StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Actually, the movie's main weakness was too much Joker. At least Heath Ledger's character could have a faint hope that things would go according to plan (and if you really believed the whole 'not a schemer' thing, congratulations for thinking that the fucking Joker wouldn't tell a lie). But if you take the Joker's genius and incredible luck and then toss in Hollywood's grasp of computers in general, maintaining suspension of disbelief becomes nearly impossible even for a post-Brosnan Bond era. I mean seriously, hacking a gas pipe? What is it, Die Hard? Dear producers, when you will ask one of the myriads of minimum wage interns at your disposal about computers? They are 12 hours a day right under the pipeline that delivers dollars to your offices.

I'm divided.
I liked Act 1, train+MI6 aftermath, it had its usual Bond moronity (?) but set up a lot of avenues to go.
Act 2 in china was pointless, it didn't bring any heightening of tension nor an avenue of where they wanted to go. And the babes was in retrospect just filler.
Act 3 was a let down, it made no sense in view of act1 and act2.

Almost none of the pivotal points had the characters decisions make sense - which is OK if its cheese all the way, but not when they put in serious stuff as well.

It's a good popcorn thingie 3 out of 5 for a bond, but it was dissapointing for a whole list of reasons.

Mixed feelings. Didn't really feel like classic bonds films or Craig's earlier stuff either. Did have some very nice dry humour in it. And the fact the the Aston Martin was literally the old Goldfinger version rather than just a regular one as a nod was pretty spiffy.

Also I learnt you can be shot in the chest with depleted uranium and then later with a rifle so you're catapulted off a high bridge into a river. (no water doesn't break your fall well at that height) and swept away and you'll be just fine. Even if you leave the bullet in the wound.

Heavy metal poisoning might explain why Bond was a shitty shot before he dug out the shards, but later became awesome again

Part of me kept hoping that the villain was actually going to be Brosnan's Bond, with his grudge against M and MI6 stemming from all the fun he had during his time in North Korea.

I finally watched the movie, completely unspoilered. And I loved it. I really liked how the movie pretends at first to be about bond. Instead, it really is a movie about M's swan song and her demise. The way the narrative does that is masterful. One example is the Temeraire picture, where Bond pretty much tells us as the audience it is not about him. Or the way M mirrors the pose of the bulldog (Churchill). Layers over layers, this is definitely one of my favorite Bond movies, second only to Casino Royale.

I especially liked how the end of the movie mirrors Bonds entry in Dr. No.

Really? That was my massive problem with it. As you said, it's about the fundamentally grubby nature of espionage, the way its inherent betrayal destroys everyone who touches it. Which would be great if its name was The Spy Who Came In From The Cold or The Honourable Schoolboy and the lead character was named George Smiley, but it's not. That stuff is the antithesis of Bond - which makes all the clunky references to the old films all the more jarring. It was like they were deliberately trying to compensate. Silva was a shit villain and hacking as a magical superweapon is a seriously tired device. And while I really liked the lodge as a set piece, couldn't help think about how it was a sexed up version of what I'd already seen in the Bourne movies.

NeoGoomba wrote:Part of me kept hoping that the villain was actually going to be Brosnan's Bond, with his grudge against M and MI6 stemming from all the fun he had during his time in North Korea.

Could have worked in a book, but in a movie you'd have to physically cast Brosnan, and the entire plot would have been given away. Besides, this would officially confirm the "many Bonds" theory, but this is something I don't want to touch.

@Thanas
Bond receiving the plastic bulldog at the end was incredibly funny to me.

thejester wrote:Really? That was my massive problem with it. As you said, it's about the fundamentally grubby nature of espionage, the way its inherent betrayal destroys everyone who touches it. Which would be great if its name was The Spy Who Came In From The Cold or The Honourable Schoolboy and the lead character was named George Smiley, but it's not. That stuff is the antithesis of Bond - which makes all the clunky references to the old films all the more jarring. It was like they were deliberately trying to compensate.

I think that was only part of it. The other part of the narrative was the loss of Empire and of old British values and coupled with the other part it works well IMO. Not what you would expect from a Bond film, but really "old Bond" has been kinda dead since the reboot. So I guess it comes down more to whether you like the reboot or not.

I didn't think the mix of attempts at high concept (which failed in my mind, being too confused) and really terrible 'old bond' jokes.

My mum died and the world is against me and gay men are creepy but HAHA MY CAR HAS MACHINEGUNS HOW CAMP LOLOL REMEMBER THOSE HORRID OLD MOVIES THAT BECAME SELF-PARODY.

The strong stuff could have worked, but not paired with what appears to be a clunky setup for a less high-concept Bond full of nerd shout outs and superficial 'thrills'.

Its almost like when Casino Royale was a huge success they had literally no idea why.

Thanas wrote:I especially liked how the end of the movie mirrors Bonds entry in Dr. No.

Makes sense given this film was intended to celebrate the franchise's 50th anniverserey.

Thanas wrote:I think that was only part of it. The other part of the narrative was the loss of Empire and of old British values and coupled with the other part it works well IMO. Not what you would expect from a Bond film, but really "old Bond" has been kinda dead since the reboot. So I guess it comes down more to whether you like the reboot or not.

Except Bond was always supposed to be a bulwark against that perception of British decline - it's not like the 50s was a golden age of Rule Britannia - because while the Empire might be going down the tube British style and proprietary was intact. The reboots didn't kill that at all, they indulged it. They restored the ruthlessness of Fleming's original and the Connery movies, but this is still a guy who drives an Aston Martin in immaculate suits and fronts up to his opponents in a casino. And those opponents were classic Bond in the first two movies - a gambler who is fronting for a not-so-subtle remake of SPECTRE. I liked the first two reboots because they ditched the pantomime and seemed to be showing us how Bond became Bond, whilst still being thematically tied to the originals.

JME2 wrote:

Thanas wrote:I especially liked how the end of the movie mirrors Bonds entry in Dr. No.

Makes sense given this film was intended to celebrate the franchise's 50th anniverserey.

God. So it was supposed to be a nostalgic wank fest? No wonder it sucked.

I call this movie "Skyfail". Because it failed on almost every level.

thejester wrote:Silva was a shit villain and hacking as a magical superweapon is a seriously tired device.

I think Silva sprang out of a desire to have a twenty first century villain, but with all of the trappings of an old Bond villain. It's like he's two or three characters made into one guy. He needed to be someone who could do computer magic, but also someone Bond could shoot.

thejester wrote:Except Bond was always supposed to be a bulwark against that perception of British decline - it's not like the 50s was a golden age of Rule Britannia - because while the Empire might be going down the tube British style and proprietary was intact. The reboots didn't kill that at all, they indulged it.

I am not so sure about the last part, considering how the British decline throughout the movies from being unable to deal with a glorified money launderer, to being reduced to being the bitches of the CIA in Quantum of Solace and now being unable to deal with their own agents.

They restored the ruthlessness of Fleming's original and the Connery movies, but this is still a guy who drives an Aston Martin in immaculate suits and fronts up to his opponents in a casino. And those opponents were classic Bond in the first two movies - a gambler who is fronting for a not-so-subtle remake of SPECTRE. I liked the first two reboots because they ditched the pantomime and seemed to be showing us how Bond became Bond, whilst still being thematically tied to the originals.

I think with the death of M this arc is complete.

This entire movie could have been 30 seconds long and began and ended with a snipers bullet through M's face. And it would have been 10 times better.

The impact of M's death was shattered when Dench phoned in her entire role.

I just watched this on DirecTV and it was OK for television, but if I had paid to watch it in the theater I'd feel cheated. The movie was a mess, but I was entertained by it.

I loved Casino Royale, thought Quantum of Solace was OK and in spite of Skyfall being a mess, I'd still rather watch it than any of the Brosnan and most of the Moore Bonds. Skyfall for me was like The Living Daylights and Octopussy in that it couldn't make up its mind if it was supposed to be a halfway serious thriller, an action movie or a silly lark -so parts are very good and others are just bad.

The opening sequence was great. I didn't have any problem with the list being in Istanbul since I assumed the bad guys had stolen it, the good guys had taken it back and the baddies had just gotten it back before Bond walked into the room. I was puzzled by Eve not shooting the bad guy after she had hit Bond on the train, but the film kept pointing out over and over that she's not really suited for field work so that was minor.

The villain? Give me a fucking break!

For the life of me I don't get the appeal of Javier Bardem as a villain. His role in No Country For Old Men was absurd and this one is exponentially worse. He can hack into MI6 well enough to blow the place up, but can't kill M with a bomb? His goal was to kill her, right? If he wanted to ruin her first he would have had better luck using his LEET HACKER SKILLZ to deposit a few million Euros into her bank account courtesy of <insert name of sinister group here>.

The subway crash was ridiculous.

The telegraphing of M's impending death was so obvious that they might as well have had the word "GONER" highlighted over her head like a halo. It would have been so much better if her death had come as a surprise.

Maybe it's because I grew up with the Connery, Lazenby and (ugh!) Moore films, but the idea of Bond being oh-so-serious is, while not as much of a joke as Dark Serious Batman, still pretty laughable. Yes, I have read Fleming's novels, and if you've read any of them and take them seriously you must also think Steven Seagal movies are high drama.

What I did like:

Bringing back the DB5, if only because I love car porn and the one truly humorous scene where a slightly annoyed M, when she notices the equally annoyed Bond's thumb on the red button, saying "Go ahead and eject me -see if I care!".

Albert Finney and Ralph Fiennes live! In 99% of other movies -including especially Bond films- the Trusty Old Family Friend gets killed. The Dickish Superior trying to push the cool boss into retirement is usually killed after being shown to be a dumbass OR turns out to be a traitor (which is why he wants to get rid of the cool boss in the first place- duh!). I was fully expecting the Fiennes character to be in cahoots with Silva and was pleasantly surprised that he wasn't.

M and Moneypenny.

Q was great. Handing Bond just "a gun and a radio" was cool. So cool I wasn't at all annoyed when my girlfriend went into OMG! mode because he's played by the actor from Man Men UK The Hour.



Like I said, a disjointed mess but just entertaining enough to watch at home when you and your SO can't agree on what to watch.

You know, it would've worked so much better had it been about M deflecting attacks and accusations coming from mysterious activities, bribes etc.

Instead of a wizard doing magical and convoluted plans that made no sense.

Maybe if they had money trouble they should have cut the absurd and dramatically valueless stunt spectaculars and kept the actual story. :V

Elfdart wrote:His role in No Country For Old Men was absurd and this one is exponentially worse.

I know this is off topic, but what was your problem with Bardem in No Country?

He was more of a walking gimmick than what he was supposed to represent - a professional killer.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:

Elfdart wrote:His role in No Country For Old Men was absurd and this one is exponentially worse.

I know this is off topic, but what was your problem with Bardem in No Country?

The pseudointellectual nonsense? The fact that the writers thought he was saying something profound? He was boring?

That he came off as a high functioning retard rather than a dangerous killer?