I'm betting Reaper16 wrote that review.

I've forwarded this to the FBI, you sick bastard.

meh, if it wasn't for Deakins and Bardem it would've been just a VERY average Bond film. The last third of the film was laughable.

Welcome back to the golden age of 007.

Still didn't measure up to CR. It was good though.

I liked it better than CR because there's only so much action in a casino, and there more emotional impact at the end of this one.

It was hard to buy the Bond-Vesper relationship. I mean was he really that broken up over some broad he had known for a few days?

Great story. Kind of boring movie. Not really what I think of as a Bond movie at all.

Doesn't even touch CR.

Very rare that I agree with you but you nailed it. This isn't just a great "Bond" movie.. it is a legitimately great film. I went into it with reasonable expectations and was blown away.

Take all the fun things you love about Bond movies, add in a healthy dose of nostalgia and place them inside a film with fantastic acting (Albert Finney!), solid plot and great dialogue and you have Skyfall.

Until this movie I thought of Bond movies as guilty pleasures. (even Casino Royale)

This felt like "the" movie that officially reboots the franchise with all the pieces in place for a solid run of 3 or 4 more films.

It's better than CR because:

1. The emotional impact is greater.

2. The villain is better.

3. Technical stuff like cinematography and choreographed fight sequences are mind-blowingly good.

And then they went in and threw fanboy bones all over the place and my balls were drained.

emotionally the movie did basically nothing for me. I did like the villain, only because i liked No Country for Old Men. The cinematography was nothing special. In the end, all i got from the movie was a sore ass. and this was a theatre with leather recliners.

i'll give it a second viewing when it comes out on disc, just in case i'm out of my mind on this one.

Arguing over whether Casino Royale or Skyfall is the better film is like arguing over whether it is better to see the Broncos lose or the Raiders lose.

The wife and I went and saw Skyfall yesterday. It's certainly the best Bond of the Daniel Craig era, I've no clue if it's the best overall. The biggest difference for me between Skyfall and Casino Royale, is CR is barely a Bond film. It's a great movie, and I love it. But it's no more Bond than in name. For all intents and purposes, it's an origin story. For Pete's sake, we don't even hear the Bond theme until the very end. Skyfall was very much a Bond movie.

For me, this trilogy has been more about getting Bond to where we recognize him as Bond. CR and QoS was getting him to this point. Now we're at Skyfall, and we see everything we know about Bond up until CR: M, Moneypenny, Q, the Aston Martin, the shaken martini, the gadgetry, Adele's 'Skyfall' as a throwback to the older themes...

Its no Moonraker

You have to be kidding. The scenes in Scotland are a visual feast. Especially at night.

The same goes for the stuff at night in the high-rise building chasing the assassin. Just gorgeous to look at.

As the movie's plot was evolving, I was expecting Skyfall to be among my favorites of the year. However, it's as if the movie detached itself from the intensity of its rising actions, and I never felt the suspense I did when Silva stormed the courthouse.

Overall it was a solid 8.5, and I'll likely watch it again in a couple of weeks.

There wasn't much suspense because it was very, very predictable. That didn't make it unlikable, though. At least for me.

Theres always very little suspense in any 007 film because its not like they are going to ever let Bond die.

More thoughts...

You're aware this is a Bond movie, right? This is the same series that cast Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist and gave us Grace Jones as a girl baddie.

I was waiting for macaulay culkin to make a cameo and start swinging paint cans at the bad guys

I realize that, I was simply talking about the elements of the movie which kept it from being a masterpiece. (Or among my favorites for the year.)

It was still a good watch, though.

That's what I got from it, it felt a little too Home Alone. Instead of Bond being a badass and taking guys out with just his guns, he has Judy Dench stick some nails in a chandelier and flip the switch. While putting some shotgun shells underneath the floorboards for good measure.

I think the cinematography was Oscar worthy. When Bond is approaching the casino on the boat was shot very well.

This movie is badass.

Watched it last night, so now I'm clicking on the spoilers.

This was my exact complaint.

It was a good movie, but in the end

Another thing to consider about the ending

In any case you can't deny it was the right thing for the character to

I agree, but..

Finally saw it tonight. Really, really enjoyed it. Love how it basically completes a Bond Origin trilogy with Craig. They even tied it to the past with the office and leather door at the end. Then the gun barrel and Bond theme to close it out gave me full on wood!

About the only thing I didn't care much for was Bardems performance. It reminded me of Walkens over the top weirdo in View to a Kill.


So is Bond Bi? "How do you know this is my first time?"
Posted via Mobile Device

no, just a really good comeback

I also thought that Mendez and the Writers underused Bardem's potential as a villain.

I probably clearly audibly heard 50% of Bardem's lines. And that's sad because I really wanted to hear what he had to say.

