aston Martin! The orchestral music stirs, Bond gets really angry, and he starts lighting fuses to Propane cylinders (ones that they never found when they did the inventory of weapons.)



More later, I have to go out.


----------



## Dave (Oct 26, 2012)

part 2... *more spoilers probably*... the other thing that made it different was that it wasn't the normal jetting around the world Bond, but more of a chase followed by the _Assault of Precinct 13_ at the end.  And no gadgets - well, only the gun. Though the 'going back in time' could be classed as a gadget. Especially 



Spoiler



the machine guns


 you were meant to have forgotten about.

It was good to see some back story on M, as well I guess on James Bond.

The villain - my jury is still out on that one. He was meant to be some grotesque thing just by taking out his dentures. And would Hydrogen Cyanide do that without killing you? Only, I suspect, with some expensive and quick medical intervention by the Chinese, which would be unlikely as they would just let him catch gangrene.

My big gripes:

Number One was the Product Placement. It was so obvious. Drinking beer in the beach hut is one thing, but there was no reason when they were looking at the maps. It was one very long Dutch beer commercial. And I don't mind the Scotch commercial quite so much, but next he'll be wearing sponsors logos on his tuxedo. 

Number Two was making Bond 'vulnerable'. I didn't really see the point. He isn't a superhero. He is already a mortal man. Giving him a serious injury and psychological problems made it less believable that he could do what he does.


----------



## biodroid (Oct 26, 2012)

Arent these new Bond movies based closely on the novels, without the gadgets?


----------



## Dave (Oct 26, 2012)

biodroid said:


> Aren't these new Bond movies based closely on the novels, without the gadgets?


I think 'closely on the novels' and  'Bond movies' are phrases I would be unlikely to put together. 

I used the word 'gritty' before. I'm not sure I meant that exactly*; but less reliance on tech is certainly a theme in this film. The new Q, the Quartermaster, is gives Bond nothing but a radio transmitter and a specially adapted Walther PPK. James also tells him that he can't possibly be Q as he still has spots. Q retorts something about being able to do more in his pyjamas before breakfast on his computer than any field agent can do. It is also a theme of the select committee enquiry (though they could cut that very dull part out for me.) Anyway, I believe the film proves that field agents are still required in the modern world.

However, the movie franchise has lived upon gadgets such as exploding pens - something which becomes a joke in this film actually.

I did like that they are 'going back to basics' - M is for 'Mother' for instance, and Silva calls her that. It was interesting that when Bond introduced M to Kincade he misheard it and began calling her Emma from then on.

And Skyfall itself - the name of a Scottish lodge with some significance.

* If I had been 10 years older, I'm sure I would have preferred Harry Palmer to James Bond.


----------



## alchemist (Oct 27, 2012)

I enjoyed it, and thought it the best of the Craig films. It wasn't typical Bond, for some of the reasons Dave mentioned. The locales weren't as exotic as usual, although the Scottish Tourism Board will be very pleased.

I had a couple of plot quibbles, but nothing critical, such as a "hunting rifle" that looked suspiciously like a double-barrelled shotgun.

Most notable was what we learned about Bond. Spoiler: He's Scottish!


----------



## Moonbat (Oct 29, 2012)

Ok, I went to see this on Sunday and I didn't hate it, but I didn't love it.

There maybe a fair few spoilers to follow, I will try to hide them.

Ok, loved the opening scene, I do love dirtbikes and the way they can ride over almost anything and the opening title sequence was pretty impressive.
I see they have updated Miss Moneypenny, so she is now more than just a secretary and was a field agent, how very 21st century, things have changed since the 60s Also no one but the evil woman smokes. I didn't like her scenes, I thought she was a pointless character, only put in so that they can have another bond girl, she didn't need to be there at all, and he certainly didn't need to shower with her, I just think it felt out of place in this film.

Daniel Craig does look more angry/disgusted than most Bond's, but I'm not sure if that is a good thing. Ok. So Q!!!

What a load of nonsense, even I knew not to plug the evil computer genius-who-hacked-MI6-and-M's-computer-without-being-traced's laptop into the network, that was just asking for trouble. 

 And the new/old car. Why on earth did he have that? I can't figure out how he could have it, DC's bond wasn't even born when that car was being used by an agent, so how did he get his hands on it. I was fine with the car as it was, a classic car, fine, but not with the ejector seat and the machine guns, that was some kind of time loop going on there.

Also, James Bond, the quintisential Englishman was actually born and raised (to what age we know not) in Scotland, in the highlands no less. I'm sorry but that's just insulting.

Also I prefered it when M was just a man in a room that you saw for 1 or 2 scenes in a film, not a major part of the film.

Ok, rant dying down now. all in all not a bad film, just what you would normally get from Bond. So overhyped it is crazy and not as good a bond as people are suggesting. Not bad, but it's no Goldeneye!


----------



## Kylara (Oct 29, 2012)

Haha try watching it with a techy genius sat next to you, twicthing in agony at every insane bit of "computer stuff" that they did...and yes who in their right mind wouldn't play with that laptop on an isolated circuit?! Anyways, I really loved the opening credits, and some of the lovely exploding things...my bf and I have decided that we want to live at Skyfall and we both loved the numerous self referencing which was wonderful. Plot wise it was a little flimsy, but still a good film...


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 29, 2012)

Hope it's better than Quantum of Solace - Craig seemed too much of a "Chav Bond" in that.

A favourite Bond Film so far I think is "Licence to Kill".

I may be a heretic.


----------



## Connavar (Oct 29, 2012)

Im a big Bond fan both books and films but Daniel Craig is really the only Bond hardcore enough to the guy in the books justice even if the films are more action,over the top than the books still.  CR was awesome film and i hope Skyfall is much better than Quantum of Solace which was a big letdown compared to Casino Royal.

I will see this film on Wednesday.


----------



## PTeppic (Oct 29, 2012)

Thought it was great. The post-Bourne "realism" largely worked, with plenty of background in the politics which dog the real industry. Some nice script work and one-liners, the great coda, and many nods (positive and parody) to the older movies.

As for geekdom, one word: cooling!


----------



## Connavar (Nov 1, 2012)

I enjoyed it alot both as spy action and good human storytelling about Bond himself.  Vast improvement on the mess that was the film before.  Craig was vulnerable and hardcore at his best.  Mendes weakness as Bond director was he didnt have as many thrilling action scenes as in Casino Royal.  Other than it was everything i wanted from a modern Bond film both as book fan and film fan.

I enjoyed the surprising good one liners, parody of classic Bond elements.  Great Bond villain too.


----------



## Jonathan C (Nov 3, 2012)

Dave said:


> I did like that they are 'going back to basics' - M is for 'Mother' for instance, and Silva calls her that. It was interesting that when Bond introduced M to Kincade he misheard it and began calling her Emma from then on.


 
I think her name actually is "Emma". In _Casino Royale _Bond mentions that her name is where the letter came from (though I imagine that, like real life, its just a code name for all leaders of MI6 (though they are called "C") and Judi Dench's M just happens to have a similar real name.

M doesn't mean mother; its just a tradition for British soldiers and spies (in films at least) to refer to their female bosses as "mum". Every Bond boss has been called M, after all. 



alchemist said:


> Most notable was what we learned about Bond. Spoiler: He's Scottish!


 


Spoiler



His father is English and his mother is from Sweden. He was raised in Scotland, but he might not have been born there.

Assuming they are going with the books.


----------



## Dave (Nov 3, 2012)

Thanks for the corrections. I read an exhibition at Bletchley Park about Ian Fleming's real life exploits and his superior at the Naval Intelligence Division who was the inspiration for "M". 



Jonathan C said:


> M doesn't mean mother; its just a tradition for British soldiers and spies (in films at least) to refer to their female bosses as "mum". Every Bond boss has been called M, after all.


Not only female bosses. It was definately "Mother" in the _Avengers_, but I'll accept that "M" doesn't stand for Mother.



Jonathan C said:


> I think her name actually is "Emma". In _Casino Royale _Bond mentions that her name is where the letter came from (though I imagine that, like real life, its just a code name for all leaders of MI6 (though they are called "C") and Judi Dench's M just happens to have a similar real name.


I missed that her name was meant to really be Emma. 

Not all MI6 bosses were called "C" though. There was a tradition of the head of MI6 signing their name with a single letter which came from Mansfield Smith-Cumming, who would sign his initial "C" with green ink.


----------



## Jonathan C (Nov 3, 2012)

Dave said:


> Thanks for the corrections. I read an exhibition at Bletchley Park about Ian Fleming's real life exploits and his superior at the Naval Intelligence Division who was the inspiration for "M".


 
Yeah. I like that so much of Bond is based on an exaggerated version of stuff that actually happened, and that its all slightly more grounded in reality than many people think, even if the character himself is basically wish fulfillment.



> Not only female bosses. It was definately "Mother" in the _Avengers_, but I'll accept that "M" doesn't stand for Mother.


 
Well, the Avengers was a bit different. It was meant to be both funny and smart that their boss was a man called "Mother" (smart in the sense that it hides his true identity). That was more deliberate.



> I missed that her name was meant to really be Emma.


 
Though I do wonder how Kincalde knew that (then again, she was on TV not a day earlier, so I guess that would go some way to explaining it).



> Not all MI6 bosses were called "C" though. There was a tradition of the head of MI6 signing their name with a single letter which came from Mansfield Smith-Cumming, who would sign his initial "C" with green ink.


 
Mansfield Smith-Cumming was the first head of MI6.

So, I think they _were _all called C.


----------



## Connavar (Nov 3, 2012)

Who cares about the real MI6, Bond boss is always named M according to Ian Fleming and that is the answer.

Jonathan C:  Bond mother was clearly french speaking language like France/Belgic/Swiss with the name on her tomb.  The Bond origin you mean is maybe from the books or old films?   

Doesnt matter what the films say really, Bond is british is all that matters really since thats the side he works for.  Scottish or english or half french or half something else is beside the point.   Scottish or English is still a spy for Great Britain.


----------



## Jonathan C (Nov 3, 2012)

Connavar said:


> Who cares about the real MI6, Bond boss is always named M according to Ian Fleming and that is the answer.
> 
> Jonathan C: Bond mother was clearly french speaking language like France/Belgic/Swiss with the name on her tomb. The Bond origin you mean is maybe from the books or old films?
> 
> Doesnt matter what the films say really, Bond is british is all that matters really since thats the side he works for. Scottish or english or half french or half something else is beside the point. Scottish or English is still a spy for Great Britain.


 
My bad- I meant to say his mother was Swiss, not Swedish.

Got his dad wrong, too- Andrew Bond is from Glencoe (where the climax is set), so he is Scottish. I should know better.

Yes, thats from the books- that is where the movie got it from. Ian Fleming wrote Bond as growing up in Scotland after he first saw Sean Connery playing the role and loved him in it (up to then he thought he would be a terrible choice). Bond's backstory in the movie is exactly the same as in the novels, with maybe one or two minor details added in.

*EDIT- *On that note, Bonds birthday is in about a week- the 11th of November.

You know, if anyone wants to buy him a present.


----------



## Connavar (Nov 4, 2012)

Ah good they used Bond origin from the books, i havent read all of them yet so i didnt know that and thought they made up the fact he was Scottish/Swiss.

I will celebrate his birthday by reading Fleming/Bond again.  Make time when i have free time from school work.


----------



## PTeppic (Nov 4, 2012)

Hopefully will be watching a second time later... I don't think Kincade knew M's name: I thought he simply mishead "M" as "Emma".


----------



## Dave (Nov 4, 2012)

Connavar said:


> Who cares about the real MI6, Bond boss is always named M according to Ian Fleming and that is the answer.


As Jonathan C says, much of what Ian Fleming wrote was exagerated and emblemished versions of things that actually happened to him or to collegues. I just find it interesting that after years of disregarding the books, and being essentially self-referencing, the films have gone back to the books for inspiration.


----------



## Delboy (Nov 4, 2012)

I enjoyed the movie a lot. 

