I just saw a new TV spot on BBC America which I'm pretty sure just gave away the ending of the film. It's what I assumed happens anyway, but I think it's pretty much confirmed now, I they wish they wouldn't do that.
Just got back from seeing it and although IMHO it is not the masterpiece it has been hyped up to be I still really enjoyed it.there are lots of bits you could nitpick at but there is with every Bond film. It is without doubt the best of Craig's Bonds to date(although anything is better than Qos)and pretty good performances by all. Not a classic Bond but then this is the 21st century Bond so I suppose this will become a classic in its own right.
Worth a visit to the cinema but will wait till it comes out on DVD to see it again.
My initial thoughts. Some really dramatic scenes, great cinematography, very good action, very good title sequence, good humour, and strong performances from the cast, especially Javier Bardem, who should have had considerably more screen time.
But I can't help feel that some of the plot is built on dodgy foundations. Two very important questions are left unanswered, which to my mind is a lazy, unforgivable piece of non-story telling. Other questions need to be resolved with subsequent viewings.
Mixed feelings then. Not quite the great film the media is making it out to be but still very enjoyable, and a very worthy entry to the Bond series.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
Harry Palmer Somewhere in the past ...Posts: 325MI6 Agent
edited October 2012
My spoiler free two cents:
A hugely ambitious Bond film that tries to leave its impact on the franchise much in the same way that CR did (epic action, character defining moments, etc). I thought it was a very worthy entry, though not as emotionally powerful as CR.
I have two complaints:
One is with the villain (wonderfully portrayed, but his use in the plot left me cold). I'm curious: anybody else thought he was a great character but disappointingly used?
The other complaint is with the third act. I can't say why I didn't like it without giving stuff away, but I'll just say first and second acts are perfect; third is just okay.
On the plus side: gorgeous cinematography; great acting (especially Craig and Bardem); excellent use of supporting characters; perfect integration of traditional Bond cliches; a very very satisfying ending.
Just got back from seeing the movie!
People claim this to be one of the very best Bond movies ever, and yes... I have to say it truly is!! Boy does this movie deliver! I was BLOWN away! This truly was a Bond movie, the way a Bond movie should be! Great refreshing plot, the cinematography was excellent, and the ending left me with a huge smurk on my face!! And I even have the say, the gunbarrel was indeed better off where it is placed now! Sam Mendes made a masterpiece, and I am very glad that he is returning as a director for Bond 24. (From what I've heared.)
This one will definitely end up ranking very high on fans list for years to come! -{
scaramanga1The English RivieraPosts: 845Chief of Staff
Saw it for the second time today. Its still brilliant! Honestly I love it -for me it s actually better than Casino Royale! Something I didn't think I would be saying. Don't get me wrong. Casino Royale is excellent -but in this I just felt Daniel was just so comfortable in the role that everything just fitted right. Already need to see it again.
I saw it today, loved a lot of it but a few things I disliked (really minor) which took away perfection. Mainly (without spoilers) the conclusion, two things were forced unnecessary upon us.
Not impressed. Anyone offended by Bond's unchivalrous dumping of Mathis in the skip in QoS will find plenty to occupy themselves here... why should we cherish and celebrate a sociopath? Beats me. I can buy into Craig's Bond, but not when he is dropped into the kind of action film that defies belief, it really requires a handsome Brosnan-style leading man where you can suspend your disbelief. At times, the credibility levels is on a par with Moore's The Man with the Golden Gun. Craig should be a kind of Richard Burton in The Wild Geese character, not the iconic Bond. Bond is too iconic here, it's too knowing, it doesn't fit.
Lots of guff about how Bond is old and past it. True, Craig measures up here, with white growth for a beard and sunken eyes, but only two films back they were trying to sell him as the new kid on the block! It's all a lame dramatic ruse to give Bond a challenge to overcome, his disapproving new superiors. As lame as the McGuffin.
It's great visually, fine cinematography and it sort of hold your interest but like QoS this doesn't feel like a Bond movie to me, it has pretensions that don't work for me at all. So it's not too far off QoS, but much more spectacular and without the shakycam. To me, it's a bit like OHMSS - but not the skiing scenes, but the weird bit when he does the heraldry bit and then we see him in a kilt - or NSNA or GE in terms of its knowingness as a Bond film. Bond just isn't a real bloke in this, though Craig should be a down to earth figure. He's only done two missions, but we're meant to always be aware of his 50 year past, the film wants to have its cake and eat it. Why do he and M have this, er, bond, this link? This isn't Brosnan. In fact, looking as he does, it would make more sense if this was Brosnan's movie, he could pull it off even now. That would work and make sense. Except, it would draw up the parallels between SF and TWINE quite a fair bit.