Oh.......classic how they brought back the old school Aston Martin, then used the grill guns to mow down an army of baddies. Sweeet!!! Even a funny reference to the ejection seat.



BTW, where do bad guys get a small army of thugs to be loyal to them and why do they remain loyal? Does the bad guy promise them an island of gold or something??

Haha. I was thinking the exact same thing. Every time I see a movie like this I wonder about the lives of the random bad guys.

Finally saw it this was Craig's first movie I'd call a true Bond film.

He still doesn't look anything like Bond. Good movie though.

Whatever... he doesn't fit your preconceived notion of what Bond should look like. Don't you think it's time you got over it?

:facepalm:

Preconceived notions are difficult to overcome, so I get it.

That said, this was the closest film in 50 years to capture the essence of the Sean Connery led James Bond.

As others have mentioned, this film completed the "Origin Trilogy". It taught us who Bond was before he became the true 007. Everything in this film had reason and the final scene was, IMO, amazing, fun and led me to believe that this "origin" period is over: The next wave of Bond films will return to the gadgets, intrigue and Bond girls of the early 60's.

Or so I hope.

I loved it. The way he approached the casino in the boat reminded me of the old school films.

How was Casino Royale not considered a true Bond film?

I can see how QOS was kinda crappy, but Casino Royale was great.

No Q. No gadgets. No suave.

don't get me wrong, I absolutely LOVED Casino Royale, but it really wasn't a true Bond movie.

Yhe whole Craig series has been a "Bond becoming Bond" series. Bruce Wayne wasn't Batman until he became Batman.

No. This is James Bond

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/btjBvrly2aI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Find me some guy with 80% of this guy's suave-machismo, and I'll give up the fight.

Personally, Connery isn't even the second best Bond. But seriously, just because your favorite Bond looks that way doesn't mean every Bond has to. Get the **** over it.

I was a Craig resister and I just watched Skyfall, a great film in all aspects of Bond films. I'm a fan again now.

ROFL

I'm on record here and elsewhere as not being a Connery Bond fan. I like both Craig and George Lazenby better. Moore, for what the movies were, was good. Frankly, I'd put Connery maybe above only Timothy Dalton.

I love Connery as an actor, but as Bond... pass.

Sorry for your terrible Bond taste that misses the whole spirit of the movie Bond. Here are the best movie Bonds:

1- Sean Connery

2- Sean Connery

3- Sean Connery

4- Sean Connery

5- Some Connery-like future Bond actor

6- George Lazenby

7- Timothy Dalton

8- Pierce Brosnan (Didn't like his voice. Also he got the shaft from EON with bad movie scripts)

9- Daniel Craig (Good actor, like the voice, don't like anything else.)

10- Roger Moore (Had every chance to be the second best Bond, but badly fumbled the ball.)

They all had their way with your mom...

Well, you had better get used to Craig, he is going to be around for a long, long time.

God forbid any have a different interpretation from the great and almighty Frankie, James Bond expert.

I admit, I like Sean Connery a lot, as Bond and as an actor in general. I also agree that Pierce Brosnan did not get the best Bond scripts to work with.

But Craig has been lights out phenomenal as Bond. QOS was a disappointment, but with the writers strike going on before and during filming, it was destined to be a cluster from the get go. The fact that QOS turned out to be an okay movie is about the best one could hope for.

Craig's Bond has been rebooted from the ground up, and I look forward to the next chapter. Hopefully it won't take four years to get done.

Roger Moore was perfect for what they asked him to do. It was a different era, the movies were corny and over the top. Badly dated now, but he was fine for the time.

I think Pierce Brosnan best personifies the Bond suave. He had the look, the voice, and he was debonair. He's exactly what I'd expect James Bond to be like in real life, but his movies blew chunks.

Daniel Craig is nothing like what I would expect from James Bond. He's rough, rugged, and- I don't even know what else, but suave wouldn't be the first thing that came to mind. With that said, he acts well, is great in the action scenes, and his movies are fantastic.

I'd probably make my list with Craig as #1 with the slight nod over Connery at #2. **** everyone else.

Craig is a good actor alright. But so is Peter Dinklage. Peter Dinklage is not Bond. Neither is Craig. Craig benefits from being Barbara Broccoli's favorite and EON going out of their way to provide him with good scripts.

Brosnan fought for better scripts and more edge to the character but instead they just fired him.

The idea of a reboot has a lot of problems. Usually a reboot happens a few years after a series has run it's course. It's usually done by another outfit and not with the signatures of the first. This one was done only to tap into the box office popularity and success of a short blond spy named Bourne. Instead of the Bond franchise being a trail blazer, it became an imitator.

To make it all more stupid they not only kept the signature music and the intros, but also kept the same M who had already bossed around the old Bond. The new short, blonde, pre-00 Bond is introduced to the old M. What a crock of shit! I think EON counted on the new fans having a short attention span,.... and judging by some posts here, maybe they were right.

Or maybe some fans are smart enough to know Bond is a character, and they don't need to reinvent the wheel every time they hire a new actor.

And you go out of your way to wrap your disagreement with me in insults, only to agree with me. You are right, they didn't have to reinvent the wheel. But they did. Unfortunately. All they had to do was to start writing better scripts like they have for Craig.

To me, Pierce Brosnan could have been the quintessential Bond. A mixture of Connery, Lazenby and Moore, but the producers failed to provide him with great scripts.

He, if given the chance, would have been amazing in the reboot. I think Craig has done a great job but like you, feel his stature and blond hair throws off the decades long style and feel of the character. Even still, I love the movies he's done as Bond.

That said, I doubt we'd be having this conversation had Hugh Jackman not refused the role in 2005.

I actually like all the Brosnan movies except the last one. They sort of fell back to the over the top (Roger Moore) era stuff with that one. The 1st movie with Brosnan was sort of a reboot since Bond was a dead character there in the early 90s.

Jackman was my top choice when they were recasting Bond after the Brosnan era. But I understand he was rejected by Barbara Broccoli for being too "effeminate!!!" I think Babs had her site on Craig and nothing,... NOTHING was going to change that. This also explains why all the extra efforts are made for better quality of scripts and production. All is to sell Craig as Bond to a great section of the audience. They could have done the same for Jackman and everybody claiming Craig is the greatest Bond would have claimed the same for Jackman.

Brosnan had a lot going for him for the 007 except the commanding voice and delivery that Connery had. Craig is OK in that department. Too bad he just doesn't look like Bond.

wow, that post broke apart in mid air!!!

Agreed about Brosnan. Connery remains the best Bond, but Brosnan should have been the best. He just got stuck with a lot of really terrible movies.

Lazenby's interesting. I think his short run has people overrating him a little and I used to do the same. Then I re-watched Secret Service and really thought he did a mediocre job. He was stiff, unpolished and just not as good as I remembered.

I think people like him more than they should because they just didn't get a chance to grow tired of him. And also, he played Bond in a single movie that was a little different from the rest and was quite good on its own. He gets credit for being Bond in a good movie, just as Dalton got nailed for being Bond in really bad movies (though Dalton just wasn't that good).

Craig's just a far different Bond than anyone that's come before him so its tough to put him in the hierarchy. For the most part, he's been James Bourne. I like his movies a lot and the gritty nastiness of them, but they're a world apart from the rest of the series. It's just tough to grade him with everyone else.

But back on track - yes, Pierce Brosnan is an underrated Bond and could've been the best Bond yet.

I totally disagree with this.

I totally agree with this.

Look I could accept Craig as, say the new agent 009 David King. Do a whole series of 009 movies starring him, and I will watch them. But his looks, demeanor, and personality is NOT James Bond.

Not yet but, that doesn't mean he won't become him (in demeanor and personality anyway). They have been building the character from the ground up, and each movie he seems to take another step to becoming the Bond we expect. Watching the development to see how he gets there is quite interesting I think.

You won't believe and will be super excited about who has just been asked to direct the next James Bond film!!! None other than Dark Knight director Christopher Nolan has just been asked to direct the next bond movie. Your guess is as good as ours if he will accept!

Link?

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...icle-1.1348482

Christopher Nolan to direct next Bond movie? 'Dark Knight' director to take a 007 turn, sources say

Will Christopher Nolan land the next Bond film?

The Daily Mail reports that the "Inception" director is in "informal talks" to direct the next James Bond movie, stepping in to direct after Sam Mendes decided not to make the follow-up to 'Skyfall.'

Mendes withdrew his hat from the directing ring thanks to a very busy schedule, including several theater commitments.

Nolan, as the Mail points out, has a no less packed year ahead. He's currently in pre-production for Anne Hathaway flick "Interstellar."

Damn. :shake:

I was really hoping Abrams or Lindelof would sign on.

No way Abrams has time between Star Trek and Star Wars at this point.

I'm in.

I wouldn't get too excited. Nolan was talking about doing Bond 3 years ago before Mendes took on Skyfall.

I'm pretty sure FMB was being sarcastic.

And if he was being serious, I'm going to hunt him down.

:D

From what I understand, Nolan is interested in directing a Bond film but most likely, it won't be Bond 24 due to his next film, Interstellar.

Of course, these things are always fluid, so he could sign on today. :D

And now we've come first circle and they're talking about Mendes coming back after all.

Shut. The. ****. Up. Seriously, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen/heard that had anything to do with any James Bond movie ever made at any time. Just...no.

Lazenbu was the man!