I received a home made Birthday Card today. The front picture was a screen grab of the tube train plunging towards the camera. On the front it says "NOT IN SERVICE"
That would explain it being empty.
A bit unusual to move surplus stock in the rush hour, but I suppose it could have developed a fault.
It has been many years since I saw a Bond movie I enjoyed as much as Skyfall. I believe it is easily Craig’s best Bond, where it falls among all the Bond films will take further viewings as all Bond films rise and fall as I watch them, but I am sure this will be pretty high.
PTS – Excellent pre-title sequence, one of the better ones in the series. The motorcycles on the roof and the use of the back-hoe on the train were both very imaginative. The PTS gets the movie off to a fast start and starts the story in motion.
Pre-Credits – Somewhat un-imaginative, I miss the days of floating women.
Theme Song – I have mentioned before I really like the song, felt it was very Bondian. Best Bond song in a long time and I expect an Academy Award nomination for it.
Villain – Javier Bardem was excellent as the somewhat crazy, somewhat quirky, but very sinister Silva. Silva is an intelligent formidable foe for Bond. Bardem balances the nuances of the character in a way that prevents the character from becoming a comic book villain.
Bond Girls – I want to state that I thought Berenice Marlowe was excellent as Severine. Her entire performance was good, but she was mesmerizing in the scene where she is at the bar with Bond in Macau, trying to appear brave and in control, while really scared underneath. It is a shame she did not get more screen time. Naomie Harris was fine as Eve, her scenes with Bond had some nice banter and they seemed to have genuine fondness for each other. To be fair, not sure there was a “Bond Girl” in this film as they both had limited screen time.
Other Actors – Ben Whishaw as Q, got off to a good start with some nice scenes, seemed nerdy enough to be Q. I liked that the initial gear given Bond was simple, but didn’t like the line about exploding pens. I don’t think they should make light of what has been done in previous Bond films. Ralph Fiennes was very good as Mallory, assuming he stays on; he will make a good M. Hopefully he will stay in the office and not be in the field.
Storyline – I liked the story line, for a Bond movie it was plausible. I don’t like to dissect a Bond plot, not sure any of them would hold up if you looked hard enough. It was compelling and well told, good enough for me. A lot of M in this film, but since she was central to the plot, I didn’t have a problem with it. I loved the use of the DB-5, thought Bond putting his finger on the ejector button was very funny. I also liked the little Bond history, going to Scotland, seeing his boyhood home and discussing his parents added to understanding of Bond. Not sure how many people in the audience knew Bond’s parents died in a climbing accident when he was young, but they did learn he was orphan. All-in-all, one of the better written Bond films, good use of a little humor mixed in with the action and suspense.
Henchman – They were all anonymous bad guys, which was fine. There did seem to be a lot of them though.
Soundtrack – Will have to listen more closely, I noticed the music several times during the film and was fine with what I heard. Don’t think it had the sweeping sounds of John Barry, but I liked it.
Director – Sam Mendes and Cinematographer Roger Deakins have both previously made beautiful films, so I am not surprised this film had a great look to it. When they hired Mendez I was confident the film would look good and it did. The scene in the high rise in Shanghai stands out.
The Guy That Plays Bond – I have never accepted Craig as Bond, to me, he did not look the part and I didn’t think he played the part the way it should be played. He was too aggressive; he had no balance to the character. That changed with Skyfall, I liked the little wink of the eye before shooting the fire extinguishers, and I liked the little smart quips with Eve and Q. I actually liked that he was not the killing machine he was in the prior films, his stamina was tested, he didn’t burst through walls, he struggled opening the door in the tube and hanging on to the elevator. Craig brought more nuances to the character which I enjoyed. Many actors find their Bond in the third film, Connery in GF, Moore in TSWLM and Brosnan in TWINE and now Craig in SF.
The Producers did an excellent job putting all the elements in place to make a good movie. They hired an excellent cast and an accomplished director in hopes of making a good movie, with the help of the cast and director they succeeded. Skyfall is an excellent film, among the best in Bond’s 50 years.
Thought they missed a chance at Skyfall.They could of Had M finding
an old potters wheel to make a clay Pot for some C4. Then Have Bond
find her, come up from behind as Both sets of Hands mold the clay.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I received a home made Birthday Card today. The front picture was a screen grab of the tube train plunging towards the camera. On the front it says "NOT IN SERVICE"
That would explain it being empty.
A bit unusual to move surplus stock in the rush hour, but I suppose it could have developed a fault.
and the way that Severine was dispatched seemed too quick and jaded -- in particular, Craig delivery of Bond's line about Scotch was more callous than it needed to be, especially since apparently he could have done more to save her since the cavalry arrived just moments later. The scene lacked the tension and remorse it should have, as Bond is supposed to be cool, not cold
osris wrote :
I can see how you think this, but to me I thought he sounded like he was trying to put a brave face on the situation… trying to show Silva that he wasn’t shocked by her death.
I agree I've re-watched this scene recently and think Bond was puting on a show for Silva.
( Bond couldn't be THAT Cold, even given some of his recent exploits )
I think that's how it was written, but I'm not sure Craig delivered the line right. He had more subtlety with the similar scene in Casino Royale after M makes the point about the girl who was tortured for nothing and then killed by LeChiffre. Mendes' direction may also have been the problem, as perhaps he could have done something different to emphasize Bond's motives. I'll have to see the film again, but I recall being in the theater and thinking that it just didn't come off right.
Looking at the film again, I've noticed when Bond drives away
from his Lock-up in the Aston. He dosen't Lock the door.
Leaving all his stuff to be stolen ,sold at markets around London
Or ending up on Ebay. )
Apparently there's going to be a special Bond edition of 'Storage Hunters'
Definitely a good movie. I almost felt like I was watching a Fleming novel brought to life for the 21st century. Adele's song was great but that opening montage was...not the best effort.
My issue however is not with the film but with Daniel. I just am not really a huge fan of his portrayal of Bond. I find it kind of empty and robotic. He seems more like a ticked off Navy Seal than James Bond at times. He certainty has the grit and muscle but where is the confidence and swagger?
I really wish Brosnan wouldn't have been such a product of the 1990's big budget action movies. I think if you would have given Brosnan this script, director, tone, etc. in his heyday it would have been that much better of a film. Brosnan's decline after GoldenEye is one of the sadder things to me in the Bond franchise. The ridiculous over-the-top CGI and laughable scripts diluted and wasted the years of of a man I believe was born to play Bond.
Overall SF was good and I am pleased to see the direction the franchise is taking but, my personal opinion, I'd like to see a change of 007. :007)
I think 8.5 out of 10 is a fair grade. Watched Skyfall last night and threw Casino Royale into the DVD player today - CR is still a much better film IMHO.
It bothers me to type this as I really do like D.C. as James Bond. I think he's one of the better actors to play Bond as far as acting ability is concerned. But for some reason this time around in Skyfall there were a lot of times I was watching and thinking, "Wow, he looks so far removed from James Bond in physical appearance, and wow, he looks old."
Sorry Daniel, you were great. I'd even say at times as good as if not better than Connery (Smoke ducks to avoid things being thrown at him by the AJB board). However, it's time to move on. The reboot is complete, I tip my hat to you sir -but if we're going back to the old format, I need to see a more Bond-looking actor walk through the doors of MI6.
I think 8.5 out of 10 is a fair grade. Watched Skyfall last night and threw Casino Royale into the DVD player today - CR is still a much better film IMHO.
It bothers me to type this as I really do like D.C. as James Bond. I think he's one of the better actors to play Bond as far as acting ability is concerned. But for some reason this time around in Skyfall there were a lot of times I was watching and thinking, "Wow, he looks so far removed from James Bond in physical appearance, and wow, he looks old."
Sorry Daniel, you were great. I'd even say at times as good as if not better than Connery (Smoke ducks to avoid things being thrown at him by the AJB board). However, it's time to move on. The reboot is complete, I tip my hat to you sir -but if we're going back to the old format, I need to see a more Bond-looking actor walk through the doors of MI6.
I really liked Skyfall. Overall, its about 8.5-9 out of 10. Although the plot in someways reminded me of Goldenye (ex MI6 agent creating havoc), I still thought it was very fresh and modern. I like the use of cyber terrorism and thought Bardem is very creepy (almost Hannibal Lectre like in jail). Great visuals, esp. in Shanghai, Turkey and Macau. Very good action as well. I also loved many of the "homage to the past" moments, like Q & Bond with exploding pen quip, the Aston Martin with ejector seat (ep M's comment) and machine gins, the "old" M's office at the end, and back story about Bond' youth.
Weak points - to me lacked a major Bond Girl, was it Moneypenny? Was it Severine? It just wasn't that clear!! Also gun barrel MUSt be moved to the estart of the film!!
My issue however is not with the film but with Daniel. I just am not really a huge fan of his portrayal of Bond. I find it kind of empty and robotic. He seems more like a ticked off Navy Seal than James Bond at times.
I agree.
And the most obvious missing element in his portrayal is charm—something every previous Bond actor (even Dalton) displayed. But to be fair to Craig, I think it’s the scripts that are more to blame. He can only work with what he’s given. Hopefully, the producers are realising this, and will try to reintroduce that element back into the films.
The reintroduction of M's old office gives me some hope that the producers have finally realised that some of the elements of the reboot might not have been a good idea; albeit that it was GE which was responsible for ditching this office in the first place.
So much for the hyped Nude scene first for a Bond Film etc.
This seems to be another old chestnut the Press drag out, I
seem to remember DAD was supposed to have the first Nude
scene in it too. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,816MI6 Agent
As an aside saw the film for the third time on Saturday. The story and visuals def gell better with several viewings, and I spotted Mr M G Wilson's cameo this time! - Very blink and you'll miss compared to normal! Still feel the ending is a bit odd compared to the structure of the rest of the film in a narrative sense.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
Long time, no post (been staying away from Bond sites to stay spoiler-free).
Hard not to think of Craig's other two Bond films when thinking of SF, not sure they make a trilogy but they do tell a story arc, at least feels that way to me. To wit:
Pre-credits is nice, rooftops feel like QOS on bikes, lol. Very much liked Bond falling, worked much better for me than TWINE.
Song is kinda dull, same for the title imagry (although oddly it works best when challening the work MK12 did for the reviled QOS title sequence, or some of Kleinman's stunning work on the TND titles).
So before the main credits finished, I was already getting a strong hit of SF referencing past Bonds, specifically the previous Craig Bond film, and that vibe continued a lot.