Not impressed. Anyone offended by Bond's unchivalrous dumping of Mathis in the skip in QoS will find plenty to occupy themselves here... why should we cherish and celebrate a sociopath? Beats me. I can buy into Craig's Bond, but not when he is dropped into the kind of action film that defies belief, it really requires a handsome Brosnan-style leading man where you can suspend your disbelief. At times, the credibility levels is on a par with Moore's The Man with the Golden Gun. Craig should be a kind of Richard Burton in The Wild Geese character, not the iconic Bond. Bond is too iconic here, it's too knowing, it doesn't fit.
Lots of guff about how Bond is old and past it. True, Craig measures up here, with white growth for a beard and sunken eyes, but only two films back they were trying to sell him as the new kid on the block! It's all a lame dramatic ruse to give Bond a challenge to overcome, his disapproving new superiors. As lame as the McGuffin.
It's great visually, fine cinematography and it sort of hold your interest but like QoS this doesn't feel like a Bond movie to me, it has pretensions that don't work for me at all. So it's not too far off QoS, but much more spectacular and without the shakycam. To me, it's a bit like OHMSS - but not the skiing scenes, but the weird bit when he does the heraldry bit and then we see him in a kilt - or NSNA or GE in terms of its knowingness as a Bond film. Bond just isn't a real bloke in this, though Craig should be a down to earth figure. He's only done two missions, but we're meant to always be aware of his 50 year past, the film wants to have its cake and eat it. Why do he and M have this, er, bond, this link? This isn't Brosnan. In fact, looking as he does, it would make more sense if this was Brosnan's movie, he could pull it off even now. That would work and make sense. Except, it would draw up the parallels between SF and TWINE quite a fair bit.
from what i understand, continuity is not a priority for the Bond films anymore...in fact, if i've understood the director Mendes, this is suppose to be Bond circa '1962'.
First I've heard of it. You could be right. Not literally, as the 1980s is referenced in the film at one point.
Yes, it's as if Bond is now a post-modernist genre, in that you have a mish mash of things from past and present thrown together, and no sense of chronology or time. The 1970s didn't seem to hark back to previous films, though I guess TSWLM is very much like YOLT and so on. But there isn't that constant referencing, not even the vodka martini.
Not impressed. Anyone offended by Bond's unchivalrous dumping of Mathis in the skip in QoS will find plenty to occupy themselves here... why should we cherish and celebrate a sociopath? Beats me. I can buy into Craig's Bond, but not when he is dropped into the kind of action film that defies belief, it really requires a handsome Brosnan-style leading man where you can suspend your disbelief. At times, the credibility levels is on a par with Moore's The Man with the Golden Gun. Craig should be a kind of Richard Burton in The Wild Geese character, not the iconic Bond. Bond is too iconic here, it's too knowing, it doesn't fit.
Lots of guff about how Bond is old and past it. True, Craig measures up here, with white growth for a beard and sunken eyes, but only two films back they were trying to sell him as the new kid on the block! It's all a lame dramatic ruse to give Bond a challenge to overcome, his disapproving new superiors. As lame as the McGuffin.
It's great visually, fine cinematography and it sort of hold your interest but like QoS this doesn't feel like a Bond movie to me, it has pretensions that don't work for me at all. So it's not too far off QoS, but much more spectacular and without the shakycam. To me, it's a bit like OHMSS - but not the skiing scenes, but the weird bit when he does the heraldry bit and then we see him in a kilt - or NSNA or GE in terms of its knowingness as a Bond film. Bond just isn't a real bloke in this, though Craig should be a down to earth figure. He's only done two missions, but we're meant to always be aware of his 50 year past, the film wants to have its cake and eat it. Why do he and M have this, er, bond, this link? This isn't Brosnan. In fact, looking as he does, it would make more sense if this was Brosnan's movie, he could pull it off even now. That would work and make sense. Except, it would draw up the parallels between SF and TWINE quite a fair bit.