Didn't enjoy the cinema experience though - lots of noisy kids, a half empty cinema (not surprising considering it cost £25 for two adult tickets, one popcorn, and one coke), most of all didn't enjoying sitting down five minutes before the film was due to start and waiting 55 more minutes for the actual show... every time a trailer or advert finished I thought "Here we go..." But no, there were more, more, more.


----------



## Connavar (Nov 4, 2012)

Dave said:


> As Jonathan C says, much of what Ian Fleming wrote was exagerated and emblemished versions of things that actually happened to him or to collegues. I just find it interesting that after years of disregarding the books, and being essentially self-referencing, the films have gone back to the books for inspiration.



I dont find it surprising they have went back to the books, they got disssed for Brosnan last films critics was saying Bourne is more Bond than Bond. Also the directors, writers of the films was low level stuff.  The writers for this film referenced Fleming books,short stories using an actual book as inspiration.   That plus better directors.

Daniel Craig looks naturally hardcore Bond and i think the producers finally saw a soft,playful Bond is not enough anymore.


----------



## Null_Zone (Nov 4, 2012)

A fun film, but didn't enjoy it nearly as much as Casino Royal or Quantam of Solace. But those felt like great secret agent films in line with the books rather the slightly camp Bond film or old.

I do think Daniel Craig makes a great Bond, he just reminds me of those short, wiry bastards you need to keep an eye on and who with training end up in the Long Range Desert Squadron. Again, like the books where Bond is only average but can take a kicking and stay just as good.


----------



## PTeppic (Nov 5, 2012)

Delboy said:


> I enjoyed the movie a lot.
> 
> Didn't enjoy the cinema experience though - lots of noisy kids, a half empty cinema (not surprising considering it cost £25 for two adult tickets, one popcorn, and one coke), most of all didn't enjoying sitting down five minutes before the film was due to start and waiting 55 more minutes for the actual show... every time a trailer or advert finished I thought "Here we go..." But no, there were more, more, more.



Personally I prefer a totally empty cinema (apart from me, of course). And I thought our 28 minutes (for this one) was bad, from lights down to first frame... Did they have a second short feature on first?


----------



## Cayal (Nov 6, 2012)

I can't wait to see this. The reviews have been good so far. Alas, it is not out until the 22nd here.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Nov 6, 2012)

OK, I think you've all had a chance to see it if you're really keen.

The following will come as no surprise to those that are familiar with some of my views but be assured spoilers abound :-



OK first off I thought it was over hyped rubbish.

In fairness the people I saw it with said they thought it was good and I should just accept it for what it was "a bit of escapism and entertainment in the theme of bond". 

Its difficult to know where to start so why not the end.

Moneypenny/ Mallory the trouble here is that the going back to the start Casino Royal etc puts a coach and horses through the time line. Here we have a Bond -who only got his 00 status two episodes ago suddenly finding he ‘past it’ and should be drawing his pension (while he can). Now that's OK, and to be fair DC did look like he will be making full use of his bus pass soon, rather than his normal flash harry cars, but where does that leave the plot. Is he going to turn into some macabre Dorian Grey like person, getting younger and younger with every film (doubt that). So where is this new source of vigour going to come from. Are we going to have Bond meets Twilight perhaps?

What was the point of getting rid of the 'modern cars that could be tracked' if they then made it possible to do so. (not to mention that in the original film the car had satalite tracking as I recall). Here we run across the time line problem again. How could they have the car if he hadn't driven it yet: that vintage car was 40 years too old for any age they had experienced since his 00 status had been established,

The joke about the ejector seat - was that the reason - if so it wasn't worth it.

The underground offices - I'm sure we've been there before when Cleese was Q, with the invisible car was it?

The stunt with the digger - would have been good - and this was noticeable throughout the film - if they hadn't placed handy walkways for B to walk along - it was so obviously 'attached as an added extra they may as well have had an escalator for him to get across the gap. Similarly with the motorbike rooftop scene. I'm pretty sure the didn't think to place handy flat runways on the roofs back in the day they were built. Again they were so obvious they jarred with everything in the scene.

