362 replies to this topic

[007jamesbond]

don't know what there is complain about the gap........this is allow in movies and don't know why it cannot be done.......good character development for Bond 

[Simon]

I have to admit I was not that enamoured with the movie.  Tellingly, I have yet to even purchase the DVD such is my lethargy.

 

Also, everyone to whom I have actually spoken (casual cinema go-ers, non Bond fans) said they too were a little surprised at the heaps of praise and box office pull this movie has had.  Points raised were stilted dialogue, flat humour, slow action, plot points relying far too much on coincidence and convenience, and a complete bewilderness at Bond going home for the final showdown based on a set up of just one word in an MI6 quiz.

 

Maybe it will grow on me.  As for the others, who knows?

[Grard Bond]

don't know what there is complain about the gap........this is allow in movies and don't know why it cannot be done.......good character development for Bond 

The problem I have with this, is that the result is that we never see Craig in his best years as Bond.

 

I first wanna see him at his physical best as Bond, not now already as an older guy.

 

That would be (almost) the same as when Sean Connery only did Dr. No, FRWL and then Never say never again

and Roger Moore only made LALD and Golden Gun before AVTAK.

[QOS4EVER]

I really wanted see the finale to the 'Quantum' plot line, I loved the idea of such a shadowy organisation and someone at the helm pulling the strings, someone who Bond has never even met .

The third movie would have been the perfect set up for that in which he finally faces off with the boss of Quantum and by the end of the movie he would be the veteran Bond we know.

 

*Sigh* its ridiculous they skipped the prime of his career and showed him as out of shape and left the quantum story line un complete.

[S K Y F A L L]

I didn't mind that they did't use the Quantum plot line this time around in SF but I would really like them to return to it one day. 

[The Shark]

don't know what there is complain about the gap........this is allow in movies and don't know why it cannot be done.......good character development for Bond 

The problem I have with this, is that the result is that we never see Craig in his best years as Bond.

 

Nonsense. Craig is still in his prime, as is his Bond. Bond visited Shrublands in THUNDERBALL to clean up his deteriorating health, and through that he reclaimed his mojo. Bond is put through more in SKYFALL, but the end result is the same.

[The Shark]

Its is not aesthetically pleasing to watch him old, out of shape, with an outdated outlook on fashion and not in touch with technology . 

 

To each to his own, but he's only one of those - out of shape. He's still in his mid-40s (not a young man, but not a dinosaur either - he's got a good decade before he reaches Moore's age in the early 80s, or Connery's in NSNA); understands and respects technology, even he prefers the older ways (this is far from the techno-fetisishm of the Brosnan era, but that was his Bond); and Craig's tailoring in SF is far from out of date. The low-rise trousers, tab collars and tight fitting suits are of the moment. Personally I prefer Gareth Mallory's more traditional look (tailored by Timothy Everest of Savile Row), and think it will stand the test of time more than the fashion-foward Tom Ford cut.

[trevanian]

This is called 'disappointment w/ skyfall' -- not your excuses for finding a way to like it. 
 
As for all the folks saying the aspects of late Fleming in SKYFALL are a good thing ... uhh-uhh. I love those books (and Dalton seems to have captured that era of Bond perfectly already, in a way that integrated with character and story instead of being superimposed upon it), but it is a matter of context, and the stuff is all stuck in here in the WRONG WRONG WRONG context. Bond missing presumed dead because he has lost his memory and then wandered off to Russia has NOTHING to do with a Bond who chooses to remain 'dead' after having a bad break and a big fall. 
 
SKYFALL is the first Bond movie that has absolutely no feel of being James Bond to me. As terrible as MR, VIEW, TND and DAD were, there were at least moments (well, only one in MR and VIEW each) that felt Bond-like. CR pissed away a grand opportunity in a huge way to send off Brosnan in favor of trying to pass this old ugly guy off as a rookie double0 with the emotional temperment of a Tom Cruise 80s character -- something that WOULD have worked if they'd cast young like Henry Cavil, but only comes off as immensely stupid with a guy way too old to be acting out in such a fashion. So even though I found CR an epic fail, not just on casting but on ludicrous plotting of kill guys to get their cellphone info as the main device driving the plot, I figured it couldn't get any worse. QUANTUM for all its faults had a couple of okay moments plus Tosca, so things did get better from my perspective. But this thing? 
 
How many 'idiot plot device' moments in this one? Christ, more than CR! The entire last act is contrivance atop contrivance, and you have instances of baddies trying to kill Bond when their boss wants him alive -- in a movie where their boss supposedly has EVERYTHING figured out, in fact the movie is predicated on him knowing more than he possibly could -- more incongruity (that's the polite word.)
 
As much as I thought PROMETHEUS was going to be the biggest letdown of the year, SKYFALL utterly smokes it in that department. Whether it is the detour into the Conneryverse with the DB5 or the near-bullettime length sequence of Craig letting the guy  hold him while atop the train, it all felt wrong. The Shanghai sequence looks glorious, but even in the context of the film it doesn't work because it raises more questions than it answers. A Bond movie that doesn't merit rewatching? That's impossible! Therefore SKYFALL must not be a Bond movie, cuz I can't imagine being willing to sit down to any of it again, unless I was being paid to write about it again.

I think mate if the Bond team have listened to you there wouldn't be a series to talk about today. 'Old ugly guy', where do you base that insult on. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder but most of the woman I know think Craig is very sexy. You have every right to like or dislike what you want but what makes me laugh about the whole thing is you Craig haters must hate it the way the box office has gone through the roof on these films. Ha Ha.

The box office went 'through the roof' for the Connery films, Moore films and the Brosnans as well, are you suggesting that means ANYthing with respect to quality?

 

Craig is quite actually hard on the eyes for me, worse than Jack Palance in that regard, so 'old ugly guy' has always fit the bill -- I absolutely love ROAD TO PERDITION, but he is so hard on the eyes in it that I usually make coffee when he is on-screen.  

 

I am no believer in the need for a Bond film every 2 years, and have no interest in being an apologist for bad filmmaking unless there is a really good reason for it. I like what I like, not blindly liking all of a thing, which requires total suspension of faculties. If the series had disappeared from 1969 to before 1987, I'd have been cool with that ... I'm thinking Ken Adam would have done some really cool things with a SF film instead.

[JimmyBond]

You don't like Craig, fair enough.

 

I pose this question though, replace Craig in Skyfall with a more Bond-ish actor (one does not spring to mind, just someone who is closer to the classic image of 007), do you suppose your opinion of it would still be the same?

[QOS4EVER]

 

don't know what there is complain about the gap........this is allow in movies and don't know why it cannot be done.......good character development for Bond 

The problem I have with this, is that the result is that we never see Craig in his best years as Bond.

 

Nonsense. Craig is still in his prime, as is his Bond. Bond visited Shrublands in THUNDERBALL to clean up his deteriorating health, and through that he reclaimed his mojo. Bond is put through more in SKYFALL, but the end result is the same.

Craig is still in his prime -definitely ,

But his Bond , nope

In Skyfall they clearly show him out of his prime and Burned out.

Now about the end result being same, I do hope you are right ,

but its too early to tell, not until we get our hand on some set pictures of Bond 24 or something of that sort.

Edited by QOS4EVER, 06 March 2013 - 08:55 AM.

[QOS4EVER]

understands and respects technology, even he prefers the older ways (this is far from the techno-fetisishm of the Brosnan era, but that was his Bond);

 

That is not his Bond since that's far apart from what was viewed  in 'Casino Royale' and 'Quantum Of Solace' in which he was modern and with the time,It doesn't make sense for them to suddenly change that in the sequel.

Personally I prefer Gareth Mallory's more traditional look

 

Thought So

[QOS4EVER]

and Craig's tailoring in SF is far from out of date. The low-rise trousers, tab collars and tight fitting suits are of the moment.

I wear Tight fitting suits myself and I absolutely love Tom Ford's cuts but  the attempts to mirror the Connery era suits is ridiculous with the glen plaid suits, colour and fabric choices etc...

Even a collar gap is also present. Over here they even over do the tightness of the suit which was perfectly crafted in QOS.

[Hockey Mask]

 

 

don't know what there is complain about the gap........this is allow in movies and don't know why it cannot be done.......good character development for Bond 

The problem I have with this, is that the result is that we never see Craig in his best years as Bond.

 

Nonsense. Craig is still in his prime, as is his Bond. Bond visited Shrublands in THUNDERBALL to clean up his deteriorating health, and through that he reclaimed his mojo. Bond is put through more in SKYFALL, but the end result is the same.

Craig is still in his prime -definitely ,

But his Bond , nope

In Skyfall they clearly show him out of his prime and Burned out.

Now about the end result being same, I do hope you are right ,

but its too early to tell, not until we get our hand on some set pictures of Bond 24 or something of that sort.

He didn't seem "burned out" until he got shot twice and fell off a 300' bridge. Did he show any aging or burn out since escaping Silva's island?  That was all a part of the story.

[QOS4EVER]

He had aged strongly from the very beginning of the movie.

[SecretAgentFan]

If only they had shot the movie in sequence...

[x007AceOfSpades]

I didn't know a change is fashion can cause great disappointment with the film and the character.

[RMc2]

Sam Mendes isn't returning! Exciting potential for the next film...

[QOS4EVER]

Sam Mendes isn't returning! Exciting potential for the next film...

Exactly

[Iceskater101]

Why is that exciting potential?

[007jamesbond]

Sam mendes best Bond director.......the hate will never stop!!!

[The Shark]

I wear Tight fitting suits myself and I absolutely love Tom Ford's cut but the attempts to mirror the Connery era suits is ridiculous with the glen plaid suits, colour and fabric choices

The "attempts to mirror the Connery era" were no less evident in QOS.

[trevanian]

 

You don't like Craig, fair enough.
 
I pose this question though, replace Craig in Skyfall with a more Bond-ish actor (one does not spring to mind, just someone who is closer to the classic image of 007), do you suppose your opinion of it would still be the same?

 

Honestly ... yes. But i don't think we'd have gotten this story with these character turns using another actor, either. Too much of this seems to me to be Craig-driven.

But I guess I can go back to CR on this ... I was all ready to hate the movie just on the basis of Craig, and that is why I skipped seeing it in the theater and waited for 2for1 night to get the DVD. By then I had convinced myself that there was probably a decent movie wrapped around a miscast Bond. But I found that pretty much everything didn't work for me in CR, and most of that revolved around the story deficiencies AND the casting of a guy who was way too old.

[Guy Haines]

Forget Skyfall for a moment. Craig was "way too old" in Casino Royale? The actor was 38 at the time - older than Connery or Lazenby when first cast, certainly, but younger than Moore, Brosnan and Dalton when they first took on the role. And in anticipation of the reply that CR was supposed to show Bond as a "rookie agent", and therefore a younger man than Craig should have been cast - it wasn't. It was Bond's first assignment as a Double-O. The Double-O section is an elite group, in the Fleming books consisting of only three agents to begin with (007, 008 and 0011). Bond would surely have had some years experience under his belt before he was promoted to it. In the Fleming novels there were references to Bond working for British intelligence during, and even before the Second World War. Casino Royale the novel is set in the early 1950s. Ten years experience at least!

[007jamesbond]

can't believe someone have problem of Craig being too old! He younger than half the Bond! CR is a rookie 00 agent does not mean he rookie agent.......big difference and it does not make......age does not make.......those who don't like SF won't like craig films

[lechero]

He had aged strongly from the very beginning of the movie.

Only about three months.

[QOS4EVER]

 

He had aged strongly from the very beginning of the movie.

Only about three months.

 

You must be joking

[lechero]

Hmm..

[tdalton]

those who don't like SF won't like craig films

Not true. I enjoyed Quantum of Solace and the second half of Casino Royale, but not Skyfall.

[Royal Dalton]

I didn't like Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace, or any of Brosnan's films, either, for that matter. But I liked Skyfall. I thought it was smashing.

[QOS4EVER]

 

those who don't like SF won't like craig films

Not true. I enjoyed Quantum of Solace and the second half of Casino Royale, but not Skyfall.

 

This^ except I liked the entire Casino Royale