21 replies to this topic

[Briane1911a1]

As a longtime Bond fan, I cannot help but be disappointed by SKYFALL. I'm not sure I like the new direction any longer and I'm ready again for Tarzan yells and delicatessnas made of stainless steel.

Here is my *Eyes Only* review:
http://briandrake88....slept-here.html

[Hockey Mask]

You're in the minority.

[Guy Haines]

Interesting review. I have to say I disagree with you though. Not only about Skyfall, but about the "Tarzan yells" and all the other stuff. I like Bond to have a sense of humour and SF doesn't lack it, but it isn't the "in your face" visual stuff we used to get in the 70s and 80s movies, one or two examples of which were quoted in the review, and, frankly this Bond fan is not sorry to see the back of.

As for "Fleming Bond shouldn't be movie Bond" - well, why shouldn't he be? What is wrong with channelling the source material? Daniel Craig suits me as Bond - the government agent/state sponsored assassin Fleming envisaged, even if his physical appearance isn't exactly the same as the Bond of the books.

I guess it depends on how your impression of Bond was formed. My first Bond was Lazenby, but I caught up with the Connery films and the Fleming books quite quickly, and so that combination informed my view of the films. That's why I'm quite happy with all three of the Craig movies.

[perdogg]

As a longtime Bond fan, I cannot help but be disappointed by SKYFALL. I'm not sure I like the new direction any longer and I'm ready again for Tarzan yells and delicatessnas made of stainless steel.

Here is my *Eyes Only* review:
http://briandrake88....slept-here.html

I agree with you 100%. Keep up the good fight my friend!

[tdalton]

While I can't agree with the part about having the Tarzan yells and other such things come back to the franchise, I'm with you on being disappointed in Skyfall. I'm hoping it will be better when I view it for a second time in March, but I left the theater very disappointed.

[SecretAgentFan]

While I can't agree with the part about having the Tarzan yells and other such things come back to the franchise, I'm with you on being disappointed in Skyfall. I'm hoping it will be better when I view it for a second time in March, but I left the theater very disappointed.

Really? Please, tdalton, say more!

[Major Tallon]

Interesting review. I have to say I disagree with you though. Not only about Skyfall, but about the "Tarzan yells" and all the other stuff. I like Bond to have a sense of humour and SF doesn't lack it, but it isn't the "in your face" visual stuff we used to get in the 70s and 80s movies, one or two examples of which were quoted in the review, and, frankly this Bond fan is not sorry to see the back of.

As for "Fleming Bond shouldn't be movie Bond" - well, why shouldn't he be? What is wrong with channelling the source material? Daniel Craig suits me as Bond - the government agent/state sponsored assassin Fleming envisaged, even if his physical appearance isn't exactly the same as the Bond of the books.

I guess it depends on how your impression of Bond was formed. My first Bond was Lazenby, but I caught up with the Connery films and the Fleming books quite quickly, and so that combination informed my view of the films. That's why I'm quite happy with all three of the Craig movies.

I also disagree with the review, for the reason you give. But most strongly, I disagree with the notion that "Fleming Bond shouldn't be movie Bond." I've been making that point for years. Ian Fleming created a terrific character and gave him lots of interesting things to do. The books have thrills, danger, sex, and, yes, humor, in a nice balance. Bond films shouldn't be comedies.

[Guy Haines]

Interesting review. I have to say I disagree with you though. Not only about Skyfall, but about the "Tarzan yells" and all the other stuff. I like Bond to have a sense of humour and SF doesn't lack it, but it isn't the "in your face" visual stuff we used to get in the 70s and 80s movies, one or two examples of which were quoted in the review, and, frankly this Bond fan is not sorry to see the back of.

As for "Fleming Bond shouldn't be movie Bond" - well, why shouldn't he be? What is wrong with channelling the source material? Daniel Craig suits me as Bond - the government agent/state sponsored assassin Fleming envisaged, even if his physical appearance isn't exactly the same as the Bond of the books.

I guess it depends on how your impression of Bond was formed. My first Bond was Lazenby, but I caught up with the Connery films and the Fleming books quite quickly, and so that combination informed my view of the films. That's why I'm quite happy with all three of the Craig movies.

I also disagree with the review, for the reason you give. But most strongly, I disagree with the notion that "Fleming Bond shouldn't be movie Bond." I've been making that point for years. Ian Fleming created a terrific character and gave him lots of interesting things to do. The books have thrills, danger, sex, and, yes, humor, in a nice balance. Bond films shouldn't be comedies.

Absolutely. Action with a sprinkling of dry wit and black humour makes for a good Bond film. It shouldn't be deadly serious, but neither should it be a comedy with occasional moments of stunt work and pyrotechnics.

[PPK_19]

Basically you're wrong Briane. 100% disagree with you. You can watch AVTAK if you really want but i'd rather castrate myself with a knife in a bathtub of vinegar.

Skyfall is amazing.

[Guy Haines]

It's ironic that, right now, there is no bigger advocate of Skyfall and Daniel Craig as Bond than Sir Roger Moore. By all accounts I've read, he really enjoyed SF, and reckons that Craig has secured Bond's future for years to come. Not a bad achievement for an actor who, it seems, isn't Bond, appearing in a film which, apparently, isn't a James Bond film.

As for "Book Bond doesn't equal Movie Bond" - without the Bond books there would be no Bond movies.

[FredJB007]

Basically you're wrong Briane. 100% disagree with you. You can watch AVTAK if you really want but i'd rather castrate myself with a knife in a bathtub of vinegar.

Skyfall is amazing.

I couldn't agree more.

[Briane1911a1]

There was a time when I wanted nothing more than a serious Bond story. I was tired of the Moore antics and certainly never wanted to see another incarnation, in any shape or form, of "Die Another Day" (the first Bond movie in which I wanted him to be killed just to end the misery). With the Craig era, the producers have gone too far the other way.

Movies like GF, TB, OHMSS, FYEO, and TLD struck the right balance between action/adventure and humor. EON could have gone in that direction and stayed with the original formula. But now we have New Bond and, like New Coke, it's not even close to as good. We have agents in the field communicating via ear buds, a computer hacker at HQ without whom they can't accomplish anything, and marginally snapper patter. Was this a James Bond movie or an episode of Covert Affairs cross-bred with Leverage to produce an anorexic version of 24? Why is EON emulating low-budget television programs who wish they were Bond?

Maybe it's too much to say that Book Bond doesn't equal Movie Bond, but we managed to for 20 movies with only the slightest glimpse of the literary characterization, so insisting that Book Bond is necessary to the film formula's success is something I don't agree with.

[Zographos]

Gasp! Agents communicating via ear buds!

A curious complaint if your overarching issue is with the humour. I mean, the ear buds were played up as the central comedic effect of the PTS, since not only did they do virtually nothing to inform MI6 of the operation's proceedings, but gave us the risible notion of actually attempting to narrate the events of a Bond movie. It was a sly satire of the limits of new technology (Skyfall's theme), as well as a send-up of the very idea of squeezing the James Bond universe into our own banal reality. You can't describe this stuff, M.

But, I don't know, maybe too sly for someone whose sense of humour is geared towards Tarzan yells. In the words of Moneypenny, "it's rather hard to explain!"

[007jamesbond]

I wont understand why some fans objects to Fleming Bond, and go back to his vision not just character named Bond, M, Q, Moneypenny and a silly Villain and Plot.........going to be the author who created everything was the right thing to do......Unfortunately the OP is a small minority who might not this because those movies from the Moore era will NEVER return

The best Bond movie were those faithful to Fleming and nothing else come close

Edited by 007jamesbond, 02 December 2012 - 02:06 AM.

[Hockey Mask]

I wont understand why some fans objects to Fleming Bond, and go back to his vision not just character named Bond, M, Q, Moneypenny and a silly Villain and Plot.........going to be the author who created everything was the right thing to do......Unfortunately the OP is a small minority who might not this because those movies from the Moore era will NEVER return

The best Bond movie were those faithful to Fleming and nothing else come close

Although I don't agree with the OP it is important that with 23-24 Bond movies the movies now out number the Fleming books. What is now the true Bond source has become blurred.

The other curious in the variety of Bond movies thatwe have had in the series. GF, MR, and CR ar all VERY different types of movies so I'm not surprised there are devotees for each era.

[Guy Haines]

I have a slight concern about one or two assertions made on this site,and I dare say others, regarding Bond films in general and this film in particular. And I dare say I may have been guilty of this in the past.

The assertion that Skyfall (or any other previous Bond film) is "not a Bond film," or that Daniel Craig (or any predecessor as Bond) is "not James Bond", or that some characterisation or moment in a movie is not Bond being Bond.

The problem I have is the absence of the initials "imho" after said comment. One or two read as if they are the gospel truth, which should brook no argument, rather than subjective opinion.

I enjoy debate on Cbn. I have my favourite Bonds (actually, I like all of them) and Bond films, but I hope I can find the positive even in the films I'm less enthused about. For instance, I'm not enthused about the film MR, but it has Roger Moore, convincing and comfortable with his version of Bond, a good leading lady and a very good main villain. I don't doubt it is a Bond film, but some parts of it are not my idea of what should appear in such a film. Actually, as Bond films go, it is a "curates egg" of a movie - good in parts. In my humble opinion. :-)

[Briane1911a1]

Gasp! Agents communicating via ear buds!

A curious complaint if your overarching issue is with the humour. I mean, the ear buds were played up as the central comedic effect of the PTS, since not only did they do virtually nothing to inform MI6 of the operation's proceedings, but gave us the risible notion of actually attempting to narrate the events of a Bond movie. It was a sly satire of the limits of new technology (Skyfall's theme), as well as a send-up of the very idea of squeezing the James Bond universe into our own banal reality. You can't describe this stuff, M.

But, I don't know, maybe too sly for someone whose sense of humour is geared towards Tarzan yells. In the words of Moneypenny, "it's rather hard to explain!"

While you actually have a point in your second paragraph the last line is uncalled for. All I'm saying is that I like a Bond movie with humor and I don't like how the new movies are moving away from that. If I wanted to engage in snide remarks I'd talk to Star Trek fans.

[A Kristatos]

As a longtime Bond fan, I cannot help but be disappointed by SKYFALL. I'm not sure I like the new direction any longer and I'm ready again for Tarzan yells and delicatessnas made of stainless steel.

Here is my *Eyes Only* review:
http://briandrake88....slept-here.html

First of all Briane, whether the movie was good or bad, don't be calling it the derogatory name you did. Not only is it offensive for the people who did like the film, that attempt at humor from you isn't even the least bit funny! A seven year old could do better than that!

Second, while I don't mind watching the "Octopussy" tarzan yell or "A View To A Kill" once in awhile just to compare the different "textures" the series has gone through over the years, it's blantantly obvious by the unprecedented audience support that this is in the minds of a great majority of viewers, one of the best Bond movies, if not of all time, definitely since the Connery era.

You obviously have every right to your opinion, and I have no issue with that at all. Heck, I even know two people that have "Moonraker" as their favorite Bond movie. But to say that what is on the screen in "Skyfall" is not a Bond movie is pretty silly for anyone to say considering all of the characters are there, and all the trimmings typically seen in a Bond movie are there as well. I disagreed with Roger Ebert (longtime film critic) when he said the same thing about "Quantum Of Solace" (irregardless of the reviews it got), and I disagree with you regarding "Skyfall" the same way as well.

For years many of us Bond fans, while still enjoying the movies, had to put up with a lot of the campy, over-the-top stunts that led to several of the Bond films becoming self-parodies of the more serious movies within the series. I think those of us who were wishing for a more Fleming influenced cinematic Bond deserve the films we are getting now. Maybe there will come a time when Craig goes for a more lighthearted Bond romp (like Connery in "Diamonds Are Forever"), or if not him, whomever follows him. But right now judging by the box office figures, it seems like Craig's Bond is the perfect Bond for these times.

Sorry if I came off a little flippant. Nothing personal against you Briana. I just hate to see people criticize a Bond film just because they feel it's a portrayal of the character that shouldn't be on the screen, as a few people have stated. Just because people have come to expect a certain type of portrayal in the cinematic version of Bond does not mean that there can't be other interpretations of the character as well. And that's what makes the entire series so rich within its place in cinematic history, and why the series will probably continue on for many years to come.

Edited by A Kristatos, 02 December 2012 - 11:27 PM.

[A Kristatos]

While I can't agree with the part about having the Tarzan yells and other such things come back to the franchise, I'm with you on being disappointed in Skyfall. I'm hoping it will be better when I view it for a second time in March, but I left the theater very disappointed.

I'm actually shocked you did not like this film tdalton. Having been on this forum for almost ten years, I seem to remember you being a big fan of the Dalton films (hence your screen name), which are basically in the same vain as the Craig films. Just curious as to what issues you had with "Skyfall".