What was the point of the 'personalised gun' how long did that last. Was it just to show how 'up to date' they gadgets were - if so it failed: they have been talking about guns like that for twenty years. 

By the way, as soon as we saw the dragons we knew someone was due for a chewing. A little throw back to sharks and alligators again so nothing new there.

The first train scene was OK, but it's all been done before - M.I. was it: and M.I. was better.

The product placements? Well given this film only got made be the skin of its teeth they had to get the backing from somewhere I suppose. Personally I think it would have been better if they had failed and it hadn't been made.

It had a poor plotline (none at all IMO), poor budget, poor acting, poor characterisation etc. etc. The only good thing about it was we finally see the back of Dench.

Overall rating - poor. 

Mission Impossible and Bourne Identity have taken over the lead in this genre _IMO_. I doubt I shall bother with the next one. They've had enough of my spare cash and if this is the best they can do I for one will give it a miss.


----------



## Connavar (Nov 6, 2012)

With all due respect alot of nitpicking for Bond film. Since when was Bond films ever meant to be realistic techs,timelines.  The guy has been young and old over 50 years. He has the fountain of youth if you took that seriously.

Bond must be old to have that vintage car and must have driven it before?  I saw it as Bond had an old car stored he hadnt got to drive alot because of his job.   Like Rich men collecting vintage cars.

Time jump?


----------



## purple_kathryn (Nov 6, 2012)

I enjoyed it

My only problems were Javier Bardem's eyebrow colour. Ginger?!

and that you cannot do that in a tube station ( not that the bit of train was particularily likely either but still....)


----------



## PTeppic (Nov 6, 2012)

Just seen it a second time - still think it's one of the best. And as for the nitpicks, many of the things highlighted are, for me, the best bits: either the affectionate nods to the entire previous 50 years or, jumbling things up a bit (either to make Bond different or bring into the new era of spy/action movies).


----------



## Gary Compton (Nov 6, 2012)

I don't want to talk about the film! 

Has the curse of the beige struck this thread. Me eyes are well and truly done in.

Say what you mean and don't be creamy


----------



## ChrisMorey (Nov 9, 2012)

I'll probably end up seeing this one.


----------



## Parson (Nov 10, 2012)

Saw this last night on the opening night in our part of the States. Overall I found it different than I expected. (Weird, I know, But I always like the gadgets. I missed them a lot.) I also like my Bonds much more capable. The realism was in a sense refreshing, but on the other hand the stunts were far from realistic, so if they weren't realistic why do we feel we have to make Bond more realistic?

It felt like a movie that was trying to take itself more seriously than the franchise can really handle. 

On the other hand I thought the acting was first rate. I liked the villain's henchgirl.  I thought she stole the movie, by far the most interesting character. (I'm terrible with names... Did she have one? And do not recognize actors by their names at all.) 

What was really off-putting was that our theater decided to show the movie with subtitles?!! My son went to the manager to ask why. We thought that they must have made a mistake. But no.... "The English accents were hard to understand and so they felt it was better to put the sub-titles on." I mean --- Give me a break!!

Minus the sub-titles I give it a C+.


----------



## Connavar (Nov 10, 2012)

English english is too hard to understand?   Thats looking down on people in my eyes.  

The british english in the film was the typical mainstream one you know from films.  It was hardly hard to understand mumbling scottish english like some famous Man U soccer manager.


----------



## nubins (Nov 11, 2012)

I enjoyed it. An unusual film for Bond, I felt. No big climactic stuff, just a revenge story really, which I liked.

I thought the inclusion of the goldeneye car was brilliant. For a brief moment i thought about the age thing and that it might have been weird, but they didn't attempt to explain it. It wouldn't take much to do, the old Q gave it to him, he had it stashed for just the occasion etc etc. Didnt need to be explained.

The modified PPK wasn't trying to be clever and up to date, it was just a tool, one of those things that they give Bond at the start of the story, in order that it can come in mircaulously handy later on, there is nearly always a gadget like that in the bond film. 

I thought the villain was really interesting as a character and his interraction with Bond was interesting to watch too. As to claiming the acting was bad... just.. no, not in the slightest. 

I agree that the Chinese woman introduced was fascinating character, smoulderingly sexy and intense, it was a shame she didn't get to do more. 

I didnt walk out of the cinema feeling like I had seen an amazing film, but I did walk out feeling like I had been entertained and seen a quality production.


----------



## Huttman (Nov 11, 2012)

Oh boy, did I enjoy that movie. I like how they explained more about the character of James Bond and co. without really revealing too much. I like how they don't explain James Bonds continuing character over 50 years but (especially) this movie gave so many tips of the hat to the former Bond movies. It was slightly odd how they just introduced Moneypenny in the third Daniel Craig outing as Bond and talking about his age, but the first two were lacking nothing, IMO. I like the different feel of the end and I for one was kind of hoping for the elderly hook-up if you know what I mean, but alas that bulldog statue just had to make another appearance, didn't it?
I have really enjoyed these 'new' Bond films and look forward to it continuing.


----------



## planetocean (Nov 12, 2012)

*This looks like a good movie, I want to see this. I love the BOND MOVIES.*


----------



## Boneman (Nov 13, 2012)

I did enjoy it, and didn't mind the nods to the 'old' Bonds. In Casino Royale we saw how Bond came to be attached to Aston Martins, and I'm allowing the film makers enough latitude to say 'there were other 007s...' 

Two gripes: when Bond was shot why did she stand looking at the badguy with the hard drive for ten seconds, rather than trying to shoot him? Okay she was stunned she'd shot Bond, but come on, all the agents planted across every terror organisation in the world are at stake!!  Secondly, when the tube train crashed through the roof, why was nobody on it? All the lights were on in the carriages, and it's the height of rush hour, so where were all the passengers?


----------



## Dave (Nov 13, 2012)

I'm going to assume we don't need spoilers now. Anyone visiting this thread knows it has been released everywhere now.

I also didn't like her delay in shooting again, but wasn't that explained by her suspension from field work and personal choice not to return to field work. She just wasn't up to the job.

As for the Tube train, I probably agree with you, but there are many tunnels and sidings beyond stations where the trains back up and turn around or wait. The network is more complicated than two single lines between stations and it is possible that this could have been such a line. To me, Silva didn't seem like someone who would really want to kill 100 innocent people; his gripe was purely with M. He had obviously planned this for many years and therefore could have planned it to be an empty train. I expect it all hinges on whether he was a man consumed with revenge for M, or else completely off his trolley. He seemed quite lucid to me. Others seem to think he was completely out of his tree:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/social-care-network/2012/nov/12/skyfail-bond-villain-mental-health-stigma


----------



## Darth Angelus (Nov 13, 2012)

I gotta say I enjoyed this movie. It was well-written and well-made. Actually, I think the entire James Bond franchise has taken a major turn for the better in recent years. Much less (if any) racist tones. I also think Daniel Craig is a really great actor who does a fabulous job of portraying the agent.

Oh, and the Skyfall song by Adele is very good, too.


----------



## Parson (Nov 13, 2012)

Dave said:


> To me, Silva didn't seem like someone who would really want to kill 100 innocent people; his gripe was purely with M. He had obviously planned this for many years and therefore could have planned it to be an empty train. I expect it all hinges on whether he was a man consumed with revenge for M, or else completely off his trolley. He seemed quite lucid to me. Others seem to think he was completely out of his tree:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/social-care-network/2012/nov/12/skyfail-bond-villain-mental-health-stigma



I had Silva pegged as absolutely criminally insane. For the purposes of the movie I would suggest that the cyanide probably drove him insane as well as losing half his mouth?!! 

Hey, it's fiction everything does not have to make sense. I mean the motorcycle chase was great viewing. But realistic, no, not in a hundred years!


----------



## Huttman (Nov 14, 2012)

Silva! That's his name! I was telling someone about the movie today and had completely forgotten his name. I could not help but think he had some of the Joker's qualities, of course just not quite as over-the-top. He did seem to me to have a level of instability, though. It was his pleasant demeanor after the girl who took Bond to him was shaking talking about him. It was how easily he killed her. Yeah, I think Silva was crazy with revenge. Reminded me of Khan, too.


----------



## Jonathan C (Nov 15, 2012)

Boneman said:


> I did enjoy it, and didn't mind the nods to the 'old' Bonds. In Casino Royale we saw how Bond came to be attached to Aston Martins, and I'm allowing the film makers enough latitude to say 'there were other 007s...'
> 
> Two gripes: when Bond was shot why did she stand looking at the badguy with the hard drive for ten seconds, rather than trying to shoot him? Okay she was stunned she'd shot Bond, but come on, all the agents planted across every terror organisation in the world are at stake!! Secondly, when the tube train crashed through the roof, why was nobody on it? All the lights were on in the carriages, and it's the height of rush hour, so where were all the passengers?


 


Dave said:


> I'm going to assume we don't need spoilers now. Anyone visiting this thread knows it has been released everywhere now.
> 
> I also didn't like her delay in shooting again, but wasn't that explained by her suspension from field work and personal choice not to return to field work. She just wasn't up to the job.
> 
> As for the Tube train, I probably agree with you, but there are many tunnels and sidings beyond stations where the trains back up and turn around or wait. The network is more complicated than two single lines between stations and it is possible that this could have been such a line. To me, Silva didn't seem like someone who would really want to kill 100 innocent people; his gripe was purely with M. He had obviously planned this for many years and therefore could have planned it to be an empty train. I expect it all hinges on whether he was a man consumed with revenge for M, or else completely off his trolley. He seemed quite lucid to me. Others seem to think he was completely out of his tree:


 
I don't think Silva particularly cared if people were on that train or not. 

I doubt he planned for it to be empty; it was just luck that it was. Maybe he chose an underused line, but that would probably be dictated more by his escape route than concern for human life, which he displays little of.

It just happened to be empty; the out-of-universe reason probably being they didn't want to make Bond look like a heartless ******* by abandoning a hundred innocent people (nobody cares about the driver, though). 

As for him being mentally unbalanced, he's a narcissistic sociopath with probable histrionic and / or borderline personality disorders (or at least traits) and associated emotional instability, paranoia, depression, and obviously a serious lack of empathy. And do remember that according to M he had already started going rogue before she gave him up. He was consumed with revenge _because_ he was off his trolley, but he isn't much more crazy than a bunch of other movie villains I could mention and 90% of bad guys in fiction fit the bill for two or three personality disorders at least (as do any number of terrorists, criminals and other bad seeds in real life). 

Article is full of it. The world is full of bad people who happen to be crazy; doesn't mean the world or this movie is trying to say something about mentally ill people.

Also, he's not criminally insane- that would simply mean he doesn't know he is breaking the law (and was incapable of grasping that point). Or that he had zero control of his actions, but that type of defence wouldn't fly in Britain or most parts of the world, and besides he plans too well for that to apply to him anyway.

Main problem with Silva is how needlessly complex and overcomplicated his plan is, for having such a mundane goal (and, maybe, his goal being so mundane in the first place), and how much his plan rested on MI6 following protocol (despite knowing they have been repeatedly hacked by someone who clearly worked for them at some point) and on nobody shooting him or anything, along with his hollywood hacking skills and utterly _wasted _awesome evil lair.


----------



## Galacticdefender (Nov 24, 2012)

I liked the references to the older movies. I think Daniel Craig is the best bond so far, even better (by just a little bit) than Sean Connery. I liked Casino Royale a bit better than Skyfall, however.


----------



## Starbeast (Dec 2, 2012)

It was awesome! One of the best Bond films I've ever seen. (watched it yesterday)


----------



## MontyCircus (Jan 24, 2013)

I saw it at the theatre.  And then just a week or two later I had forgotten if I had seen it or not.  It took me a while to remember "...oh yeah...the cottage shootout..."

So in a word, forgettable.

I don't like the realistic Bourne series and I don't like this Bond.  Where is the fun?  The humour?  Why so serious?  Come on...entertain!


