About two hours ago I returned from the Athens Mall, where we watched a midnight screening of Skyfall (I trust you know, the Bond movie) on release night. It will open in America in 9 November, which makes it the first English language movie (that I know of) to have a big opening in Greece before it comes to the US. Fucking A it does.

The movie itself is awesome. It's so far beyond the usual "give Bond a guy to chase" scenario, it might be a different genre entirely. It actually gives attention to Bond's psyche and his relationship with other people (and of course I mean M). M herself might as well be the central character, and I can't remember a Bond movie where he or she is so important to the plot, not just as an identity or boss figure but as a person. It's all about her, and her past, and her personal relationship with Bond and the villain. It's about her past decisions biting her in the ass.

The villain, eh? Bardem, as an ex-British agent, comes across as the Joker with blatant homosexual undertones, and is even creepier than in No Country For Old Men. Jesus. He has his motivations and goals, clear and concise, and has an understandable personality -that of an emotionally addicted manchild. Swap Le Chiffre with Blofield and you can get pretty much the same Casino Royale we actually saw, but Silva (the guy's name) is distinct. The story works because he is who he is and no one else. Same with M. Same with Bond.

Bond himself, well... he actually becomes a human person. We learn he had a home, and a place he found familiar. We learn he had a family, we even see the parents' names. We learn he emotes and cares for people (only one of them, certainly, but cares all the same). We learn that this walking tower of badassery is actually built on solid ground. Daniel Craig is his usual self, which I see as good and others may see as bad.

Also, notables: the crew is updated. We have a Q, a Moneypenny, and... um... a M. In the film's most awesome moment, the Aston Martin DB5 appears. The DB5, with the registration plate and the machine guns in the headlights. Pretty much the entire theater, judging from the reactions, thought this was awesome.

Lastly, it is Judi Dench's last Bond film. Prepare yourselves for manly tears.

Is there anyone else who's seen the movie? Would you like to add your 2 cents as spoiler-free as possible?

Do you think it fits thematically with the other movies? I don't mean 'is it a huge retcon' or that kind of nerd stuff - I'm curious if you think the three modern movies have Bond on a consistent journey.

In a way, there seems to be quite a time from Casino Royal to Skyfall. In Casino Bond is the new boy in skyfall he's past his prime and many consider him obsolete although he has experience on his side now. Its a bit of a jump and would have worked better if there had been another movie or two between them but it does give a sort of life of a agent feel.

Eh? There´s Quantum of Solace between Casino Royal and Skyfall.

I haven't seen Quantum of Solace and, to be frank, I don't plan to. Based on Casino Royale and Skyfall I'd have to say that yes, it is quite good. The movies are consistent thematically, easily more grimdark than any other Bond (except Tim Dalton's License to Kill, perhaps), and he himself is quite the same in character. He's undergone very obvious progression, is more experienced and patient, and might be a little psychotic after all these missions (when a psychiatrist asks him to find a word that goes with "murder", he responds "employment"). But he retains the emotional side he had in Casino.

I think the film works simply because it doesn’t carry on the facade that he is a 'good guy' As a kid I watched the Sean Connery films at my granddad’s (the age of VIDEO TAPES!) and liked it for its silly gadgets, Q, car chases and of course a supervillain's huge friggin base to blow up, along with the supervillain's right hand man who has a fight to the death with Bond. Those aspects are great but they always handwaved Bond's treatment of other people, not just Sean Connery era but pretty much all the way to the Brosman Bond, I'm sure Rodger Moore era almost killed Bond because he was so dull and did not have Sean’s arrogance and swagger to pull off Bond. (Not to say it was bad as in terrible, but it was stale, though I did like Jaws) A film can be forgivable for glossing over a character's antics if that character pulls off his own self confidence that the audience likes him in turn. That is part of Bond's appeal; the overly confident.

Point is Bond needed to have character, tech, women and fights gloss over so much, I did like the Dalton Bond, briefly the series was heading in the right direction showing how much of a bastard Bond actually is under all that charm, and they were going with that on Goldeneye as well but then the world is not enough and the others were just dull. There was no Look on Bond's character just him making one liners and looking cool. Bond needed to be gritty because audiences needed a reason as to why they were rooting for a sexist, calculating and cold blooded killer. To reword Bernard Cornwall 'Bond is a bastard, but he's OUR bastard' that to me is what Bond, he isn't nice and he is ruthless but he's on our side and we should be glad that he is!

Sorry I probably should have worded it a movie or two more between them. I think Quantum followed on more or less directly from Casino where Skyfall suggests that Bonds career started quite a while ago and lots of things have happened since then that we havn't seen.

Just watched it and dont think it lives up to the hype it has been getting. This film has been marketed to hell and back as being the best Bond film ever and the fucking adverts took 30 mins alone with the first 5 - 6 of them being Bond related. I'm sitting in a cinema to watch a film and you decide to spam the screen with Bond adverts that include scenes from the very film I am about to watch. I find that really annoying to say the least.

Judi Dench gone - Not that heartbroken since the movie telegraphed it from the start she was on her way out. The way she goes is just making it a bit more dramatic.

Which is in a nutshell what this film went overboard with me. The attempts at trying to make this film seem deeper by making it darker and more dramatic. The film was trying way too hard to replicate Batman and created their version of the Joker. The first two acts of the film were a semi-consistant in though I still find them timid for any actual intrigue. The last act however, I just found to be self-indulgent.

The little references were cute but the jump into Bond's home didnt really do anything. Incidentally, I was really disappointed with the complete disconnect from the previous films.
The idea of a new series of films that would track Bond from the beginning and be consistant with one another had appeal but it seems they just decided to ditch that by making this film just as episodic and vague about Bond's character progression as any of the old series.

The ending of this movie seems to have put all the pieces in place to start a return to the status quo of episodic films. We have the new Q, M and Money Penny who all just happen to be young enough to be able to start a chain of stories for the next 10 or so years of Daniel Craig. Since I believe Daniel Craig is going to run for being the longest serving Bond since Moore who managed 7 Films. That gives Craig another 5 to go.

Just came back from the cinema.

Whether this is the best Bond movie up to date or not really depends on your personal taste. If you are more into the "reimagining/reboot" stuff, then it might as well be. If your taste is more suited to Sean Connery stuff, chances are you will hate it for not being cheesy enough.

It is, however, the best out of all Craig's movies. There are a couple of factors at play here.

1) It doesn't take itself seriously. It does point you at the old Bond movies in a light hearted way - DB5 for example, or the final scene that recreates old M's office. And those scenes are surprisingly well executed - they factor into the movie very well and are relevant to the events, while pinching the old Bond style humorously, rather than "look at this old bond stuff hur hur funny" we sometimes get when there's nostalgia at play.

2) It is perhaps the most visually stunning Bond ever made. The production design, the camera work, the colours, the cadre composition - there are several moments in the movie whose stills could function as stunning photographs. I don't remember anything like that in any of the previous movies. And there's a lot of variety which I really like - the movie doesn't throw OMG LUXURY&MONEYZ into your face like the previous ones. All the locales look like they have actual meaning and are not just meant to show how much money the producers spent on shooting locations.

3) The story is simple and makes use of characters, for once. By keeping it simple they do not make it funny when you start noticing all the stupid spots and plotholes. Here it's a simple revenge story that puts Dench right in the middle.

4) The villain. Javier Bardem is an EXCELLENT actor. Truly excellent. I've seen a couple of movies with him and he can basically do it all. He does a similar thing to Skyfall as Ledger did to Batman as Joker. Even though the antagonist's character doesn't have too much depth, Bardem does an excellent job.

5) If you hated Craig as a Bond, you will hate him here too. If not, well, you know the drill. There's an elaborate attempt at creating some depth in Bond's character, but it is mostly irrelevant. All we get told is that he hates his past but we have no real idea why. The whole "Bond's parents" was stripped of weight in the story and to be honest, they could have disposed of it altogether and devote more time to 007-M relationship which really mattered here. The attempt of making Bond look more human was... well, not the most aptly executed. What they did here... well, it's like trying to dress C3P0 in Ms Havisham's dress and pretending he has depth. That should come from within the character, not from some meaningless totems.

6) They stripped the gadgets here to the minimum. It is refreshing, but utterly irrelevant to the presentation. Personally, it was nice to see Bond without his exploding pens and laser watches, but I always enjoyed the humour in Q's lab moments, even more so with Llelewyn than Cleese. The new Q... well, he's the NEW Q. A computer wiz rather than an engineer and inventor.

7) It is Judi Dench's last movie. The fact whether the way they ended her role was good or not is open to debate. I can understand why Predator disliked it, but I need to get some distance on this before I can relate. One good thing is that... Ralph Fiennes is taking over as M, which is great news for me.

Now, as I've mentioned, the plot is relatively free of stupidity and plotholes, apart from two things, which really irritate me. Bond villains are genius criminal masterminds, but I am seeing a disturbing trend lately. It seems they have become so professional, that all uncertainty in their actions is gone. Bond is able to track the villain through the fucking London tube at rushhour because he can predict what the poor sod will do next. And that is really bothering. Ledger's Joker was utterly unpredictable and crazy which made him so much fun to watch. Batman (and the viewer) were never sure what Joker has up his sleeve. Bardem's Silva/Rodriguez is like a fucking robot and while we learn what his motive is, the spell of that character fades. That really broke the suspension of disbelief at times. Another piece of stupid I noticed is that M was stealthily running away in the night while sporting a turned on flashlight. In the middle of the field. With the bad guy behind her. My grandma would probably behave that way, but I would expect something more about MI6's boss, operative or not.

Apart from the little problems I mentioned above, I really enjoyed the movie. I do recommend it. It's better than Casino Royale, which felt more like a TV series pilot. This is a full blown grand scale Bond, but with a personal story.

Spoilers:

Goes with the territory, I'd have thought. "If you are captured, we will disavow your actions" is a real thing - while agencies don't try to get their agents killed, the fact of the matter is that to higher-ups of all stripes people are resources to be used, and used up if needed.

Saw it this afternoon. Was weary of going into it given I was let down by QOS four years ago.

Boy, was I wrong. As nostalgic as I feel towards the Brosnan-era, I love the Craig-era more and this is the best outing.

While it's a standalone outing and not a continuation of the Quantum arc, that didn't bug me like I thought it would. In many ways, it's a spiritual/thematic continuation of GoldenEye as well as Casino Royale, posting whether Bond is still relevant in the modern era.

It's a great deconstruction/reconstruction of the mythology and here's to hoping for another 50 years.

The one downside was the music. I know Mendes works with Thomas Newman, but this is the first 007 film in 15 years to not have David Arnold composing, so it's bit of a letdown.

---

"A vigilante is just a man lost in the scramble for his own gratification; he can be destroyed, or locked up. But if you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, and if they can't stop you, you become something else entirely... a legend, Mr. Wayne."

-- Ducard, Batman Begins --

I just saw it and I was underwhelmed. Not as bad as the second Craig Bond, but not nearly as good as the first. I think it suffered from being hastily rewritten to be a much cheaper production, and some general idiot brainbug kind of problems that were not counter balanced by being over the top action.

---

"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956

The third act is just a mess. It's overlong and cements why too much action sucks. Watch Skyfall and then watch Casino Royale again. You'll be amazed at how the human drama there surpasses everything in Skyfall.

I think they wanted Sean Connery to act as the old gamekeeper.

---

People debate against me, to help me.

Still having a huge problem with reflex posting. Got to think twice before posting a reply and creating a thread

Wow thanks for quoting hidden spoilers openly, I totally didn't hide them for a purpose.

---

"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956

I totally agree with Skimmer. I REALLY wanted to like the movie ; The action pieces were well set up, and thematically the ending fight was pretty great and symbollic.

But Plot Stupidity and plot holes just kept coming.

---

"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956

Glad to see I wasn't the only one who found the film to be underwhelming full of lazy writing. It depresses me that the most positive thing I had to say after coming out of the theater was "The cinematography was truly amazing!" In the last week I've been to see Wreck-it Ralph and Skyfall. The former was the most pleasant surprise I've seen this year, while Skyfall is easily the biggest disappointment.



I wasn't too thrilled with the action in the movie either. The intro sequence was pretty intense and well done, and there were some other brief moments of awesome like the "waste of good whiskey" bit, but otherwise there wasn't anything that really got the pulse pounding. It depresses me that a movie like the Raid: Redemption can be shot on a budget of less than $2 million and absolutely dazzle an audience with its action sequences, while Hollywood pumps hundreds of millions of dollars into movies like Skyfall only to deliver a mediocre action experience. Sure, the Raid pretty much entirely took place in one building and didn't have to pay for big actors like Craig and Dench, but I still think it's sad if someone outperforms you with 1/100th of the resources. Hell, if it weren't for the intro sequence I would barely put this movie's action above that of 21 Jump Street.

---

"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956

So, yeah. I didn't think much of that film. I feel like the central relationship (Bond and M) was poorly handled, the plot was riddled with glaring holes (I'm usually focused enough on what's going on onscreen during theatre trips that I need to stop and think afterward to identify plot holes, but in spite of that there were numerous things that jumped out at me at idiotic on their face. Never mind the idiocy of Silva's breakout plan, how about the fact that he went with possibly the most ridiculously contrived means of getting captured by MI-6, in a manner that could have gone totally off the rails at several points, often in a manner he has no way of influencing.

That's far from the only spot where I had an issue, and it just kept yanking me out of the movie. Maybe the film had some interesting themes and character development, but it was stuck with a weak frame to hang them on. And, frankly, while it might have been weightier than the typical Bond film, that isn't saying much.

---

In the event that the content of the above post is factually or logically flawed, I was Trolling All Along.

Putting aside the plot (which tbh I think is simply being misunderstood) the movie had too many disparate themes that it didn't do enough with. If they decided to be about one or two of the laundry list of elements they touch on (mother issues, changing face of espionage, age, faith, duty, England being weak, etc) I think the narrative could have been a lot stronger. As it is, the impact of the movie is too spread out and there's too much dead time (going to China seems to me to be an enormous waste of my time and their money, for instance).

The biggest failing of the film to me was the uncomfortable combination of their extremely heavy and personal themes (or attempts at this anyway) and what was basically slapstick nerd humour. Bond has personal issues which parallel the issues of cultural identify in 21st Century England my that's ... HAHA AN OLD CAR SO SWEET BRO. Bonds early life was a cold and barren one and his childhood was ended by OMG IT IS TEH MONEYPENNY!!! HOO NEW???

If they wanted to reboot into comic James Bond movies (cause everyone loved that formula lol) they didn't need to take so long to do it, or attempt high concept stuff that would be constantly undermined by it.