FleshEatingZipper 1 Report post Posted June 26, 2011 Skyfall Review: Destined to Be a Classic Fifty years after his cinematic debut in Dr. No, James Bond is still alive and kicking. Following the awful Die Another Day and the rise in popularity of the Bourne series a deca... Read the full story here Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
N 28 Report post Posted November 10, 2012 I thought this was a great film. I wish the villain - Silva - hadn't been introduced halfway through, but that's not so bad, I suppose. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Russell 0 Report post Posted November 10, 2012 Yeah, Silva needed to be brought in earlier, but that's about the only gripe I have with the movie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
N 28 Report post Posted November 11, 2012 I thought the third act was a little flat, but that's not saying much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Russell 0 Report post Posted November 11, 2012 Eh, I thought the third act was the best part. Reminded me of Straw Dogs, but with more explosions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BraddersTheDog 17 Report post Posted November 20, 2012 Saw it last night. Enjoyed it on the whole. Certainly prefer the reimagined Bond series. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
N 28 Report post Posted November 21, 2012 I agree with that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BraddersTheDog 17 Report post Posted November 21, 2012 They've managed to make Bond cool again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob 75 Report post Posted November 23, 2012 I heard it blew? No? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
N 28 Report post Posted November 23, 2012 From who? Because they're dumb. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orlmarine 0 Report post Posted November 24, 2012 I've yet to see it. Now worried I'll miss out by waiting for the DVD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johnny 0 Report post Posted November 25, 2012 I was bored. Not to tears, because boys don't cry. But to me, it took a long time to go nowhere, really. I guess that makes me dumb. It had one of those endings-by-committee, like the latest Bourne film, where the writers said, "Hey, we forgot to add a big, explosive finale. How about a pointless motorcycle chase with a villain that we introduced two seconds earlier? We don't even have to write anything except, 'Awesome motorcycle chase goes HERE!' Cool. And for the Bond film, how about a siege/shootout sequence that has nothing to do with the rest of the film? We just write 'Awesome showdown with mucho explosions goes HERE!' But wait, will people go for that? Sure they will, if we name the movie after the place where the showdown takes place! Adele even wrote a song with the same title! See how it all ties together?" This is an entire movie about a guy who wants to simply shoot somebody in the head. And the plot is all of the stupidly elaborate ways that he goes about to NOT actually shoot that somebody in the head. Bring back Casino Royale. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Russell 0 Report post Posted November 25, 2012 I don't think the final siege was the most deliberately placed sequence in the entire film. The only distracting thing I found about it was that the role of the groundskeeper that Albert Finney eventually played was clearly written with the intention that Sean Connery would play the part. It's a shame he turned the producers down. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
N 28 Report post Posted November 26, 2012 Perhaps it's dumb that Silva has all of these resources and only seems to unleash them at the end, perhaps it's dumb that Bond spends a lot of time chasing a thread, perhaps it's dumb that Silva gets so little screen time and the movie ends with a explosion-in-slow-motion finale. Valid, but didn't distract me much from really liking it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johnny 0 Report post Posted November 26, 2012 I just thought it was badly plotted and dull. Javier Bardem has all the presence and creepiness of a great Bond villain, but with nothing to do. *SPOILERS* Here's a guy who is supposedly so brilliant that he can topple economies and governments with the click of a mouse. He emptied an entire island of people through the sheer force of his will. He endured years of torture and spent all that time plotting revenge. And after we're told about all of this man's menace (but not shown any of it), the final culmination of that brilliant, dangerous mind, of those years of vengeful planning... is the villain dressing up like a cop, walking into a courtroom, and intending to simply shoot M in the head. That's it? He could've done that on page 1. This villain's master plan is so intricate in its execution, apparently, with so many moving parts... that Bond is able to utterly foil it by just shooting a pair of fire extinguishers. Silva is all implied bark and no bite. That's why we end up with a stapled-on shoot 'em up for the finale. Because what else is there to do to end the thing? It's not like anything matters at that point. But give us a crappy villain, we're likely to get a crappy Bond. IMO anyway. I still liked Daniel Craig, and Judy Dench, and the Aston Martin, and the new Q, and all sorts of other stuff in the film. But Silva's "plot" (the whole challenge to Bond and the reason the story is told) was weaksauce to me. Glad you guys enjoyed it, though. Wish I had more than I did. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Russell 0 Report post Posted November 26, 2012 His plan wasn't just to shoot her in the head, though. It was to publicly humiliate her first, and then kill in front of the world while she's at her lowest. He makes a bigger point by killing her in front of a public hearing than killing her at home. When Bond foils his plan it's only at that point that he scraps all of the intricate plotting and just goes for killing her outright. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites