That's a great review! Very well written. Thing is, Bond as of now in less of a pain in the ass in some ways, always ready with a quip, it could be hard to emulate and only lead to lots of boorish behaviour, a kind of highly strung tendency to be the guy in the group with the one-liner, always racheting it up. Craig isn't like that to be fair. He doesn't charm the women, he gives them enough silence and space that they come to him.
A few one-liners would be ok, though. They got out of hand in the later Bonds but in FRWL and GF they were not too overbearing.
By the way, I think next to Connery the only actor to deliver a one-liner in the same blasé style is Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Connery himself has said the same thing, so if The Man says it... 'I lied' from Commando is a classic. Along with "Wrooong!" from the opening scene of the same movie.
Connery himself has said the same thing, so if The Man says it... 'I lied' from Commando is a classic. Along with "Wrooong!" from the opening scene of the same movie.
Yes, I think I heard that somewhere, too.
BIG TAMWrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
I must admit to always liking the following Schwarzenegger line from COMMANDO: "You're a funny guy, Sully. I like you. That's why I'm going to kill you last."
I must admit to always liking the following Schwarzenegger line from COMMANDO: "You're a funny guy, Sully. I like you. That's why I'm going to kill you last."
Yes, that was a good one.
What about:
"I need your clothes, your boots, and your motorcycle" from Terminator 2—not really a one-liner but funny in context.
Also, when he shot his wife in Total Recall and said to her “Consider that a divorce”.
After watching SF I agree that yes it is a great action film but its not a Bond film. The timeline is bugging the hell out of me. CR was set before bond was a 00 yet Judi Dench who was there at the end of Brosnans reign is still M. If CR is pre DN then M wouldnt be a woman due to the fact woman didnt have that power back then. Now in SF whic is 6 years after CR we are led to believe Bond is old and needing to retire as well as M. But he just got is 00? And M hated Brosnan in GE then they made a connection. For M to be attached so deeply with Daniel Craig's Bond is false and unreal due to the fact he is just in and it would not already have a cosey take a bullet for you relationship.
The new Q makes references to exploding pens from GE so wait a minute? Has GE happened? CR was pre DN so between that and SF Daniel Craig as been out doing other missions we arent aware off? Same with the DB5. Has GF happened yet or not? If so when was it because Daniel Craigs Bond is a modern bond. If you want to make out that GF and GE has happened you don't make CR as a prequel to DN! If it was before DN M would be a man, MI6 wouldnt be the modern building it is. It would all be 60's cold war related issues like all of Connery's and Moores films were. In SF we go back to the old office and moneypenny who were already there is GF and GE wich SF made references too so why are we just adding them in now if they are apparently meant to be already there? You cannot mix old times with modern times at tis rate Bond will turn out to be like star wars releasing bond 26 which is actually after OHMSS and then bond 27 which is after MR! I personally think the end of SF in te office and te "Top Secret" document sould have been the start of CR and use 60's technology and issues related to KGB etc or you make a modern bond following on from where Brosnan left off.
Other issues with the film
- If Javier was an ex agent of MI6 and he knew all their secrets wouldn't it be common sense even though htey left im to the chinese to keep tabs or even check he is actually dead? Also if your an ex MI6 agent and have no allies how the hell do you raise enough money to buy super computers, henchman and a boat? Did he win the euro millions?
- There is no way he could plan when the trial would be and when Q would plug is laptop in to escape so that his henchmen could meet him in the tube to provide him with uniform and then pick him up
- Eve had plenty of time to take two shots plus she had radio contact with Bond they could have worked that better. PS Eve is the worst actress in the film i hope she is written off for the rest of the franchise.
-How could an unarmed Javier get out of his cell which was situated a bit away from the guard and kill 2 armed guards without them opening fire? They were watching the cell open
- I know its bond films but why when you have bond cornered do you insist on wasting time and allowing him time to escape? (scene on the ice) Just shoot him M is the real target.
- Why did they go to Skyfall anyway? What purpose did we have for that? M could ave been protected by several other agents and even the military somehwere for secure rather than just bond and a games keeper
After watching SF I agree that yes it is a great action film but its not a Bond film. The timeline is bugging the hell out of me. CR was set before bond was a 00 yet Judi Dench who was there at the end of Brosnans reign is still M. If CR is pre DN then M wouldnt be a woman due to the fact woman didnt have that power back then. Now in SF whic is 6 years after CR we are led to believe Bond is old and needing to retire as well as M. But he just got is 00? And M hated Brosnan in GE then they made a connection. For M to be attached so deeply with Daniel Craig's Bond is false and unreal due to the fact he is just in and it would not already have a cosey take a bullet for you relationship.
The new Q makes references to exploding pens from GE so wait a minute? Has GE happened? CR was pre DN so between that and SF Daniel Craig as been out doing other missions we arent aware off? Same with the DB5. Has GF happened yet or not? If so when was it because Daniel Craigs Bond is a modern bond. If you want to make out that GF and GE has happened you don't make CR as a prequel to DN! If it was before DN M would be a man, MI6 wouldnt be the modern building it is. It would all be 60's cold war related issues like all of Connery's and Moores films were. In SF we go back to the old office and moneypenny who were already there is GF and GE wich SF made references too so why are we just adding them in now if they are apparently meant to be already there? You cannot mix old times with modern times at tis rate Bond will turn out to be like star wars releasing bond 26 which is actually after OHMSS and then bond 27 which is after MR! I personally think the end of SF in te office and te "Top Secret" document sould have been the start of CR and use 60's technology and issues related to KGB etc or you make a modern bond following on from where Brosnan left off.
All these criticisms make sense. As you say, if a reboot was necessary it should have started from scratch, placing Bond back in 1962 and making future films period pieces, like the Indiana Jones films were. Either that, or they could, as you say, have kept a continuous timeline going from the Brosnan era.
- If Javier was an ex agent of MI6 and he knew all their secrets wouldn't it be common sense even though htey left im to the chinese to keep tabs or even check he is actually dead? Also if your an ex MI6 agent and have no allies how the hell do you raise enough money to buy super computers, henchman and a boat? Did he win the euro millions?
no, he turned against MI6 as he felt he had been betrayed, and cut a deal with his captors.
- There is no way he could plan when the trial would be and when Q would plug is laptop in to escape so that his henchmen could meet him in the tube to provide him with uniform and then pick him up
he was banking on Q acting like a smartarse, it paid off. after he got caught at Hashima, it would be a safe assumption that all his gear would be confiscated, and being as his threats were so serious, the analysis of his gear would be carried out by the top dog, ie Q.
- Eve had plenty of time to take two shots plus she had radio contact with Bond they could have worked that better. PS Eve is the worst actress in the film i hope she is written off for the rest of the franchise.
she was an inexperienced operative in a highly stressful situation, she froze. wouldn't you?
-How could an unarmed Javier get out of his cell which was situated a bit away from the guard and kill 2 armed guards without them opening fire? They were watching the cell open
was there 2? and i don't think the one i saw was armed. remember, silva was ex-MI6, possibly a 00 so he'd be fairly sorted with hand to hand combat.
- I know its bond films but why when you have bond cornered do you insist on wasting time and allowing him time to escape? (scene on the ice) Just shoot him M is the real target.
is that really what you want, to see bond get shot and fail and the villian win? the bottom line here is that Silva's fight is with MI6 and M, not personally with Bond. There are a few times where he could choose to off our favourite spy, but chooses not to, he just sees Bond as a pawn.
- Why did they go to Skyfall anyway? What purpose did we have for that? M could ave been protected by several other agents and even the military somehwere for secure rather than just bond and a games keeper
the idea with taking M to Skyfall was (as mallory pointed out in the film) to draw Silva into the open. Bond needed a large open area that he was familiar with, plus somewhere where the high-tech Silva couldn't have a technical advantage. An old mansion with dodgy electrics would be a safe bet, no?
As for the timeline thing, how about thinking of 'James Bond' as a cover name? It's not the case, but it might help you deal with this terrible mental anguish you seem to be going through.
I know its bond films but why when you have bond cornered do you insist on wasting time and allowing him time to escape? (scene on the ice) Just shoot him M is the real target.
is that really what you want, to see bond get shot and fail and the villian win? the bottom line here is that Silva's fight is with MI6 and M, not personally with Bond. There are a few times where he could choose to off our favourite spy, but chooses not to, he just sees Bond as a pawn.
Never has the old adage "Don't talk, shoot" been more appropriate. Silva has his sights firmly set on M, it makes no sense for him to waste any time on Bond at that moment, especially after he saw what Bond was capable of at his island lair. That scene would have been much better if it was just Bond and the henchman fighting it out. It would have added to the tension by delaying Bond's pursuit of Silva before he got to M.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
My feelings are the climax in Scotland is the best part of the film,(Iv never seen Scotland look so breath taking in any film) this is when it comes in to its own
Stands on its own two feet And develops its own unique epic quality ,it would have been nice if this had happened sooner in the film,
we could have also done with the dramatic opening scene before the titles being in the middle of the film to lighten it up a a bit.
Over all there were some interesting directorial touches like the fight scene shot head to toe with no cuts or camera movement a bit like a fed Astair and Ginger Rogers dance routine,
However for all its commendable attributes I think we have now seen enough of bonds inner self and defects, and the next film should have more fantasy elements.
Must admit, it makes me chuckle when I read another review/comment/news article where the writer states how beautiful the Scottish countryside is that surrounds Skyfall Lodge. Apparently 'visit' Scotland are making a big thing of it. They'll be offering tours round the lodge next )
Geography ain't my strong point, but Hankley common isn't near Scotland.... is it? )
I saw Skyfall last Saturday. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I have been so consumed at work that I have not been to peruse AJB in a while and am therefore late with my review. This is my attempt to rectify that. Before I go on, let me say that (1) I purposely kept my head in the sand regarding anything about the film before I saw it (this is my first visit to this forum for example); and (2) I have not read any posts on this thread or any others related to Skyfall, so forgive me if I am covering old ground. OK, here goes...
I absolutely loved Skyfall. Loved it. It was exhilarating, well-crafted, well-acted, easy to follow yet not elementary, and most of all...extreeeeeeeeeeemely Bondian in the sense of both the older Eon films and the Craig reboot. It immediately rises to my top five, slotting nicely behind OHMSS, GF and FRWL into fourth place.
I am sort of a list guy, so here is what I really liked:
-- Daniel Craig, first and foremost. Do you realize how lucky we are to have an actor of this caliber playing our favorite spy? His intensity and emotion are palpable, but not in the sometimes forced way I found with Dalton.
-- The M plot. I myself am shocked that I liked this, because no one has been a bigger critic of M’s prominence going all the way back to GoldenEye. Part of me wonders if my happiness is due to the knowledge that we will no longer have to endure plots that hinge around the talents of Dame Judi, but I don’t think that’s it. This plot just made sense, far-fetched as the details may have been. I can’t explain it any better than that.
-- Bond going totally off the reservation. So much better drawn here than in LTK. His seaside (Caribbean?) life of shagging all day and eluding scorpions while drinking all night feels exactly like I can imagine him acting at the end of the YOLT novel when he loses his mind.
-- Moneypenny. Forget that Naomie Harris is insanely attractive (IMO anyway) or that her appearance in Hong Kong doesn’t really make sense. The payoff is sooooo worth it. In hindsight it was as obvious as the sky, but when Bond walked into the office with the coat rack and there she was behind the desk, I got chills. “Holy crap, that’s Moneypenny” I thought, and sure enough she confirmed it a second later. The whole theater cheered. Most of all, I love that they addressed one of the great Bondology topics of all time, namely whether Bond and Moneypenny had ever had a dalliance.
-- Javier Bardem. His blond hair was a little Zorin-esque for my liking, but that and his horribly dyed eyebrows only made his insanity more real. His caressing of Bond was odd, but also made me think that this is how a truly insane villain would actually act.
-- Gareth Mallory. Like Moneypenny, we have now come full circle on M as well. I’m sure I am not the first to notice the similarity of Mallory to Messervy. And Ralph Fiennes has such an eel-like quality to his acting that I was convinced he was a villain right to the very end when he was standing behind the classic desk.
-- Q. The third member of the old-school troika that they brought back. The scene of them jousting in the National Gallery was wonderful.
-- Bond’s childhood home. OK, they made up a name for it, but how cool was the setting? His parents’ headstone – brilliant! The filmmakers are finally acknowledging that the character has a past that started before he became a double-oh, and not in the manner of out-and-out fictional silliness like him taking a first in Oriental Languages at a school he never attended.
-- The title sequence and song. For me, best titles since Moonraker. The song vaguely reminds me of that film also. This is the vocal range that Adele should sing everything in, rather than the screeching of “Someone Like You”.
-- London. This is the most our hero has ever had to do in his adopted hometown, which was refreshing.
Because we are all nitpickers here (no one more so than me) fairness demands that I acknowledge some weaknesses:
-- The film is too long. Not a killer of a problem, but the lengthy battles in London and Scotland should both have been shortened.
-- Severine was a disappointment. Her screen time is far too limited to give her impact, which was fine for someone like Paris Carver whose backstory provided some emotional heft. Instead, Severine seemed to be inserted into the story to give it another beautiful woman and an easy Obligatory Sacrificial Lamb. Berenice Marlohe can’t act, either.
-- The London shootout was some of the worst marksmanship ever in a Bond film, which is saying something. Where was MI5 in all this domestic disturbance anyway?
-- No way anyone survives a fall from a bridge that high.
Even though the film draws heavily on themes from TWINE (M revenge plot, MI6 blowing up, initially shadowy villain) it runs circles around that movie. It does homages the right way – the DB5, Q, Moneypenny, new/old M, extensive use of the Bond theme – as opposed to the clunky nudge-nudge, wink-wink in-joke-fest that was DAD.
Perhaps the greatest thing about this film is that it explicitly acknowledges that there were Bond films before the reboot. I loved CR (not so QOS) but never got completely comfortable with the totally clean slate on which they were drawn. With Skyfall, it finally feels like a circle has been drawn around the entire series. If they were to end the series now (which they of course won’t, thank goodness), the dramatic arc would be complete.
Which brings me to my one concern...where do we go from here? On one hand, the old-school formula has been set up again, if they want to use it. On the other hand, I’m not sure that’s what the filmmakers, Bond enthusiasts or the broader public want anymore. I can’t figure it out – I’m ambivalent. Most of all, I am sad that Daniel Craig will eventually leave. Maybe he already has. I have never felt that sadness about the series before, and the fact that I do is the highest compliment I can pay the actor or the film.
I got a big laugh out of that one, too. Schwarzenegger is probably the last guy who comes to mind when I think of actors who have nailed the delivery of wry one-liners! And comparing him to Connery??? Now that's a hoot! It's like saying "By the way, I think next to Schwarzenegger, the only actor that has such a similarly impressive physique is Ben Whishaw!!!" )
Schwarzenegger is probably the last guy who comes to mind when I think of actors who have nailed the delivery of wry one-liners!
Well, Connery would disagree with you on that. Connery’s said himself that Schwarzenegger delivers one-liners well. I can’t find any online links to him saying this, but I recall reading it in a magazine somewhere; and someone else on this thread mentioned the same thing.
I’m sure a link to it can be found, but I’ve tried all the obvious search terms with no luck.
Which brings me to my one concern...where do we go from here? On one hand, the old-school formula has been set up again, if they want to use it. On the other hand, I’m not sure that’s what the filmmakers, Bond enthusiasts or the broader public want anymore. I can’t figure it out – I’m ambivalent. Most of all, I am sad that Daniel Craig will eventually leave. Maybe he already has. I have never felt that sadness about the series before, and the fact that I do is the highest compliment I can pay the actor or the film.
Perhaps I can put you at ease somewhat. Daniel Craig has signed on for two more Bond films. As for where do we go from here? One can only speculate. I don't think the producers would want to stray too far from Skyfall and go back to the old-school formula lock, stock, and barrel. So, I envisage a character driven film on similar lines to Skyfall with a little more action and humour.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
Schwarzenegger is probably the last guy who comes to mind when I think of actors who have nailed the delivery of wry one-liners!
Well, Connery would disagree with you on that. Connery’s said himself that Schwarzenegger delivers one-liners well. I can’t find any online links to him saying this, but I recall reading it in a magazine somewhere; and someone else on this thread mentioned the same thing.
I’m sure a link to it can be found, but I’ve tried all the obvious search terms with no luck.
Hmmm, I recall Connery saying he thought the best Bond villain was Cubby.
Schwarzenegger is probably the last guy who comes to mind when I think of actors who have nailed the delivery of wry one-liners!
Well, Connery would disagree with you on that. Connery’s said himself that Schwarzenegger delivers one-liners well. I can’t find any online links to him saying this, but I recall reading it in a magazine somewhere; and someone else on this thread mentioned the same thing.
I’m sure a link to it can be found, but I’ve tried all the obvious search terms with no luck.
Connery is my favorite Bond, but I never said he was the smartest!
The James Bond series has been called a lot of things, but never prestigious. From b-movie to blockbuster, from superannuated retrospective to experimental rebirth, the series has gone through an array of incarnations. Skyfall is the first Bond film to surface in high-art territory, which is a mixed blessing. Oscar-winning director Sam Mendes teamed up with renowned cinematographer Roger Deakins and screenwriter John Logan to make a Bond film that would please crowds and critics alike.
While not as revolutionary as Casino Royale, Daniel Craig's third outing as 007 is easily the most sumptuous, sleek, and visually impressive film in the series. It is also the darkest. For all its action, Skyfall focuses largely on a freudian deconstruction of its three major characters, Bond, M, and Raoul Silva. Silva, played by oscar-winning Spanish actor Javier Bardem, is an ex-MI6 agent with a psychotic, son-like obsession with M, who abandoned him to Chinese authorities years earlier. Though his role was clearly influenced by Heath Ledger's Joker from 2008's The Dark Knight, Bardem gives Silva a unique breed of pathological, feminine bravado.
The film also features two beautiful and dynamic bond girls. The first is Eve, an incompetant but charming MI6 agent played by Naomi Harris. The second is Sévérine, a mesmerising femme-fetale whose role, played by French-Khmer actress Bérénice Lim Marlohe, is alluring, mysterious, and far too brief. Judy Dench, however, takes the spotlight in her last and finest performance as M, the fledgling head of MI6.
In the last act, Bond and M retreat to the Scottish moores to trap Silva at his own insidious and vengeful game. These last scenes are visually spectacular, reaching an almost mythological fiber. Director Mendes fuses the desolate setting with a rising dread that climaxes in a gothic, Straw Dogs-esque finale. The film's action scenes are excellent, particularly during the title-sequence in Istambul, which includes a train-top foot chase that rivals the best action sequences in the series. Adele's title song and the sequence that accompanies it is the series' best since Tina Turner's Goldeneye.
At times, Deakin's oscar-worthy cinematography distracts from the plot. The shots are so clean, so vibrant, so dazzling, that one forgets to follow what characters are saying or the progression of the narrative. Occasional plot-holes are patched up with slick pacing and iconic imagery. Still, the film manages to balance old with new, character with extravagance, darkness with humor, and violence with tenderness. Though it suffers from plot-holes and a sumptuous style that is sometimes too striking for its own good, Skyfall is well-written, takes creative risks, and is supported by rounded, dynamic characters.
It's all right. It's quite all right, really. She's having a rest. We'll be going on soon. There's no hurry, you see. We have all the time in the world.
Has anyone noticed the camera work in the scene in M's Home with Bond.
The last bit of the scene seems to be filmed handheld, with a certain amout of "Wobble"
which if you happen to look at the background gives an almost seasick feeling.
The rest of the scene the camera is rock steady, So the change to handheld is Noticable.
Although It's not as Obvious as in a TV show Like CSI etc.
I wonder if there was a simple reason or an artistic One for this camera work.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Connery is my favorite Bond, but I never said he was the smartest!
On the contrary, I think Connery is intelligent and shrewd. Besides, I would think it reasonable to assume that as someone who knows how to deliver a line he would be able to recognise effective line delivery in others.
Schwarzenegger is probably the last guy who comes to mind when I think of actors who have nailed the delivery of wry one-liners!
Well, Connery would disagree with you on that. Connery’s said himself that Schwarzenegger delivers one-liners well. I can’t find any online links to him saying this, but I recall reading it in a magazine somewhere; and someone else on this thread mentioned the same thing.
I’m sure a link to it can be found, but I’ve tried all the obvious search terms with no luck.
Hmmm, I recall Connery saying he thought the best Bond villain was Cubby.
What a w@nker.
I hope that last remark wasn’t addressed towards me; otherwise I will have to report you. You’ve already been chastised once in the past for insulting me.
If you have nothing intelligent to say in response to any of my posts, I suggest you stop responding. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about something—perhaps you consider yourself an expert on Bond films and don’t like other peoples’ views on them.
Daniel Craig's third outing as 007 is easily the most sumptuous, sleek, and visually impressive film in the series
With respect, I think this is a bit of an overstatement, as it seems to discount the past 50 years of Bond cinematography.
I also think Skyfall looks good, but agree that the series has a rich history of fine cinematography. For me OHMSS stands out, an not just the unsurpassed ski scenes. I love the sumptuous crane shot at the wedding.We are in danger of sanctifying Skyfall on a number of fronts. It's a fine Bond film, certainly amongst the best, but it's not perfect, it has it's flaws, but at the moment we are in a kind of 'thank Christ it's not another QOS' type euphoria/false conscienceness.
Comments
A few one-liners would be ok, though. They got out of hand in the later Bonds but in FRWL and GF they were not too overbearing.
By the way, I think next to Connery the only actor to deliver a one-liner in the same blasé style is Arnold Schwarzenegger.
i'm actually screaming my tits off with laughter at this. think a bit of wee came out ;%
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
"ah yoo shad av clorned yoorsalv!"
"why?"
"soo yoo caan gor foook yoorsalv!"
yeah, true connery class right there.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I think my emphasis was on Arnold’s attitude rather than his accent. Do pay attention 007!
Yes, I think I heard that somewhere, too.
Yes, that was a good one.
What about:
"I need your clothes, your boots, and your motorcycle" from Terminator 2—not really a one-liner but funny in context.
Also, when he shot his wife in Total Recall and said to her “Consider that a divorce”.
The new Q makes references to exploding pens from GE so wait a minute? Has GE happened? CR was pre DN so between that and SF Daniel Craig as been out doing other missions we arent aware off? Same with the DB5. Has GF happened yet or not? If so when was it because Daniel Craigs Bond is a modern bond. If you want to make out that GF and GE has happened you don't make CR as a prequel to DN! If it was before DN M would be a man, MI6 wouldnt be the modern building it is. It would all be 60's cold war related issues like all of Connery's and Moores films were. In SF we go back to the old office and moneypenny who were already there is GF and GE wich SF made references too so why are we just adding them in now if they are apparently meant to be already there? You cannot mix old times with modern times at tis rate Bond will turn out to be like star wars releasing bond 26 which is actually after OHMSS and then bond 27 which is after MR! I personally think the end of SF in te office and te "Top Secret" document sould have been the start of CR and use 60's technology and issues related to KGB etc or you make a modern bond following on from where Brosnan left off.
Other issues with the film
- If Javier was an ex agent of MI6 and he knew all their secrets wouldn't it be common sense even though htey left im to the chinese to keep tabs or even check he is actually dead? Also if your an ex MI6 agent and have no allies how the hell do you raise enough money to buy super computers, henchman and a boat? Did he win the euro millions?
- There is no way he could plan when the trial would be and when Q would plug is laptop in to escape so that his henchmen could meet him in the tube to provide him with uniform and then pick him up
- Eve had plenty of time to take two shots plus she had radio contact with Bond they could have worked that better. PS Eve is the worst actress in the film i hope she is written off for the rest of the franchise.
-How could an unarmed Javier get out of his cell which was situated a bit away from the guard and kill 2 armed guards without them opening fire? They were watching the cell open
- I know its bond films but why when you have bond cornered do you insist on wasting time and allowing him time to escape? (scene on the ice) Just shoot him M is the real target.
- Why did they go to Skyfall anyway? What purpose did we have for that? M could ave been protected by several other agents and even the military somehwere for secure rather than just bond and a games keeper
All these criticisms make sense. As you say, if a reboot was necessary it should have started from scratch, placing Bond back in 1962 and making future films period pieces, like the Indiana Jones films were. Either that, or they could, as you say, have kept a continuous timeline going from the Brosnan era.
no, he turned against MI6 as he felt he had been betrayed, and cut a deal with his captors.
he was banking on Q acting like a smartarse, it paid off. after he got caught at Hashima, it would be a safe assumption that all his gear would be confiscated, and being as his threats were so serious, the analysis of his gear would be carried out by the top dog, ie Q.
she was an inexperienced operative in a highly stressful situation, she froze. wouldn't you?
was there 2? and i don't think the one i saw was armed. remember, silva was ex-MI6, possibly a 00 so he'd be fairly sorted with hand to hand combat.
is that really what you want, to see bond get shot and fail and the villian win? the bottom line here is that Silva's fight is with MI6 and M, not personally with Bond. There are a few times where he could choose to off our favourite spy, but chooses not to, he just sees Bond as a pawn.
the idea with taking M to Skyfall was (as mallory pointed out in the film) to draw Silva into the open. Bond needed a large open area that he was familiar with, plus somewhere where the high-tech Silva couldn't have a technical advantage. An old mansion with dodgy electrics would be a safe bet, no?
As for the timeline thing, how about thinking of 'James Bond' as a cover name? It's not the case, but it might help you deal with this terrible mental anguish you seem to be going through.
MG -{
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
http://youtu.be/TFkx8DK8ETE
Never has the old adage "Don't talk, shoot" been more appropriate. Silva has his sights firmly set on M, it makes no sense for him to waste any time on Bond at that moment, especially after he saw what Bond was capable of at his island lair. That scene would have been much better if it was just Bond and the henchman fighting it out. It would have added to the tension by delaying Bond's pursuit of Silva before he got to M.
http://www.blueridgefilmgroup.com/?p=465
Stands on its own two feet And develops its own unique epic quality ,it would have been nice if this had happened sooner in the film,
we could have also done with the dramatic opening scene before the titles being in the middle of the film to lighten it up a a bit.
Over all there were some interesting directorial touches like the fight scene shot head to toe with no cuts or camera movement a bit like a fed Astair and Ginger Rogers dance routine,
However for all its commendable attributes I think we have now seen enough of bonds inner self and defects, and the next film should have more fantasy elements.
I’m sure it will
Geography ain't my strong point, but Hankley common isn't near Scotland.... is it?
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I absolutely loved Skyfall. Loved it. It was exhilarating, well-crafted, well-acted, easy to follow yet not elementary, and most of all...extreeeeeeeeeeemely Bondian in the sense of both the older Eon films and the Craig reboot. It immediately rises to my top five, slotting nicely behind OHMSS, GF and FRWL into fourth place.
I am sort of a list guy, so here is what I really liked:
-- Daniel Craig, first and foremost. Do you realize how lucky we are to have an actor of this caliber playing our favorite spy? His intensity and emotion are palpable, but not in the sometimes forced way I found with Dalton.
-- The M plot. I myself am shocked that I liked this, because no one has been a bigger critic of M’s prominence going all the way back to GoldenEye. Part of me wonders if my happiness is due to the knowledge that we will no longer have to endure plots that hinge around the talents of Dame Judi, but I don’t think that’s it. This plot just made sense, far-fetched as the details may have been. I can’t explain it any better than that.
-- Bond going totally off the reservation. So much better drawn here than in LTK. His seaside (Caribbean?) life of shagging all day and eluding scorpions while drinking all night feels exactly like I can imagine him acting at the end of the YOLT novel when he loses his mind.
-- Moneypenny. Forget that Naomie Harris is insanely attractive (IMO anyway) or that her appearance in Hong Kong doesn’t really make sense. The payoff is sooooo worth it. In hindsight it was as obvious as the sky, but when Bond walked into the office with the coat rack and there she was behind the desk, I got chills. “Holy crap, that’s Moneypenny” I thought, and sure enough she confirmed it a second later. The whole theater cheered. Most of all, I love that they addressed one of the great Bondology topics of all time, namely whether Bond and Moneypenny had ever had a dalliance.
-- Javier Bardem. His blond hair was a little Zorin-esque for my liking, but that and his horribly dyed eyebrows only made his insanity more real. His caressing of Bond was odd, but also made me think that this is how a truly insane villain would actually act.
-- Gareth Mallory. Like Moneypenny, we have now come full circle on M as well. I’m sure I am not the first to notice the similarity of Mallory to Messervy. And Ralph Fiennes has such an eel-like quality to his acting that I was convinced he was a villain right to the very end when he was standing behind the classic desk.
-- Q. The third member of the old-school troika that they brought back. The scene of them jousting in the National Gallery was wonderful.
-- Bond’s childhood home. OK, they made up a name for it, but how cool was the setting? His parents’ headstone – brilliant! The filmmakers are finally acknowledging that the character has a past that started before he became a double-oh, and not in the manner of out-and-out fictional silliness like him taking a first in Oriental Languages at a school he never attended.
-- The title sequence and song. For me, best titles since Moonraker. The song vaguely reminds me of that film also. This is the vocal range that Adele should sing everything in, rather than the screeching of “Someone Like You”.
-- London. This is the most our hero has ever had to do in his adopted hometown, which was refreshing.
Because we are all nitpickers here (no one more so than me) fairness demands that I acknowledge some weaknesses:
-- The film is too long. Not a killer of a problem, but the lengthy battles in London and Scotland should both have been shortened.
-- Severine was a disappointment. Her screen time is far too limited to give her impact, which was fine for someone like Paris Carver whose backstory provided some emotional heft. Instead, Severine seemed to be inserted into the story to give it another beautiful woman and an easy Obligatory Sacrificial Lamb. Berenice Marlohe can’t act, either.
-- The London shootout was some of the worst marksmanship ever in a Bond film, which is saying something. Where was MI5 in all this domestic disturbance anyway?
-- No way anyone survives a fall from a bridge that high.
Even though the film draws heavily on themes from TWINE (M revenge plot, MI6 blowing up, initially shadowy villain) it runs circles around that movie. It does homages the right way – the DB5, Q, Moneypenny, new/old M, extensive use of the Bond theme – as opposed to the clunky nudge-nudge, wink-wink in-joke-fest that was DAD.
Perhaps the greatest thing about this film is that it explicitly acknowledges that there were Bond films before the reboot. I loved CR (not so QOS) but never got completely comfortable with the totally clean slate on which they were drawn. With Skyfall, it finally feels like a circle has been drawn around the entire series. If they were to end the series now (which they of course won’t, thank goodness), the dramatic arc would be complete.
Which brings me to my one concern...where do we go from here? On one hand, the old-school formula has been set up again, if they want to use it. On the other hand, I’m not sure that’s what the filmmakers, Bond enthusiasts or the broader public want anymore. I can’t figure it out – I’m ambivalent. Most of all, I am sad that Daniel Craig will eventually leave. Maybe he already has. I have never felt that sadness about the series before, and the fact that I do is the highest compliment I can pay the actor or the film.
11 stars out of 10
Clearly you didn't see the same film I did, because to me Naomie Harris's performance was one of the more delightful aspects of the movie.
Well, Connery would disagree with you on that. Connery’s said himself that Schwarzenegger delivers one-liners well. I can’t find any online links to him saying this, but I recall reading it in a magazine somewhere; and someone else on this thread mentioned the same thing.
I’m sure a link to it can be found, but I’ve tried all the obvious search terms with no luck.
Perhaps I can put you at ease somewhat. Daniel Craig has signed on for two more Bond films. As for where do we go from here? One can only speculate. I don't think the producers would want to stray too far from Skyfall and go back to the old-school formula lock, stock, and barrel. So, I envisage a character driven film on similar lines to Skyfall with a little more action and humour.
Hmmm, I recall Connery saying he thought the best Bond villain was Cubby.
What a w@nker.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Connery is my favorite Bond, but I never said he was the smartest!
The James Bond series has been called a lot of things, but never prestigious. From b-movie to blockbuster, from superannuated retrospective to experimental rebirth, the series has gone through an array of incarnations. Skyfall is the first Bond film to surface in high-art territory, which is a mixed blessing. Oscar-winning director Sam Mendes teamed up with renowned cinematographer Roger Deakins and screenwriter John Logan to make a Bond film that would please crowds and critics alike.
While not as revolutionary as Casino Royale, Daniel Craig's third outing as 007 is easily the most sumptuous, sleek, and visually impressive film in the series. It is also the darkest. For all its action, Skyfall focuses largely on a freudian deconstruction of its three major characters, Bond, M, and Raoul Silva. Silva, played by oscar-winning Spanish actor Javier Bardem, is an ex-MI6 agent with a psychotic, son-like obsession with M, who abandoned him to Chinese authorities years earlier. Though his role was clearly influenced by Heath Ledger's Joker from 2008's The Dark Knight, Bardem gives Silva a unique breed of pathological, feminine bravado.
The film also features two beautiful and dynamic bond girls. The first is Eve, an incompetant but charming MI6 agent played by Naomi Harris. The second is Sévérine, a mesmerising femme-fetale whose role, played by French-Khmer actress Bérénice Lim Marlohe, is alluring, mysterious, and far too brief. Judy Dench, however, takes the spotlight in her last and finest performance as M, the fledgling head of MI6.
In the last act, Bond and M retreat to the Scottish moores to trap Silva at his own insidious and vengeful game. These last scenes are visually spectacular, reaching an almost mythological fiber. Director Mendes fuses the desolate setting with a rising dread that climaxes in a gothic, Straw Dogs-esque finale. The film's action scenes are excellent, particularly during the title-sequence in Istambul, which includes a train-top foot chase that rivals the best action sequences in the series. Adele's title song and the sequence that accompanies it is the series' best since Tina Turner's Goldeneye.
At times, Deakin's oscar-worthy cinematography distracts from the plot. The shots are so clean, so vibrant, so dazzling, that one forgets to follow what characters are saying or the progression of the narrative. Occasional plot-holes are patched up with slick pacing and iconic imagery. Still, the film manages to balance old with new, character with extravagance, darkness with humor, and violence with tenderness. Though it suffers from plot-holes and a sumptuous style that is sometimes too striking for its own good, Skyfall is well-written, takes creative risks, and is supported by rounded, dynamic characters.
The last bit of the scene seems to be filmed handheld, with a certain amout of "Wobble"
which if you happen to look at the background gives an almost seasick feeling.
The rest of the scene the camera is rock steady, So the change to handheld is Noticable.
Although It's not as Obvious as in a TV show Like CSI etc.
I wonder if there was a simple reason or an artistic One for this camera work.
On the contrary, I think Connery is intelligent and shrewd. Besides, I would think it reasonable to assume that as someone who knows how to deliver a line he would be able to recognise effective line delivery in others.
I hope that last remark wasn’t addressed towards me; otherwise I will have to report you. You’ve already been chastised once in the past for insulting me.
If you have nothing intelligent to say in response to any of my posts, I suggest you stop responding. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about something—perhaps you consider yourself an expert on Bond films and don’t like other peoples’ views on them.
With respect, I think this is a bit of an overstatement, as it seems to discount the past 50 years of Bond cinematography.
I also think Skyfall looks good, but agree that the series has a rich history of fine cinematography. For me OHMSS stands out, an not just the unsurpassed ski scenes. I love the sumptuous crane shot at the wedding.We are in danger of sanctifying Skyfall on a number of fronts. It's a fine Bond film, certainly amongst the best, but it's not perfect, it has it's flaws, but at the moment we are in a kind of 'thank Christ it's not another QOS' type euphoria/false conscienceness.