It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Add Jurassic World to that list.
Yup. I read a good review of it in the Guardian. Went to see it because of the review and thought it was garbage.
So many Hollywood films are poor at the moment. I'm sick of the recycled superhero drivel and sequels and remakes. We hardly get any decent original stories these days. I was talking about it the other day and thinking how actually although it's often slated, the 80s was really a great time for original one off Hollywood movies. There's a lot of good popcorn from that era.
Take a look at the reviews on Imdb
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1074638/reviews?ref_=tt_urv
its far from a 'small circle' and more people agree with the bad reviews than don't ,
take the first negative review for instance '1398 out of 2117' agree with this , that's a whooping 66%
and the same goes with all the remaining reviews
I do think people are more motivated to post negative comments though than when they see a movie and dont like it. I think a lot people (although obviously a minority) went to see SF becUse of the hype and were actuAlly shocked by how bad it is.
It's the disconnect between the hype and the reality that created a lot of vocal critics of the film. If there hadn't been all this "best Bond ever" nonsense I don't think as many people would have felt conned and angry.
Couldn't agree more. I was taking about the same thing the other day. The industry is in a sorry state creatively. Like, why on earth are they remaking Point Break? And what's the point in making a Bladerunner sequel? Why not use the same budget attempting to make something as original and seminal as Bladerunner was and still is. It's completely depressing. Too many powerful industry figures just don't care enough and are never, ever, willing to put their balls on the line. They can only see guaranteed $$$.
As someone who didn't like it as much, did you think the film was "too slick" and/or pretentious?
I guess I thought it was pretentious yes, and a little bit patronising to its audience - I didn't like the middle brow references to Turner, Tennyson etc. It was try hardy, without actually being genuinely clever. There are 'dumb' superhero movies out there that do the big thematic stuff much better (and I'm not thinking Nolan's Batman, which I find equally ponderous and dull). I think few have done witty, clever, high concept popcorn better than Sam Rami's original Spider-Man with Toby McGuire.
I felt I was watching someone who thinks they're really clever but is actually a bit annoying and tedious - a bit like the movie equivalent of Stephen Fry. I think Christopher Hitchins described Stephen Fry as a stupid person's idea of a clever person (turns out Hugh Laurie is really actually clever and talented one)! I feel the same way about SF - a dumb person's idea of a clever movie. Fair enough if people just enjoy it as entertainment (although I don't see how), but please don't try and tell me it's high art art or the pinnacle of movie making - it's annoying and frankly an insult to the Bond series to suggest this is the best Bond movie ever made. I know that's a patronising thing to say in itself, but is just how I feel about it.
I just feel SF is neither one thing nor the other - not a suspenseful action thriller, nor particularly profound or interesting - essentially half baked. And just not very entertaining either - on any level. I also felt it thought it was too clever by half, and missed the central core of a strong, coherent narrative. A dumb film masquerading as a clever one. You can see all the moving parts - it's a really lumbering, clunky piece of filmmaking.
I prefer the clever films that pretend to be dumb.
Sad thing is that I can see what Mendes is trying to do in places, and approve of a lot of it. I just don't think he's done a very good job in executing
it. The plot creaks. The characterisation is all over the place. The thematic stuff is laid on way too thick. And he simply can't do action to save his life. It all adds up to a tasteless blancmange or a soufflé that failed to rise. Just really disappointing.
That's fair.
For me, I think the fact that it was trying to be clever at all was, in fact, clever. I'll have to go back and analyze the previous 22 films a little more, but I found the references refreshing (for a Bond film) because this isn't a franchise known for its intellectual depth. But that doesn't mean it isn't there, somewhere. So because it's an "action" film, the heavy-handed themes didn't bother me a bit.
Looking forward to Man from Uncle. When he's on form I think Ritchie is a very entertaining director.