----------



## megamaniac (Feb 8, 2013)

'Skyfall' was better than most Bonds, as simply about 80% are just too silly.  
As for the film, a bit too long.  

SPOILERS:

How did Bond survive getting shot by Eve, falling down into the river, not drowning?  Was this a setup by M from the start?  
Who was the man shot while looking at the painting and what's his connection to anything at all?

How and why did JB's parents die?  If he was that rich, why did he become an agent instead of a playboy?  The whole thing seems too Batmanish.  A rich man lives in a mansion who becomes a super-hero.


----------



## Starbeast (Feb 15, 2013)

I watched it again last night on DVD. It's still an awesome movie for me.

I love the Bond movie formula: a global threat, exotic locations, cool cars, fast paced action, high tech gadgets, tiny bits of humor AND, unusual villains!

I understand that this movie was not enjoyed by some, but for me, I was locked into the movie as soon as it started.

I liked how cool it was in the theater when we all saw THE CAR, we got excited.

Throughout the film we all cheered, chuckled, were dead silent, murmered with excitement, and sniffled with tears.

SKYFALL was like a rollercoaster ride of fun, my heart always gets pumping when I hear that great James Bond theme music.


----------



## PTeppic (Feb 16, 2013)

Bah humbug: it's not available in the UK on DVD until Monday...


----------



## Huttman (Feb 17, 2013)

megamaniac said:


> How and why did JB's parents die?  If he was that rich, why did he become an agent instead of a playboy?  The whole thing seems too Batmanish.  A rich man lives in a mansion who becomes a super-hero.



I don't remember the painting guy shooting and as for Bond's fall and surviving, well, he's James Bond. While I only saw and enjoyed the film a lot, I got the impression after he was orphaned the mansion they had the showdown in was the orphanage he grew up in. I could be wrong. I need to pick this movie up to see it again.


----------



## Dave (Feb 17, 2013)

Huttman said:


> I need to pick this movie up to see it again.


I think that is their idea. I noticed on the TV advert that the DVD is only £7. Most DVD come out at something like £17.99 at first and fall in price over a period of time. I think they are going for massive sales breaking records instead on the back of the BAFTAs.

On the other hand, this may be due to the demise of HMV. Now that there is no large national high street chain the market will be even more dominated by online sales. Online, price is king.


----------



## PTeppic (Feb 17, 2013)

Dave said:


> I think that is their idea. I noticed on the TV advert that the DVD is only £7. Most DVD come out at something like £17.99 at first and fall in price over a period of time.



Interesting pricing: Amazon UK (who I think are usually ballpark as cheap as anywhere) are only at £12.99.

Or, for only a fiver more, they throw in the previous two Craig movies too.


----------



## Dave (Feb 17, 2013)

Well, I may have read the TV advert wrong, but it certainly made me think about getting it.


----------



## Allegra (Feb 19, 2013)

It's not a bad film but I tried (with difficulty) to watch it as a spy thriller rather than Bond film because for me, Craig is too serious and even depressing sometimes to play Bond in supposedly light-hearted fun Bond films. He doesn't have the traditional Bond's charisma and humour and those are important characteristic to make it Bond and to fit in the Bond films' mode. But anyways.


----------



## MontyCircus (Feb 20, 2013)

Allegra said:


> It's not a bad film but I tried (with difficulty) to watch it as a spy thriller rather than Bond film because for me, Craig is too serious and even depressing sometimes to play Bond in supposedly light-hearted fun Bond films. He doesn't have the traditional Bond's charisma and humour and those are important characteristic to make it Bond and to fit in the Bond films' mode. But anyways.



I agree completely Allegra.  Now the Bond series is just copying the Bourne series.  I really dislike the Bournes.  No humour.  No fun.


----------



## JoanDrake (Feb 21, 2013)

Jonathan C said:


> *EDIT- *On that note, Bonds birthday is in about a week- the 11th of November.
> 
> You know, if anyone wants to buy him a present.


 
But whatever could you get him?

The World Is Not Enough


----------



## Parson (Feb 21, 2013)

I might suggest an Octopussy.


----------

