- Gunbarrel, sorry I just cant let it go. Instead of putting me in a good mood, it puts me in a bad mood and I cant enjoy the next 2 hours.
- Sitting through yet another 2 hour character building movie, building characters i already know.
- The fact that M is killed by a random henchman. OMG, those guys actually can hit a target!
- Lack of a real Bond Girl. I don't buy into the theory that Judi Dench is the "Bond Girl" for Skyfall.
- Confusing, messed up timeline. Not a big deal, but this movie honestly has no idea what universe its in or place it has in the single Bond timeline. For single timeline, if it wasn't for the final scene with the new M and Moneypenny reveal it would have fit perfectly in after Die Anther Day. Or if your a new universe believer, then the DB5 and references to Desmond Llewelyn's Q and previous gadgets don't make sense, especially if you believe the movie leaves us where Dr. No picks up.
- Emo-Bond
- Giving Monneypenny a field agent background.
- The whole bunch of nothing that happened between the title sequence and killing Mr. Not-So-Important in the Honk Kong tower (that Silhouette fight was pretty though!)
Kimono dragons? BL, are you talking of fat female tourists from Japan?
What, you didn't notice the scene where they showed the dragons in their dressing room taking off their kimonos before they came out and snatched that dude? )
I have one small niggle. I don't like the fact that they still have Bond using the Weaver stance while shooting. He should be using the Isosceles stance. It provides better range of motion and most elite military and law enforcement units use it today. Bond needs to get with the times. Weaver is O.K. for shooting paper, but for tactical shooting in a combat situation Isosceles is better.
DG
I asked several people I know who are shooters and one is in the personal protection business and they all said that they never use the same stance in every situation. Each has it's benefits or drawbacks, including the Modern Weaver and the modern Tactical Stance. The Isoscles does provide the range of motion, but due to being more upright it also more easily exposes the shooter to being hit, and also doesn't absorb recoil as well.
Yes, there has been a long debate about which is better. But that is not my issue. The issue, as I see it, has to do with who uses Isosceles vs who uses Weaver. As I've stated elite units use Isosceles. Bond is supposed to be elite and was former SBS.
Some proponents of Weaver think it better because it blades the body where as Isoceles does not. I can tell you that people have been seriously wounded using Weaver even while using body armor. How? The vulnerable spot is just below the armpit where the vest does not cover.
DG
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
To me it's just hard to explain how he survived the fall
If you can't trust a Swiss banker, what's the world come to?
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,654MI6 Agent
edited November 2012
First off, I’ve seen the majority of Sam Mendes’ feature films and liked them very much, but I am convinced that he is plainly not suited to direct an action movie, let alone a Bond film. I believe that Martin Campbell and even Marc Forster (despite the shortcomings of QoS) were superior Bond directors, and I believe the list of my gripes that follows takes root from the misfortune of Mendes’ turn at helming a Bond movie:
The fight scenes weren’t as convincing as they were in CR and QOS. I think it was due to Mendes wanting to make these scenes highly stylized with the use of lights and graphics; as a matter of opinion, the visuals were over played. Similarly, the fight scene on the train resembled a Universal Studios stunt show (just like the caviar factory helicopter attack in TWINE), with hero and villain going through a choreographed fight.
After all the trouble going through the reboot and enjoying the clean slate (if and because it had to be endured in the first place), the cuff adjusting (reminiscent of Brosnan’s tie straightening) and some of the one-liners were awkward.
The overall pace of the movie seemed dragging, making me miss the usual time-line and plot progression in the Bond formula that even the 2 Craig movies had. There was too much “plot” and “mood” development at the expense of pace, whereas the same things could have been meaningfully conveyed in a better use of time and visual narrative.
…on the flip side, the manner of how locales changed was too abrupt and contrived; I think the benchmark of smooth locale changes for no logical reason remains, Moonraker, and many Bond movies could learn from this classic. The scenes for Shanghai, Macau and Silva’s Island seemed so superficial to just plain fake that I felt cheated out of experiencing the exotic Bond locales, so much so that I wouldn’t be surprised if all these scenes were filmed entirely in the 007 Stage at Pinewood Studios.
The tube train crash resembled a Wile E. Coyote vs. the Road Runner cartoon, with me waiting for an anvil to drop on 007, beep-beep!
The revenge aspect wasn’t convincing enough to account for the breadth, depth, intensity and tenacity of the villain’s plot. Sometimes, conventional greed or even political conviction and ideology provide the best plausibility for what megalomaniacs do. Javier Bardem’s acting was superb, but unfortunately, despite the over-the-top portrayal I am still left unimpressed with Silva’s overall force, purpose and mission. There definitely were some shades of 006/Trevelan from GE, as well as Renard from TWINE.
Where was the “Bond Girl”? Even Camille from QOS provided Bond with enough “Bond Girl” companionship to share in 007’s travails, yet all she amounted to was another sacrificial lamb, ala Andrea from TMWTGG or Corinne from MR.
When Bond and M flee to Scotland, didn’t Q possess enough good judgment to keep abreast of what went down at Skyfall, in real time? I mean, they are in the middle of the UK; aren’t there any UK military forces available to rescue them? Bond’s and M’s preparations for Silva’s siege seemed like a borrowed page from a MacGyver or A-Team episode...and this in the movie that marked the return of Q.
I think the Aston Martin DB5 and the new M’s assumption of the classic M’s office décor, (padded leather door, etc.) were too forced; the AM should have been left as a nod to the Bond mythos and his past (as done in Brosnan’s movies) and nothing else, since this particular AM isn’t part of Craig’s “Goldfinger” past. I think GE used the EON “hiatus” to its best advantage by reinventing M (modern décor and all) and therefore find what they’re doing extremely schizophrenic considering there was a reboot.
The exploration of Bond’s roots seems not only shallow but disjointed, in that it was really irrelevant to the plot, even though much could have been done to tie that in to the death/resurrection theme that also seemed flat. This is a shame because the rebirth aspect of YOLT the novel was terribly thrown away with the YOLT film in order to preserve the cool and suave, Bond-lite persona of the time, and up to the this point it begged for development (unless you count DAD)…then again, it’s critical that the introspection and rebirth themes are best left to when Bond is well, well past the “Bond begins” stage that Craig is supposedly still in; they could have done that with a 5th Brosnan Bond film, maybe even with CR, but written as Bond’s retrospection of his start in the service and revisiting a still unresolved vendetta with an old arch-villain...but that’s a totally different gripe…
Ohh, and the most significant gripe, considering what Silva sought to do, orchestrating the complex plot over many years, didn't the villain in fact "win" and achieved his goal of killing M?
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
(...)- I don't have a problem with gay people, but seeing Bond get fondled against his will was uncomfortable to watch and actually made me cringe in my seat. Before I get called out for this, I'm not one of those conservative fanatics or a hater if you will. I'm totally support gay marriage. They can do whatever they want, but myself being a heterosexual male, I was imagining myself in Bond's position. (...)
I don't see much difference between this scene and the scene in TWINE where Elektra has Bond tied up and makes avances to him, but because this is between 2 males this is suddenly a 'problem' for you. To me this feels like 'I don't mind gay people as long as I don't see it.'
I thought the scene with Bond getting felt up was meant to be a copy of Bond with Le Chiffre, hence Bond's amusement at the reveal of Silva's tastes and witty response about it possibly not being his first time tied to a chair and getting his balls scratched.
I think Bond's sense of humor in the scene made it pretty minor joking, despite Silva initially being sincere.
That first complaint sounds a bit like just a mental hang-up about Silva's bi/homosexuality actions towards Bond and not really based on the actually forced nature of the advances, so I have to agree with Peppermill. I'd imagine if you really had no problem with the gay part of the scene, you could have just said the sexual forcing was uncomfortable without most of the complaint coming off as defensive dodging.
I'll never get over the flashlight (which they didn't even need, as revealed by Bond's easy navigation in the dark after them).
I want to add that I was very disappointed in that the Quantum organization didn't come back. I'm sure the producers wanted to distance themselves from Quantum of Solace, and when they want to distance themselves from something, they go the extra mile to make sure of it (See: Gun barrel).
But even SPECTRE managed to wiggle itself into plots that it had close to nothing to do with, Dr. No ties them in with just a few lines of dialog. I would have been happy with just a piece of dialog along the lines of "How could you finance your little assortment of computers?" "When Quantum found me, they were very accommodating to see that I had all the resources available to them to take out the head of MI6."
Quantum hates MI6, Silva hates M, its a match made in heaven! Instead they just ditch that plot line entirely.
Lack of gunbarrell. I can understand them not using it in CR, and even to an extent in QOS. Bond isn't supposed to be the Bond we know and love until the end of QOS. But by SF based on the dialogue he has been a 00 for about 100 years so the gunbarrell should have been used. It can't be that they want to distance SF from the previous Bond movies as they spend half the time referencing previous movies.
Agree with Superado that the fights were not as good as CR or QOS. They seemed to do this with PB as well. He had the great fight with 006 but by the time he was slugging it out with Col. Moon Bond was back to the old fashioned right hook.
As has been pointed out previously lack of real Bond girl. I know the whole slant was that M was the 'Bond girl' in this movie but Severine seemed to come and go (quite literally) in about 10 minites.
Kincade and the flashlight - nuff said.
Lack of spectacular stunts. Apart from the PTS we didn't really have any big spectatacular set piece stunts. There was plenty of running around shooting etc. but none of the wow factor that you expect during and at the end of a Bond.
- I know there's the traditional sacrificial lamb for a Bond movie, but it broke my heart that Sévérine was killed off since there was no other "Bond" girl" in the movie due to the twist at the end.
I see your point there, but I thought her death was really moving and important to Craig/Bond's character development. And at least she and Bond did get together, unlike in QoS!!
- I don't have a problem with gay people, but seeing Bond get fondled against his will was uncomfortable to watch and actually made me cringe in my seat. Before I get called out for this, I'm not one of those conservative fanatics or a hater if you will. I'm totally support gay marriage. They can do whatever they want, but myself being a heterosexual male, I was imagining myself in Bond's position.
Going to have to completely disagree with you I'm afraid. You were supposed to feel uncomfortable, as that was probably how Bond felt! I thought this scene was ingenious! How often can film makers do something truly original or uncomfortable these days, without delving into the obscene or outrageous? And it gave rise to what might just be my favourite line of the film: "Who says it's my first time?"
Ohh, and the most significant gripe, considering what Silva sought to do, orchestrating the complex plot over many years, didn't the villain in fact "win" and achieved his goal of killing M?
Yes, Bond indeed failed to protect M. She died. However, it was very shocking that she died and that was what the movie makers were attempting to do. Derail expectations. When I took my wife to see Skyfall, she was totally awe struck by the death of M and hated that she got killed. She didn't see it coming. Overall, I think it was more shocking than the death of Tracy in OHMSS because no one expected Bond to keep a wife. On the other hand everyone expected that Bond would keep M from getting killed.
Mission fail, bad for Bond, but good story telling.
DG
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
As far as mission fail/success goes, I'd say neither bond or silva 'win'.
Silva wanted to kill M, but a henchmen's bullet caused her fatal injury. On learning she was wounded, he went for plan B and willed her to kill herself AND him with the same round. M didn't fire, and bond turns up and puts a knife in Silva's back. Silva looses.
Bond's mission was to real Silva in then get the agent list back. When M was identified as the target, bond's job was to lure silva out and kill him before he killed M. Silva didn't kill M, and bond wasn't too late to save her, had she not been wounded. M dies, bond looses.
However, bond is still alive and silva is dead, making bond the victor in my book.
As for that agent list, given silva had many henchmen helping him, is it safe to say that the list is still out there and in the wrong hands?
I want to add that I was very disappointed in that the Quantum organization didn't come back. I'm sure the producers wanted to distance themselves from Quantum of Solace, and when they want to distance themselves from something, they go the extra mile to make sure of it (See: Gun barrel).
But even SPECTRE managed to wiggle itself into plots that it had close to nothing to do with, Dr. No ties them in with just a few lines of dialog. I would have been happy with just a piece of dialog along the lines of "How could you finance your little assortment of computers?" "When Quantum found me, they were very accommodating to see that I had all the resources available to them to take out the head of MI6."
Quantum hates MI6, Silva hates M, its a match made in heaven! Instead they just ditch that plot line entirely.
I see no reason for Quantum to be in this movie. I think that trying to have Silva be a member or Quatumn would have hurt the story.
Also even though SPECTRE was used more in the movies then the books EON still took a break from them in GoldFinger. I imagine that Quantum will be back in the next movie.
Well DC says he will do two more. I would like the next film to be a seperate adventure and the final film finishing off Quantum and Mr White therefore concluding where it all began with Casino Royale! That will hopefully give them time to complete a decent script for Quantums demise!!
As far as mission fail/success goes, I'd say neither bond or silva 'win'.
In Bond's case. He failed to save M, he failed to retrieve the agent list, he failed to kill Silva when he had the chance on the London Underground, and he failed to save Severine. EPIC FAIL. Finally killing Silva was barely consolation.
In Silva's case. He failed to kill M personally, that is something of a fail though I believe he had the consolation of knowing she was fatally wounded before he died. He was ready to die, that in itself was no loss but being killed by Bond and not M is a fail.
Silva wins on points.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
As far as mission fail/success goes, I'd say neither bond or silva 'win'.
In Bond's case. He failed to save M, he failed to retrieve the agent list, he failed to kill Silva when he had the chance on the London Underground, and he failed to save Severine. EPIC FAIL. Finally killing Silva was barely consolation.
In Silva's case. He failed to kill M personally, that is something of a fail though I believe he had the consolation of knowing she was fatally wounded before he died. He was ready to die, that in itself was no loss but being killed by Bond and not M is a fail.
I sort of like the idea of Craig's last film involving the destruction of Quantum and Mr. White. Or at least addressing it before he stops being Bond.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,654MI6 Agent
I have a couple more:
When following the assassin in Shanghai, why did Bond just allow the collateral killings of the building security staff, as well as the assassination of the "mark"? I know Bond's mission was to find the stolen hard drive/agents list at practically whatever cost, but I just found it disturbing that the sequence was written that way so that Bond was indifferent, yet earlier on he was concerned (overly so, it seemed) about leaving the already gravely injured MI6 agent. I guess a lazy explaination of this is that Bond grew callous after his "death" experience, though that character development wasn't really put out there. If it was truly the case that he became cynical as part of the movie's plot, didn't he already undergo that issue in the story arc of CR and QOS?
I didn't appreciate the shaving scene with Moneypenny and I think a line was crossed in that area of the Bond and Moneypenny relationship (considering she is a classic character that is being reintroduced) with the implication that they could have slept together, albeit the possible alternate implication they didn't because of the "close shave" analogy. The unbuttoning of her blouse to me, was the offending action of that sequence, considering that the most ever done in the past was the goose by Lazenby and the CGI tryst in DAD.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
As for that agent list, given silva had many henchmen helping him, is it safe to say that the list is still out there and in the wrong hands?
Yes, that agent list. Such an important part of the plot but then discarded half way through the film. My best guess is that the list was retrieved from Silva's safe (or something like it) when the cavalry arrived on his island lair.
I really doubt Silva passed on the agent list to any of his anonymous henchmen. His was a one man vendetta against M and the list was a very important part of his plan. He would not have trusted it to any of them. Silva's sole intention was to release the names on the list bit by bit to humiliate M until he was captured.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
When following the assassin in Shanghai, why did Bond just allow the collateral killings of the building security staff, as well as the assassination of the "mark"? I know Bond's mission was to find the stolen hard drive/agents list at practically whatever cost, but I just found it disturbing that the sequence was written that way so that Bond was indifferent, yet earlier on he was concerned (overly so, it seemed) about leaving the already gravely injured MI6 agent. I guess a lazy explaination of this is that Bond grew callous after his "death" experience, though that character development wasn't really put out there. If it was truly the case that he became cynical as part of the movie's plot, didn't he already undergo that issue in the story arc of CR and QOS?
I didn't appreciate the shaving scene with Moneypenny and I think a line was crossed in that area of the Bond and Moneypenny relationship (considering she is a classic character that is being reintroduced) with the implication that they could have slept together, albeit the possible alternate implication they didn't because of the "close shave" analogy. The unbuttoning of her blouse to me, was the offending action of that sequence, considering that the most ever done in the past was the goose by Lazenby and the CGI tryst in DAD.
To your first point, my interpetation was that he was following the assasin to get some clues as to whom he is working for. At that point, all MI6 knows is he is the guy who got the list, the question is, who is he giving it to. When the guy walks in the building Bond has no idea he is going to shoot the guard, for all he knows, he has an appointmenmt with the person who wants the list. Once he sees the guard get shot, he does go into action.
As to your second point, I don't think they did sleep with each other. When he starts to unbutton her blouse she stops him and continues shaving him. As you state, the analogy is, it was a close shave.
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
Going to Skyfall was nice to see but a bit of a stretch, and it bugs me that when you think about it, but Bond's plan of returning there really did end up getting M killed. Not one of your better plans 007.
I love the fact that Britain's greatest spy shows up at Skyfall and says, "All right show me all the guns. Hey! Where the hell are all the guns?" And it's "Ummmm, yeah, James we just sold all the guns." (Something you'd expect to see from Homer Simpson followed by a "D'OH!") Maybe you should have packed a few guns and explosives back at MI-6 big fella -or wasn't there enough room in the boot of your Aston Martin? (Oooh "boot" Look at me sounding all english there. :007) )
But that said, show me a 007 film that doesn't have something happen in it that isn't a bit of a stretch. Still a great film.
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
None of the pre-CR stuff happened in this new timeline. This is a reboot. The classic elements now being added are happening for the first time here. It is a bit confusing by carrying over Judi Dench. That threw me off when I first saw it because I didn't know it was a reboot at the time.
Comments
- Sitting through yet another 2 hour character building movie, building characters i already know.
- The fact that M is killed by a random henchman. OMG, those guys actually can hit a target!
- Lack of a real Bond Girl. I don't buy into the theory that Judi Dench is the "Bond Girl" for Skyfall.
- Confusing, messed up timeline. Not a big deal, but this movie honestly has no idea what universe its in or place it has in the single Bond timeline. For single timeline, if it wasn't for the final scene with the new M and Moneypenny reveal it would have fit perfectly in after Die Anther Day. Or if your a new universe believer, then the DB5 and references to Desmond Llewelyn's Q and previous gadgets don't make sense, especially if you believe the movie leaves us where Dr. No picks up.
- Emo-Bond
- Giving Monneypenny a field agent background.
- The whole bunch of nothing that happened between the title sequence and killing Mr. Not-So-Important in the Honk Kong tower (that Silhouette fight was pretty though!)
What, you didn't notice the scene where they showed the dragons in their dressing room taking off their kimonos before they came out and snatched that dude?
Okay - you caught me! What a goof!!!
Yes, there has been a long debate about which is better. But that is not my issue. The issue, as I see it, has to do with who uses Isosceles vs who uses Weaver. As I've stated elite units use Isosceles. Bond is supposed to be elite and was former SBS.
Some proponents of Weaver think it better because it blades the body where as Isoceles does not. I can tell you that people have been seriously wounded using Weaver even while using body armor. How? The vulnerable spot is just below the armpit where the vest does not cover.
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
The fight scenes weren’t as convincing as they were in CR and QOS. I think it was due to Mendes wanting to make these scenes highly stylized with the use of lights and graphics; as a matter of opinion, the visuals were over played. Similarly, the fight scene on the train resembled a Universal Studios stunt show (just like the caviar factory helicopter attack in TWINE), with hero and villain going through a choreographed fight.
After all the trouble going through the reboot and enjoying the clean slate (if and because it had to be endured in the first place), the cuff adjusting (reminiscent of Brosnan’s tie straightening) and some of the one-liners were awkward.
The overall pace of the movie seemed dragging, making me miss the usual time-line and plot progression in the Bond formula that even the 2 Craig movies had. There was too much “plot” and “mood” development at the expense of pace, whereas the same things could have been meaningfully conveyed in a better use of time and visual narrative.
…on the flip side, the manner of how locales changed was too abrupt and contrived; I think the benchmark of smooth locale changes for no logical reason remains, Moonraker, and many Bond movies could learn from this classic. The scenes for Shanghai, Macau and Silva’s Island seemed so superficial to just plain fake that I felt cheated out of experiencing the exotic Bond locales, so much so that I wouldn’t be surprised if all these scenes were filmed entirely in the 007 Stage at Pinewood Studios.
The tube train crash resembled a Wile E. Coyote vs. the Road Runner cartoon, with me waiting for an anvil to drop on 007, beep-beep!
The revenge aspect wasn’t convincing enough to account for the breadth, depth, intensity and tenacity of the villain’s plot. Sometimes, conventional greed or even political conviction and ideology provide the best plausibility for what megalomaniacs do. Javier Bardem’s acting was superb, but unfortunately, despite the over-the-top portrayal I am still left unimpressed with Silva’s overall force, purpose and mission. There definitely were some shades of 006/Trevelan from GE, as well as Renard from TWINE.
Where was the “Bond Girl”? Even Camille from QOS provided Bond with enough “Bond Girl” companionship to share in 007’s travails, yet all she amounted to was another sacrificial lamb, ala Andrea from TMWTGG or Corinne from MR.
When Bond and M flee to Scotland, didn’t Q possess enough good judgment to keep abreast of what went down at Skyfall, in real time? I mean, they are in the middle of the UK; aren’t there any UK military forces available to rescue them? Bond’s and M’s preparations for Silva’s siege seemed like a borrowed page from a MacGyver or A-Team episode...and this in the movie that marked the return of Q.
I think the Aston Martin DB5 and the new M’s assumption of the classic M’s office décor, (padded leather door, etc.) were too forced; the AM should have been left as a nod to the Bond mythos and his past (as done in Brosnan’s movies) and nothing else, since this particular AM isn’t part of Craig’s “Goldfinger” past. I think GE used the EON “hiatus” to its best advantage by reinventing M (modern décor and all) and therefore find what they’re doing extremely schizophrenic considering there was a reboot.
The exploration of Bond’s roots seems not only shallow but disjointed, in that it was really irrelevant to the plot, even though much could have been done to tie that in to the death/resurrection theme that also seemed flat. This is a shame because the rebirth aspect of YOLT the novel was terribly thrown away with the YOLT film in order to preserve the cool and suave, Bond-lite persona of the time, and up to the this point it begged for development (unless you count DAD)…then again, it’s critical that the introspection and rebirth themes are best left to when Bond is well, well past the “Bond begins” stage that Craig is supposedly still in; they could have done that with a 5th Brosnan Bond film, maybe even with CR, but written as Bond’s retrospection of his start in the service and revisiting a still unresolved vendetta with an old arch-villain...but that’s a totally different gripe…
Ohh, and the most significant gripe, considering what Silva sought to do, orchestrating the complex plot over many years, didn't the villain in fact "win" and achieved his goal of killing M?
I thought the scene with Bond getting felt up was meant to be a copy of Bond with Le Chiffre, hence Bond's amusement at the reveal of Silva's tastes and witty response about it possibly not being his first time tied to a chair and getting his balls scratched.
I think Bond's sense of humor in the scene made it pretty minor joking, despite Silva initially being sincere.
That first complaint sounds a bit like just a mental hang-up about Silva's bi/homosexuality actions towards Bond and not really based on the actually forced nature of the advances, so I have to agree with Peppermill. I'd imagine if you really had no problem with the gay part of the scene, you could have just said the sexual forcing was uncomfortable without most of the complaint coming off as defensive dodging.
I'll never get over the flashlight (which they didn't even need, as revealed by Bond's easy navigation in the dark after them).
But even SPECTRE managed to wiggle itself into plots that it had close to nothing to do with, Dr. No ties them in with just a few lines of dialog. I would have been happy with just a piece of dialog along the lines of "How could you finance your little assortment of computers?" "When Quantum found me, they were very accommodating to see that I had all the resources available to them to take out the head of MI6."
Quantum hates MI6, Silva hates M, its a match made in heaven! Instead they just ditch that plot line entirely.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Lack of gunbarrell. I can understand them not using it in CR, and even to an extent in QOS. Bond isn't supposed to be the Bond we know and love until the end of QOS. But by SF based on the dialogue he has been a 00 for about 100 years so the gunbarrell should have been used. It can't be that they want to distance SF from the previous Bond movies as they spend half the time referencing previous movies.
Agree with Superado that the fights were not as good as CR or QOS. They seemed to do this with PB as well. He had the great fight with 006 but by the time he was slugging it out with Col. Moon Bond was back to the old fashioned right hook.
As has been pointed out previously lack of real Bond girl. I know the whole slant was that M was the 'Bond girl' in this movie but Severine seemed to come and go (quite literally) in about 10 minites.
Kincade and the flashlight - nuff said.
Lack of spectacular stunts. Apart from the PTS we didn't really have any big spectatacular set piece stunts. There was plenty of running around shooting etc. but none of the wow factor that you expect during and at the end of a Bond.
Less is more! Revealing too much of his character would have reduced the mystery and so on!
Going to have to completely disagree with you I'm afraid. You were supposed to feel uncomfortable, as that was probably how Bond felt! I thought this scene was ingenious! How often can film makers do something truly original or uncomfortable these days, without delving into the obscene or outrageous? And it gave rise to what might just be my favourite line of the film: "Who says it's my first time?"
Agreed. Not just in Bond films but in general. Writers take note!
It was so sad, but I do think it's important for writers not to be afraid of killing off characters, otherwise there is no sense of peril!
No. Stop trolling.
Wow, that has to be the most in-dept reply I've ever seen on this forum.
Yes, Bond indeed failed to protect M. She died. However, it was very shocking that she died and that was what the movie makers were attempting to do. Derail expectations. When I took my wife to see Skyfall, she was totally awe struck by the death of M and hated that she got killed. She didn't see it coming. Overall, I think it was more shocking than the death of Tracy in OHMSS because no one expected Bond to keep a wife. On the other hand everyone expected that Bond would keep M from getting killed.
Mission fail, bad for Bond, but good story telling.
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Silva wanted to kill M, but a henchmen's bullet caused her fatal injury. On learning she was wounded, he went for plan B and willed her to kill herself AND him with the same round. M didn't fire, and bond turns up and puts a knife in Silva's back. Silva looses.
Bond's mission was to real Silva in then get the agent list back. When M was identified as the target, bond's job was to lure silva out and kill him before he killed M. Silva didn't kill M, and bond wasn't too late to save her, had she not been wounded. M dies, bond looses.
However, bond is still alive and silva is dead, making bond the victor in my book.
As for that agent list, given silva had many henchmen helping him, is it safe to say that the list is still out there and in the wrong hands?
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Also even though SPECTRE was used more in the movies then the books EON still took a break from them in GoldFinger. I imagine that Quantum will be back in the next movie.
In Bond's case. He failed to save M, he failed to retrieve the agent list, he failed to kill Silva when he had the chance on the London Underground, and he failed to save Severine. EPIC FAIL.
In Silva's case. He failed to kill M personally, that is something of a fail though I believe he had the consolation of knowing she was fatally wounded before he died. He was ready to die, that in itself was no loss but being killed by Bond and not M is a fail.
Silva wins on points.
Silva's dead.
Bond wins on appeal
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
When following the assassin in Shanghai, why did Bond just allow the collateral killings of the building security staff, as well as the assassination of the "mark"? I know Bond's mission was to find the stolen hard drive/agents list at practically whatever cost, but I just found it disturbing that the sequence was written that way so that Bond was indifferent, yet earlier on he was concerned (overly so, it seemed) about leaving the already gravely injured MI6 agent. I guess a lazy explaination of this is that Bond grew callous after his "death" experience, though that character development wasn't really put out there. If it was truly the case that he became cynical as part of the movie's plot, didn't he already undergo that issue in the story arc of CR and QOS?
I didn't appreciate the shaving scene with Moneypenny and I think a line was crossed in that area of the Bond and Moneypenny relationship (considering she is a classic character that is being reintroduced) with the implication that they could have slept together, albeit the possible alternate implication they didn't because of the "close shave" analogy. The unbuttoning of her blouse to me, was the offending action of that sequence, considering that the most ever done in the past was the goose by Lazenby and the CGI tryst in DAD.
Yes, that agent list. Such an important part of the plot but then discarded half way through the film. My best guess is that the list was retrieved from Silva's safe (or something like it) when the cavalry arrived on his island lair.
I really doubt Silva passed on the agent list to any of his anonymous henchmen. His was a one man vendetta against M and the list was a very important part of his plan. He would not have trusted it to any of them. Silva's sole intention was to release the names on the list bit by bit to humiliate M until he was captured.
To your first point, my interpetation was that he was following the assasin to get some clues as to whom he is working for. At that point, all MI6 knows is he is the guy who got the list, the question is, who is he giving it to. When the guy walks in the building Bond has no idea he is going to shoot the guard, for all he knows, he has an appointmenmt with the person who wants the list. Once he sees the guard get shot, he does go into action.
As to your second point, I don't think they did sleep with each other. When he starts to unbutton her blouse she stops him and continues shaving him. As you state, the analogy is, it was a close shave.
At that point as she had shaved Bond, I thought he was just
offering to return the favor.
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
I love the fact that Britain's greatest spy shows up at Skyfall and says, "All right show me all the guns. Hey! Where the hell are all the guns?" And it's "Ummmm, yeah, James we just sold all the guns." (Something you'd expect to see from Homer Simpson followed by a "D'OH!") Maybe you should have packed a few guns and explosives back at MI-6 big fella -or wasn't there enough room in the boot of your Aston Martin? (Oooh "boot" Look at me sounding all english there. :007) )
But that said, show me a 007 film that doesn't have something happen in it that isn't a bit of a stretch. Still a great film.
None of the pre-CR stuff happened in this new timeline. This is a reboot. The classic elements now being added are happening for the first time here. It is a bit confusing by carrying over Judi Dench. That threw me off when I first saw it because I didn't know it was a reboot at the time.