Skyfall Cinema Review

I found Skyfall to be an enjoyable action thriller with an exciting 'shoot out at the OK Corale' finale. For me it just didn't feel like a Bond movie.

Regards,

Paul

This.

Really enjoyed it as a film, just wasn't Bondish enough for me. This isn't a negative - I liked that it was different. But I wanted more classic suave Bond.

As you can tell I'm confused :)
 
casharlow said:
Interesting point. I do hope that they progress on to a more classic outing, as that is arguably what Craig's trilogy has built up to, but you're right, maybe we've come to expect too much. Hopefully they'll be able to get the balance right, and provide classic Bond spectacle and escapist extravagance (Bond girl; villain threatening to take over / destroy the world) whilst also maintaining the welcome character developments that these new entries have become so adept at portraying.

Cheers for the comments, glad you enjoyed the review - and the film! :thumbsup:

Cas

They need to get Chris Nolan involved.
 
We're off to see it next Tuesday - can't wait! Looks like a great film!
 
Good God, there's some SNOBBERY on this forum!

I went to see it last night, and I enjoyed every minute.

As a Bond movie, it has just enough references to the past to make it credible without being pastiche.

But, as an action movie; it has enough pace, plot and pathos to keep any honest movie fan entertained from start to finish.

Who cares whether Craig's Bond is nothing like Fleming's (literary) Bond. Was Kubrick's The Shining anything like Stephen King's book? No.

Who cares whether Craig's Bond is nothing like the originals portrayed on the big screen? Was Christian Bale's Batman any worse than Michael Keaton, just because he's more contemporary? No.

The critics should chill the **** out. It's Hollywood, not life-or-death!

Skyfall is noisy, non-stop, nuanced romp - and I love it!!!
 
Last edited:
What he said ^^

Just saw it for the second time tonight and found out that all four showings in a row this evening were sold out.

And I completely forgot but the first time I watched it, on day one, it got a round of applause at the end from the audience. The first time I'd experienced that in any movie - Bond or otherwise - since the premiere of GoldenEye. And this was just a first day showing at the Vue in Reading!

Hopefully people will come around to it. I was just as impressed second time around, so much so I'm finding it hard to avoid tinkering with and adding to my review!
 
My point exactly...NEW BOND FILM..Is there another? And the above post, SPOOKS Episode but starring Freddy Parrot Face Lookalike Daniel Craig.
Your just jealous!:p
 
Bond is no longer Bond with Craig... it's a watered down Bourne.

Craig looks like a Russian athlete that escaped from the '80s and who finds himself on the set of the new Bond by accident.
 
Saw this a week ago and have just gathered my thoughts.

When I saw CR I considered it to be one of the few Bond films which was a good film in its own right. I'll now add this to the list, though I think it just falls short of CR.

Across three films DC's Bond is closest yet to the Bond in the books, and this is the closest of those three.

Sam Mendes managed to balance character and action, and Roger Deakins' cinematography is superb, occasionally bordering on the extraordinary, especially considering the number of different settings he had to deal with.

Top stuff, and very enjoyable. I'll be interested to see how I feel again in a few months when I view it at home on Blu-ray Disc.

Steve W
 
Hello everyone,
sorry to say that I almost agree with Ten80p after watching the movie on it's 7th day in Germany. Even the original English version did not help much to compensate my disappointment.
CON's:
- very weak storyline, if any,
- a little too much action instead of coolness,
- no real first lady for Bond, instead a dying "M"...
- a rather face-less "Q" who turns out to be a computer wizzard
- a "beaurocrat" who learns that there are some threats indeed, SURPRISE !

PRO's:
- as opposed to Ten80p, I quite like Daniel Craig as Bond,
- the title song is rather nice although the older ones were a lot better
- the reincarnation of the iconic Aston Martin DB5

I will however get the blu-ray of this one when it gets cheaper, just to complete my Bond50 box.
As for Daniel Craig, I very much prefer Casino Royale and we should very much forget about Quantum.

One more thing: Sam Mendes did do a splendid job with "American Beauty" in my opinion, but that my have been thanks to Kevin Spacey having seen his latest flick.
Mind you that this is only my impression of Skyfall, maybe I am getting a little too old for the modern "pop-corn-talk-and-laugh-when-M-is-dying"-generation after all.

Best regards

msx2plus
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well I agree that most of the Bonds work better from an escapism point of view, but did you feel the same way about Casino Royale, for example?

Skyfall definitely doesn't fit in with the older classic Bonds in this regard, it's a much more personal story (as with the other Craig films) so perhaps you'll find it more enjoyable...?

Anyways, do let us know,
Cas

You are right Cas. I agree that both "Casino Royale" and "Skyfall" are more personal stories... and... as a result I think I enjoyed them more. I think "Skyfall" became weaker as it went along and the ending with Albert Finney's character et al was a bit weaker than it's excellent first half.

Cheers for the review buddy! :thumbsup:
 
You are right Cas. I agree that both "Casino Royale" and "Skyfall" are more personal stories... and... as a result I think I enjoyed them more. I think "Skyfall" became weaker as it went along and the ending with Albert Finney's character et al was a bit weaker than it's excellent first half.

Cheers for the review buddy! :thumbsup:

Thanks for getting back to us with what you thought :thumbsup:

Glad you liked the review and the film, at least more than most other Bonds!

Yeah, the end bit does seem to be something of a love-it-or-hate-it finale. Still, it was nothing if atypical for a Bond film.

Cheers, Cas
 
Saw this at the weekend and am surprised at the mixed reviews. I personally loved every second of it...well except for the biometric gun which I think was a wasted opportunity....and found myself cheering inside at many moments (Aston Martin anyone?) and just enjoying what was a great action movie.

Perhaps not being a "massive" Bond fan helps....my expectations from the character are lower, and I am just there to enjoy a good story well told. Who cares if it is derivative of other stories.....shock, horror! Most films are....there are very few original tales to tall....in fact, read some stuff on story telling and you will find most tales boil down to just two main types.....there are just different ways of telling the same stories.

Anyway, each to their own....not trying to change anyone's mind, just saying what I thought....which is that it was great entertainment and a fitting end to Craig's Bond set-up trilogy....great stuff with M, liked the new Q, and Finney and the stuff about this parents.....it may not fit with Fleming's Bond, but it put a smile on my face......something that is sadly lacking with a lot of big budget fare these days.....well, apart from Avengers.....and The Bat!

Great review Cas, thanks!
 
Last edited:
and looked like an episode of Spooks.
I too said the same after I seen it. I thought it was a film that wanted to be serious and yet was riddled with plot holes and silly situations if you thought about it for a few seconds.

To say Quote Who cares whether Craig's Bond is nothing like the originals portrayed on the big screen? Was Christian Bale's Batman any worse than Michael Keaton, just because he's more contemporary? No.

Well the film was like going to see a Superman film and getting an episode of Smallville. Skyfall was a big budget Spooks not a Bond film.
Also when does Craigs Bond start allow what he did when following that assassin .

It does seem a Marmite film.
 
To say Quote Who cares whether Craig's Bond is nothing like the originals portrayed on the big screen? Was Christian Bale's Batman any worse than Michael Keaton, just because he's more contemporary? No.

Well the film was like going to see a Superman film and getting an episode of Smallville. Skyfall was a big budget Spooks not a Bond film.

ok then Mr Expert, define ''a bond film''.

Was Tomorrow Never Dies a Bond film? Was A View To A Kill a Bond film? Of course they were .. just different styles of Bond film. Good or bad, that's all they were.

Much like Barry Lyndon was a Kubrick film. Yes, a tedious bore, but STILL a Kubrick film.

So, how is Skyfall NOT a Bond film? Please enlighten me!
 
ok then Mr Expert, define ''a bond film''.

Ohhhh sarcasm, goes with your previous comment any one not agreeing with you that this is not a good Bond film are Snobs

To that I reply, I may not know the ingredients to perfume but a I know a stool smells nothing like it.

You like it, the majority do, but a lot don't. Get over it people are entitled to there opinion as you are.
 
As I've said before, I'm not sure how anyone thinks Craig is not like Fling's Bond; he's the closest yet.

I suspect some people think Connery's Bond must be the most like Fling's, as his was the first onscreen, but that's far from the case.

Steve W
 
As I've said before, I'm not sure how anyone thinks Craig is not like Fling's Bond; he's the closest yet.

I suspect some people think Connery's Bond must be the most like Fling's, as his was the first onscreen, but that's far from the case.

Steve W

Hes near but not as near as Daltons,
as I say when Craig was following the assassin that was totally out of Bond character. How many innocent people did he standby and let them get killed.
 
Hes near but not as near as Daltons,
as I say when Craig was following the assassin that was totally out of Bond character. How many innocent people did he standby and let them get killed.