I don't object to a bit of high concept being slipped in. That's why I said that I approved of a lot of what Mendes was trying to do. I think a Bond film can be all things to all people - both clever, and hugely entertaining. In a way, that's what the best ones have always done anyway. Although when I say clever, I don't mean in terms of themes etc. - I mean witty, knowing, well written and made etc.
Fundamentally I'm just not entertained by SF. I don't enjoy it on any level - either as pure entertainment or as some interesting new take on Bond and his role as some cultural signifier. I just find it a lumbering bore of a movie, which is a cardinal sin for a Bond movie. It bored me like TWINE did. Just a movie I forced myself to sit through.
I felt Mendes messed up the basics - story, character, action and suspense. And without those, it doesn't matter how much thematic icing you try and put on the cake. It will still taste sh*t.
I'm more optimistic about SP though. I don't think Mendes is the kind of director who wants to make the same film twice. And he's not an idiot, although he might have made a not very good movie in SF. I haven't seen anything or heard anything about SP that makes me overly concerned. I'd prefer not to have another exploration of Bond's origins, but I can deal with it if it's done in an entertaining way, and the trailers look really good. And if can't be ruined by Dench (thank God).
It makes sense you were bored by TWINE as well, SF really is a remake of TWINE.
I said this before, for me SF is like TB.
Both movies were spectacularly successful and loved at the time, but TB now doesn't show up in Top 10 lists in general and many regard it as too long and kind of dull or hard to sit through.
By 2030 Skyfall will be seen as just another Bond movie in general.
LOL! I think I need to move on.
They must have gotten their lines crossed. SKYFALL does the same DARK KNIGHT thing that AVENGERS and STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS did, having the villain let himself get captured deliberately so as to put his 'real' plan in motion. This has gotten to be such a big movie thing that it is practically to the last decade what 'former navy SEAL' was a quarter-century or more back. It lets the movie pretend to be smart, when it is just showing that the screenwriter is playing it safe by doing what Nolan already did well.
There IS a way to revisit this in a fresh manner that re-spins it effectively, but since I've had that in a script of mine since the early 90s, I'm not gonna advertise it right now.
How many times do you watch a movie that you do like?
That idea didn't start with Nolan. David Fincher's Seven used that device a good thirteen years prior.
Actually, interestingly TB is about 50/50 slightly in favour of it. TB is in the top 10 this frequently:
MI6C - 96/160 = 60%
CBn = 35/66 = 53%
AJB = 29/62 = 47%
Random sources = 66/122 = 54%
Very polarising.
- average rank of 8.5
- median 6
- 66.9% in the top 7 (49% top 5)
- 6.8% bottom 5
- 11.8% bottom 10
Two words: brand recognition.
But is is not always all bad. It also means Hollywood adapts books because they already have a readership, they sometimes also finally make a novel adaptation that is faithful to the original (still waiting for the proper Dracula though) and sometimes also bring new readership and public to a book, a series or a franchise.
There are pros, but they're ultimately outweighed by the cons.
And I am thinking about it, but we have an opposite situation in TV: more and more new series are being created.
Se7en is my favorite movie of the 90s ... but that post is about the BATMAN/SKYFALL connection and the trend of aping that which was RECENTLY massively successful.
Also, structurally the device work differently, as with Fincher we're talking act 3, so this is the culmination of what went before, whereas with all these others, this is an escalating thing driving act 2. That's an important aspect, the 2nd level of sell as matters escalate (If LTK didn't have this, when Bond realizes how his failed hit on Sanchez has possibly wrecked DEA and Hong Kong narcotics ops, it would be very much a lesser film), but it isn't the resolution of the thing, which is what makes Se7en so special, that they do this and make it work.
Same with Hollywood: a rare, original gem comes along, but most of the time, it's a rehash of some old property.
From Dusk Til Dawn - renewed
Hannibal - renewed
Constantine - cancelled
Bates Motel - renewed
Scream - renewed
Transporter - renewed
Sleepy Hollow - renewed
just to name a view TV Shows that are based on movies.
I really wound't want to go without them!!
I rather have remakes than bad original ones.