A place for disappointed skyfall viewers

1235724

Comments

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 512
    Erm, joking how JamesCraig? That you like it, or don't like it?
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited November 2012 Posts: 3,497
    That I don't like.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    JamesCraig wrote:
    RC7, you still haven't given up on following me around like I don't know what or who. You haven't even responded fo my full review of SF, which proves my theory that you like to provoke until I'm out of your way.

    And yes, I was joking in the above posts.

    I think you're the one following my friend. I would love to avoid your posts if possible but it's like trying to avoid stepping in sh*t while cleaning out a pig sty. I read through a number of paragraphs and opinions from various posters then every so often there's a one line statement from yourself, usually in jest or deliberately provocative. I've no real interest in your review or whatever theory you're on about but thanks anyway.
  • craigrules wrote:
    On the surface SF is without a doubt a great looking movie, though under its lavish looking look i agree with many of the flaws pointed out in this post. I am finding it difficult to like this movie, though its only one movie. I just hope the next film gets bond back on form.

    Time will ultimately tell with regards to SF, i think once the hype and tribute elements die down which we are all caught up in one way or another, this film may be viewed very differently.

    Of course i want any bond movie to be a success and SF is definitely that, it keeps the franchise going.

    My concern is if this passes as the best we can do from Eon and the best Bond ever for critics the future looks grim.

    I hope the short comings as i perceive them are a direct result of the 50th anniversary. Looking over the past 50 years of bond movies, thankfully there have been many changes of direction in the series. Plus M is dead so that's a positive of sorts, felt M should be a minor character, disliked how central M was in SF and TWINE. Though i am biased as never took to Dench as M.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Zekidk wrote:
    So lighten up, gentlemen, after all it is only a movie meant to entertain people and give them 145 minutes of fun...

    I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

    I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.

    Skyfall was the most lighthearted of all the Craig films yet, and obviously meant to be more fun.
    Yeah, it was quite "funny and lightheated" for some I guess, that Bond hits rock bottom, and that the main Bond girl plus his boss dies.

    I'm not calling Skyfall Pee Wee's Playhouse, I am just saying that the funny moments added up are far more lighthearted and cheeky than we have seen in the past where not as many quips were said. Obviously the film has its sad moments, or moment actually, when M dies. Other than that, I didn't feel much of a connection to Severine, and that is likely due to her lack screen time and little effect/importance on the plot.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    @RC7 I think me and youre in the same boat. We liked the film but we're not against any criticism of it.

    +1

    I think the film is excellent, it's in my top 10, but I prefer reading negative reviews. I find those Best Bond Ever-Classic Bond-Beautiful Cinematography reviews boring. I'm not reading them any more, especially if they are miles long.

    What annoys me the most is that people are being bashed for expressing their opinion. I can't believe that those who didn't like the film are being called trolls and attention seekers.

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Zekidk wrote:
    So lighten up, gentlemen, after all it is only a movie meant to entertain people and give them 145 minutes of fun...

    I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

    I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.

    Skyfall was the most lighthearted of all the Craig films yet, and obviously meant to be more fun.
    Yeah, it was quite "funny and lightheated" for some I guess, that Bond hits rock bottom, and that the main Bond girl plus his boss dies.

    I'm not calling Skyfall Pee Wee's Playhouse, I am just saying that the funny moments added up are far more lighthearted and cheeky than we have seen in the past where not as many quips were said. Obviously the film has its sad moments, or moment actually, when M dies. Other than that, I didn't feel much of a connection to Severine, and that is likely due to her lack screen time and little effect/importance on the plot.

    I enjoyed some of the jokes. I guess I just feel the scripted humour was funnier in the Maibaum era - like genuinely clever.

    The couple on the tube platform were mildly amusing but did feel like a throwback to the lamer sight-gags of the Moore era. Perhaps that's no bad thing. Both Sam and Daniel grew up in the Moore era so they must harbour some love for those old school romps.

    The audience where I saw it barely uttered a titter throughout though, which I don't think is what Mendes intended.
  • Posts: 173
    @RC7 I think me and youre in the same boat. We liked the film but we're not against any criticism of it.

    +1


    + another 1
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Regan wrote:
    @RC7 I think me and youre in the same boat. We liked the film but we're not against any criticism of it.

    +1

    + another 1

    Welcome to the club of reasonable people. To anyone else, you get a free beer if you join.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Regan wrote:
    @RC7 I think me and youre in the same boat. We liked the film but we're not against any criticism of it.

    +1

    + another 1

    Welcome to the club of reasonable people. To anyone else, you get a free beer if you join.

    It'll have to Heineken. ;)
  • Posts: 11,425
    Regan wrote:
    @RC7 I think me and youre in the same boat. We liked the film but we're not against any criticism of it.

    +1

    + another 1

    Welcome to the club of reasonable people. To anyone else, you get a free beer if you join.

    It'll have to Heineken. ;)

    Just keep your fingers over the label!
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    And again, RC7 is left untouched.

    Sorry, but that's just not right.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Please, we've generally avoided this kind of stuff on here. Let's keep it polite. If you don't like what people are saying here then there is another thread. If you insist on provoking people, they will get annoyed.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited November 2012 Posts: 3,497
    Getafix wrote:
    Please, we've generally avoided this kind of stuff on here. Let's keep it polite. If you don't like what people are saying here then there is another thread. If you insist on provoking people, they will get annoyed.

    How on earth to I provoke people? Have I insulted him? Have I used cuss words?

    No, I haven't. He has and nobody of the mod team responds. It's not only because of his posts in this thread, btw.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote:
    Regan wrote:
    @RC7 I think me and youre in the same boat. We liked the film but we're not against any criticism of it.

    +1

    + another 1

    Welcome to the club of reasonable people. To anyone else, you get a free beer if you join.

    It'll have to Heineken. ;)

    Just keep your fingers over the label!



    :D
  • JamesCraig wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Please, we've generally avoided this kind of stuff on here. Let's keep it polite. If you don't like what people are saying here then there is another thread. If you insist on provoking people, they will get annoyed.

    How on earth to I provoke people? Have I insulted him? Have I used cuss words?

    No, I haven't. He has and nobody of the mod team responds. It's not only because of his posts in this thread, btw.

    Is this another one of your jokes?
  • Posts: 12
    Just got to say one thing, kinkade would have been shot in an instant by Silva in the church and without hesitation.

    And that's it.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Libera wrote:
    Just got to say one thing, kinkade would have been shot in an instant by Silva in the church and without hesitation.

    And that's it.

    Thats exactly what I thought funnily enough. Given how nasty he was to a woman he'd known for several years one would have thought he'd have no hesitation in killing Kinkade.

    Still, I'm going to let that go.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 512
    A relatively minor snag early on, but it filled me with unease about how the script would pan out.

    It's when Mallory is giving M a verbal going over. He's being a cold fish, and a bit nasty, saying that she should step down and take voluntary retirement ie you should get the push. And M replies, 'Oh come on Mallory, do you think I'm stupid?' As if he's being really subtle and she's rumbled what he's up to. But... he's making it deliberately pretty overtly clear what he's up to, what he means. It's not exactly any mystery or anything.
  • Posts: 11,189
    A relatively minor snag early on, but it filled me with unease about how the script would pan out.

    It's when Mallory is giving M a verbal going over. He's being a cold fish, and a bit nasty, saying that she should step down and take voluntary retirement ie you should get the push. And M replies, 'Oh come on Mallory, do you think I'm stupid?' As if he's being really subtle and she's rumbled what he's up to. But... he's making it deliberately pretty overtly clear what he's up to, what he means. It's not exactly any mystery or anything.

    Its so Mr Dumb audience member will understand ;)
  • First Bond film I saw was Thunderball. Skyfall is a good movie, it's just not a good James Bond film. It's an "M" film with appearances by 007. Way too long and overly scripted to re-introduce original elements. The theme song is over compressed. Viewed on a vU meter it never drops below 0db. The one very good aspect of SF is the cinematography. I tried to avoid reviews but expectations were very high. Saw it twice to give it a chance but my original thoughts about it didn't change. Using the tricked out DB5 was a mistake just as M's comment about it being uncomfortable wasn't really funny. Casino Royale is a much better film. It had a good story and didn't try to hard to be a 007 movie. Now after a reboot and two new films we are back to "What is old is new again" and I'm not sure that is really the best move for EON to take.
  • M's comment about it being uncomfortable didn't sit well with me, not sure why. The thing is, those old cars really aren't comfortable and relatively poor suspension. So it sort of was a moment that rang true in a film that just didn't ever. I felt it was inserted by fanboy writers who'd got to sit in an Aston once. Or maybe Dench just thought it up on the spot.
  • Posts: 11,425
    RobertL wrote:
    First Bond film I saw was Thunderball. Skyfall is a good movie, it's just not a good James Bond film. It's an "M" film with appearances by 007. Way too long and overly scripted to re-introduce original elements. The theme song is over compressed. Viewed on a vU meter it never drops below 0db. The one very good aspect of SF is the cinematography. I tried to avoid reviews but expectations were very high. Saw it twice to give it a chance but my original thoughts about it didn't change. Using the tricked out DB5 was a mistake just as M's comment about it being uncomfortable wasn't really funny. Casino Royale is a much better film. It had a good story and didn't try to hard to be a 007 movie. Now after a reboot and two new films we are back to "What is old is new again" and I'm not sure that is really the best move for EON to take.


    This is effectively how Mendes described the film.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,494
    Regan wrote:
    @RC7 I think me and youre in the same boat. We liked the film but we're not against any criticism of it.

    +1

    + another 1

    Welcome to the club of reasonable people. To anyone else, you get a free beer if you join.

    It'll have to Heineken. ;)[/quote

    Heineken??? PABST! BLUE! RIBBON! RIP Dennis.

    Just couldn't resist :D
  • I just wanted to say that this is my first post on the MI6. My father got me into Bond and I've been a fan ever since for the most part (well except for some of the later Brosnan films). The following is something I posted to a video review that praised this movie. I'm posting a rewrite here with some additions because this is a better place to post my disappointment with this film. I understand that this is just my opinion and everyone is entitled to there own.

    First I want to point out that I thought Quantum of Solace was a good movie even though it relied a little too heavily on action. I liked the plot in QoS too. Quantum was a realistic criminal organization that was uncovered by Bond through the James Bond fashion. He had a lot of brute force, but he was still stylish. There was also much symbolism in QoS if you look for it. My final point on QoS was that it tied together everything from Casino Royale perfectly. Apart from all of the constant, I would say at times warranted, action it was a good sequel in my opinion.

    I believe as others do that Skyfall suffers from lazy writing. Perhapse it isn't the plot I found unappealling, but rather it was the dialog and the way scenes are carried out. I found these aspects of the movie to be really bad and uninspired. There were occational times that I like what was being said, but most often not. Apart from some of the dialog with M, I didn't find any of the conversations in each scene that memorable. The whole movie felt like they kind of had to throw stuff in to fill it. In Casino Royale every scene had interesting dialog and it was believable. From a psychological standpoint Casino Royale is the best Bond film ever made, and I feel that Solace and Skyfall kept a trace of that. However, Casino Royale was made much more like a traditional film from many decades ago. Scenes were simple, but had many subtle complexities found in the characters. Although we are debating fiction, in CR everything can be easily explained as far as plotholes are concerned. In Skyfall there were too many times when I thought "that was just too convienent" to have happened. I agree with the OP on how the perfectly placed bomb in the subway sequence was too convienent. It may be nitpicking, but I think there was a standard I prefer set in CR. To each his own, okay, but like someone said ^ we should rather be getting "spy-thrillers" and not "action-movies" with explosions to build suspense. In Skyfall I feel also everything that was complained about In QoS was amplified here. The character development wasn't very good and they placed action in to fill space. Bardem's villian was a bit of a let down for me. Not sure if that was his fault or just the direction they wanted him to go in. In serious scenes the audience in the theater was laughing at him. I didn't laugh because I was just a little upset.

    I understand that some reviewers point to the dourness of the last two Craig films. I rather liked that about them actually. Casino Royale made me feel like I know what the life is like of a real MI6 agent (well a really stylish and intelligent one) is like. I didn't feel that way as much in QoS but the villian Greene and the Quantum organization was still believable. This film did feel a little more lighthearted than the last two contrary to some of the events that take place. In a way that isn't a bad thing, but it kind of felt taken to a level where it felt fake. I wish the drama was presented better I guess. I was annoyed at the abandoning of the noc list in the story too. Perhapse it wasn't the most important part of the plot but they shouldn't have just ditched it like that. They could have done more with the story in terms of presenting the significance undercover agents. That is an important message that wasn't fully realized here I think.

