[trailer] Skyfall

Hater!

Okay, well as a standalone song I agreee it's not really all that great, but I think as a James Bond theme song it's really, really good.

It just has that perfect opening credits naked shadow ladies dancing around kind of sound to it. I can completely imagine some crazy action sequence, then dropping into the song and the opening credits. Really reminds me of the songs from the early Connery films.

Yeah, it has the right tone for a Bond theme tune, and Adele has a great voice for it, which counts for a lot.

I mean, consider:

I raise and counter you with:

This version had better sound quality than the one with the video.

Why did you have to go and remind us of that? Ungh...

Adele's song lacks some of the punch the previous two songs had (I really like QoS's Another Way to Die), but it's still pretty good, and doesn't feature the gimmicky stuff Adele does with her voice sometimes, which is also good.

Vega wrote:

Hater!

Okay, well as a standalone song I agreee it's not really all that great, but I think as a James Bond theme song it's really, really good.

It just has that perfect opening credits naked shadow ladies dancing around kind of sound to it. I can completely imagine some crazy action sequence, then dropping into the song and the opening credits. Really reminds me of the songs from the early Connery films.

Yeah, as a Bond theme song it's just fantastic. I doubt I'd care about it otherwise.

It reminds me of the early Bond songs that influences groups like Portishead. I like it for that. It's not really memorable otherwise.

A new trailer today, however I don't see any new footage so I don't know why they bothered.

So, any other euro goodjers seen this yet? And did you love it as much as I did? Because, really, this was damn good, and a real return to form. Probably even better than Casino Royale.

I never thought I'd see a Bond movie with this much emotional heft and thematic weight, but there you go. All while having a pretty light touch, mostly thanks to Ben Whishaw as the new Q, and Javier Bardem as the villain, both of whom are great.

Yaaaaaay!

farley3k wrote:

A new trailer today, however I don't see any new footage so I don't know why they bothered.

Some people don't feverishly watch every trailer on the internet

Well apparently it is rather good

91% on Rottentomatoes so far

I am hoping I can get some friends to agree on a time this weekend.

It's a good Bond film. I didn't care so much for the first twenty minutes (classic Bond shenanigans (does he have MacLeoud as a middle name?), too much product placement), but once the actual plot starts going, it's a ton of fun.

Spoiler:

Plus, the film questions itself about its relevance: Why are there spies like Bond still around? becomes: Why are there films about spies like Bond still around? before going into legit franchise reboot mode. Cool.

Not enough Javier Bardem. He was great. Favorite Bond villain so far.

Saw this last night. Good, but not as good as I'd been led to believe.

The cast remain superb - when your supporting cast includes Rory Kinnear and Ben Whishaw you know you've got a strong team - my main problem with it is it repeatedly lurched off in the direction of pastiche. It felt like Purvis and Mendes were trying to tick the boxes of all their favourite old Bond movies to prove it was still Bond.

Some of the London scenes brought to mind the recent remake of Tinker Tailor which only made me wish they'd cast Simon McBurney instead of "Don't call me Ralph" Nathaniel Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes. At the very least this latter was confined to the limited parameters in which he's a believable screen presence.

Also:

Spoiler:

Since everyone had said there was a surprise at the end I was well prepared for the only obvious surprise so it wasn't a surprise at all

Maq wrote:

Saw this last night. Good, but not as good as I'd been led to believe.

The cast remain superb - when your supporting cast includes Rory Kinnear and Ben Whishaw you know you've got a strong team - my main problem with it is it repeatedly lurched off in the direction of pastiche. It felt like Purvis and Mendes were trying to tick the boxes of all their favourite old Bond movies to prove it was still Bond.

Some of the London scenes brought to mind the recent remake of Tinker Tailor which only made me wish they'd cast Simon McBurney instead of "Don't call me Ralph" Nathaniel Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes. At the very least this latter was confined to the limited parameters in which he's a believable screen presence.

Also:

Spoiler:

Since everyone had said there was a surprise at the end I was well prepared for the only obvious surprise so it wasn't a surprise at all

I dont see how that's a surprise since they made a big hubub about it during the production of the last one on up through production on this one until it had been momentarily halted.

Personally i loved it, all Bond movies have fits of pastiche and thought all these were well done. Some induced crowd cheering in my showing. Definitely one of the best Bond villians ever.

The pastiche moments were there because it's the fiftieth anniversary, at least partly. I thought they were well done though, and brought some welcome levity to the proceedings without derailing things.

oMonarca wrote:

It's a good Bond film. I didn't care so much for the first twenty minutes (classic Bond shenanigans (does he have MacLeoud as a middle name?), too much product placement), but once the actual plot starts going, it's a ton of fun.

Spoiler:

Plus, the film questions itself about its relevance: Why are there spies like Bond still around? becomes: Why are there films about spies like Bond still around? before going into legit franchise reboot mode. Cool.

Not enough Javier Bardem. He was great. Favorite Bond villain so far.

I agree. Especially about the last part. It wasn't Heath Ledger, but Bardem's villain has a menacing quality about him and what he's pulling off that was far better than most Bond villains. Maybe better than all of them. It also had some of the most beautiful set pieces I've seen in a movie this year. Just from a visual standpoint. I don't want to spoil it, but there are at least 4 or 5 distinct, gorgeous locations that are quite incredible to look at. I'd be shocked if it didn't win some sort of cinematography or technical Academy Award, honestly. It's beautiful. My favorite Bond movie by a mile.

DSGamer wrote:
oMonarca wrote:

It's a good Bond film. I didn't care so much for the first twenty minutes (classic Bond shenanigans (does he have MacLeoud as a middle name?), too much product placement), but once the actual plot starts going, it's a ton of fun.

Spoiler:

Plus, the film questions itself about its relevance: Why are there spies like Bond still around? becomes: Why are there films about spies like Bond still around? before going into legit franchise reboot mode. Cool.

Not enough Javier Bardem. He was great. Favorite Bond villain so far.

I agree. Especially about the last part. It wasn't Heath Ledger, but Bardem's villain has a menacing quality about him and what he's pulling off that was far better than most Bond villains. Maybe better than all of them. It also had some of the most beautiful set pieces I've seen in a movie this year. Just from a visual standpoint. I don't want to spoil it, but there are at least 4 or 5 distinct, gorgeous locations that are quite incredible to look at. I'd be shocked if it didn't win some sort of cinematography or technical Academy Award, honestly. It's beautiful. My favorite Bond movie by a mile.

Well being motivated by something other than greed was a huge leap in the right direction.

oMonarca wrote:
Spoiler:

Plus, the film questions itself about its relevance: Why are there spies like Bond still around? becomes: Why are there films about spies like Bond still around? before going into legit franchise reboot mode. Cool.

Spoiler:

Wait, what?! This is the last Daniel Craig Bond movie? Why the hell are they rebooting it again? He's such a good bond.

Edwin wrote:
oMonarca wrote:
Spoiler:

Plus, the film questions itself about its relevance: Why are there spies like Bond still around? becomes: Why are there films about spies like Bond still around? before going into legit franchise reboot mode. Cool.

Spoiler:

Wait, what?! This is the last Daniel Craig Bond movie? Why the hell are they rebooting it again? He's such a good bond.

No, you misunderstand. All that means is that you could basically

Spoiler:

launch straight into a remake of Dr. No from where Skyfall leaves off.

Oh! God I hope that happens with Daniel Craig.

Apparently I'm the only person alive who genuinely disliked this Bond movie. I was checking my watch continuously throughout to see how much longer I had to go. It just dragged and dragged.

Spoiler:

By the time it became an adult version of Home Alone, I was pretty much checked out.

I don't get the hype either. It was good, not great. Maybe a great Bond? I don't know, I've only seen the ones made since I was alive. So, Brosnan to Craig. I could also guess when the theater sheered about

Spoiler:

the old car, it was a callback.

Anyway, the beginning up until his return dragged for me. I didn't even recognize Javier until I read the thread. He was amazing, definitely the highlight of the movie. I felt the rest of the film had a good pace to it, but didn't care for how they dealt with the villain. Sure it was alluded to, but it was still quite anti-climactic. The biggest thing that kept me out of the experience was the lack of dialogue, and what was there, wasn't anything special. And while I don't want the whole espionage experience to be full of quips, I found that lacking as well. Loved the few scenes we got that were similar to Q's intro.

Spoiler:

P.S. Good riddance Judi Dench's M. She was great at the role she'd been given all these years, but I could just never connect with or enjoy her character. The new guy has a personality that's not like an emo bureaucrat. Sweet!

So I liked the movie overall, but could someone(s) explain what made Silva such a great villain to them? I felt he was a little... lackluster... for the hype I've read in reviews and the build-up to him in the movie itself. I've heard him described as being similar to Ledger's Joker, but I didn't really get a vibe along those lines (which made me sad, because TDK is a fantastic movie because of his performance). There was an obvious attempt to ape some of the moments from TDK, but they didn't seem to fit in well.

Also,

Spoiler:

what kind of half-assed hacker is Q that he patches the villain's system directly into the MI6 network?

I loved it far more than any of the other Craig outings as Bond. It had a good feel and a lot of good action. I don't think any of the criticism are wrong but I guess I can over look them because the majority of the film was great.

Kraint wrote:

So I liked the movie overall, but could someone(s) explain what made Silva such a great villain to them? I felt he was a little... lackluster... for the hype I've read in reviews and the build-up to him in the movie itself. I've heard him described as being similar to Ledger's Joker, but I didn't really get a vibe along those lines (which made me sad, because TDK is a fantastic movie because of his performance). There was an obvious attempt to ape some of the moments from TDK, but they didn't seem to fit in well.

Like i briefly mentioned above. The fact he wasnt motivated by greed automatically puts him a step above most villians, and as for the Ledger references i guess because he was highly intelligent and fuctional while being completely batsh*t crazy.

I was thinking after seeing it that it would have been pretty easy to cut it down to two hours. #1 easy cut since it is never show again and makes no real impact on the plot the whole CGI thing where the bad guy shows his wounds to M could be out.

farley3k wrote:

I was thinking after seeing it that it would have been pretty easy to cut it down to two hours. #1 easy cut since it is never show again and makes no real impact on the plot the whole CGI thing where the bad guy shows his wounds to M could be out.

Spoiler:

It helped develop Silva's character, and made the audience understand beyond his torture why he has a vendetta against M. I thought it was one of the best moments in Skyfall, and don't see how cutting out a few seconds of CG would effectively shorten the film. If you meant the whole scene, then you're even further taking out Silva's motivations for the plot, almost entirely so.

cyrax wrote:
farley3k wrote:

I was thinking after seeing it that it would have been pretty easy to cut it down to two hours. #1 easy cut since it is never show again and makes no real impact on the plot the whole CGI thing where the bad guy shows his wounds to M could be out.

Spoiler:

It helped develop Silva's character, and made the audience understand beyond his torture why he has a vendetta against M. I thought it was one of the best moments in Skyfall, and don't see how cutting out a few seconds of CG would effectively shorten the film. If you meant the whole scene, then you're even further taking out Silva's motivations for the plot, almost entirely so.

I agree... it helps shows the lengths he had to go just to get to that paticular point.

I loved it. Best Craig Bond for me, definitely. It is totally made for cinema screen - I don't think I will be rewatching it on DVD and enjoying it the same way (we are constantly rewatching Casino Royale for example). It had great atmosphere and unlike other Bonds was very serious - I always thought of Bond films as playful self-aware parodies and Mendes did everything to break this mold:

Spoiler:

Intro without gun barrel look? Shaken not stirred? Bond, James Bond? Sexy Bond girls - a good and a bad one? Gadgets? Crazy supermodern cars with awesome weapons? Invincible ubermensch agent? All of that has been carefully deconstructed and it always felt very organic to the movie.

Once you approach it as a western movie instead of a Bond movie it works perfectly. Also, the use of light is just fantastic, from the choreographed shadow fights to prison scenes to the finale. A very memorable Bond for me, especially the locations.

ranalin wrote:
cyrax wrote:
farley3k wrote:

I was thinking after seeing it that it would have been pretty easy to cut it down to two hours. #1 easy cut since it is never show again and makes no real impact on the plot the whole CGI thing where the bad guy shows his wounds to M could be out.

Spoiler:

It helped develop Silva's character, and made the audience understand beyond his torture why he has a vendetta against M. I thought it was one of the best moments in Skyfall, and don't see how cutting out a few seconds of CG would effectively shorten the film. If you meant the whole scene, then you're even further taking out Silva's motivations for the plot, almost entirely so.

I agree... it helps shows the lengths he had to go just to get to that paticular point.

I can sort of see that but it was just so ignored after that that I wasn't drawn in by it. Litterly once he puts it back we never see any mention of it again. My criteria (if I have one) is that if you went to the can at that point would anything else not make sense? The answer, for me, is no. The rest of the movie holds up completely fine without that.