Posted November 5, 2012 Watched the movie on Saturday. Pretty good. I have just one question that had me thinking about for the rest of the movie. How come he missed the whiskey glass by a mile but shot all the bad guys with perfect aim? He clearly had problems even holding the gun still. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 5, 2012 Because he wasn't as far away from them? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 5, 2012 Watched the movie on Saturday. Pretty good. I have just one question that had me thinking about for the rest of the movie. How come he missed the whiskey glass by a mile but shot all the bad guys with perfect aim? He clearly had problems even holding the gun still. Because it wasn't a mile and b) he got his mojo back? He hit those tins easily with that hunting gun just before.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 6, 2012 Watched the movie on Saturday. Pretty good. I have just one question that had me thinking about for the rest of the movie. How come he missed the whiskey glass by a mile but shot all the bad guys with perfect aim? He clearly had problems even holding the gun still. Once he took them out I assumed he'd been faking Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 6, 2012 Just got back from seeing this. Loved it, seemed to be much more 'Bondy' that previous ones. I think that Casino Royale and QoS tried to distance themselves so much from Die Another Die that they lost a lot of the bondiness, which this one made up for. Baddie was cool, gadgets were few but just right, Bond girl he ended up with was a bit old but whatever floats his boat. Action was spot on. I loved the opening scene with the digger on the train, thought it was such a cool idea. The tube crash was a bit weird. Looked cool, but the baddie had a failsafe just in case he was caught in that exact underground cave? That IS planning ahead! One jarring thing that i didn't like was the interactions between Bond and Eve. Seemed a bit stilted and off. No romance or chemistry there at all. Which leads me to... Daniel Craig is one of my least favourite bonds....there's just something......unlikeable about him. Not sure what it is, he just seems.....like a git. Even when he makes a Bond quip, it seems like there is no humour there at all. I don't know, i realise that Bond is supposed to be kind of a dick in the books, but i prefer film Bond who is charming and disarming, not awkward with some sort of underlying hatred, or whatever Craig was going for. This might be because Daniel Craig is a bit unlikeable in real life, but meh. I don't like him. Ok now this may have just been me hallucinating, but i swear that at one point, in a scene with Ralph Fiennes, there is a complete set of Harry Potter books on the shelf behind him. I think it's the second scene he's in, or possibly the third? Wondered if it might have been an easter egg about him being Voldemort? Probably not...i only saw it in the last shot, and therefore couldn't check before they changed scene. 8/10 /end rushed review Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 7, 2012 With regards to the train crash Did anyone else think of ? Have even linked to @ReZourceman's video Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 7, 2012 No :p I think you've watch too much Corrie if you thought of that! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 7, 2012 Just got back from seeing this. Loved it, seemed to be much more 'Bondy' that previous ones. I think that Casino Royale and QoS tried to distance themselves so much from Die Another Die that they lost a lot of the bondiness, which this one made up for. Baddie was cool, gadgets were few but just right, Bond girl he ended up with was a bit old but whatever floats his boat. Action was spot on. I loved the opening scene with the digger on the train, thought it was such a cool idea. The tube crash was a bit weird. Looked cool, but the baddie had a failsafe just in case he was caught in that exact underground cave? That IS planning ahead! One jarring thing that i didn't like was the interactions between Bond and Eve. Seemed a bit stilted and off. No romance or chemistry there at all. Which leads me to... Daniel Craig is one of my least favourite bonds....there's just something......unlikeable about him. Not sure what it is, he just seems.....like a git. Even when he makes a Bond quip, it seems like there is no humour there at all. I don't know, i realise that Bond is supposed to be kind of a dick in the books, but i prefer film Bond who is charming and disarming, not awkward with some sort of underlying hatred, or whatever Craig was going for. This might be because Daniel Craig is a bit unlikeable in real life, but meh. I don't like him. Ok now this may have just been me hallucinating, but i swear that at one point, in a scene with Ralph Fiennes, there is a complete set of Harry Potter books on the shelf behind him. I think it's the second scene he's in, or possibly the third? Wondered if it might have been an easter egg about him being Voldemort? Probably not...i only saw it in the last shot, and therefore couldn't check before they changed scene. 8/10 /end rushed review with regards bomb in that exact chamber, he'd been mapping the underground for some time and planned his escape route perfectly so that last chamber where he had to climb the ladder would prove to be the most time consuming to cross and the one most open to being caught in, so it makes sense for him to have "measures" in that chamber should someone follow him Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 7, 2012 Not really that interesting... Real Radio are reporting that Sam Mendes considered asking Sean Connery to play the groundsman at Skyfall at the end of the film. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 7, 2012 Not really that interesting... Real Radio are reporting that Sam Mendes considered asking Sean Connery to play the groundsman at Skyfall at the end of the film. Only considered? why not actually ask:angry: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 7, 2012 Only considered? why not actually ask:angry: Apparently he's turned into a bit of a douche in his old age. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 7, 2012 Watched this last night, at a digi imax screen, thought it was awesome! Loved all the nods to other films! I don't think other ppl have picked up on this one... if so, apologies one of the bad guys looked a lot like Oddjob?! Just before them dino things. And the bottle of alcohol said '1962' on it when shooting the shot glass, year of Dr No! I was kind of bummed out that James Bond's real name is actually James Bond. Doesn't this destroy that popular theory that Bond was just the name adopted by 007 to tie all the films together in some way? Maybe not? I have no idea if this theory was destroyed years ago. Not really imo. I'm sure they have used the same parents name for example in a previous bond one, one of the early ones, although I can't place which one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 8, 2012 Went to see this last night with the wife, fully enjoyed it. I didn't like Casino Royale at all and didn't bother with Quantum but this one felt like proper Bond (although I still have issues with Craig....how many more Bonds is he signed for?) Loved all the little hidden easter eggs and throw backs to older Bond films, like the year on the Whiskey bottle and of course the car complete with ejector seat and machine guns, that was just pure awesome New Q was cool too.... though I couldn't believe he made such a stupid mistake as to hook Silva's laptop directly into his network...as soon as I saw those ethernet cables going in I knew he was doing something stupid. You'd think MI6 would have an isolated network area for working with enemy laptops/computers Also loved his 1st scene giving Bond his equipment....a little disappointed though that it was only 2 items... expected some sort of special smartphone or watch or something. But LOVED the reference to the Goldeneye exploding pen The bad guy Silva was pure AWESOME too. Nice to have a bad guy whose motivations aren't so grand or on a large scale.... just pure simple revenge. Plus he was fucking insane too Was anyone else thinking Javier Bardem would make a great Joker when they reboot the batman films? Had to laugh a bit at the Eve character at the end with the reveal that she was Moneypenny. I had known very little of teh film going in. Knew nothing almost of actors and characters other then Craig and Dench of course. Bout halfway into the film I thought to myself, "jesus, Bond and this Eve girl keep tip-toeing round each nothing but nothing is coming from it....what is she the new Moneypenny or something :heh:" Then it turned out she was One thing I was disappointed with though was the meaning behind Skyfall. I thought it would refer to some top secret Codename for a mission or weapon or something. I think the first (and only) trailer I saw was of Bond taking that word association test and seeing his reaction to "Skyfall" and how that scene seemed to be presented, I assumed that would be the opening scene of the film but it was happening "after the mission" with the scene ending then the story shifting back to "X months/weeks/day ago" and showing what happened. The way Bond said "done" felt like he had gone rogue in the middle of the mission and "Skyfall" was something much bigger. Then it turned out to be the name of his family home That to me just felt a bit shoehorned in. It would be fine if it were a proper origin story for Bond, guess in some ways it tried to be but at the same time it wasn't. I didn't get why he felt he had to return to his family home, there felt little need for him to do that. He could have gone anywhere...why there? Had Silva had some personal connection to Bond, like if they grew up and were recruited together then it would have made sense. But Bond never knew Silva before this so it didn't. Oh and M dying at the end too felt a little wrong. Basically Bonds mission in this film was to protect M.... she died...he FAILED his Mission That is not right Understand they wanted a new M but they could have just as easily had M survive...say something bout getting shot and decide to retire. But other than those (which is probably me making a mountain of mole hills...but still it the little things that can bug you the most) it was a great film. Fully enjoyable, felt like Bond unlike CR which for me just seemed to drag Not really that interesting... I'm with Gibbs...why just consider, should have asked him just in case. When I saw that character appear I instantly thought...damn they should have gotten Connery to play that guy. Would have made the whole 50th anniversay thing perfect Real Radio are reporting that Sam Mendes considered asking Sean Connery to play the groundsman at Skyfall at the end of the film. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 8, 2012 I think it would have been rubbish if Connery was in it, he was Bond. Can't come back as Bond's gamekeeper, that would be bizarre! I think the reason he went to Skyfall X-treme Cube, is that he needed somewhere with no technology, so Bardem couldn't use his mastery to control everything, or something. They could have gone anywhere, but i suppose Bond knew this place and it would help Bardem track them down a little if they were going somewhere with some significance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 8, 2012 I think the reason he went to Skyfall X-treme Cube, is that he needed somewhere with no technology, so Bardem couldn't use his mastery to control everything, or something. They could have gone anywhere, but i suppose Bond knew this place and it would help Bardem track them down a little if they were going somewhere with some significance. [spoiler=I see what you did there ] Ok for the no tech reason that kinda makes sense I guess It being a place of significance to Bond though still doesn't (for me) work in relation to Silva unless Silva and Bond knew each other personally in some way, even if he had worked with Bond before like Trevelyan (006) then it would have made some (more) sense. Anyway.... anyone know if when Skyfall gets released on BluRay will the 50 Anniversary Bluray boxset get released with Skyfall included? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 8, 2012 Earlier in the thread it was mentioned that it has a space for it, so you can buy the boxset now if you can't wait. But i'm sure they'll do a complete set afterwards, if only to confuse people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 8, 2012 It was remote (M didn't want anyone else getting hurt), Bond knew the place well and there was a good escape route. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) Most likely MGM will release a new edition of the Blu-ray set to include Skyfall once it's released on Blu-ray, but the existing sets have the slot ready for it. Wonder if they'll release a disk in similar design of the other 22 movies. And here's hoping the menus are the same as well for continueity. In relation to why Bond chose the highlands of Scotland, maybe he wanted to bring Silva back to the location where he possibly were behind the killing of Bond's parents. It's a thought. I did like the choice of the DB5, the car of choice for a spy. Edited November 8, 2012 by Jimbob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted November 30, 2012 While I thoroughly enjoyed all the Bond references and the amazing photography, I just can't get myself to like this movie as a member of the series. I don't understand why I'm the only one who thinks of it this way, but it's missing so many characteristic elements of the Bond movie formula that it just comes off as something less entertaining than Quantum of Solace. And the action scenes were very, VERY sparse. For one, there was no Bond girl. Right after Bond saw "Sévérine" after the assassination (why didn't he stop it?) I thought she'd be it, but she only lasts for about 30 minutes after the casino scene and we never hear from her again. Her death was pretty pointless as well; all it did was piss me off at the dissatisfaction of not having a proper Bond girl and an interesting character that never got fully explored. Other people might have thought that role was reserved for Eve, but I knew that wasn't true because she hadn't been interacting with Bond as much and her role throughout the movie was just as limited. I may have watched this movie knowing she was Moneypenny all along, but even if I hadn't I could have seen that coming a mile away. Just disappointing. New Q was cool too.... though I couldn't believe he made such a stupid mistake as to hook Silva's laptop directly into his network...as soon as I saw those ethernet cables going in I knew he was doing something stupid. You'd think MI6 would have an isolated network area for working with enemy laptops/computers That was another thing that got to me. I shit you not, as soon as I saw them bringing Silva's computer to him while he was in his jail cell I knew he would somehow 'outsmart' them by planting some kind of remote-access trojan that "completely overrides their system" (it's happened too many times by now--a movie cliché that just won't die). I also don't like how implausible the whole thing was, especially with what Hollywood thinks of computers and "hacking." Granted, it's a Bond movie after all, but seriously... there's a certain standard you just don't sink below. Also loved his 1st scene giving Bond his equipment....a little disappointed though that it was only 2 items... expected some sort of special smartphone or watch or something. But LOVED the reference to the Goldeneye exploding pen I like the character of the new Q, but again, I just don't think he fits in the Bond universe (especially within this particular one that's set in the modern age with a supposedly realistic feel to it). I just don't get it. Does the British government seriously hire pale-faced minors into the most top-secret branch of its security forces and see it fit to trust them with all of their world-shattering secrets? It's just as ridiculously absurd as that hacking scene I mentioned earlier. Not even the gadgets were impressive. They were just a gun and a GPS tracker, and they only make themselves useful for exactly 3 seconds in two scenes that are about 15 minutes apart. Yawn. Also, it's not like they already gave Bond a GPS tracker in Casino Royale. Only then it was about the size of a grain of rice and they planted it underneath his skin. What pisses me off more is that the whole dynamic between Bond and Q that we've all been used to has been shattered by placing a teenager in that role. We don't see humorous quips from both sides anymore, just a pissed off agent being an asshole to a high school teenager. It's exactly the same mistake they made with the decision to kill off Judi Dench's M. The relationship Bond and this M have has been a hallmark of the series for the past six movies or so, and killing her now to usher a new M in her place is pretty cheap. I'll admit this is a purely subjective part of my critique, but I loved that particular "mother and son" dynamic they had going on. Her death at the end was intended to be moving, but as you might expect by now I just got pissed off. The bad guy Silva was pure AWESOME too. Nice to have a bad guy whose motivations aren't so grand or on a large scale.... just pure simple revenge. Plus he was fucking insane too I really liked him as well, but this new Bond universe is just so alien to me that I can't get myself to like it. It's too different. This villain is too different. Gone are the days of the ambitious, resourceful, crafty, and power-hungy organizations seeking world domination. They've replaced all that with a single man bent on settling a petty score with an old hag. I still like him though, but my refusal to accept him and the fictional universe he exists in is due to the direction the franchise has taken. Bond movies are great because they're set in a fantastical world where a smartass with good looks and infinite resources defeats a cartoonishly absurd super villain and ends his adventure by sleeping with a woman who's just the right match for his levels of snark. With Daniel Craig we're given an origin story to a vulnerable Bond who is still very much a rookie learning from his mistakes. He grows, develops, and comes to a certain resolution by the end of his story arch, and while that is a fixture in story-telling technique and fits well with the past two movies, it loses the uniqueness of the Bond formula and just comes off as any other quality film out there in theaters. The older Bond movies were successful in their own way because they were a form of fantasy/escapism. This new Bond isn't. This new Bond just tells you a good story. Also, has anyone noticed how nice the lyrics to the theme song are when connecting them to certain plot points? I haven't wrapped them in spoiler tags because I don't think they really give anything away. This is the end I've drowned and dreamt this moment, so overdue --- We will stand tall, face it all, together at Skyfall --- Skyfall is where we start A thousand miles and poles apart --- You may have my number, you may take my name --- Where you go I go, what you see I see I know I'd never be me, without the security Of your loving arms, keeping me from harm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) I just got back from this, and whilst I thought it was a great enjoyable action flick, and many individual moments were smart/great, on the whole the story was too ridiculous, even for Bond standards. The main villain's plan made absolutely no sense, and went from being devilishly clever to full of holes in an instant. What if the hearing had been shorter? What if her bodyguard had done his job and insisted on taking M away? What if the tube had been late, or they hadn't plugged his laptop in for another 10 minutes? What if the guards, both at his cell and at the court, hadn't been hilariously inept? I mean, how exactly does an unarmed man kill 3 MI6 trained armed guards with his bare hands? Ultimately, what was the point in being captured at all? He could've just gotten on the tube normally. Just so you could have a confrontation with M? What if she hadn't bothered to humour him? Why on Earth would you connect a professional hacker's laptop directly into your main network? Why would you even need to? Don't get me started on the "hacker code" nonsense. Bond's plans weren't much better. Turn lightbulbs into nail bombs but don't think to use two gas canisters? Could've just lead them to the house then blown them all up when they went inside while they hid in the chapel. Why not just pick them off with that rifle as they walk slowly across the field? Why run across the ice if you can go around it 15 ft away? ARFSGSDGFASDKK. I shouldn't watch a Bond film and think of 100 ways both the hero and the villain could have proceeded that would've been smarter. However to have all this stupidity and still be totally entertaining is probably what makes it a great Bond film. Edited December 5, 2012 by Shorty Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 5, 2012 Regarding the villains plans - I think the whole point of Silva's motivation is to make a grand statement in classic Bond villain style, not just to wipe out the people he doesn't like. If he just wanted to kill M he could have exploded her in her office right at the start of the movie. As it was he wanted to humiliate MI6 inside it's own house. Being a 00-esque agent himself he knew their methods, how they'd react to each obstacle and he calculated M would stay longer at the hearing to protect her reputation - the point being to use her pride against her. The whole tech aspect is absurd from the start though personally I feel it serves the purposes of the movie fantasy really well. I'm not convinced anyone could hack the gas mains like that and I don't know how servers as bare circuit boards hanging around work before we even get to the bizzaro hacking GUI. All told though those things had great design on them reflecting the characters and the universe around them in a way which really added to the atmosphere of the movie. The one thing I won't defend is Q plugging in the laptop. That's just dumb. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 5, 2012 I haven't posted my thoughts on the film, but I'll just keep it brief and say it was a good/enjoyable film, but OMG has it been massively over-rated and overhyped!!! It's now the highest grossing UK film ever overtaking Avatar. I honestly couldn't see anything whilst watching it that has led to this. I don't know if it was the Adele connection aswell or something? In my opinion both Goldeneye and Casino Royale are better recent Bond films. Bond's plans weren't much better. Turn lightbulbs into nail bombs but don't think to use two gas canisters? Could've just lead them to the house then blown them all up when they went inside while they hid in the chapel. Why not just pick them off with that rifle as they walk slowly across the field? Why run across the ice if you can go around it 15 ft away? Yeah the ice bit was rediculous. I mean it seemed alright at the time because for all we knew this was a vast frozen lake or something... only to 2minutes later found out the edge was like 10m to his right! Also, he could have taken out everyone [except the helicopter] with one explosive when they all decided to funnel into the property through the driveway! [/stupid henchmen are stupid] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 5, 2012 I think that the way in which i watch films in general is changing. Years ago i wouldn't care about stuff like that, but now, when i notice plot holes, it annoys me a little bit. In my mind old Bonds didn't have huge plot holes such as these, but i'm sure they did, we just didn't notcie them. Maybe as we grow up, we just notice stuff like this, and we have to learn to ignore them to enjoy the film. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) Well, that's a broad problem but if we narrow it down to Bond films, the issue is that they take themselves very seriously now ("exploding pens" comment, torture, trading agents) but then expect us to accept the fantastical in other aspects (magical code cracking). Edited December 5, 2012 by Shorty Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 5, 2012 It also annoyed me that it was Bond who noticed the code and not Q. This has probably been mentioned before in this thread but another question: Where was he shot by Moneypenny?... happened to that bullet wound? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