But isn't he an assasin himself?

if concentrating on the mission.... For M (mother) then he is trained to have a singular purpose and collateral damage occurs? M is more important than anything to him so he is desperate not to compromise it in any way?

Just my view of course.... As I said I am not a bond expert so have no idea if any of the movie bonds comes close to Fleming's vision.
 
But isn't he an assasin himself?

if concentrating on the mission.... For M (mother) then he is trained to have a singular purpose and collateral damage occurs? M is more important than anything to him so he is desperate not to compromise it in any way?

Just my view of course.... As I said I am not a bond expert so have no idea if any of the movie bonds comes close to Fleming's vision.

He has a licence to kill but would not go round killing innocent people say if he was ordered to eliminate Blofeld.
 
He has a licence to kill but would not go round killing innocent people say if he was ordered to eliminate Blofeld.

True, but I think it's debatable whether or not he would allow somebody to die.

Remember, we're not talking about the film Bond, we're talking about the book Bond, and how faithful Craig was to Fleming's creation.

Well Bond was a pretty damn cold SOB in some of the books. His sadism towards women became positively unpleasant in the later novels (like Dr. No), and some of the short stories that looked at Bond from an outsider's perspective didn't exactly hold his humanity in high regard. He was a blunt instrument, and Craig's version pretty much epitomises that.

In the scene you mention we don't really know who is getting shot or why, but Bond takes the bigger picture view that the best time to strike would be after the sniper has fired. It's no more or less cold than M's decision to 'take the shot' at the beginning. It's a 'greater good' decision made in the middle of a highly important (as has already been mentioned) mission.

The fact that Dalton's Bond didn't kill the cellist (for example) doesn't mean he wouldn't have done the same thing as Craig in this situation. It just happened that he noticed that the cellist wasn't a professional sniper, and figured that something fishy was up and it would have been better to investigate further rather than put a bullet in her head.

Anyways, I do agree that it was a slightly odd bit in the film. I didn't have a problem with Bond making that particular decision, I just think they could have done with explaining why a little bit better, rather than making us assume that it was because he wanted to preserve the integrity of his primary mission protocol.

Cas
 
In the scene you mention we don't really know who is getting shot or why, but Bond takes the bigger picture view that the best time to strike would be after the sniper has fired. It's no more or less cold than M's decision to 'take the shot' at the beginning. It's a 'greater good' decision made in the middle of a highly important (as has already been mentioned) mission.Cas

He could have
taken the guy out earlier with the same results even if he wanted to see what the sniper was doing he could have prevented 1 murder. and don't forget all the innocent people he killed on the way to hit Bond did not stop . Also I see M decision to be flawed on the one had your top agent in a fight with at least a 50-50 chance of winning with all his training. But she took a 50-50 chance on a shot but then add in if that shot does not come off Bond in every likelihood in the real world would be dead so not only loosing the HD but your top agent as well.
 
He

couldn't take him out earlier because the whole point of going after him was to find out who the assassin worked for. Being out of shape meant he dropped the guy before he talked, but watching the assassination helped figure out his next move.... If he had taken him out earlier he would not have found the casino chip..... Cold hearted bond or we'll written plot contrivances.... You decide! :D/
 
He

couldn't take him out earlier because the whole point of going after him was to find out who the assassin worked for. Being out of shape meant he dropped the guy before he talked, but watching the assassination helped figure out his next move.... If he had taken him out earlier he would not have found the casino chip..... Cold hearted bond or we'll written plot contrivances.... You decide! :D/
There was really no difference between him taking him out earlier and definitely he could have stopped the guy before he assassinated the guy across the way.
 
I was looking forward to seeing this, particulary as it was billed as the best bond film ever. It was nicely timed for me as i was in London for the tennis finals at the O2 Arena, so i booked the Odeon Liecester Square.

The movie overall really, really disappointed me, plot holes, silly jokes that just didn't work, and certain scenes that just didn't pull it off. Immediately after watching it, i thought maybe i need to watch it again, but then i thought more of it and i wont bother, because i actually thought it was rubbish.

Can i recall much of the movie, no i can't.

Could i personally call it more than rubbish, yes it was crap :D
 
But

he couldn't just kill him because he needed to ask about his employers. Yes, he could have stopped the assassination, and but then we wouldn't have got a funky fist fight using a sniper rifle and an introduction to the sultry siren in the other building :smashin:
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is Home Theater DEAD in 2024?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom