View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012 Location: Gangnam
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:19 am Post subject: James Bond: Skyfall (sucked, spoiler) |
|
|
The film really sucked. It feels like it was made by someone worrying the whole time about what we want to see, not by someone who actually understands Bond films and makes something interesting to himself and thus interesting to us.
A few issues I have:
* Why does he keep looking into the camera with that fake intense look?
* Why do the Shanghainese not act or talk like such? Why is it necessary to make everything like the Western image of how things are, instead of showing how things ARE. It would be a lot more interesting if SH were not just a plastic background but something more real and meaningful to the movie.
* Why does he have a gun that only he can fire, doesn't make sense, serves no purpose.
* Why is everything so shallow and pointless, there is only one good actor, the bad guy. Everyone else is a stock character.
* Why do they feel the need do pointless things like making Q a computer hacker, right so it's "modern", got it, dumb.
* It treats the audience like they are idiots, I guess that's what really is so tasteless.
Bring back Sean Connery, the new bond has no nuts, no style, no womanizing, it's hollow and tame. I'll give it three stars out of five, it's just so robotic. Thoughts? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012 Location: Gangnam
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Additional point:
* the music sucked |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cheezsteakwit
Joined: 12 Oct 2011 Location: There & back again.
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Saw it last night. t was what I expected. I'd give it 3 1/2 out of 5 stars.
In reponse to your questions:
1. So they can show his 'baby blue eyes'
2. The Shanghai scene was the assassination scene. There was NO talking during that scene. Bond jumped on & hung off the bottom of the elevator, then killed the sniper (end of scene) -
Basically, the aerial night time shot of Shanghai was the only purpose of that scene, & I wish they could have shot more scenes there, (as I'd like to visit there / possibly move there someday)
3. The MACAU scene may be what you are referring to when you say they don't 'act & talk'' naturally.
The gun that only Bond can fire DOES serve a purpose. Bond would be dead during the Macau scene with the Komodo dragon without that gun failing in the hands of the Macau guy.
4.. Bond movies have always been cheesy & the villains have always been the more interesting characters throughout the series.
& I love Javier Bardem, but I couldn't help wondering when MI6 started recruiting SPANISH guys for the British secret service ???
5. Making Q a computer hacker DID make sense - It fit in with the whole "Out with the old, In with the new" theme of the movie.
This Bond is defintiely getting up there in age, though. Seeing him failing his physical & mental tests due to being worn out, beaten down, like an old lion fit the plot theme nicely.
Although, I agree with you. Sean Connerry was THE best Bond. I just don't see him being able to do the physical stunts necessary for a Bond film... & the womanizing wouldn't be such a factor either (without Viagra) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Unibrow
Joined: 20 Aug 2012
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like the film. I think your complaints are stupid. Did you want to see Bond fighting an assassin outside some hovels in Shanghai? Also, I assume you're referring to the Macau scene, the club he was in for high rollers. Do you think they're going to have mainland Chinese women in their speaking in stilted English to multimillionaires? The gun did serve a purpose; it saved his life in the Komodo pit. As far as treating the audience like idiots, I honestly don't know what you expected from a James Bond movie. This is the same series where Pierce Brosnan outran a giant "laser" from a satellite while on a snowmobile in Antarctica. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dairyairy
Joined: 17 May 2012 Location: South Korea
|
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's a very good movie. Not great but good. There's a complex villain and
"nobody's perfect" plot. Adele does a great job with the theme, BTW.
Spoiler
It's a transition movie. It was less about Bond and more about the transitions. That's difficult to do, but you can see where the next 007 pic will be a great one with that new cast in place. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pugwall
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
|
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Best Bond movie for years. Bardem was an excellent villain. Really liked all the subtext about England's falling place in the world and the old vs the new stuff.
I think must have seen a different movie from Kimchininja. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tanklor1
Joined: 13 Jun 2006
|
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
It was okay. Better than Quantum of Solace. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Savant
Joined: 25 May 2007
|
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Heineken don't do Bond movies but if they did....no wait, they clearly do, given the blatant product placement I saw multiple times. Money talks!
Movie was alright. As a Scot/Brit it was nice to see the Scotland and London scenes. Was better than Quantum of Solace but think I liked Casino Royale better. It did feel like it was ending one chapter to start a brand new one so I liked it for that effect.
KimchiNinja wrote: |
* Why does he keep looking into the camera with that fake intense look?
|
I read that Daniel Craig got hooked on watching K-dramas for several months. Guess he couldn't shake off that look in front of the camera. I jest! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Died By Bear
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
|
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree that no one can match Connery. He was the best Bond ever. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005 Location: Easy Street.
|
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It was a good transition movie but I thought Casino Royale had already done that job.
New Q sucked. No one can replace Desmond Llewellyn, but at least get someone with their own brand of stage presence. And what's wrong with exploding pens? They're fun!
Overall, liked the movie despite nitpicks. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Benjamino
Joined: 21 Apr 2012 Location: Jinju
|
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Craig has Bond off to a tee (read the books) . The storyline was very Fleming like too. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012 Location: Gangnam
|
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cheezsteakwit wrote: |
It was what I expected. I'd give it 3 1/2 out of 5 stars. |
That's exactly what I gave it. My woman scored it the same too. It doesn't surprise me that people like it however. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012 Location: Gangnam
|
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Unibrow wrote: |
As far as treating the audience like idiots, I honestly don't know what you expected from a James Bond movie. This is the same series where Pierce Brosnan outran a giant "laser" from a satellite while on a snowmobile in Antarctica. |
Good point. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fosterman
Joined: 16 Nov 2011
|
Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
it was just an action movie with the title character named Bond.
didn't really seem bondesque (spelling) you knw what I mean.
didn't seem to have the charm and style of bonds, sure at times there were
but that really wasn't enough. and what's with the no skin?
was better than solace that's for sure
it doesn't rank in the top 10 of all time bond movies either.
just average. 3 out of 5 is a good call on the ratings. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dave Chance
Joined: 30 May 2011
|
Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Connery and the early ones were a product of the times, as this one is.
As with music, art, literature etc, so with the movies. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|