Edited by A Kristatos, 02 December 2012 - 11:32 PM.

[Hockey Mask]

Gasp! Agents communicating via ear buds!

A curious complaint if your overarching issue is with the humour. I mean, the ear buds were played up as the central comedic effect of the PTS, since not only did they do virtually nothing to inform MI6 of the operation's proceedings, but gave us the risible notion of actually attempting to narrate the events of a Bond movie. It was a sly satire of the limits of new technology (Skyfall's theme), as well as a send-up of the very idea of squeezing the James Bond universe into our own banal reality. You can't describe this stuff, M.

But, I don't know, maybe too sly for someone whose sense of humour is geared towards Tarzan yells. In the words of Moneypenny, "it's rather hard to explain!"

While you actually have a point in your second paragraph the last line is uncalled for. All I'm saying is that I like a Bond movie with humor and I don't like how the new movies are moving away from that. If I wanted to engage in snide remarks I'd talk to Star Trek fans.

You may take a quantum of solace in the fact that they began the Craig era with less humor and they have introduced more with Skyfall. They are definately not "moving away" but may actually be moving toward more humor.

[tdalton]

While I can't agree with the part about having the Tarzan yells and other such things come back to the franchise, I'm with you on being disappointed in Skyfall. I'm hoping it will be better when I view it for a second time in March, but I left the theater very disappointed.

I'm actually shocked you did not like this film tdalton. Having been on this forum for almost ten years, I seem to remember you being a big fan of the Dalton films (hence your screen name), which are basically in the same vain as the Craig films. Just curious as to what issues you had with "Skyfall".

There are too many to list in this thread, as this isn't my review thread, but they're all laid out in the last post in this thread.

[A Kristatos]

While I can't agree with the part about having the Tarzan yells and other such things come back to the franchise, I'm with you on being disappointed in Skyfall. I'm hoping it will be better when I view it for a second time in March, but I left the theater very disappointed.

I'm actually shocked you did not like this film tdalton. Having been on this forum for almost ten years, I seem to remember you being a big fan of the Dalton films (hence your screen name), which are basically in the same vain as the Craig films. Just curious as to what issues you had with "Skyfall".

There are too many to list in this thread, as this isn't my review thread, but they're all laid out in the last post in this thread.

Excellent post tdalton, but I have to disagree with you on several points. I think the film wanted to be what it was, and that was more of M's past coming back to haunt her, with her questionable decision in sending a less than 100% Bond back into service. Thankfully, the movie did not turn into what I was afraid it might have turned into, that is making M a mole like they did with the Jim Phelps character in the first "Mission Impossible" movie. That would have killed the series for me! But instead they portrayed M as a sincere, if somewhat flawed MI6 head who unfortunately paid for her bad judgement.. And I don't think she was so unlikeable as you made her out to be considering she backed Bond up after Fields was murdered in "Quantum Of Solace".

I guess your other issues with the film were really non-issues with me since the film was so well choreographed and the acting was terrific on all counts. My only gripe was with the Severine character. Am I the only one that though Berenice was somewhat annoying? I mean she was a well written character, but she didn't bring that much to the table. Plus all of whatever that was on her face definitely detracted from her looks. I know she is a nice looking woman, but I didn't know that based on all that makeup she had on!

Anyway, I can't say I agreed at all with your assessment of the humor. I think you have "Skyfall" confused with "Die Another Day" or "A View To A Kill" tdalton! I think this film had the right balance of humor and seriousness, and had they completely cloned "The Dark Night", I think "Skyfall" would have been too dark even for most Bond fans. Using London for the climatic scenes would have been interesting, but I'm not sure I would want half the city bombed like the Joker did in "The Dark Night". There was just the right amount of destruction from Silva in London.

I do agree with you about Newman though. Not sure how much better or worse than he is over Arnold, but at least his cues don't mimic every move on the screen like Arnold's did, though I really did like Arnold's CR and especially QOS soundtracks. Couldn't disagree with you more on Adele's title song though. While she doesn't have the bombastic voice Shirley Bassey had, her title theme harken's back to the early classics and is one of the best of the series.

Glad to see though that you liked QOS as much as I did tdalton! I can't understand the bashing that film gets considering it is the revenge film that everyone was wishing for after OHMSS.

Edited by A Kristatos, 03 December 2012 - 12:13 AM.