QoS is savoured by Bond fans, but doesn't resonate with the general public. It sits uncomfortably between CR (reboot; hello DC) and SF (massive commercial success; M dies!), and has become the butt of comedian's jokes.
Many good points (arguably DC's best performance; Fleming-like tone; bittersweet ending), some bad ones (controversial editing; THAT SONG!!!; weak villain). It's far from the best James Bond film, but it ain't the worst.
QoS is LTK revisited (SF is TWINE remade) and while far from a flop leaves the viewer, whether casual or a committed Bond fan, with an unsatisfied feeling. Not "Bondian" enough for the mainstream viewer, too many flaws for the dedicated 007 follower.
Personally I love it! I can overlook the frenetic editing, grit my teeth through the song, and revel in the performances, tone and "this is the 2nd half of CR" sentiment. It genuinely gets better as it goes along, which is a trick some other Bond films don't carry off. Hats off to David Arnold for the score.
QoS is savoured by Bond fans, but doesn't resonate with the general public. It sits uncomfortably between CR (reboot; hello DC) and SF (massive commercial success; M dies!), and has become the butt of comedian's jokes.
Many good points (arguably DC's best performance; Fleming-like tone; bittersweet ending), some bad ones (controversial editing; THAT SONG!!!; weak villain). It's far from the best James Bond film, but it ain't the worst.
QoS is LTK revisited (SF is TWINE remade) and while far from a flop leaves the viewer, whether casual or a committed Bond fan, with an unsatisfied feeling. Not "Bondian" enough for the mainstream viewer, too many flaws for the dedicated 007 follower.
Personally I love it! I can overlook the frenetic editing, grit my teeth through the song, and revel in the performances, tone and "this is the 2nd half of CR" sentiment. It genuinely gets better as it goes along, which is a trick some other Bond films don't carry off. Hats off to David Arnold for the score.
Following this thread I found it odd that so far with the rebooted films Only CR seems not
to cause too many arguments as Most ( I think ) think it a great film. While QOS has a split
opinion and it would seem SF has too. ) , Now I'm not saying any of them are Bad
just making an observation. Will Bond 24 be universally Loved ?
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
QoS is savoured by Bond fans, but doesn't resonate with the general public. It sits uncomfortably between CR (reboot; hello DC) and SF (massive commercial success; M dies!), and has become the butt of comedian's jokes.
Many good points (arguably DC's best performance; Fleming-like tone; bittersweet ending), some bad ones (controversial editing; THAT SONG!!!; weak villain). It's far from the best James Bond film, but it ain't the worst.
QoS is LTK revisited (SF is TWINE remade) and while far from a flop leaves the viewer, whether casual or a committed Bond fan, with an unsatisfied feeling. Not "Bondian" enough for the mainstream viewer, too many flaws for the dedicated 007 follower.
Personally I love it! I can overlook the frenetic editing, grit my teeth through the song, and revel in the performances, tone and "this is the 2nd half of CR" sentiment. It genuinely gets better as it goes along, which is a trick some other Bond films don't carry off. Hats off to David Arnold for the score.
I find people are becoming less and less forgiving of the major plot flaws and the reputation of the film will decrease over time while that of its predecessor steadily improves.
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,816MI6 Agent
Finally bought SF today at a sensible price (shame about Blockbuster).
Seeing it on the smaller screen means I focus less on the splash of the visuals, more on the audio and the story. It clarified a few things, but added one or two new niggles and plot blunders too. I enjoyed it, but my position is unchanged. For example, the music IS very good, but it makes me think tv cop espionage or drama. (Spooks, CIS, etc) rather than Bond.
Incidentally, I finally could see the Scotland map properly. My previous theory from another thread stands, as Q takes them up to Newtonmore, so they would have to go along the A86. 8 or 9 hours driving, not counting stops or other delays!
A great action film, a good Bond film, dispite the writing gaffs and media PR hype.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
Incidentally, I finally could see the Scotland map properly. My previous theory from another thread stands, as Q takes them up to Newtonmore, so they would have to go along the A86. 8 or 9 hours driving, not counting stops or other delays!
That is one hell of a trek. Could you give a link to the other thread please? Wouldn't mind taking a look at your theory, since I have a reasonable knowledge of those parts (ie I've been there a couple of times ) )
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,816MI6 Agent
Bond picks M up during the shoot out, erm, that's in the morning isn't it, as it's rush hour? Or is it pm, doesn't the bloke on the Tube say 'He's in a rush to get home?' Bit poor that we can't even place what time of the day it is. Why would they start said meeting at 8am or 5pm, doesn't make sense.
However, it implies that they could just about get to Scotland in 9hours, except isn't the London lockup all dark when Bond arrives to pick up the Aston? That suggests it is evening, and autumn, so around now ie 5pm in November. Or later, as he has stopped off at MI6 to lay the false trail. 10 hours plus takes you to dawn the following day, but if he is spending a day setting up the house and meeting Kircade, and it gets dark quick at 4pm the next day, it sort of makes sense, as darkness falls quick on Skyfall after the chopper arrives.
Watched it again the other night. The flaws still resonate -- villain too much like The Dark Knight's Joker; Craig looking pretty old rather than just burnt out; poor dispatch of Severine, one of the more intriguing Bond women of late; odd Straw Dogs climax where Bond goes to save M but inadvertently gets her killed; missed opportunity with the animated sequence to fill us in on Bond's history rather than a bunch of Hot Topic-like images to Adele's warbling; a script focused more on plot than character.
On the other hand, I liked Q and Moneypenny better and am actually more excited about Ralph Fienne's M, who stands to be a good successor to Judi Dench. The clothes looked even sharper to me, and though I thought the CGI looked crappier (watch the scorpion, for instance), I found the stunt sequences, which seemed rather ho hum when I saw them in the theater, a little more interesting due to their complexity.
My opinion of SKYFALL hasn't changed one bit. I still despise it for its plot holes, the over-the-top villainy of Javier Bardem and especially its shoddy portrayal of the female characters.
My opinion of SKYFALL hasn't changed one bit. I still despise it for its plot holes, the over-the-top villainy of Javier Bardem and especially its shoddy portrayal of the female characters.
Just curious - I can understand how you might feel that way about Severine, but what was "shoddy" about the portrayals of M and Moneypenny?
My opinion of SKYFALL hasn't changed one bit. I still despise it for its plot holes, the over-the-top villainy of Javier Bardem and especially its shoddy portrayal of the female characters.
Just curious - I can understand how you might feel that way about Severine, but what was "shoddy" about the portrayals of M and Moneypenny?
For me to answer your question would take an essay . . . and I"m not in the mood.
I agree that the portrayal of certain women in the film is less than spectacular, but this is the most fleshed out versions of M and Moneypenny we have ever seen in the series, so you have to agree it is a step in the right direction, and much better than what we have been treated to in the past as far as equality goes.
"Set your hopes up way too high, living's in the way we die"
I for one thought all three M, Moneypenny and Severine. Were very good even Severine, although a
smaller role, Was very dramatic. But that's the great thing about opinions, they can all be different. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
... a script focused more on plot than character...
It's funny that everyone sees things differently. I thought it was the most character-driven Bond film yet. The exploration of Bond's character and how his past has shaped him, his relationship with M and his parents, the triangle with Silva (as it were), lifted it far above the usual two - dimensional (though still brilliantly enjoyable) films.
My opinion of SKYFALL hasn't changed one bit. I still despise it for its plot holes, the over-the-top villainy of Javier Bardem and especially its shoddy portrayal of the female characters.
Just curious - I can understand how you might feel that way about Severine, but what was "shoddy" about the portrayals of M and Moneypenny?
For me to answer your question would take an essay . . . and I"m not in the mood.
Well, of course there's the way MP had to take the blame and get sacked for her shot, when she was obeying orders the way Bond had done leaving that agent to die just earlier. She is happy to be demoted it turns out. Oh, and we only get to learn her name at the end of the film, correction, even Bond only gets to learn her name. Dearie me.
M? Well, I can't help thinking the writer had something different in mind to the director. As written, she is a Colonel Blimp figure, sadly out of touch and battling past wars, using that old spiel of staying on to correct her mistakes as beloved of dodgy, found-out politicians, then reading out a poem while a villain is bearing down on them! But many including the director seem to think this makes her a heroic figure, to be applauded! Then there's the whole, let's take her some place out of the way without firearms or back up while the villain gets to smoke us out... plot.
Just curious - I can understand how you might feel that way about Severine, but what was "shoddy" about the portrayals of M and Moneypenny?
For me to answer your question would take an essay . . . and I"m not in the mood.
Well, of course there's the way MP had to take the blame and get sacked for her shot, when she was obeying orders the way Bond had done leaving that agent to die just earlier. She is happy to be demoted it turns out. Oh, and we only get to learn her name at the end of the film, correction, even Bond only gets to learn her name. Dearie me.
M? Well, I can't help thinking the writer had something different in mind to the director. As written, she is a Colonel Blimp figure, sadly out of touch and battling past wars, using that old spiel of staying on to correct her mistakes as beloved of dodgy, found-out politicians, then reading out a poem while a villain is bearing down on them! But many including the director seem to think this makes her a heroic figure, to be applauded! Then there's the whole, let's take her some place out of the way without firearms or back up while the villain gets to smoke us out... plot.
In my view, giving the female characters certain flaws and having them make mistakes (just as men do) is not the same as "shoddy treatment" of those characters. One may have a different view of the plot and how it plays out, but I believe those are attempts to flesh out the characters and to give certain females more significant roles than in the typical Bond film. For me, it worked.
Comments
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
But that poll was run by loons :v
No it's not as bad as even I once thought.
When did you conduct the poll, Asp9mm ?
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Many good points (arguably DC's best performance; Fleming-like tone; bittersweet ending), some bad ones (controversial editing; THAT SONG!!!; weak villain). It's far from the best James Bond film, but it ain't the worst.
QoS is LTK revisited (SF is TWINE remade) and while far from a flop leaves the viewer, whether casual or a committed Bond fan, with an unsatisfied feeling. Not "Bondian" enough for the mainstream viewer, too many flaws for the dedicated 007 follower.
Personally I love it! I can overlook the frenetic editing, grit my teeth through the song, and revel in the performances, tone and "this is the 2nd half of CR" sentiment. It genuinely gets better as it goes along, which is a trick some other Bond films don't carry off. Hats off to David Arnold for the score.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
to cause too many arguments as Most ( I think ) think it a great film. While QOS has a split
opinion and it would seem SF has too.
just making an observation.
Barbel, your review is 100% spot-on. -{
Most likely by Silhouetteman 8-)
Today we look at the inside of a Frogs Backend on the Bondoligist Blog!
Seeing it on the smaller screen means I focus less on the splash of the visuals, more on the audio and the story. It clarified a few things, but added one or two new niggles and plot blunders too. I enjoyed it, but my position is unchanged. For example, the music IS very good, but it makes me think tv cop espionage or drama. (Spooks, CIS, etc) rather than Bond.
Incidentally, I finally could see the Scotland map properly. My previous theory from another thread stands, as Q takes them up to Newtonmore, so they would have to go along the A86. 8 or 9 hours driving, not counting stops or other delays!
A great action film, a good Bond film, dispite the writing gaffs and media PR hype.
That is one hell of a trek. Could you give a link to the other thread please? Wouldn't mind taking a look at your theory, since I have a reasonable knowledge of those parts (ie I've been there a couple of times
Bond picks M up during the shoot out, erm, that's in the morning isn't it, as it's rush hour? Or is it pm, doesn't the bloke on the Tube say 'He's in a rush to get home?' Bit poor that we can't even place what time of the day it is. Why would they start said meeting at 8am or 5pm, doesn't make sense.
However, it implies that they could just about get to Scotland in 9hours, except isn't the London lockup all dark when Bond arrives to pick up the Aston? That suggests it is evening, and autumn, so around now ie 5pm in November. Or later, as he has stopped off at MI6 to lay the false trail. 10 hours plus takes you to dawn the following day, but if he is spending a day setting up the house and meeting Kircade, and it gets dark quick at 4pm the next day, it sort of makes sense, as darkness falls quick on Skyfall after the chopper arrives.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
On the other hand, I liked Q and Moneypenny better and am actually more excited about Ralph Fienne's M, who stands to be a good successor to Judi Dench. The clothes looked even sharper to me, and though I thought the CGI looked crappier (watch the scorpion, for instance), I found the stunt sequences, which seemed rather ho hum when I saw them in the theater, a little more interesting due to their complexity.
I could forgive a lot more about it if Dan's head hadn't been practically shaved...
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Just curious - I can understand how you might feel that way about Severine, but what was "shoddy" about the portrayals of M and Moneypenny?
For me to answer your question would take an essay . . . and I"m not in the mood.
smaller role, Was very dramatic. But that's the great thing about opinions, they can all be different.
It's funny that everyone sees things differently. I thought it was the most character-driven Bond film yet. The exploration of Bond's character and how his past has shaped him, his relationship with M and his parents, the triangle with Silva (as it were), lifted it far above the usual two - dimensional (though still brilliantly enjoyable) films.
Well, of course there's the way MP had to take the blame and get sacked for her shot, when she was obeying orders the way Bond had done leaving that agent to die just earlier. She is happy to be demoted it turns out. Oh, and we only get to learn her name at the end of the film, correction, even Bond only gets to learn her name. Dearie me.
M? Well, I can't help thinking the writer had something different in mind to the director. As written, she is a Colonel Blimp figure, sadly out of touch and battling past wars, using that old spiel of staying on to correct her mistakes as beloved of dodgy, found-out politicians, then reading out a poem while a villain is bearing down on them! But many including the director seem to think this makes her a heroic figure, to be applauded! Then there's the whole, let's take her some place out of the way without firearms or back up while the villain gets to smoke us out... plot.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
In my view, giving the female characters certain flaws and having them make mistakes (just as men do) is not the same as "shoddy treatment" of those characters. One may have a different view of the plot and how it plays out, but I believe those are attempts to flesh out the characters and to give certain females more significant roles than in the typical Bond film. For me, it worked.