    There are somethings that I did love in Skyfall though. In my assessment Craig is still the best Bond and he is dashing and stylish, yet believable. I loved the backstory we now have for James. I liked the climatic showdown in Scotland (but could have had more memorable scenes). I agree that the cinematography was exceptionally well done. I love how the ending set up for future Bonds (hopefully to make them more like Casino Royale or espionage focused). I really want to see Skyfall again. QoS is better each time I watch it and maybe I will feel the same for Skyfall. Overall, it was an mediocre Bond film for me, but it wasn't Casino Royale.
  • After one viewing, I am definitely a fan. I am seeing it Saturday with my dad this time and will try to have a more objective opinion, since I could just still be excited.

    I do admit though- ever since someone pointed out that in the PTS Eve should have absolutely taken another shot after accidentally hitting Bond, it's been bugging me....

    Hopefully I won't find many more annoyances on my second viewing.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    After one viewing, I am definitely a fan. I am seeing it Saturday with my dad this time and will try to have a more objective opinion, since I could just still be excited.

    I do admit though- ever since someone pointed out that in the PTS Eve should have absolutely taken another shot after accidentally hitting Bond, it's been bugging me....

    Hopefully I won't find many more annoyances on my second viewing.

    Silva isn't the villain in Skyfall...IT'S EVE!!! /:)
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 1,310
    After one viewing, I am definitely a fan. I am seeing it Saturday with my dad this time and will try to have a more objective opinion, since I could just still be excited.

    I do admit though- ever since someone pointed out that in the PTS Eve should have absolutely taken another shot after accidentally hitting Bond, it's been bugging me....

    Hopefully I won't find many more annoyances on my second viewing.
    She definitely should have taken another shot, but maybe this was one of the hints that...
    Eve was not cut out for field work. Her nerves and emotions got the best of her.
  • Posts: 3,168
    Zekidk wrote:
    So lighten up, gentlemen, after all it is only a movie meant to entertain people and give them 145 minutes of fun...

    I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

    I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.

    Skyfall was the most lighthearted of all the Craig films yet, and obviously meant to be more fun.
    Yeah, it was quite "funny and lightheated" for some I guess, that Bond hits rock bottom, and that the main Bond girl plus his boss dies.

    I'm not calling Skyfall Pee Wee's Playhouse, I am just saying that the funny moments added up are far more lighthearted and cheeky than we have seen in the past where not as many quips were said.
    SF had more funny lighthearted moments than in any of the 22 other Bond films? You really have to come up with some examples here, since I didn't laugh once.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 152
    Zekidk wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    So lighten up, gentlemen, after all it is only a movie meant to entertain people and give them 145 minutes of fun...

    I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

    I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.

    Skyfall was the most lighthearted of all the Craig films yet, and obviously meant to be more fun.
    Yeah, it was quite "funny and lightheated" for some I guess, that Bond hits rock bottom, and that the main Bond girl plus his boss dies.

    I'm not calling Skyfall Pee Wee's Playhouse, I am just saying that the funny moments added up are far more lighthearted and cheeky than we have seen in the past where not as many quips were said.
    SF had more funny lighthearted moments than in any of the 22 other Bond films? You really have to come up with some examples here, since I didn't laugh once.

    I'm so glad that you brought that up @Zekidk. I've been reading a lot about the humor of Skyfall on here, but none of it really worked, at least for the audiences I've been with. I've seen it four times so far in Imax with packed crowds and none of the jokes worked with them and there were hardly any laughs at all, which I found disappointing. There were times that I wanted to laugh, but I had to hold it back because the audience was just silent.

    When I asked one of my friends I brought to the movie what he thought of Skyfall, the first thing he said was that you could tell they tried to be funny but it just didn't work and that all those lines were so cheesy. These are all American audiences by the way, so maybe the humor works better for European audiences. I really don't have an explaination.
This discussion has been closed.