The tall and dark haired Bond is no more then. We could really use someone like him to take over as Bond once DC retires.The Sweeney wrote:Still showing at 93% on Rotten Tomatoes. I think its fair to say the majority of reviews have been positive, even in the US.
I've been hearing a lot about the bisexual thing today. Why am i supposed to explain that must be because the movie is just opening here.The Saint 007 wrote:I think the producers should not imply that sort of thing in the Bond films, because some of the fans are getting ideas.Napoleon Solo wrote:John Logan on the "bisexual" scene in Skyfall:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/0 ... ertainment
Chief of Staff, 007's gone round the bend. Says someone's been trying to feed him a poisoned banana. Fellow's lost his nerve. Been in the hospital too long. Better call him home.
Took three movie to get to this point. He did his job.Jermaine76 wrote:What I'm about to say will be offensive to the anti-Craig members on this board. As an anti-Craig person, I did my best to go watch this film without any prejudices. It was very hard. I immediately started to hate on Craig from the first 30 seconds. But I'll have to admit that he did a pretty good job in this film. His one-liners were better, he wasn't mumbling like he did in CR. In short...he did his job.
Chief of Staff, 007's gone round the bend. Says someone's been trying to feed him a poisoned banana. Fellow's lost his nerve. Been in the hospital too long. Better call him home.
They could have done this with Pierce when he was Bond. Instead giving the good stuff to him, they give it to DC, and you got all those Pierce bashings like it's his fault even though he had no control over the things he given. This I will never forgive. Considering Skyfall is successful, you might as well say goodbye to the tall and dark haired traditional Bond and send in the freaks & weirdos to take over once DC retires.Jermaine76 wrote:As for Skyfall, you can see for yourself that EON put the right people around DC to be successful.
You said it FBF. They screwwwwwwwwwwwwwwed Pierce big timeFormerBondFan wrote:They could have done this with Pierce when he was Bond. Instead giving the good stuff to him, they give it to DC, and you got all those Pierce bashings like it's his fault even though he had no control over the things he given. This I will never forgive. Considering Skyfall is successful, you might as well say goodbye to the tall and dark haired traditional Bond and send in the freaks & weirdos to take over once DC retires.Jermaine76 wrote:As for Skyfall, you can see for yourself that EON put the right people around DC to be successful.
I liked Brosnan as Bond, and always felt that he never really got a chance to reach his full potential due to the content he was given. Considering how long Brosnan waited to get the role, and how things ended up, it certainly wasn't fair. And lately, I have been seeing more threads on other forums about Brosnan having more potential as Bond than what was shown, so it seems more people are slowly realizing that the producers messed things up for him.bjmdds wrote:You said it FBF. They screwwwwwwwwwwwwwwed Pierce big timeFormerBondFan wrote:They could have done this with Pierce when he was Bond. Instead giving the good stuff to him, they give it to DC, and you got all those Pierce bashings like it's his fault even though he had no control over the things he given. This I will never forgive. Considering Skyfall is successful, you might as well say goodbye to the tall and dark haired traditional Bond and send in the freaks & weirdos to take over once DC retires.Jermaine76 wrote:As for Skyfall, you can see for yourself that EON put the right people around DC to be successful.
This is why Bond 23 needed to fail, but it didn't, perhaps not even here in the US. What's left is sending in the freaks & weirdos once DC retires.The Saint 007 wrote:I liked Brosnan as Bond, and always felt that he never really got a chance to reach his full potential due to the content he was given. Considering how long Brosnan waited to get the role, and how things ended up, it certainly wasn't fair. And lately, I have been seeing more threads on other forums about Brosnan having more potential as Bond than what was shown, so it seems more people are slowly realizing that the producers messed things up for him.bjmdds wrote:You said it FBF. They screwwwwwwwwwwwwwwed Pierce big timeFormerBondFan wrote:They could have done this with Pierce when he was Bond. Instead giving the good stuff to him, they give it to DC, and you got all those Pierce bashings like it's his fault even though he had no control over the things he given. This I will never forgive. Considering Skyfall is successful, you might as well say goodbye to the tall and dark haired traditional Bond and send in the freaks & weirdos to take over once DC retires.Jermaine76 wrote:As for Skyfall, you can see for yourself that EON put the right people around DC to be successful.
When Daniel Craig leaves the role in 2022 Barbara will hire a Craig lookalike and have another strange Bond movie with Bond on heroin or something.FormerBondFan wrote:The tall and dark haired Bond is no more then. We could really use someone like him to take over as Bond once DC retires.The Sweeney wrote:Still showing at 93% on Rotten Tomatoes. I think its fair to say the majority of reviews have been positive, even in the US.
You're wrong on that. Actually he was very adamant about staying with that agent but as M kept reminding him "you know what's at stake" he of course he knew, and I loved the look in Bond's face that suggested a mixture of sympathy (for the fallen agent) and contempt (for having to leave him there), and the fatally wounded agent's expression suggests he understood that Bond had to leave him behind. It's a great moment of visual storytelling and non-dialogue moments. I liked that when Bond returns to England one of the first things he brings up is that fallen agent asking if he made it, even though he probably knew the answer to that. Definitely one of my favorite bits in the film.carl stromberg wrote:Bond is on a bike, so far so good, except he's left an agent to die, another charming Mathis moment. He'll disobey M's order when he likes, but not in this case of course!
I also feel this way, and so do many others. But unfortunately, whenever someone expresses how they want the handsome, charming, and charismatic Bond back, they'll usually get attacked about how that type of Bond is stupid, outdated, not like Fleming's Bond etc. It really frustrates me when people say that Bond being a stereotypical macho man, is cool and hardcore. It never was like this before. Personally, I always found it more interesting when Bond was an average built English gentleman spy, who took on villains that were sometimes much bigger and stronger than himself, or that had some other sort of advantages over Bond. Bond had to use his various combat skills, gadgets, or sheer wit to defeat them. With Craig, there's times where he feels so overpowered that you almost feel sorry for the bad guy he's pulverizing. But unfortunately, the muscle-bound hardcore image of Bond is what's considered to be cool and realistic nowadays.mcbride007 wrote:I really miss the handsome charming Bond. It's not James Bond for me with Daniel Craig.
Interesting. Do you think Craigs bond will ever go up against a Oddjob/Jaws type henchman?The Saint 007 wrote:I also feel this way, and so do many others. But unfortunately, whenever someone expresses how they want the handsome, charming, and charismatic Bond back, they'll usually get attacked about how that type of Bond is stupid, outdated, not like Fleming's Bond etc. It really frustrates me when people say that Bond being a stereotypical macho man, is cool and hardcore. It never was like this before. Personally, I always found it more interesting when Bond was an average built English gentleman spy, who took on villains that were sometimes much bigger and stronger than himself, or that had some other sort of advantages over Bond. Bond had to use his various combat skills, gadgets, or sheer wit to defeat them. With Craig, there's times where he feels so overpowered that you almost feel sorry for the bad guy he's pulverizing. But unfortunately, the muscle-bound hardcore image of Bond is what's considered to be cool and realistic nowadays.mcbride007 wrote:I really miss the handsome charming Bond. It's not James Bond for me with Daniel Craig.
The way the series is now, I honestly don't know. If the producers ever did decide to bring back some of the classic types of Bond villains, there would most likely be cries from some of the Craig fans about how things are going back to the stupid/campy older Bond films, and ruining all the greatness that was brought in with the reboot, etc. The Bond fan base has been split in two thanks to this reboot. You see some people on the forums complaining that Skyfall is going back to the old Bond clichés, and destroying everything that Casino Royale did to rejuvenate the series. They don't care about tinkering or even getting rid of various traditional Bond elements, and they feel that the new direction is far superior. And this is now the problem the producers will face when making the Bond films. No matter how hard they try to mix things up in order to keep the old and new audience satisfied, they will always rock the boat. It's a real vicious circle.bjamesobrad wrote:Interesting. Do you think Craigs bond will ever go up against a Oddjob/Jaws type henchman?The Saint 007 wrote:I also feel this way, and so do many others. But unfortunately, whenever someone expresses how they want the handsome, charming, and charismatic Bond back, they'll usually get attacked about how that type of Bond is stupid, outdated, not like Fleming's Bond etc. It really frustrates me when people say that Bond being a stereotypical macho man, is cool and hardcore. It never was like this before. Personally, I always found it more interesting when Bond was an average built English gentleman spy, who took on villains that were sometimes much bigger and stronger than himself, or that had some other sort of advantages over Bond. Bond had to use his various combat skills, gadgets, or sheer wit to defeat them. With Craig, there's times where he feels so overpowered that you almost feel sorry for the bad guy he's pulverizing. But unfortunately, the muscle-bound hardcore image of Bond is what's considered to be cool and realistic nowadays.mcbride007 wrote:I really miss the handsome charming Bond. It's not James Bond for me with Daniel Craig.
I think the franchise had to evolve and move in a new direction to keep up with modern audiences, otherwise it would have died commercially. Had they continued down the dark parody Austin Powers path of DAD, I doubt we would still be seeing a Bond film in 2012.The Saint 007 wrote: People can say what they want about Roger Moore or any of the other former Bond actors, because despite the fact they weren't overly muscular and aggressive, I still think they are way more awesome than Craig's Bond. They went on all sorts of crazy adventures and took on the world's greatest villains. Could they do all these things in real life? Of course not, but this isn't real life, it's a film with a fictional character. Just enjoy it, don't over analyse it or take it so seriously. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but I just prefer the handsome, charming, and charismatic super spy, who goes against incredible odds in order to save the world. It's just the classic good versus evil, and I love it.
Wrong Arthurs. GF and FRWL are not the Austin Powers style Bond movies and you know it.Captain Arthurs wrote:Pierce Brosnan was hailed as the best Bond since Sean Connery. His films were well received and seen as an event in the same way they Daniel Craig's are. To suggest that the James Bond series would have ended with two more Brosnan Bond films is ridiculous. and I hate these historical revisionists who support Craig by suggesting that Daniel Craig saved the series.
The Bond formula was radically changed with Craig and was still popular which tells me that the Bond film is popular even when it is not Bond.
To be honest if the new style Bond is the real Bond and Daniel Craig is the best bond then I'm obviously not a Bond fan. If anyone wants me I'll be watching the Austin Poiwers type Bond films like From Russia With Love and Goldfinger.
No, I really cannot see any Austin Powers connection in Skyfall. Sure, Bardem is extravagant in his performance, but it is light years away from bald heads, duplicate Blofeld's and purring white cats.Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry wrote:Sweeney do you agree with this review? It seems Austin Powers is back in Skyfall.
http://www.larsenonfilm.com/index.php?P ... iewID=2153
Skyfall (2012)
Action/Adventure Rated: PG-13
Well, that didn’t last long.
With Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, Daniel Craig established himself as the gritty, grim James Bond. The hair was lighter; the mood was not. Skyfall, Craig’s third film, is a throwback, much like the Adele torch song that anchors it. At once corny and clever, both culturally insensitive and stylistically inspired, Bond is back to being the older uncle we’re both amused and embarrassed by. Sure, he may say some politically incorrect things at times, but that vintage Jaguar he drives around in sure is cool.
Having grown up during the Roger Moore era, I’m probably more open than most to the idea of Bond being envisioned as some sort of lethal lounge lizard. Skyfall, to my delight, took this literally at one point, giving us a villain (Javier Bardem) who employs killer komodo dragons. Bond makes jokes about those and other things throughout the film, giving the piece an altogether lighter mood. Unlike Craig’s previous two pictures, this one takes place in the same universe as Austin Powers.
Skyfall opens with a doozy of an action sequence, another hallmark of the series. New director Sam Mendes (Away We Go, Jarhead) gives us a motorcycle chase along rooftops that transitions to the roof of a speeding train, but we’ve seen such things before. Bond operating a construction digger that’s being transported on the train and going after the bad guy with its bucket? Now we’re talking about the sort of action outrageousness that Bond does so well.
The sequence ends on a dour note, however, with Bond shot and left for dead. If you consider this a spoiler, note that we haven’t even reached the opening credits yet. They arrive in the usual form, with the Adele song accompanied by silhouettes of girls and guns. Once the movie proper gets underway, a resurrected Bond confronts his stone-faced boss, M (Judi Dench), and demands to know why he was left behind.
If Craig has been a key addition to the series, you could argue that the casting of Dench, which began with 1995’s GoldenEye, has been even more crucial. With her steely authority and curt dismissal of exactly the sort of chauvinistic silliness the series often indulged in, she set a welcome new tone for the franchise well before Craig arrived. And so it’s to Skyfall’s credit that much of its narrative focuses on her. Bardem’s villain, it turns out, is bent not only on destroying the British spy agency, but taking out M in particular. Her resilience is the backbone of this tale.
If Dench lends the movie an enlightened sort of authenticity, Bardem does the opposite. Swishing his way across the screen with bleached hair and effeminate flair, his Silva is one part Tim Gunn and two parts Dr. Evil. It’s a hoot – this is the first time I can remember a male adversary of Bond’s copping a feel – but also hardly an encouraging depiction of homosexuality onscreen. Add a new Bond babe (Berenice Marlohe) who’s treated as one of the most disposable women the series has ever seen, and Skyfall certainly takes a step back in terms of the franchise’s cultural sensitivity.
I know, I know. I should just let Uncle Bond be. So let me get back to singing the movie’s praises. Aside from handling the action scenes with aplomb, director Sam Mendes and cinematographer Roger Deakins bring an elegance to the movie that’s nothing less than enchanting. Especially striking is a sequence about halfway through, in which Bond fights an adversary in an all-glass office building while Marlohe’s femme fatale watches from the skyscraper across the way. This being Shanghai, holographic advertisements are projected onto the building from below, and their shapes and colors reflect and refract among the glass walls and onto the struggling men’s faces. Mendes has managed to distill the Bond ethos in a single sequence: it’s sex and death as irresistible surface and sheen.