Very much liked Bond playing dead and going to the dogs as it were, also the focus back home on M and what her job must cost her, all those life and death choices do stack up. Bond getting back on the horse in the MI6 bunker was a good bit too. Q was fine.
Then to the mission - tracking Patrice to Shanghai. Love the shot of Bond sitting at the bar waiting for his phone to buzz... and not ordering a drink (the bar before him was sans glass, very nice touch there). The Blade Runneresque fight was a bit stagey but gee sure nice to watch.
Macau and into the mouth of the dragon (with Komodos! Sweet!) was big and dramatic. Eve: I remember last year, Harris flat-out denying she was Moneypenny and so I was watching these early seens with her and Bond going, Pity she's not Moneypenny. Lovely touch with her shaving Bond, getting him back to looking the part.
Severine: best short-time Bond girl since Tilly Masterton in GF, really awesome scenes with her and Craig.
Love the abandoned island, nice mirror of so many themes in the film. Bardem was freaking awesome as Silva, that first scene tops Mads torturing Craig in CR in my book, so much going on there.
Getting back to London, Q got a bit too much, Bond having someone talking to him in his ear so much, while realistic, just doesn't say "Bond" to me. The sequence chasing Silva worked, just like my Bond a bit more of a loner on the chase. Mallory starting to sway towards backing M/Bond was nice, don't often see such character development in a Bond film, even a small part like that one. Not sure I buy the conference room as Silva's big planned-for-years showdown with M, but as Barry says, really no point in picking a Bond plot apart, they all fall to pieces.
Bond taking M away to Skyfall ended up kinda Die Hardy, but absolutely loved the big finish in the chapel, worked very well for me.
Not sure how I feel about three films to get back to a very 60s/70s looking M/M's office/Moneypenny thing, but in context it worked.
Lots of "nice" up there, this film was easily the most mature in style/pacing/whathaveyou of Craig's three, CR being the most 12 year old Bond and QOS somewhere in between. I think that's what I mean about an arc, Bond starts very young in CR (and Campbell's direction is very much highlighting a boy's adventure IMO), with QOS seeing Bond grow up (and Forster nails that with his reviled pacing and action... have I mentioned I love that film?). SF, while more sedate than the other two, is a welcome coda to Craig/Bond, exploring core issues I nevere thought I'd see in a Bond film (parentage, surrogate-parentage from M much better than in any of the Brosnan films which always seemed to try going there, addiction and separation from the Service again much better than in any previous Bond film). Very much a film about Bond, as opposed to another Bond film, and there're pluses and minues to that.
I didn't get my squid, but I did get two dragons and that ain't bad! As one reviewer opined, not sure where Craig's Bond can go after this film, but I'm sure they'll think of something, either the rumored two-parter or simply cutting Craig free and recasting. Good days to be a Bond fan, if this is it for Craig then nicely done. {[]
Great and entertaining movie... Now what I disliked was the fact that One man... can actually challenge a whole secret service from a big Country... And the old I'm on a vendetta with edipus complex...
Although he is from the inside and he has access to the inside, it is still a very unbelievable scenario. Unlike the first movie which was a more believable scenario. I wish they use current events or fictitious but believable scenarios on the next movie.
If Daniel Craig was signed for 2 more movies, they should do a 2 part arc with a believable plot and expand on the characters and how they progressed with and from the plot.
I do hope you stick around Luck and Fate. Traditionalists are a thin on the ground of late. Expect to be roundy critisied
the reboot is very much "Well it's called the future, Get used to it " Many love it, and those of us who Love the old
elements of Bond are basicially told that we are "Out of touch" with the new age and that The old films wouldn't work
today. So on with the" Jason Bourne Lite " version of Bond.
I suppose I should re-introduce my self. I did post for a short time here under the name Shaken_not_Stirred, years ago. I have zero idea what my password is, nor the email associated with that account. But I did find my old persona on the user list, and dug up these old gems. I... I Really haven't changed much...
I am VERY much a Cinematic Bond Traditionalist. When I go to see a Bond movie I go in expecting a freaking JAMES BOND movie!!! QoS does nothing but disappoint me in this regard. Is it so much to ask for the gun barrel to open up the movie, way to F*** it up twice in a row. The name and the drink were only subtly hinted at. This new Bond seems way to trigger happy and has lost that composed and suave figure that balances him out in between action sequences...
Now I did just got back from watching it, and I don't want to give any official rating until i see it again. But as of now its a low 4/10. That score doesn't do it any justice cause I loved the movie for what it was, but A Cinematic Bond Traditionalist can do nothing but sit there twitching in their seat for 2 bloody hours thinking how they could forget the staple of the Bond franchise and not be able to pay any attention to the movie. And right when I was about to cry at the very end they throw it out at me, and while comforted that they didn't toss it out completely I felt betrayed and played.
~SNS
Moving the gun barrel to the end nothing but an insult to the franchise and a betrayal to the fans!
I am one who disliked how they had a 3D bullet in DAD, and I was also ****ed that they played around with it in CR. But those were nothing in comparison to this. It was enough for me to want to kill EON or whoever had this idea of slotting it to the end.
I also SERIOUSLY could not pay attention to the film, thinking the whole time about what happened to it. I even whispered to my friend during the opening credit sequence that "I am this close to just leaving".
Putting it at the end was nothing but an insult. The only purpose they must have had to put it at the end, was to kill off any and all excitement and anticipation we fans had going into the movie!
I had watched all 21 previous movies leading up to QoS. 1 a day, for 21 days, ending the day before QoS. Every time I turned on a movie, I got the same reception (save CR but it was at least close enough). Way to break the cycle QoS, go join the ranks of Never Say Never Again and the original Casino Royal as an unofficial Bond movie.
~SNS
I was going to write a long and detailed review about all the things I loved, liked and disliked about Skyfall, but then I found this guy's blog, and he pretty much sums up everything I have to say about the film:
But word on the grapevine is that the next two films will be filmed back to back.
I believe that was swiftly denied by DC personally in a recent interview saying it was impossible to do this!
I thought that comment was made before Logan made his about a 2-parter? And reading Craig's comment it sounds like his personal opinion, not necessarily the producers' plan... guess we'll have to wait and see.
One thing in favor of a 2-parter, Craig's age. He's looking at the far end of believability in the role already (for me), filming back-to-back would make him look that much younger in his 5th film. :007) 2 cents.
I wonder if I'm the only one who didn't like it. It's like this; the 007 franchise desperately needed a reboot by 2006. Desperately. It was all getting very stale and was becoming nothing but an outdated cliche. Enter Casino Royale. A newer Bond who's a lot more serious and physical. Fight scenes that looked liked actual fights. Gone is the whole "shaken not stirred" and over-gadgetization. But it wasn't a complete departure. Tuxedo...check. Beautiful women...check. Impeccable taste...check, etc. I, a Bond fan since the days of Roger Moore, rejoiced.
This new movie seemed to have undone all the good that had been done in the last two films.
Ridiculous fight scenes featuring captive wildlife. Dorky homages to past movies (ejection seat and machine gun...Please tell me I didn't see that). I like Bond mysterious, thanks to the over explanation of his past, that's history. I was beginning to expect lame cameos of Connery and Moore. Even Dame Judi was over used and made to look almost cookie-cutter weepy and weak.
There was a lot that made no sense at all except as set pieces. The fight with the sniper. Why the hell was there a sniper? They could have just shot the guy themselves. The flashlight giving away location at the end and it must get dark in Scotland really really fast. Like in two seconds. Bond was not at all the hardcore, quiet competent guy I'm used to from Craig, and like. I could go on and on.
I feel this movie was a sad step backwards and a waste of time.
That said; I felt Bardem was excellent. Dench did as well as anyone could with such a sappy, lame script and Craig is still, imho, the best Bond yet.
All and all I give Skyfail (not a typo) about a three out of ten. For perspective I'd give the much maligned QoS a seven...about the same as License to Kill.
Here’s a eview of Skyfall in the New Yorker by David Denby. I agree with what he says about Connery’s Bond, completely.
“Skyfall marks the fiftieth anniversary of the mother and father of all franchises. It would be lovely to announce that the new Bond movie is scintillating, or at least rambunctiously exciting, but “Skyfall,” in the recent mode of Christopher Nolan’s “Batman” films, is a gloomy, dark action thriller, and almost completely without the cynical playfulness that drew us to the series in the first place. “Skyfall” offers portents of the end, of the possible termination of 007 (Daniel Craig) and also of the Tennyson-quoting M. (Judi Dench); and it suggests, too, the looming irrelevance of M.I.6, which turns out to be not the powerful center of intelligence but just another station in a world of infinitely hackable networks. The Bond movies offered the exhilarating freedom of travel—James caressed by soft breezes and swaying palms—but distance is now meaningless. Evil may erupt wherever there’s a computer. It’s certainly no longer confined to a place, like China or Russia or an underground redoubt or a tropical island, where an unspeakably malevolent genius with precise diction threatens to take over the world.
The enemy this time is no more than a former M.I.6 agent, Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem), a giggling blond creep who reveals the names of other agents and caresses Bond’s knees (the two acts of aggression are treated as equals). Appearance-wise, he seems intended to be a cross between Julian Assange and Andy Warhol. But Silva also harbors a grudge against M. Indeed, both Bond and Silva are obsessed with M.; Silva hates her, and Bond, in his way, loves her. They are like two quarrelling sons. The director, Sam Mendes, has taken a pop concept and solemnized it with Freud, which is not, perhaps, the best way of turning Bond into grownup entertainment. Judi Dench acts with her usual fierce concentration, and I should report that there’s a neat scamper across rooftops, this time with motorcycles, not to mention the reliable old nonsense of a car chase that manages to smash every fruit stand in the street. In terms of spectacle, the Bond franchise has long been overtaken by its rivals, and in this movie many of the action sequences, including an apparent death by drowning, seem borrowed from other recent movies (see the watery plunge in “Bourne”).
Daniel Craig is amusingly single-minded. He has the strange attractiveness—prominent nose, hooded eyes, narrowed forehead—of an intelligent cobra. He’s dry, a little grudging, even, with only the flicker of a smile and no discernible soul. Of course, he doesn’t need a soul. What would be the bloody use of it?, as M. might say. Just as he is, he’s sufficient for his job, his body a frequently unsheathed weapon, alabastered and fast, cutting through cluttered sets and straitened passageways.
Looking back over the half century of films, however, I still long for Sean Connery. Connery was shrewd and piratical—he let us in on the fun of being wicked. An ironist, he knew that the role was absurd but that the desire for fantasy wasn’t. He was the gentleman-rogue hero—aristocratic in disdain, yet classless—of every man’s dream of himself, and women could enjoy him as the adroit cad who arrives at night, delivers the goods, and leaves in the morning. Connery took his time. His drawling pauses as he calculated his advantage were a prime comic device, the manner of a brute swathed in sophistication, so sure of success that he never needed to rush.
Roger Moore, of course, was more Brut than brute. He gave off the aura of a luxury product in an airline magazine—an expensive leather case, perhaps, rubbed rather too often with oil. He was neither shaken nor stirred; he was smooth, unmarked by experience in any way. George Lazenby and the gracious Timothy Dalton never really took control of the role, but Pierce Brosnan, with his big, handsome head atop a slender body, could be flinty. He had an interesting mean streak and the habits of cold indifference. He was lithe and quick, yet not really a menace, like the big-bodied Connery or the steel-springed Craig.
The earlier Bonds were superlative lovers of food, spirits, and women. As box-office has become truly internationalized, however, the producers may have feared that a too knowing Bond might not please everyone. Such a connoisseur could turn off moviegoers who object to the notion of being outclassed. The Bond franchise will continue, though I doubt we shall ever again hear Bond say, as Connery did in “Goldfinger,” that a certain brandy was a “thirty-year-old fins indifferently blended, sir, with an overdose of bons bois.” I don’t know what bons bois is, but I enjoyed the astringent flavor of Connery’s judgment.”
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.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,749Chief of Staff
I suppose I should re-introduce my self. I did post for a short time here under the name Shaken_not_Stirred, years ago. I have zero idea what my password is, nor the email associated with that account.
I do.
If you had used the forum email or PM system I could have told you the email you used and changed your password to allow you to log-in under your old name...
But word on the grapevine is that the next two films will be filmed back to back.
I believe that was swiftly denied by DC personally in a recent interview saying it was impossible to do this!
I thought that comment was made before Logan made his about a 2-parter? And reading Craig's comment it sounds like his personal opinion, not necessarily the producers' plan... guess we'll have to wait and see.
One thing in favor of a 2-parter, Craig's age. He's looking at the far end of believability in the role already (for me), filming back-to-back would make him look that much younger in his 5th film. :007) 2 cents.
Daniel Craig: A two-part Bond movie would be 'impossible'
Daniel Craig says it would be ''impossible'' to do a two-part James Bond movie following 'Skyfall' because it is important to concentrate on one film at a time.
Daniel Craig says it would be ''impossible'' to do a two-part James Bond movie following 'Skyfall'.
The 44-year-old star - who reprised his role as the suave spy for the latest Bond film - has reassured fans the 24th and 25th movies in the series will not be divided in two parts because the filming process takes so long for one motion picture and it is important to concentrate on one movie at a time.
He said: ''It's impossible to do a two parter, I heard that someone was talking about that we're doing a two parter, but that's the first I've heard about it.
''We can only do them one at a time, they take six months to shoot. You can't write one movie thinking about the next.''
Daniel insists the next two Bond films will be stand-alone projects, as is tradition with the movie series, and admits he is keen to star in the 25th motion picture in the franchise after already signing up to play 007 for a fourth time in the 24th project.
In an interview with Filmstarts, he added: ''All we're trying to do is get the next one sorted out and it'll stand on its own and if I'm able I'll do another one after that.''
John Logan is said to have already started writing the next two Bond films and he reportedly approached producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson with an idea for an original two-movie arc while 'Skyfall' was still filming.
The as-yet untitled 24th Bond film is slated for release in autumn 2014.
Well someone should send Craig's comments to Peter Jackson and Quenton Tarantino and Bill Condon and David Yates (to name a few recent directors who've scored smashing successes with big-budget 2-parters, in Jackson's case a notable 3-parter...), I'm sure they'd get a chuckle out of them. B-)
I get Craig's concern, but difficult ain't impossible. Also not his decision.
Comments
Well observed.
PTS – Excellent pre-title sequence, one of the better ones in the series. The motorcycles on the roof and the use of the back-hoe on the train were both very imaginative. The PTS gets the movie off to a fast start and starts the story in motion.
Pre-Credits – Somewhat un-imaginative, I miss the days of floating women.
Theme Song – I have mentioned before I really like the song, felt it was very Bondian. Best Bond song in a long time and I expect an Academy Award nomination for it.
Villain – Javier Bardem was excellent as the somewhat crazy, somewhat quirky, but very sinister Silva. Silva is an intelligent formidable foe for Bond. Bardem balances the nuances of the character in a way that prevents the character from becoming a comic book villain.
Bond Girls – I want to state that I thought Berenice Marlowe was excellent as Severine. Her entire performance was good, but she was mesmerizing in the scene where she is at the bar with Bond in Macau, trying to appear brave and in control, while really scared underneath. It is a shame she did not get more screen time. Naomie Harris was fine as Eve, her scenes with Bond had some nice banter and they seemed to have genuine fondness for each other. To be fair, not sure there was a “Bond Girl” in this film as they both had limited screen time.
Other Actors – Ben Whishaw as Q, got off to a good start with some nice scenes, seemed nerdy enough to be Q. I liked that the initial gear given Bond was simple, but didn’t like the line about exploding pens. I don’t think they should make light of what has been done in previous Bond films. Ralph Fiennes was very good as Mallory, assuming he stays on; he will make a good M. Hopefully he will stay in the office and not be in the field.
Storyline – I liked the story line, for a Bond movie it was plausible. I don’t like to dissect a Bond plot, not sure any of them would hold up if you looked hard enough. It was compelling and well told, good enough for me. A lot of M in this film, but since she was central to the plot, I didn’t have a problem with it. I loved the use of the DB-5, thought Bond putting his finger on the ejector button was very funny. I also liked the little Bond history, going to Scotland, seeing his boyhood home and discussing his parents added to understanding of Bond. Not sure how many people in the audience knew Bond’s parents died in a climbing accident when he was young, but they did learn he was orphan. All-in-all, one of the better written Bond films, good use of a little humor mixed in with the action and suspense.
Henchman – They were all anonymous bad guys, which was fine. There did seem to be a lot of them though.
Soundtrack – Will have to listen more closely, I noticed the music several times during the film and was fine with what I heard. Don’t think it had the sweeping sounds of John Barry, but I liked it.
Director – Sam Mendes and Cinematographer Roger Deakins have both previously made beautiful films, so I am not surprised this film had a great look to it. When they hired Mendez I was confident the film would look good and it did. The scene in the high rise in Shanghai stands out.
The Guy That Plays Bond – I have never accepted Craig as Bond, to me, he did not look the part and I didn’t think he played the part the way it should be played. He was too aggressive; he had no balance to the character. That changed with Skyfall, I liked the little wink of the eye before shooting the fire extinguishers, and I liked the little smart quips with Eve and Q. I actually liked that he was not the killing machine he was in the prior films, his stamina was tested, he didn’t burst through walls, he struggled opening the door in the tube and hanging on to the elevator. Craig brought more nuances to the character which I enjoyed. Many actors find their Bond in the third film, Connery in GF, Moore in TSWLM and Brosnan in TWINE and now Craig in SF.
The Producers did an excellent job putting all the elements in place to make a good movie. They hired an excellent cast and an accomplished director in hopes of making a good movie, with the help of the cast and director they succeeded. Skyfall is an excellent film, among the best in Bond’s 50 years.
an old potters wheel to make a clay Pot for some C4. Then Have Bond
find her, come up from behind as Both sets of Hands mold the clay.
And where's the 'mind the gap' joke?
...and postcolonial came after colonialism... it doesn't mean that everything will behave accordingly to the New Coke example and be bad..
Apparently there's going to be a special Bond edition of 'Storage Hunters'
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
My issue however is not with the film but with Daniel. I just am not really a huge fan of his portrayal of Bond. I find it kind of empty and robotic. He seems more like a ticked off Navy Seal than James Bond at times. He certainty has the grit and muscle but where is the confidence and swagger?
I really wish Brosnan wouldn't have been such a product of the 1990's big budget action movies. I think if you would have given Brosnan this script, director, tone, etc. in his heyday it would have been that much better of a film. Brosnan's decline after GoldenEye is one of the sadder things to me in the Bond franchise. The ridiculous over-the-top CGI and laughable scripts diluted and wasted the years of of a man I believe was born to play Bond.
Overall SF was good and I am pleased to see the direction the franchise is taking but, my personal opinion, I'd like to see a change of 007. :007)
SF 8.5/10 !!
It bothers me to type this as I really do like D.C. as James Bond. I think he's one of the better actors to play Bond as far as acting ability is concerned. But for some reason this time around in Skyfall there were a lot of times I was watching and thinking, "Wow, he looks so far removed from James Bond in physical appearance, and wow, he looks old."
Sorry Daniel, you were great. I'd even say at times as good as if not better than Connery (Smoke ducks to avoid things being thrown at him by the AJB board). However, it's time to move on. The reboot is complete, I tip my hat to you sir -but if we're going back to the old format, I need to see a more Bond-looking actor walk through the doors of MI6.
Weak points - to me lacked a major Bond Girl, was it Moneypenny? Was it Severine? It just wasn't that clear!! Also gun barrel MUSt be moved to the estart of the film!!
I agree.
And the most obvious missing element in his portrayal is charm—something every previous Bond actor (even Dalton) displayed. But to be fair to Craig, I think it’s the scripts that are more to blame. He can only work with what he’s given. Hopefully, the producers are realising this, and will try to reintroduce that element back into the films.
The reintroduction of M's old office gives me some hope that the producers have finally realised that some of the elements of the reboot might not have been a good idea; albeit that it was GE which was responsible for ditching this office in the first place.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
This seems to be another old chestnut the Press drag out, I
seem to remember DAD was supposed to have the first Nude
scene in it too.
Hard not to think of Craig's other two Bond films when thinking of SF, not sure they make a trilogy but they do tell a story arc, at least feels that way to me. To wit:
Pre-credits is nice, rooftops feel like QOS on bikes, lol. Very much liked Bond falling, worked much better for me than TWINE.
Song is kinda dull, same for the title imagry (although oddly it works best when challening the work MK12 did for the reviled QOS title sequence, or some of Kleinman's stunning work on the TND titles).
So before the main credits finished, I was already getting a strong hit of SF referencing past Bonds, specifically the previous Craig Bond film, and that vibe continued a lot.
Very much liked Bond playing dead and going to the dogs as it were, also the focus back home on M and what her job must cost her, all those life and death choices do stack up. Bond getting back on the horse in the MI6 bunker was a good bit too. Q was fine.
Then to the mission - tracking Patrice to Shanghai. Love the shot of Bond sitting at the bar waiting for his phone to buzz... and not ordering a drink (the bar before him was sans glass, very nice touch there). The Blade Runneresque fight was a bit stagey but gee sure nice to watch.
Macau and into the mouth of the dragon (with Komodos! Sweet!) was big and dramatic. Eve: I remember last year, Harris flat-out denying she was Moneypenny and so I was watching these early seens with her and Bond going, Pity she's not Moneypenny.
Severine: best short-time Bond girl since Tilly Masterton in GF, really awesome scenes with her and Craig.
Love the abandoned island, nice mirror of so many themes in the film. Bardem was freaking awesome as Silva, that first scene tops Mads torturing Craig in CR in my book, so much going on there.
Getting back to London, Q got a bit too much, Bond having someone talking to him in his ear so much, while realistic, just doesn't say "Bond" to me. The sequence chasing Silva worked, just like my Bond a bit more of a loner on the chase. Mallory starting to sway towards backing M/Bond was nice, don't often see such character development in a Bond film, even a small part like that one. Not sure I buy the conference room as Silva's big planned-for-years showdown with M, but as Barry says, really no point in picking a Bond plot apart, they all fall to pieces.
Bond taking M away to Skyfall ended up kinda Die Hardy, but absolutely loved the big finish in the chapel, worked very well for me.
Not sure how I feel about three films to get back to a very 60s/70s looking M/M's office/Moneypenny thing, but in context it worked.
Lots of "nice" up there, this film was easily the most mature in style/pacing/whathaveyou of Craig's three, CR being the most 12 year old Bond and QOS somewhere in between. I think that's what I mean about an arc, Bond starts very young in CR (and Campbell's direction is very much highlighting a boy's adventure IMO), with QOS seeing Bond grow up (and Forster nails that with his reviled pacing and action... have I mentioned I love that film?). SF, while more sedate than the other two, is a welcome coda to Craig/Bond, exploring core issues I nevere thought I'd see in a Bond film (parentage, surrogate-parentage from M much better than in any of the Brosnan films which always seemed to try going there, addiction and separation from the Service again much better than in any previous Bond film). Very much a film about Bond, as opposed to another Bond film, and there're pluses and minues to that.
I didn't get my squid, but I did get two dragons and that ain't bad! As one reviewer opined, not sure where Craig's Bond can go after this film, but I'm sure they'll think of something, either the rumored two-parter or simply cutting Craig free and recasting. Good days to be a Bond fan, if this is it for Craig then nicely done. {[]
Although he is from the inside and he has access to the inside, it is still a very unbelievable scenario. Unlike the first movie which was a more believable scenario. I wish they use current events or fictitious but believable scenarios on the next movie.
If Daniel Craig was signed for 2 more movies, they should do a 2 part arc with a believable plot and expand on the characters and how they progressed with and from the plot.
I suppose I should re-introduce my self. I did post for a short time here under the name Shaken_not_Stirred, years ago. I have zero idea what my password is, nor the email associated with that account. But I did find my old persona on the user list, and dug up these old gems. I... I Really haven't changed much...
Thread: 'Bonditics'...and QoS
Thread: QOS gun barrel rumours
Please... no more 2 part story arcs. Let's just get back to one adventure per film.
I second that!!!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I believe that was swiftly denied by DC personally in a recent interview saying it was impossible to do this!
http://antagonie.blogspot.com/2012/11/absence-makes-heart-grow-bonder.html
I recommend it. The most astute and even-handed review of Skyfall that I've seen so far.
Edit: the only difference is, I liked the third act of the film whereas he did not. I also enjoyed the film more, in general, I think.
One thing in favor of a 2-parter, Craig's age. He's looking at the far end of believability in the role already (for me), filming back-to-back would make him look that much younger in his 5th film. :007) 2 cents.
This new movie seemed to have undone all the good that had been done in the last two films.
Ridiculous fight scenes featuring captive wildlife. Dorky homages to past movies (ejection seat and machine gun...Please tell me I didn't see that). I like Bond mysterious, thanks to the over explanation of his past, that's history. I was beginning to expect lame cameos of Connery and Moore. Even Dame Judi was over used and made to look almost cookie-cutter weepy and weak.
There was a lot that made no sense at all except as set pieces. The fight with the sniper. Why the hell was there a sniper? They could have just shot the guy themselves. The flashlight giving away location at the end and it must get dark in Scotland really really fast. Like in two seconds. Bond was not at all the hardcore, quiet competent guy I'm used to from Craig, and like. I could go on and on.
I feel this movie was a sad step backwards and a waste of time.
That said; I felt Bardem was excellent. Dench did as well as anyone could with such a sappy, lame script and Craig is still, imho, the best Bond yet.
All and all I give Skyfail (not a typo) about a three out of ten. For perspective I'd give the much maligned QoS a seven...about the same as License to Kill.
“Skyfall marks the fiftieth anniversary of the mother and father of all franchises. It would be lovely to announce that the new Bond movie is scintillating, or at least rambunctiously exciting, but “Skyfall,” in the recent mode of Christopher Nolan’s “Batman” films, is a gloomy, dark action thriller, and almost completely without the cynical playfulness that drew us to the series in the first place. “Skyfall” offers portents of the end, of the possible termination of 007 (Daniel Craig) and also of the Tennyson-quoting M. (Judi Dench); and it suggests, too, the looming irrelevance of M.I.6, which turns out to be not the powerful center of intelligence but just another station in a world of infinitely hackable networks. The Bond movies offered the exhilarating freedom of travel—James caressed by soft breezes and swaying palms—but distance is now meaningless. Evil may erupt wherever there’s a computer. It’s certainly no longer confined to a place, like China or Russia or an underground redoubt or a tropical island, where an unspeakably malevolent genius with precise diction threatens to take over the world.
The enemy this time is no more than a former M.I.6 agent, Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem), a giggling blond creep who reveals the names of other agents and caresses Bond’s knees (the two acts of aggression are treated as equals). Appearance-wise, he seems intended to be a cross between Julian Assange and Andy Warhol. But Silva also harbors a grudge against M. Indeed, both Bond and Silva are obsessed with M.; Silva hates her, and Bond, in his way, loves her. They are like two quarrelling sons. The director, Sam Mendes, has taken a pop concept and solemnized it with Freud, which is not, perhaps, the best way of turning Bond into grownup entertainment. Judi Dench acts with her usual fierce concentration, and I should report that there’s a neat scamper across rooftops, this time with motorcycles, not to mention the reliable old nonsense of a car chase that manages to smash every fruit stand in the street. In terms of spectacle, the Bond franchise has long been overtaken by its rivals, and in this movie many of the action sequences, including an apparent death by drowning, seem borrowed from other recent movies (see the watery plunge in “Bourne”).
Daniel Craig is amusingly single-minded. He has the strange attractiveness—prominent nose, hooded eyes, narrowed forehead—of an intelligent cobra. He’s dry, a little grudging, even, with only the flicker of a smile and no discernible soul. Of course, he doesn’t need a soul. What would be the bloody use of it?, as M. might say. Just as he is, he’s sufficient for his job, his body a frequently unsheathed weapon, alabastered and fast, cutting through cluttered sets and straitened passageways.
Looking back over the half century of films, however, I still long for Sean Connery. Connery was shrewd and piratical—he let us in on the fun of being wicked. An ironist, he knew that the role was absurd but that the desire for fantasy wasn’t. He was the gentleman-rogue hero—aristocratic in disdain, yet classless—of every man’s dream of himself, and women could enjoy him as the adroit cad who arrives at night, delivers the goods, and leaves in the morning. Connery took his time. His drawling pauses as he calculated his advantage were a prime comic device, the manner of a brute swathed in sophistication, so sure of success that he never needed to rush.
Roger Moore, of course, was more Brut than brute. He gave off the aura of a luxury product in an airline magazine—an expensive leather case, perhaps, rubbed rather too often with oil. He was neither shaken nor stirred; he was smooth, unmarked by experience in any way. George Lazenby and the gracious Timothy Dalton never really took control of the role, but Pierce Brosnan, with his big, handsome head atop a slender body, could be flinty. He had an interesting mean streak and the habits of cold indifference. He was lithe and quick, yet not really a menace, like the big-bodied Connery or the steel-springed Craig.
The earlier Bonds were superlative lovers of food, spirits, and women. As box-office has become truly internationalized, however, the producers may have feared that a too knowing Bond might not please everyone. Such a connoisseur could turn off moviegoers who object to the notion of being outclassed. The Bond franchise will continue, though I doubt we shall ever again hear Bond say, as Connery did in “Goldfinger,” that a certain brandy was a “thirty-year-old fins indifferently blended, sir, with an overdose of bons bois.” I don’t know what bons bois is, but I enjoyed the astringent flavor of Connery’s judgment.”
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2012/11/12/121112crci_cinema_denby
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I do.
If you had used the forum email or PM system I could have told you the email you used and changed your password to allow you to log-in under your old name...
Daniel Craig: A two-part Bond movie would be 'impossible'
Daniel Craig says it would be ''impossible'' to do a two-part James Bond movie following 'Skyfall' because it is important to concentrate on one film at a time.
Daniel Craig says it would be ''impossible'' to do a two-part James Bond movie following 'Skyfall'.
The 44-year-old star - who reprised his role as the suave spy for the latest Bond film - has reassured fans the 24th and 25th movies in the series will not be divided in two parts because the filming process takes so long for one motion picture and it is important to concentrate on one movie at a time.
He said: ''It's impossible to do a two parter, I heard that someone was talking about that we're doing a two parter, but that's the first I've heard about it.
''We can only do them one at a time, they take six months to shoot. You can't write one movie thinking about the next.''
Daniel insists the next two Bond films will be stand-alone projects, as is tradition with the movie series, and admits he is keen to star in the 25th motion picture in the franchise after already signing up to play 007 for a fourth time in the 24th project.
In an interview with Filmstarts, he added: ''All we're trying to do is get the next one sorted out and it'll stand on its own and if I'm able I'll do another one after that.''
John Logan is said to have already started writing the next two Bond films and he reportedly approached producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson with an idea for an original two-movie arc while 'Skyfall' was still filming.
The as-yet untitled 24th Bond film is slated for release in autumn 2014.
I get Craig's concern, but difficult ain't impossible. Also not his decision.