Bond hasn't always been the white knight, raping Pussy Galore can't be deemed the act of chivalry. Your also making the assumption that because he's only made 2 films prior to Skyfall, Craig Bond hasn't been on any missions in the intervening years. I suppose if the 50 years had been ignored there would be the usual spinning in grave comments and not respecting the franchise.
Sigh... he raped Pussy Galore did he. Guess I'll have to watch that one again.
Yes, I made the assumption that Bond hadn't made been on any missions in the intervening years. Well, literally I guess he must have been, it's been what four years since the last one. But it's not an irrational assumption to make is it. And there's nothing in the script to say otherwise, no reference by M to any other adventures or missions.
Sigh... he raped Pussy Galore did he. Guess I'll have to watch that one again.
Yes, I made the assumption that Bond hadn't made been on any missions in the intervening years. Well, literally I guess he must have been, it's been what four years since the last one. But it's not an irrational assumption to make is it. And there's nothing in the script to say otherwise, no reference by M to any other adventures or missions.
I suppose Galore was free to leave when she was thrown and pinned down by an oaf. Try reading the books. In CR there is “And now he knew that she was profoundly, excitingly sensual, but that the conquest of her body, because of the central privacy in her, would each time have the sweet tang of rape." Flemings Bond is not a boy scout.
It's irrational if someone thinking outside the box makes for sniping rhetoric.
So James Bond is a rapist. Now we know, everyone. 'Sweet tang of rape' is not rape, it's just suggestive of it. It's like saying the heroine of 50 Shades enjoys getting beaten up unawares, she doesn't. It's within a consensual context.
Anyone else have Bond down as a rapist? Thought not.
But odd that you should be a fan of him if you think he is.
So James Bond is a rapist. Now we know, everyone. 'Sweet tang of rape' is not rape, it's just suggestive of it. It's like saying the heroine of 50 Shades enjoys getting beaten up unawares, she doesn't. It's within a consensual context.
Anyone else have Bond down as a rapist? Thought not.
But odd that you should be a fan of him if you think he is.
Good god what a shocking week.
Saville investigation reaches 400 lines of enquiry.
"Now then now then, As it happens you got in touch with Uncle Jim to protect and save you from a sinister fellow on a deserted island. Jim 'll Fix it for you to get handcuffed to a rock while two psychos compete to shoot a wee dram off your head.... but first I'm going to step into your shower.... (Yorkshire yodel) euugh euguiugh eudghhghg!"
One can have watched the films and then read the books to find the character less appealing. Glad your interpretation is the definitive truth and you can be glib and dismissive. Enjoy your evening.
Sigh... he raped Pussy Galore did he. Guess I'll have to watch that one again.
Yes, I made the assumption that Bond hadn't made been on any missions in the intervening years. Well, literally I guess he must have been, it's been what four years since the last one. But it's not an irrational assumption to make is it. And there's nothing in the script to say otherwise, no reference by M to any other adventures or missions.
It's implied by Mallory when he asks Bond why does'nt he stay dead that he has had a distinguished career.
Oh, okay fair enough, I missed that. Though again, with the sort of film we're watching, to me it's not clear if he's referring to Craig's Bond or Bond generally as a generic action hero. In that sense, it makes sense Craig opining that he wouldn't mind filming Devil May Care, which shows Bond at the twilight of his career, cos tha seems to be where Bond is here.
Bit odd though, wouldn't you say? Craig's Bond... we totally miss him out in his prime. Blimey. I suppose we did with Brozzer though. his first film has him in the pts during Cold War, then 9 years later... what happened in between?
Oh, okay fair enough, I missed that. Though again, with the sort of film we're watching, to me it's not clear if he's referring to Craig's Bond or Bond generally as a generic action hero. In that sense, it makes sense Craig opining that he wouldn't mind filming Devil May Care, which shows Bond at the twilight of his career, cos tha seems to be where Bond is here.
Bit odd though, wouldn't you say? Craig's Bond... we totally miss him out in his prime. Blimey. I suppose we did with Brozzer though. his first film has him in the pts during Cold War, then 9 years later... what happened in between?
Trying to apply logical and consistent timelines to Bond movies is a recipe for madness my friend. Stay away. You know it makes sense.
Oh, okay fair enough, I missed that. Though again, with the sort of film we're watching, to me it's not clear if he's referring to Craig's Bond or Bond generally as a generic action hero. In that sense, it makes sense Craig opining that he wouldn't mind filming Devil May Care, which shows Bond at the twilight of his career, cos tha seems to be where Bond is here.
Bit odd though, wouldn't you say? Craig's Bond... we totally miss him out in his prime. Blimey. I suppose we did with Brozzer though. his first film has him in the pts during Cold War, then 9 years later... what happened in between?
I have to admit, this is the bit that got me too... I mean the first 2 Bonds we see of Craig are 'him reaching 007 status' and as the movies are supposedly back to back... not much time in between... then suddenly we're catapulted to him needing serious time off because he's so 'jaded' from his roll as Bond... it is quite a stretch to go with that thinking....
And I'm seriously peed off that no smart line was said about Bond breaking into M's house again... she was emphatic about it in CR )
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
I mean the first 2 Bonds we see of Craig are 'him reaching 007 status' and as the movies are supposedly back to back... not much time in between... then suddenly we're catapulted to him needing serious time off because he's so 'jaded' from his roll as Bond... it is quite a stretch to go with that thinking....
Just with QOS only SOME have the insight to see the artistic relevance of this...................................
........... Sadly I'm not one of them either. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Although all this talk of Daniel looking Old. I can't understand it.
He looks not a day over 62. )
I thought I'd be annoyed at the stubble as seen in the early Spy photos
from the set But I hardly noticed it, and of course it was needed later
for a certain scene with a certain female. Before going you know where,
with you know who. to do you know what., to you know who.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,746Chief of Staff
... then suddenly we're catapulted to him needing serious time off because he's so 'jaded' from his roll as Bond... it is quite a stretch to go with that thinking....
I got the impression he 'needed the time off' because M gave the order for Eve take the shot in the full knowledge that she would most probably hit Bond and that he was to be considered 'collateral damage'....he felt betrayed...but I agree that some time has passed since we last saw him...well...at least four years anyway )
Istanbul Must of been full of film crews, Lately I've seen Taken 2
Argo
Skyfall
And all have scenes or most of the film set There, They
must of been tripping over each other. )
On the time front as QOS starts 45 minutes after the end of Casino Royale.
Wouldn't it be Six years . :007)
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Comments
Worth a visit to the cinema but will wait till it comes out on DVD to see it again.
But I can't help feel that some of the plot is built on dodgy foundations. Two very important questions are left unanswered, which to my mind is a lazy, unforgivable piece of non-story telling. Other questions need to be resolved with subsequent viewings.
Mixed feelings then. Not quite the great film the media is making it out to be but still very enjoyable, and a very worthy entry to the Bond series.
A hugely ambitious Bond film that tries to leave its impact on the franchise much in the same way that CR did (epic action, character defining moments, etc). I thought it was a very worthy entry, though not as emotionally powerful as CR.
I have two complaints:
One is with the villain (wonderfully portrayed, but his use in the plot left me cold). I'm curious: anybody else thought he was a great character but disappointingly used?
The other complaint is with the third act. I can't say why I didn't like it without giving stuff away, but I'll just say first and second acts are perfect; third is just okay.
On the plus side: gorgeous cinematography; great acting (especially Craig and Bardem); excellent use of supporting characters; perfect integration of traditional Bond cliches; a very very satisfying ending.
People claim this to be one of the very best Bond movies ever, and yes... I have to say it truly is!! Boy does this movie deliver! I was BLOWN away!
This one will definitely end up ranking very high on fans list for years to come! -{
YouTube channel Support my channel on Patreon Twitter Facebook fanpage
Lots of guff about how Bond is old and past it. True, Craig measures up here, with white growth for a beard and sunken eyes, but only two films back they were trying to sell him as the new kid on the block! It's all a lame dramatic ruse to give Bond a challenge to overcome, his disapproving new superiors. As lame as the McGuffin.
It's great visually, fine cinematography and it sort of hold your interest but like QoS this doesn't feel like a Bond movie to me, it has pretensions that don't work for me at all. So it's not too far off QoS, but much more spectacular and without the shakycam. To me, it's a bit like OHMSS - but not the skiing scenes, but the weird bit when he does the heraldry bit and then we see him in a kilt - or NSNA or GE in terms of its knowingness as a Bond film. Bond just isn't a real bloke in this, though Craig should be a down to earth figure. He's only done two missions, but we're meant to always be aware of his 50 year past, the film wants to have its cake and eat it. Why do he and M have this, er, bond, this link? This isn't Brosnan. In fact, looking as he does, it would make more sense if this was Brosnan's movie, he could pull it off even now. That would work and make sense. Except, it would draw up the parallels between SF and TWINE quite a fair bit.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
EDIT: The review you link to is FULL of spoilers....this is the NO SPOILERS thread...hence it's been removed.
from what i understand, continuity is not a priority for the Bond films anymore...in fact, if i've understood the director Mendes, this is suppose to be Bond circa '1962'.
am i wrong here?
Yes, it's as if Bond is now a post-modernist genre, in that you have a mish mash of things from past and present thrown together, and no sense of chronology or time. The 1970s didn't seem to hark back to previous films, though I guess TSWLM is very much like YOLT and so on. But there isn't that constant referencing, not even the vodka martini.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Bond hasn't always been the white knight, raping Pussy Galore can't be deemed the act of chivalry. Your also making the assumption that because he's only made 2 films prior to Skyfall, Craig Bond hasn't been on any missions in the intervening years. I suppose if the 50 years had been ignored there would be the usual spinning in grave comments and not respecting the franchise.
Yes, I made the assumption that Bond hadn't made been on any missions in the intervening years. Well, literally I guess he must have been, it's been what four years since the last one. But it's not an irrational assumption to make is it. And there's nothing in the script to say otherwise, no reference by M to any other adventures or missions.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I suppose Galore was free to leave when she was thrown and pinned down by an oaf. Try reading the books. In CR there is “And now he knew that she was profoundly, excitingly sensual, but that the conquest of her body, because of the central privacy in her, would each time have the sweet tang of rape." Flemings Bond is not a boy scout.
It's irrational if someone thinking outside the box makes for sniping rhetoric.
So James Bond is a rapist. Now we know, everyone. 'Sweet tang of rape' is not rape, it's just suggestive of it. It's like saying the heroine of 50 Shades enjoys getting beaten up unawares, she doesn't. It's within a consensual context.
Anyone else have Bond down as a rapist? Thought not.
But odd that you should be a fan of him if you think he is.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Good god what a shocking week.
Saville investigation reaches 400 lines of enquiry.
James Bond is a rapist.
Nap reads '50 shades'.
What is the world coming to?
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Roger Moore 1927-2017
It's implied by Mallory when he asks Bond why does'nt he stay dead that he has had a distinguished career.
Bit odd though, wouldn't you say? Craig's Bond... we totally miss him out in his prime. Blimey. I suppose we did with Brozzer though. his first film has him in the pts during Cold War, then 9 years later... what happened in between?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Trying to apply logical and consistent timelines to Bond movies is a recipe for madness my friend. Stay away. You know it makes sense.
They're coming to take me away ha ha
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I have to admit, this is the bit that got me too... I mean the first 2 Bonds we see of Craig are 'him reaching 007 status' and as the movies are supposedly back to back... not much time in between... then suddenly we're catapulted to him needing serious time off because he's so 'jaded' from his roll as Bond... it is quite a stretch to go with that thinking....
And I'm seriously peed off that no smart line was said about Bond breaking into M's house again... she was emphatic about it in CR
Just with QOS only SOME have the insight to see the artistic relevance of this...................................
........... Sadly I'm not one of them either.
He looks not a day over 62.
I thought I'd be annoyed at the stubble as seen in the early Spy photos
from the set But I hardly noticed it, and of course it was needed later
for a certain scene with a certain female. Before going you know where,
with you know who. to do you know what., to you know who.
I got the impression he 'needed the time off' because M gave the order for Eve take the shot in the full knowledge that she would most probably hit Bond and that he was to be considered 'collateral damage'....he felt betrayed...but I agree that some time has passed since we last saw him...well...at least four years anyway
Taken 2
Argo
Skyfall
And all have scenes or most of the film set There, They
must of been tripping over each other.
On the time front as QOS starts 45 minutes after the end of Casino Royale.
Wouldn't it be Six years . :007)
More than that, the Wildcats (not Lynx ) have not entered service yet so Skyfall must be set a few years in the future.