Skyfall

[Baltar]

I give it a 7.  I really like Craig's Bond, and he does a great job with the part.  I didn't care for Javier Bardem's character, Silva. He was a little too goofy and not intimidating to me.  It never really explained how he was able to infiltrate MI6.  It was definitely worth a $6 matinee.

[spoiler]I kept thinking there was going to be a twist at the end involving Ralph Fiennes' M.  [/spoiler]  

[Lumpy]

These last few Bond films -- how is the music? Do they use any of the older Bond musical themes?

[The Bandit]

Are there any buildings that are also conveniently bombs?

[Baltar]

1. Yes they do use the classic score, but sparingly.  

2. [spoiler]No, but the villian does blow up MI6.[/spoiler]

[GodShifter]

I'm going to go see it today.

Hit the button if you're going to reveal details of the movie. Thanks a lot, dude. 

[themusketking]

LOVED IT!

[Baltar]

whoops, sorry bout the details 

[GodShifter]

No worries.

After watching it yesterday, I realized that giving away that detail wasn't really intricate to the rest of the plot. In fact, it was just a small sequence in the larger scale motive of the Bardem's character.

Anyway, as I said, I saw it yesterday, and while it was pretty entertaining, I didn't really dig it as much as I thought I might. I had heard that this movie kind of transcended the Bond franchise movies of the past, and became almost a movie unto itself. Um, not really.

There are some good action sequences in the movie for sure, but ultimately, the movie itself, was predictable like all Bond films. I mean you know he's going to survive no matter what (in fact, he impossible to kill -- no matter what happens to him), but the rest of the characters? Not so much, so there's where the surprises may (or may not) lie. Also, Albert Finney's character, while well played by Finney, was utterly, utterly a hackneyed cardboard cut out of all old, crusty guys that still got some spunk in 'em that you see in the movies.

It was fun, mindless entertainment and I'd give it a 6.5 out of 10. I wouldn't go see it again, though.

[strangelight]

it was ok. i also really like daniel craig's bond, but i feel like they don't give him enough to do. casino royale was awesome because they got a great actor and actually gave him some character development. he was loving and caring and then eva green ruined all that shit by giving money to the baddies and then dying and breaking his heart. it actually had some depth (for a bond film).

then quantum of solace... i know i saw that movie, but i can't tell you a fucking thing about it. i can't remember it even a little bit. i feel like skyfall is going to be just like that. in two months, i'll barely remember that javier bardem was in it. that hot sex slave was terrified of him (and for the 10 seconds she was on screen, i thought she did a good job) but the scariest thing he did was take his teeth out. bardem was too camp and not sinister enough.

and there was no real character arc here, unless "hey bond you're getting old" counts. also seems premature to run that storyline when craig has 2 films left as bond.

also.... why does everyone always think bond's gonna fuck it up? why doesn't anyone at MI6 trust him? dude saves the day singlehandedly EVERY. TIME.

it was a good way to kill an afternoon. sex worker chick was hot. i already forget what this movie was about. 6/10.

[GodShifter]

I agree about Bardem's character being too camp and not sinister enough; well said. The reviews stated that he was as scary in this movie as No Country For Old Men. Nope. Like strangelight said, outside of him taking his teeth out, he was about as ominous as any other bond villain (as in not very).

I think the deal with the angle of MI6 always thinking Bond will fuck things up, is because he's supposed to be this kind of 'rogue agent' that doesn't play by conventional rules, therefore giving him the needed 'edginess' that Hollywood desires in most leading characters that are action heroes (because that's what Bond is, really). That said, Craig does a good job of portraying a more flawed, raw character than the suave, martini sipping guys that played before him (Connery included).

Totally agree about Quantum of Solace; I can't remember a single thing about the movie at all except it seems there was a part of it set in the desert?

[strangelight]

i looked it up. they go to bolivia to fight some dude that makes green technology? there might be desert in bolivia.

i think craig plays it well. i guess i just wish that, maybe for the 4th film, bond fucks up. he doesn't make it out completely okay. like give him a giant fucked up scar on his face for the last 2 movies or have him lose a hand. when something goes wrong, have it be entirely his fault, and have him need someone else to bail him out. something to justify the apprehension everyone feels regarding his unusual "rogue" methods.

also, why is it that james bond is always given the exact gadget he's gonna need for a specific situation? it's a stupid gadget and it comes in handy in a stupid way. maybe just for shits and giggles (since this ain't high art or anything) they could give him a briefcase full of tools that he never even uses.

[Lumpy]

have him lose a hand...


...they could give him a briefcase full of tools that he never even uses.

[mortlock]

i looked it up. they go to bolivia to fight some dude that makes green technology? there might be desert in bolivia.

i think craig plays it well. i guess i just wish that, maybe for the 4th film, bond fucks up. he doesn't make it out completely okay. like give him a giant fucked up scar on his face for the last 2 movies or have him lose a hand. when something goes wrong, have it be entirely his fault, and have him need someone else to bail him out. something to justify the apprehension everyone feels regarding his unusual "rogue" methods.

also, why is it that james bond is always given the exact gadget he's gonna need for a specific situation? it's a stupid gadget and it comes in handy in a stupid way. maybe just for shits and giggles (since this ain't high art or anything) they could give him a briefcase full of tools that he never even uses.

now i know why youre doing your thing in south america..you certainly are no siskel and ebert.

[strangelight]

i dunno, man, i just wish the james bondses got a little darker.

and had some nudity in them. side titty don't count (although is still much appreciated).

[boltthrow]

It was pretty good.  I liked the opening title sequence with the underwater graveyards n' shit.  The CG'ness of it kinda takes away the thrill of yesteryear when you genuinely knew those were stunt people doing stuff.  

Craig is a decent actor but he looks weird to me.  Rat-ish with big ears and pursed lips and he runs kinda goofy.  Bardem was okay, not so much as an arcing character but as an actor in that first scene.  Both of 'em have very australopithecine profiles.  

Bond is too big a brand to genuinely evolve.  They put 'em out every three years... just long enough for you to have forgotten that the last one was kinda disappointing but then they show you some new stunts and everyone gets excited to go to the new one.  Most of it is just the form -- once you've figured out the formula, they can spice it up with new actors and thrills... but the contours of the formula remain which removes any genuine surprise.

[gritty_fingers]

I'm going to go see it today.

Hit the button if you're going to reveal details of the movie. Thanks a lot, dude. 

I agree about Bardem's character being too camp and not sinister enough; well said. The reviews stated that he was as scary in this movie as No Country For Old Men. Nope. Like strangelight said, outside of him taking his teeth out, he was about as ominous as any other bond villain (as in not very).

[Baltar]

The "too old" bugged me a little too.  Jesus, he's only done 3 movies now.  How many did Roger Moore have?

Edit: Moore did 7 Bond movies.

[fallen]

bardem was too camp and not sinister enough.

But I forgive him because of the awesome died blonde helmet hair tribute to Christopher Walken in A View To A Kill.