# Skyfall



## T & P (Oct 25, 2012)

I'm surprised there's no thread on this yet (other than the Adelle song one, which I don't think would do it justice). I haven't looked forward to a film this much sine The Dark Knight. The reviews so far are very encouraging indeed.

Will try to watch it at the weekend. Anyone going to see it?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 25, 2012)

It's just a James Bond film. Been a bit overkill on the promotion of this.


----------



## Ponyutd (Oct 25, 2012)

I'm in it.
Fact.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Oct 25, 2012)

Ponyutd said:


> I'm in it.
> Fact.


Same here! Though not sure when we are going to get chance to see it as we are both really busy at the moment.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 25, 2012)

When are you next on telly, Quog?


----------



## Dan U (Oct 25, 2012)

i may have been subliminally massively PR'ed but i might go and see this at the cinema


----------



## Crispy (Oct 25, 2012)

*checks*

Wow, those really are glowing reviews. Sam Mendes directing and Roger Deakins at the camera. Ok, I'm sold


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Oct 25, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> When are you next on telly, Quog?


I'll have to ask my agent Mum


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Oct 25, 2012)

Do the BBC have shares in this film or something? Non-stop glowing promotional from them for weeks.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 25, 2012)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Do the BBC have shares in this film or something? Non-stop glowing promotional from them for weeks.


It's disgraceful really. Newscasters have been tipping it as the best Bond ever, hence my mistrust


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 25, 2012)

Crispy said:


> *checks*
> 
> Wow, those really are glowing reviews. Sam Mendes directing and Roger Deakins at the camera. Ok, I'm sold


What reviews did you look at?


----------



## DRINK? (Oct 25, 2012)

chicken licken was right


----------



## Crispy (Oct 25, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> What reviews did you look at?


Top handful on rotten tomatoes


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 25, 2012)

Until they make James Bond gay or something I find the whole Bond series utterly yawnsome. Doesn't help that Daniel Craig brings less character to the role than a corpse.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 25, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Top handful on rotten tomatoes


Blimey. They are glowing indeed.
Still, they are all American, so I shall remain sniffy and sceptical until a trusted Brit critic wet himself over it.
Sam Mendes directing doesn't excite me at all. I find him rather uninspired and it looks like he is trying to humanise Bond more which I think could be a mistake.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 25, 2012)

Switch to "Top" critics and you get a mix of US and UK. Times 5/5, Telegraph 4/5, Time Out 4/5. Only Guradian didn't think much of it, but then I've always found their movie reviews to be all over the place.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 25, 2012)

I dunno.  Casino Royale was great, Quantum was dire.   Both got pretty much the same pre-release reviews (oooh it's fucking awesome)

I prefer to wait until after the film is on general release before taking any notice of the reviews.


----------



## T & P (Oct 25, 2012)

Javier Bardem plays the (openly gay) villain. It is said to be one of the best and most complex villains ever in the franchise and that alone is worth checking this out for me.


----------



## T & P (Oct 25, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> It's just a James Bond film.


 And The Dark Knight is 'just a Batman film'. So best dismiss it too as rubbish I guess...


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 25, 2012)

The Dark Knight was a crap/disappointing mess too though


----------



## T & P (Oct 25, 2012)

I must say I'm not surprised one bit to hear you say that, OU


----------



## ChrisD (Oct 25, 2012)

The Culture Show special yesterday evening was just an advert.. Mark Kermode being nice to Sam Mendes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nmjt7

Unfortunetly my kids are too old to be seen out with me and my wife doesn't like "action films"... I'll sneak in somehow


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 25, 2012)

T & P said:


> I must say I'm not surprised one bit to hear you say that, OU


It's been much discussed on here already


----------



## haushoch (Oct 25, 2012)

I deeply dislike Daniel Craig as an actor, as the only facial expression he seems to be capable of is that of a man sucking on a mint.  I therefore refer to him as Sucky Mint.


----------



## lighterthief (Oct 26, 2012)

Just back from seeing it.  Not entirely perfect, but very enjoyable.


----------



## paolo (Oct 26, 2012)

I've not seen one in ages but am massively up for this.

Maybe the olympic effect (no, not the cheesy jump, funny tho it was  )... just the british feelgood factor.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Oct 26, 2012)

Have to wait til November 9 to see it here


----------



## Voley (Oct 26, 2012)

I like the sound of this. I love that psycho bloke they've got as the baddie.


----------



## Voley (Oct 26, 2012)

That Adele song's funny, mind. It's like they've just mashed up a load of Shirley Bassey bond songs and got her to warble over it. It was on the radio the other day and I noticed it wasn't 'Skyfall' I had stuck in my head after, it was 'Diamonds Are Forever'.


----------



## Lea (Oct 27, 2012)

Watched it today. It was good but not the best Bond ever. Javier Bardem's character is really camp. Berenice Marlohe looked gorgeous and exquisite. No fancy gadgets like previous Bond films. The baddie does not even want to take over the whole World. Just a personal vendetta this time. 

Surprise twist at the end of the film. Maybe more of a shift than a twist. 



Spoiler



Wasn't expecting Judi Dench to die and to be replaced by Ralph Fiennes. Although I should have seen it coming. I guess he is the perfect replacement as he's got that posh voice and character.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 27, 2012)

I'm not in the slightest bit interested in James Bond and normally just wait 'til they appear on TV, but sister has invited me to go and see it next Sunday if she can get tickets.  I have absolutely no idea what it's about, have not seen any reviews for it etc, although I did see some of the cast on Graham Norton last night.   Will be my first cinema trip of the year.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 27, 2012)

Lea said:


> Surprise twist at the end of the film. Maybe more of a shift than a twist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## clicker (Oct 27, 2012)

Went to see it last night, my first ever Bond movie. Was expecting cringeworthy Roger Moore-esque shite with scantily clad women pouring drinks and polite fighting.....I was very wrong. I usually go to the movies once every couple of years....so certainly no film buff.

I actually thoroughly enjoyed it, loved the motorbike chase across the roof tops...and that was before the opening credits even ended...loved the music and the occasional but funny one liner....Bond wasn't pretty or in a suit or raising an eyebrow in an uncomely fashion....totally bought into Daniel Craig.

Loved the villain....excellent character. Loved the ending and loved the locations...although only just read New Cross rd was one of them...didnt notice it .

A very good way to spend a couple of hours when it's freezing outside and the cinema had that surround sound magic and I was almost flying that god dayum chopper. 8 out of 10 from this fairweather film person.


----------



## Dandred (Oct 28, 2012)

I thought it was ok.......didn`t get the villan. Seemed weak. At least the landrover stayed damaged after it got it`s mirrors knocked off. They set up the  end well for the next film. Will Craig still be the next bond?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Oct 28, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> The Dark Knight was a crap/disappointing mess too though


Agreed. Those Batman films are so overrated. TErrible and silly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2012)

problems with the plot


Spoiler



what happened to the list in the end?
why didn't bond pop his clogs in the pond?
why did bond let the killing in shanghai happen? who was the man who was killed?
komodo dragons are more famous for eating dead things than live ones; unlikely to have merrily dragged away a large living gangster


in addition there was lots of product placement; among others 'beretta', 'volkswagen beetle', 'macallan's whisky'.


----------



## Dandred (Oct 28, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> problems with the plot
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


 
the lap top as well. viio or what ever it was


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2012)

Dandred said:


> the lap top as well. viio or what ever it was


yeh i saw that but i didn't recognise the brand


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 28, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh i saw that but i didn't recognise the brand


Vaio - sony


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 28, 2012)

How feminist friendly is this James Bond?

I want to take my partner buts she's threatening to kick off.


----------



## Dandred (Oct 28, 2012)

He only manages two nobbings......


----------



## Quartz (Oct 28, 2012)

lighterthief said:


> Just back from seeing it. Not entirely perfect, but very enjoyable.


 
I've seen it too and that's a fair summary. Good but not brilliant.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> How feminist friendly is this James Bond?
> 
> I want to take my partner buts she's threatening to kick off.


not a friendly feminist then


----------



## Dan U (Oct 29, 2012)

just saw this. Cinema was well busy for a 2pm showing - and not just with half term teenagers - which was nice to see.

film gets a big thumbs up from me. really enjoyed it.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 29, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> problems with the plot
> in addition there was lots of product placement; among others 'beretta', 'volkswagen beetle', 'macallan's whisky'.


 
ai, those are all valid plot holes.


----------



## mattie (Oct 29, 2012)

Spoiler



Why did he pretend to line up a shot at whichever Fiennes it was, before winking and shooting the fire extinguisher?

Also, was the underground train which crashed through the bomb hole empty?


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 29, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> not a friendly feminist then


 
She's lovely just doesn't take patriarchy like a nice polite lady.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 29, 2012)

mattie said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Also, was the underground train which crashed through the bomb hole empty?


 
Yes.



Spoiler



I'm not even sure there was a driver.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 29, 2012)

Dandred said:


> He only manages two nobbings......


 
Three. 



Spoiler



The girl he shacks up with after being shot, Moneypenny, and Severine


----------



## elevendayempire (Oct 30, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Three.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He never shags...


Spoiler



Moneypenny. In fact, that was the instant I worked out that Eve was Moneypenny – she wants to give up field work, and she doesn't shag Bond, but flirts outrageously with him. Yup, Moneypenny.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 30, 2012)

elevendayempire said:


> He never shags...
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


 


Spoiler



What about after she shaves him?[/quote]


----------



## elevendayempire (Oct 30, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> What about after she shaves him?





Spoiler



[/quote]


Spoiler



The camera tastefully pans away, and nothing happens. It's one of the rules of Bond – Moneypenny never shags him.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 30, 2012)

Bugger the spoilers. The implication is there that they do, so I'm going with it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 30, 2012)

Bond can't shag Moneypenny. It's a rule!


----------



## youngian (Oct 30, 2012)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Do the BBC have shares in this film or something? Non-stop glowing promotional from them for weeks.


 
BBC news with Hugh Edwards does put in a cameo appearance.

I enjoyed Skyfall and found the premise refreshing; Bond cleaning up MI6's own balls ups. Fleming's central conceit that the world would call on the British to save them was a silly piece of wish fufilment in the 1950s even.
The acting talent in this film has never been bettered and steers the line between action fantasy and the real world shining through very well.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 30, 2012)

Just back from it. Lots to discuss, but very briefly...

Not bad at all, thought it got better as it went along. Surprised at how non-global it is, no real campaign for world domination, and a large portion of the film set in Britain.

Bardem was interesting, if a little underdeveloped and by-the-numbers at points.

Thought some of the self-referential stuff were nice touches, but they did lay it on a bit thick with all the of "old" things and whether they ate a good or bad thing. Given where we ended up it all felt a bit like a reboot really. I suppose perhaps it's finishing what Casino Rouale started.

Films I thought were referenced: Bourne, with Bond in the water; Home Alone, the boobytrapped house; Apocalypse Now, Bardem's take on Ride of the Valkeryies.

And Scotland looked fucking gorgeous, and I want to go back.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 30, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Bugger the spoilers. The implication is there that they do, so I'm going with it.


Bond is not generally known for its implications. Personally I really don't think they did.


----------



## ivebeenhigh (Oct 30, 2012)

they got all the tube lines and trains wrong.

it was dull and predictable.  huge plot holes even for bond.

4/10


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 30, 2012)

Um so about that hard drive..?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 30, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Um so about that hard drive..?


I think Inspector MacGuffin retrieved it before the third act.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 30, 2012)

I suppose it could still be out there, and will be the basis of future films.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 30, 2012)

ivebeenhigh said:


> they got all the tube lines and trains wrong....


Well I'm not going to see it now.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 31, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Films I thought were referenced: Bourne, with Bond in the water;


 
And living on the beach with a girl. The DB5 references old Bond films. I think the tube train crash was a shout-out, but I can't remember the film.

Did you think the bulldog was referencing Winston Churchill or a product placement for Churchill the insurers?



Lord Camomile said:


> I think Inspector MacGuffin retrieved it before the third act.


 
Wasn't it retrieved when they captured Bardem?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 31, 2012)

Of course the DB5 was a call back to old Bond!  Kinda thought that went without saying  There were a few references to old Bond in this one.

Forgot Batman, when Bond was on the rooftop at the end, and, obviously, Monarch of the Glen...


----------



## Quartz (Oct 31, 2012)

And Mrs Brown (Queen Victoria / ghillie).


----------



## Lea (Oct 31, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Did you think the bulldog was referencing Winston Churchill or a product placement for Churchill the insurers?


 
I thought that it was just a reference to being "British" ie British bulldog.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 1, 2012)

Star wars, falling in the pit with the oogly thing.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 1, 2012)

Yes! Occurred to me at the time too (honest )! 

The Rancor, was it?


----------



## Quartz (Nov 1, 2012)

The trip to the casino seemed to be a shout to Star Trek 1 - entering VGER.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 1, 2012)

And that bit where he's in the car? Obvious reference to Fast and the Furious. And The Italian Job. And Marley and Me.

Are there no original ideas left in Hollywood?


----------



## weltweit (Nov 1, 2012)

I saw it last night. Enjoyed it. Second Bond girl was not alive very long. Baddie Silva was good and well played I thought. M is dead, long live M!


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 1, 2012)

That post is chock full of spoilers you sillly sod weltweit


----------



## Firky (Nov 1, 2012)

Wish the kids were back to school, don't want to watch this during half term.


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Nov 2, 2012)

It was wicked.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 4, 2012)

I've just got back from seeing it in Vue in Purley Way.  Got VIP seats.  Must be one of the rare times I've not had someone's head bobbing about in front of me and loads of leg space.

I enjoyed it, but did find it a bit slow at times and definitely not enough gadgets


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 4, 2012)

That was the point! He's not gadgety Bond, he's... well, he's Bourne-Bond, let's be honest.

I quite liked the lack of gadgets, even if they weren't the ridiculous gadgets of some previous films they were generally distracting and undermined Bond's skill. It's not impressive dispatching a load of henchmen just because you have a supertoy from Q branch.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 4, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> That was the point! He's not gadgety Bond, he's... well, he's Bourne-Bond, let's be honest.
> 
> I quite liked the lack of gadgets, even if they weren't the ridiculous gadgets of some previous films they were generally distracting and undermined Bond's skill. It's not impressive dispatching a load of henchmen just because you have a supertoy from Q branch.


 
Oh I realise that and I was never in to all singing, all dancing, all flying, all swimming cars, etc., but just a bit more that isn't totally ridiculous would have been fun, but not to killl loads of baddies as that's just not cricket


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 4, 2012)

I would have accepted a Swiss army knife, but not one of those ludicrous ones the size of a Weetabix.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 5, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Films I thought were referenced: Bourne, with Bond in the water; Home Alone, the boobytrapped house; Apocalypse Now, Bardem's take on Ride of the Valkeryies.


 
Hannibal Lector, when Bardem is captured.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 5, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> I would have accepted a Swiss army knife, but not one of those ludicrous ones the size of a Weetabix.


 
Shouldn't he be patriotic and have a British brand?


----------



## seeformiles (Nov 5, 2012)

I went to see it at the weekend - like all the best bits from past films stuck together in a very enjoyable whole - some good jokes too (never thought I'd say that about a Bond film..) - also Moneypenny is a fox!

(nice bits of symbolism that get rid of some past baggage and clear the decks for the "reboot" to start properly)


----------



## Reno (Nov 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> problems with the plot
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


 
Bond has always been an aspirational fantasy and the Bond novels are full of product placement, name dropping one brand after another. Also, in real life we are surrounded by brands. Making up fake brands is far more distracting than the real thing.

Also, how dreary to disapprove of henchmen suffering a toothy death in a Bond film. This was in the great tradition of bad guys becoming the dinner for a variety of scary critters, which goes all through the films.

And in any case, you are wrong. Komodo dragon's do kill people and large animals:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/24/man-mauled-death-komodo-dragon

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/2686937/Amazing-Komodo-dragon-attack-caught-on-film.html

Anyways, saw it tonight and thought it was great. Not THE best Bond movie as some critics like to hype it, but certainly among the best and a return to form after the rubbish last one. Liked how old characters got re-introduced and re-invented. It was beautifully shot and for the most part pretty involving. M was really the Bond girl in this one. Javier Bardem may just be the best Bond villain ever. He really creates his psychos from the hair in.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2012)

How am I wrong when I said it was 'unlikely' a komodo dragon would have done that?


----------



## Reno (Nov 6, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> How am I wrong when I said it was 'unlikely' a komodo dragon would have done that?


 
So what's the point in nitpicking it then. In a Bond film !

It seems more and more people on forums discuss that a film "is wrong" because something wouldn't happen like that in real life, picking away at perceived "plot holes. Even when it does happen, with plenty of evidence at the click of a google and when the film is a larger than life spy fantasy. Not being willing to suspend ones disbelief for a film like that shows a certain lack of imagination.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2012)

I didn't say the film was wrong I said it was a problem with the plot


----------



## T & P (Nov 6, 2012)

_All_ films have plot holes in them if you look hard enough.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 7, 2012)

Meh, it was so rank with product placement I couldn't bring myself to even try and enjoy it.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 7, 2012)

Enjoyed it.  Managing to resist buying a Viao laptop but I expect I'll have some Heineken soon - ideally in a beach hut.


----------



## Manter (Nov 7, 2012)

having read this thread (including the spoilers, because I was the kid that opened Christmas presents early) I am going to go and see it.  Even though Daniel Craig looks disturbingly like Putin


----------



## Reno (Nov 8, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Meh, it was so rank with product placement I couldn't bring myself to even try and enjoy it.



Is product all you focus on when watching a film ? I'm not sure how you get through daily life if advertising and brands distract you this much.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 8, 2012)

Sony was the only one I noticed


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 10, 2012)

Everybody I know seems to have seen this. What was the point when Bond films went from being tired, formulaic thrillers suitable only for rainy bank holidays to being tired formulaic thrillers but treated as cultural events of extraordinary significance?


----------



## Reno (Nov 10, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Everybody I know seems to have seen this. What was the point when Bond films went from being tired, formulaic thrillers suitable only for rainy bank holidays to being tired formulaic thrillers but treated as cultural events of extraordinary significance?



Not sure this makes any sense. "What was the point" ? The Bond series has always gone from re-invention to routine and back again. Eventually they all become cosy Sunday afternoon films and nothing wrong with that. My first Bond film at the cinema was The Spy Who Loved Me which had a similar effect in reinvigorating the series, was the most successful at the time and got great reviews (by Pauline Kael among others)


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 10, 2012)

So nothing has changed? I don't remember the Dalton or Brosnan ones being taken as seriously as they are now.


----------



## Reno (Nov 10, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> So nothing has changed? I don't remember the Dalton or Brosnan ones being taken as seriously as they are now.


 
They've always been big event movies, especially here because they are very British films. There was a lot of hype around Casino Royale and then it got a bit quiet when Quantum of Solace was considered a disappointment. The reason why this one is maybe taken a bit more seriously is because it has been directed by a director who is generally more acclaimed for upmarket art house films, while most of them get directed by less high profile directors. It also just happens to be a cracking good film.


----------



## Stigmata (Nov 10, 2012)

I didn't realise the lad who played Q was Pingu in Nathan Barley!


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 10, 2012)

Ben Whishaw - he's quite a big name.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Nov 10, 2012)

Saw this last night and really enjoyed it. Not just a good Bond film but also a good film in itself. Plus a good heavyweight thesp cast with at least 3 Hamlets in the supporting cast


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 10, 2012)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Plus a good heavyweight thesp cast with at least 3 Hamlets in the supporting cast


 
Something something backstage at _Jim'll Fix It_ something sadface


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 10, 2012)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Saw this last night and really enjoyed it. Not just a good Bond film but also a good film in itself. Plus a good heavyweight thesp cast with at least 3 Hamlets in the supporting cast


kinnear, whishaw, ... fiennes?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Nov 10, 2012)

spanglechick said:


> kinnear, whishaw, ... fiennes?


Yup  Had to check Fiennes but he performed Hamlet in the min 1990's


----------



## Reno (Nov 10, 2012)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Yup  Had to check Fiennes but he performed Hamlet in the min 1990's


I remember that because that's where he got together with Francesca Annis who played Gertrude and he dumped Alex Kingston. There was a bit of tabloid excitement. He left his girlfriend for his mum or something like it.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 10, 2012)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Yup  Had to check Fiennes but he performed Hamlet in the min 1990's


did you see kinnear's hamlet, btw?  it was bloody brilliant.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Nov 10, 2012)

spanglechick said:


> did you see kinnear's hamlet, btw? it was bloody brilliant.


No missed it but heard it was fantastic!


----------



## skyscraper101 (Nov 13, 2012)

Thought the music was good. Getting rid of David Arnold was a good thing.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 13, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Sony was the only one I noticed


 
It didn't help that there was a whole slew of bond-themed adverts before the film started, mostly for stuff that appeared in the film. I don't really care if there's stuff just lying around in shot, there's bound to be a scene requiring a laptop or whatever and it might just as well be one brand of laptop as any other, it's when they've clearly put in a particular shot (close up of bond's hand on gearstick, sleeve slides back to reveal fancy watch) or put in a particular line of dialogue just to sell you stuff. That's where a film stops being a film and becomes a very long advert.

Cinema tickets cost a fucking fortune these days, I don't like the feeling that I'm paying for the privilege of having my intelligence insulted and generally having the piss taken out of me.


----------



## Reno (Nov 13, 2012)

Are you admonishing Minnie that she's only noticed Sony and unlike you paid attention to the plot rather than looking around the frame to work herself into a lather over product placement ?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 13, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Cinema tickets cost a fucking fortune these days, I don't like the feeling that I'm paying for the privilege of having my intelligence insulted and generally having the piss taken out of me.


then why did you go to see a James Bond film?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 13, 2012)

Reno said:


> Are you admonishing Minnie that she's only noticed Sony and unlike you paid attention to the plot rather than looking around the frame to work herself into a lather over product placement ?


 
I'm not admonishing anyone, just voicing my opinion. And no, it's not a 'how much blatant product placement can you spot' competition, but if it was something subtle that I was able to ignore or not notice then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

It's just me that thinks films should be made for their own sake and not to sell people shit then?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 13, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> then why did you go to see a James Bond film?


 
Congratulations, I have absolutely no answer to that


----------



## Reno (Nov 13, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm not admonishing anyone, just voicing my opinion. And no, it's not a 'how much blatant product placement can you spot' competition, but if it was something subtle that I was able to ignore or not notice then I wouldn't have a problem with it.
> 
> It's just me that thinks films should be made for their own sake and not to sell people shit then?


 
Bond is no worse than many other big budget films when it comes to product placement and it's nothing new either. Blade Runner is one of the most product placement heavy films ever, but people don't seem to get overly excited about it. A lot of advertising is tied in with the Bond films, so publicity focuses on it (the Heineken press and forum outcry) so people notice it more.

Bond has always been an aspirational fantasy and the original Ian Fleming books mention brands page after page. Big budget blockbuster films are highly commercial enterprises and I always find it a bit odd when that has only just occurred to people and then they act outraged.

Better exclusively stick to obscure art house films from now on. There is no product placement in Bela Tarr films.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 13, 2012)

Like I said, product placement can be done subtly or it can be used as a blunt instrument. The number of instances of the latter in Skyfall affected my enjoyment of the film. One can't suspend disbelief while constantly being reminded that not only is there a filmmaker controlling everything you see, but he apparently thinks you're the type of complete cunt who would spend 3 grand on a watch.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 13, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Like I said, product placement can be done subtly or it can be used as a blunt instrument. The number of instances of the latter in Skyfall affected my enjoyment of the film. One can't suspend disbelief while constantly being reminded that not only is there a filmmaker controlling everything you see, but he apparently thinks you're the type of complete cunt who would spend 3 grand on a watch.


 
But maybe it's because I'm not interested in labels/brands etc.   I have no idea what watch he was wearing, and would only notice if the camera zoomed right up close to reveal Rolex/other brand.  Maybe it did and I didn't notice


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 13, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Like I said, product placement can be done subtly or it can be used as a blunt instrument. The number of instances of the latter in Skyfall affected my enjoyment of the film. One can't suspend disbelief while constantly being reminded that not only is there a filmmaker controlling everything you see, but he apparently thinks you're the type of complete cunt who would spend 3 grand on a watch.


 
I think it's almost impossible to suspend disbelief for more than a couple of minutes in a James Bond film, especially this one with all its self-referential nods and ancient gags.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 13, 2012)

Reno said:


> There is no product placement in Bela Tarr films.


you obviously missed the poptart placement


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 13, 2012)

Reno said:


> They've always been big event movies, especially here because they are very British films. There was a lot of hype around Casino Royale and then it got a bit quiet when Quantum of Solace was considered a disappointment. The reason why this one is maybe taken a bit more seriously is because it has been directed by a director who is generally more acclaimed for upmarket art house films, while most of them get directed by less high profile directors. It also just happens to be a cracking good film.


I think I liked QOS more than Casino Royal. Well I only managed about 30 minutes of Royal. QOS was a bit like watching the Transporter, action junk, but at least I got to the end. Mind you I was drinking and I actually don't really remember the end. I remember not walking out though. Well at least I don't remember walking out.


----------



## Reno (Nov 13, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I think I liked QOS more than Casino Royal. Well I only managed about 30 minutes of Royal. QOS was a bit like watching the Transporter, action junk, but at least I got to the end. Mind you I was drinking and I actually don't really remember the end. I remember not walking out though. Well at least I don't remember walking out.


 
I thought that was possibly the worst Bond film ever.


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2012)

Reno said:


> Are you admonishing Minnie that she's only noticed Sony and unlike you paid attention to the plot rather than looking around the frame to work herself into a lather over product placement ?


You didn't need to move your eyes anywhere. They positively drew attention to the first Heineken bottle, the way Bond fondled the bottle, just covering the name. It was very blatantly playing with the whole 'thing' around product placement. In effect it was part of the plot.

The vaio scenes were just bloody obvious, centre screen. It leapt out st anyone paying attention to details


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 13, 2012)

I can't remember if I've even seen it. when i see the title in print, nothing springs to mind. absolutely nothing, except for adam & joe's theme tune.
oh hang on, the cogs are whirring. french villain. some stupid water stealing plot in south america. russian bird. 
didn't daniel craig have to finish off the script due to a strike or some contractual business?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 13, 2012)

has anyone seen mac & me? now THAT is product placement


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 13, 2012)

not bad, though the end section did have that tacked on feel


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 13, 2012)

belboid said:


> You didn't need to move your eyes anywhere. They positively drew attention to the first Heineken bottle, the way Bond fondled the bottle, just covering the name. It was very blatantly playing with the whole 'thing' around product placement. In effect it was part of the plot.
> 
> The vaio scenes were just bloody obvious, centre screen. It leapt out st anyone paying attention to details


 
Oh I remember the beer bottle, but couldn't remember if it was Heineken or Carlsberg


----------



## Reno (Nov 13, 2012)

belboid said:


> You didn't need to move your eyes anywhere. They positively drew attention to the first Heineken bottle, the way Bond fondled the bottle, just covering the name. It was very blatantly playing with the whole 'thing' around product placement. In effect it was part of the plot.
> 
> The vaio scenes were just bloody obvious, centre screen. It leapt out st anyone paying attention to details


 
I really don't care. I go to see a film to enjoy myself and I'm not fooling myself into thinking Bond films are great artistic enterprises. There are many things that put me off about films, but product placement in a blatantly commercial film isn't one of them. So if you go to a Bond film to walk out as "outraged of Urban75", fine, but don't expect me to do so.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 13, 2012)

Reno said:


> I thought that was possibly the worst Bond film ever.


Quantum? 
Maybe I was just watching both under the wrong circumstances. I'm not really a bond fan, though I went mad for Moonraker and View to a Kill a the time, and they are both pants. 
Golden Eye and The living Daylights surely have to be contenders for the worst.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 13, 2012)

Octopussy is the 'worst' but i think i enjoy the bad ones more now, when they're on the tellybox.


----------



## Reno (Nov 13, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Quantum?
> Maybe I was just watching both under the wrong circumstances. I'm not really a bond fan, though I went mad for Moonraker and View to a Kill a the time, and they are both pants.
> Golden Eye and The living Daylights surely have to be contenders for the worst.


 
Mark Foster, director of QoS, truly has no idea how to shoot or edit an action scene and his only reference point for that seems to have been Michael Bay. They also decided to basically make a Bourne film, but I don't need Bond to do Bourne, that's what the Bourne films do.

I love Moonraker, it's an art direction riot and GoldenEye is rightly one of the best regarded Bond films. I don't mind the other two either.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 13, 2012)

Oh yeah, Octopussy was terrible, but wasn't that one the one with the horse box plane? I had the corgi one of those and just looooved it. 
Listening to moonlight shadow and playing with my horse box plane. Better than being at school.


----------



## Reno (Nov 13, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Octopussy is the 'worst' but i think i enjoy the bad ones more now, when they're on the tellybox.


 
I'm also partial to the tackier entries, but Octopussy really is a bit of a snoozefest.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 13, 2012)

Yes and Never Say Never Again has the horse jumping out of the window of some battlements into some water.
For Your Eyes Only has the ridiculous opening with Bond dressed as a clown and stealing a Fabergé egg


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 13, 2012)

Reno said:


> Mark Foster, director of QoS, truly has no idea how to shoot or edit an action scene and his only reference point for that seems to have been Michael Bay. They also decided to basically make a Bourne film, but I don't need Bond to do Bourne, that's what the Bourne films do.
> 
> I love Moonraker, it's an art direction riot and GoldenEye is rightly one of the best regarded Bond films. I don't mind the other two either.


 
Oh my. 
I assume I was just watching QOS drunk then and thought it acceptable. I only like Borne fare or Transporter/Crank stuff under those conditions. Goldeneye was boring. 
I can't say any bond films set me alight, but I do have a fondness for the 80s ones just because of my childhood. Seeing the poster of Moonraker (coming soon) as I queued for what seemed like hours outside the cinema (probably to see one of those star wars things) set my mind racing. I thought it was the coolest picture I had ever seen. 

Shit I really want that poster now.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 13, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Quantum?
> Maybe I was just watching both under the wrong circumstances. I'm not really a bond fan, though I went mad for Moonraker and View to a Kill a the time, and they are both pants.
> Golden Eye and The living Daylights surely have to be contenders for the worst.


 
GoldenEye is actually the best one.

Most of the Roger Moore films are pretty unwatchable. Quantum of Solace was average, not even close to the worst bond film, only really spoiled by the plot tying into the previous film of which, because it was a Bond film, I had long since forgotten the plot.


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2012)

Reno said:


> I really don't care. I go to see a film to enjoy myself and I'm not fooling myself into thinking Bond films are great artistic enterprises. There are many things that put me off about films, but product placement in a blatantly commercial film isn't one of them. So if you go to a Bond film to walk out as "outraged of Urban75", fine, but don't expect me to do so.


oh, its the last thing I'd expect of you 

I don't really care. The Heineken was funny, altho, it _is_ out of place, no way would Bond drink such shitty piss.  I doubt MI5 use Vaio laptops either.  Normally they pay attention to these things, or more attention at least, so it was a bit out of place.  That said, I never noticed any of the placements for products I dont remember (I'm guessing Walther PPK didnt actually pay...) at all.

It certainly wasn't as annoying as the Harry Potter ending (in what was an otherwise cracking film)


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 13, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Seeing the poster of Moonraker (coming soon) as I queued for what seemed like hours outside the cinema (probably to see one of those star wars things) set my mind racing. I thought it was the coolest picture I had ever seen.


i don't think i've seen any Bond films at the cinema. Bond films are telly films to me.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 13, 2012)

Strange to think of it, but there must still be Bond films I haven't seen. I don't remember the gay henchmen and they're in two I think.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 13, 2012)

Spoiler: plot hole



If they knew the head of Mi6 was being pursued by a known terrorist with a bunch of heavily armed goons wouldn't they have called in the army or something? Rather than just let her go and hide in a cottage and leave a false (but actually real) trail leading the nutcase and his goons right to her?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 13, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> i don't think i've seen any Bond films at the cinema. Bond films are telly films to me.


I didn't get to see Moonraker a the cinema either, I was too young. I just got to see it's poster as I was walking in to see another film.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 13, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> i don't think i've seen any Bond films at the cinema. Bond films are telly films to me.


 
It was my first cinema James Bond


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 13, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> It was my first cinema James Bond


and last?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 13, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Spoiler: plot hole
> 
> 
> 
> If they knew the head of Mi6 was being pursued by a known terrorist with a bunch of heavily armed goons wouldn't they have called in the army or something? Rather than just let her go and hide in a cottage and leave a false (but actually real) trail leading the nutcase and his goons right to her?


 
The Government probably wanted her dead


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 13, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> and last?


 
Probably, unless my sister decides to treat me again


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 13, 2012)

I saw shit all a the cinema as a kid. I remember them all.

Star Wars 1 2 and 3
Battlestar Galactica 2 
The rescuers 
The Aristorcats
The Dark Crystal
The first five minutes of Bambi

Then then next film I watched was Reservoir Dogs. Then Bill and Teds Bogus Journey.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 13, 2012)

I can only remember seeing Superman 2 as a kid. and Swiss Family Robinson when I was very very young.
oh, and Saturday matinees at the Tower where they showed us cartoons and the TV Spiderman.
I must have gone to see Empire Strikes Back and Jedi at the cinema though. 
But it wasn't til I had my own money that I started going regularly.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 13, 2012)

Come to think of it this might be the first Bond film I saw at the cinema. Although I might have seen The World Is Not Enough as well.


----------



## T & P (Nov 14, 2012)

I've seen a Picard-era Star Trek film at the cinema. I don't think it gets worse than that.


----------



## scifisam (Nov 14, 2012)

Loved the film. Great combination of old-style Bond and new-style action thriller. The baddie looked like a character from Stupid White Chicks, but that didn't make him any less evil. I really want to ride a motorbike up some cobbled stairs. 



belboid said:


> oh, its the last thing I'd expect of you
> 
> I don't really care. The Heineken was funny, altho, it _is_ out of place, no way would Bond drink such shitty piss. I doubt MI5 use Vaio laptops either. Normally they pay attention to these things, or more attention at least, so it was a bit out of place. That said, I never noticed any of the placements for products I dont remember (I'm guessing Walther PPK didnt actually pay...) at all.
> 
> It certainly wasn't as annoying as the Harry Potter ending (in what was an otherwise cracking film)


 
I noticed that - Bond drinking Heineken? On a beach in (presumably) Turkey or at least somewhere slightly exotic and far from Northern Europe? Do they even sell it there? Maybe it was intended as a sign that he wasn't himself, like the beard was. I also noticed the watch - the camera really lingered on it, making me think it was a plot point. In principle I'm not at all bothered by product placement, but those two were very badly done - Spookyfrank has a point.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 14, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> I can only remember seeing Superman 2 as a kid. and Swiss Family Robinson when I was very very young.
> oh, and Saturday matinees at the Tower where they showed us cartoons and the TV Spiderman.
> I must have gone to see Empire Strikes Back and Jedi at the cinema though.
> But it wasn't til I had my own money that I started going regularly.


 
Oh yeah, I saw Superman 2 at the cinema too.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 14, 2012)

T & P said:


> I've seen a Picard-era Star Trek film at the cinema. I don't think it gets worse than that.


I have seen the Care Bears Movie at the cinema


----------



## T & P (Nov 14, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> I have seen the Care Bears Movie at the cinema


I hope you were taking children to see it. Or was it by choice?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 14, 2012)

Enjoyed it. Not a fan of the Bond franchise at all, but this was perfectly entertaining. The shots of Shanghai and Scotland were cool and the chase sequence in the London Underground during rush hour was a nice touch. The apperance of Pingu from Nathan Barley was my personal highlight however


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 14, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> I have seen the Care Bears Movie at the cinema


The what now?


----------



## T & P (Nov 15, 2012)

Finally got to see this last night. As good as I had hoped.

One small factual error did annoy me though



Spoiler



It is impossible to slide down on the flat surface separating escalators on the London Underground. Every single one of them have obstacles and fixtures to stop people doing just that


 
I must say the product placement didn't bother me, even though I had read plenty in advance on this thread. Prettry restrained for a Bond film.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 15, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> The what now?


The cinema. It's a place where people go to watch films collectively on a big screen.

But that's not important right now.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 15, 2012)

T & P said:


> Finally got to see this last night. As good as I had hoped.
> 
> One small factual error did annoy me though
> 
> ...


I was thinking the exact same thing during that sequence 

I did think the product placement was pretty jarring in places. As others have said, it's fine when it just happens to be shot as part of the scene, but when it starts looking like an ad with lingering close-ups or direct references then it's just a bit... rubbish. Doesn't ruin the whole film, but gets in the way of enjoying it and I could do without it tbh.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Nov 15, 2012)

just seen a review  that  bring up this niggle

bullshit hacking

as in all movies  where hacking takes  place it is  bullshit  i can do anything   to anything with a computer in it.

as  bad  as the review says?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Nov 15, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> I have seen the Care Bears Movie at the cinema


which one?    the one  with  the  creepy  book face  or  the other one?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 15, 2012)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> which one? the one with the creepy book face or the other one?


dunno. i remember nothing about it.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Nov 15, 2012)

pft doesn't count then

at least i remember going to see weird dodgy films as a child..

like the ewoks movies.


hummm   it says it  was a tv  release  but  i swear  i saw it   on the big screen..

i think it was at a cinima  by the mall..


e2a

ok after googling  i think i might have seen it at the ICA


----------



## T & P (Nov 15, 2012)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> just seen a review that bring up this niggle
> 
> bullshit hacking
> 
> ...


 I know fuck all about hacking and computer tech stuff so I couldn't comment. However I was thinking at the time 'I bet any fules who know about these things are watching the scene and saying to themselves 'bullshit. That's not how it works'.

IIRC from comments on these boards and elsewhere, one of the worst computer-related movie plots ever was in Swordfish, when the hacker creates a 512-bit encryption worm with relative ease.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 15, 2012)

I think the portrayal of hacking in films has long succumbed to 'artistic licence'. Big flashy graphics and text telling you exactly what's going on - it's a plot device, not an accurate representation of what hacking is actually like.


----------



## belboid (Nov 15, 2012)

They do it good in the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo - the boko at least, probably rather truncated sequence in the film(s)


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Nov 15, 2012)

to be honest all hacking shows/movies are bullshit  but   the  key is  to  be  either  belivably unrealistic  where  you put in enough  effort to make  it  sound  plausible  or   so   inconsequential  to  whats going on that it  doesn't  matter.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Nov 15, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> I think the portrayal of hacking in films has long succumbed to 'artistic licence'. Big flashy graphics and text telling you exactly what's going on - it's a plot device, not an accurate representation of what hacking is actually like.


 
which is  fine  i think if  it's  a background  thing   but    i think  when you make it  a big plot point    it  all get a bit  magic  wand.

at least  when  bond used bullshit gadgets  at least  they had a humerous  logic to them


----------



## Ted Striker (Nov 16, 2012)

Watched this last night, so so disappointed  I love Bond, I think Daniel Craig is ace (and the relationship between him and M is quite unique and really adds to the setting) but just felt really underwhelmed against such glorious reviews - perhaps it was Olympic British positivity being run alongside some great PR.

All the best bits seemed to be woefully underused...The original baddie, the woman in Macau, the deserted island...

Javier was an interesting dimension - it must be hard to do the whole mega-lo-maniac thing in this day and age, though his ends never came close to justifying it's means. Seems like a massive death wish for the very minimum of vendetta gain (that had nothing to do with the 'list') when he never came across as that 'unhinged'.

You had the very shitest of gadgets - granted it wasn't a jetback hidden in a watch affair, but then why bother with the 'that' gun trick that's been used a zillion times (even just by Bond) before, and then telegraphs the next events (the very next scene pretty much!) in the very tackiest possible way? They seemed to gloss over the fact you'll need to carry it over international territories too, which I was expecting him to mention it was ceramic or somesuch.

It was brave to put it on in London, and perhaps that's what leaves me feeling non-plussed - MI6 is the international arm and as such we usually find our hero in glamorous international destinations. Not Charing Cross station pretending it's Temple 

And the shoot out at the end would make the 80's A-Team producers blush. And everyone has their own plotholes that make you squirm a little, and mine was that even Bond would be a little chilly after the water affair, and *doing what he did to you know who* would be the last thing he would have done (for *their* sake).

I've actually just stuck QoS on the download as I want to watch a decent, less obvious Bond (I've seen Casino Royale more times than I care to recall!).

I think Bond's will forever have a release pattern as predictable as Windows (1 shit/1 decent...) The first Bond with any new actor is always a classic, and the proceeding ones are lauded at their release but are not judged favourably with time. I think Skyfall will suffer with more consideration.

P.S...Bond _has_ shagged Moneypenny - if you think the casual-ness at which he pops the champers out the car in Goldeneye (with Sam? Bond, from Downton!) doesn't hint at previous with them two it's a bit too far of a stretch, even for him JB !

(shout if I've spoiled anything quickly and I'll remove it!)


----------



## Ted Striker (Nov 16, 2012)

Oh, and I watched it in some posh new cinema called The Lounge (a new development from the Odeon).

Utter shite, over priced (even compared to the £6 popcorn bucketeers of a regular cinema), but with reclining seats (that simply mean you would have to abnormally lean right or strain your eyes if they were used in their reclined position).

Mades me want to go back to a good ol' gazillion seats to an auditorium and everyone glued to the screen, laughing and gasping in unison!


----------



## Ted Striker (Nov 16, 2012)

dp


----------



## belboid (Nov 16, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> QoS .... a decent, less obvious Bond


you are kidding, arent you?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 16, 2012)

All I remember about QoS was that it was set in a desert, which seems thematically appropriate.


----------



## Reno (Nov 16, 2012)

I just watched QoS again last night to give it another chance. Still as bad as when I first saw it. Not just the worst Bond film ever, but also one of the most incompetently put together action films of all time. The action scenes look like they got shot on a rollercoaster and edited with a food blender set on "incoherent". The rest in-between is just deadly dull, lacking any sort of excitement, fun, glamour or the type of character development the other two Craig Bond films excelled in (it extends no further than that everybody scowls). It's full of real head scratchers of poor directorial and editorial choices. In terms of plot it never becomes more than a tediously extended epilogue to the excellent Casino Royale.

I'd say anybody who rates it doesn't know what makes a good Bond film, doesn't know what makes a good film and doesn't know their head from their arse.


----------



## Ted Striker (Nov 16, 2012)

belboid said:


> you are kidding, arent you?


 
I maybe well have been...I don't actually remember a lot of it, just the scene at the end with someone on some couch, M revealing V was being blackmailed, and me not caring nor understanding what the hell was going on...so it'll be like a new film!


----------



## alsoknownas (Nov 18, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Spoiler: plot hole
> 
> 
> 
> If they knew the head of Mi6 was being pursued by a known terrorist with a bunch of heavily armed goons wouldn't they have called in the army or something? Rather than just let her go and hide in a cottage and leave a false (but actually real) trail leading the nutcase and his goons right to her?


They were drawing him out.  Bond even explains this in the film.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 18, 2012)

T & P said:


> Finally got to see this last night. As good as I had hoped.
> 
> One small factual error did annoy me though
> 
> ...


 
Haha I was pointing that out afterwards too.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 18, 2012)

alsoknownas said:


> They were drawing him out. Bond even explains this in the film.


 
Yeah, but drawing him out to somehwere he had a massive advantage. Why not draw him out to a place that's crawling with Mi6 goons?


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 18, 2012)

I really enjoyed this. Looked great, actors I like. I loved the sense of place in all the locations. And I didn't notice any product placement! I think it's amazing that 'we' can make films like this, not that it's great art or anything, but there's an awful lot of talent that goes into making something like this that perhaps we take for granted.


----------



## alsoknownas (Nov 18, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yeah, but drawing him out to somehwere he had a massive advantage. Why not draw him out to a place that's crawling with Mi6 goons?


Because then he....           wouldn't have been drawn out.  Think about it .


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 18, 2012)

alsoknownas said:


> Because then he.... wouldn't have been drawn out. Think about it .


 
But they could've just as easily led him into a trap, which admittedly they kind of did but they could've lured him into a trap somewhere sensible with guns and backup and shit.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 18, 2012)

But then it wouldn't have been in the wilds of Scotland, somewhere as far from rush hour on the tube as you can get.

I thought this was about what is Britain: what does it mean to be British today? What is the relationship between the old and the new? Between the present and the past.

It's very possible that I read too much into it but I didn't feel that this was a nationalist British feelgood film rather one that was questioning that. I don't suggest that there was any kind of radical subversion going on, but I felt there were questions, thoughts.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 18, 2012)

"Yes sir, there are better locations from a strategic point of view, but they don't fit with our themes"


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 18, 2012)

It also looked amazing. A driving holiday in Scotland has moved up my list of things to do before I die.


----------



## Ted Striker (Nov 18, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> But they could've just as easily led him into a trap, which admittedly they kind of did but they could've lured him into a trap somewhere sensible with guns and backup and shit.


 
I too at first thought this, though if MI6 assumed Javier knew all their 'thoughts' (i.e. he's got access to all their computers and communication channels) they'd want to keep it very low key.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 18, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> I too at first thought this, though if MI6 assumed Javier knew all their 'thoughts' (i.e. he's got access to all their computers and communication channels) they'd want to keep it very low key.


 
OK that makes sense.


----------



## alsoknownas (Nov 18, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> But they could've just as easily led him into a trap, which admittedly they kind of did but they could've lured him into a trap somewhere sensible with guns and backup and shit.


He had access to all their interior intelligence, and as Bond said he had 'been one step ahead of them' because of it. He would have easily sussed out such a trap.

But you are essentially right because...



Spoiler



Bond essentially _failed, _didn't he? He failed to retrieve the list. Failed to outfox Silva, and most damningly of all, he failed to protect M.
Those saying he was washed up were actually proved right in the end .


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 18, 2012)

re. spoiler. But this, it seems to me, is part of the question about what the role is of MI6 in a very changed/changing world. What is it for? What _is_ the job?

And this then linked to the question of Britain, what is it? What is its role?


----------



## alsoknownas (Nov 18, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> re. spoiler. But this, it seems to me, is part of the question about what the role is of MI6 in a very changed/changing world. What is it for? What _is_ the job?
> 
> And this then linked to the question of Britain, what is it? What is its role?


Yeah, that stuff was quite interesting, but it was the only thing that i thought was ladled on a bit too thick - especially the Tennyson quote, etc.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 18, 2012)

alsoknownas said:


> Yeah, that stuff was quite interesting, but it was the only thing that i thought was ladled on a bit too thick - especially the Tennyson quote, etc.


 
Ah yes, I'd forgotten about that! 

I think it's interesting that these are themes in a Bond movie, ladled thickly or otherwise.


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Nov 18, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> re. spoiler. But this, it seems to me, is part of the question about what the role is of MI6 in a very changed/changing world. What is it for? What _is_ the job?
> 
> And this then linked to the question of Britain, what is it? What is its role?


 
Well Britain's role is to have Ralph Fiennes send besuited agents out to take on villains who have space ship stealing volcanoes full of ninjas. Like it always has.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 19, 2012)

Oh yeh.

Anyway, I think there was more to it. I don't mean the role of Britain in terms of MI6, I mean more broadly. Relationship with China, for instance. The relationship of Empire to contemporary Britain. That kind of thing. I think very successful theatre and film directors like Sam Mendes have ideas about the world.

But yes, you're right 

ETA a bit more lightheartedness than my just got up grumpyness allowed. How dare you not take this seriously


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Nov 19, 2012)

I am very serious about about Volcanoes full of Ninjas. And so should you be! 

If Skyfall was a 'From Russia With Love' I would like the next one to be a Thuderball - we need a BIG FIGHT with loads of special forces vs. terrorist (or spacemen or ninjas or scuba divers or gypsies) in a set that is falling apart and soon to explode.

I think people don't like the end of Skyfall as it tapped into these primeval Bond needs and then delivered a comparatively downbeat ending (which I _liked_ as it did have an exploding helicopter and dramatic fen wandering with a flaming background).


----------



## miniGMgoit (Nov 22, 2012)

Just got back from watching it. Really enjoyed it. Had me chuckling when he meets the bad guy for the first time and he trying it on. 
Also was it me or were there a disproportionate amount of Daniel Craig crotch shots? Me and my partner were in hysterics at one point when we both realized we were thinking the same thing. Then it was nudge nudge for the rest of the film. 
Crotches!!!


----------



## Wolveryeti (Nov 22, 2012)

Javier was good as a Prozac'd up Anton Chigurh, everything else was dull.

Sam Mendes seemed to be trying really heard to break the mould in loads of respects (few gadgets, no sex etc). Unfortunately what's left is just rather unmemorable - very predictable and formulaic plot, no twist at the end, and loads of hamfisted attempts to sketch out relationships (e.g. with Q) that I didn't find worthy enough of exploring. Very mediocre film.


----------



## T & P (Nov 22, 2012)

There is no right or wrong view of course but I dare say a very sizeable majority of people who've seen the film would disagree with your review of it. I thought it was bloody brilliant.


----------



## scifisam (Nov 22, 2012)

No sex? Were we watching the same film?


----------



## Crispy (Nov 27, 2012)

Finally got round to it. Top bond film 
Although I do feel a bit sore from all the fan service. One can only take so much guilty joy.
Tbh I'm glad he didn't hang his hat on that hat stand in moneypenny's office. That would have been the last straw.


----------



## Firky (Dec 30, 2012)

Some unscrupulous under-bridge denizen has put a very high quality copy of this on the internet before it is released. Thus funding terrorism


----------



## yardbird (Jan 3, 2013)

firky said:


> Some unscrupulous under-bridge denizen has put a very high quality copy of this on the internet before it is released. Thus funding terrorism


Possibly the very high quality copy that I've just found


----------



## ajk (Jan 3, 2013)

I felt it necessary to check out this high quality copy, and can confirm that aside from the occasional For Your Consideration watermark it is spot on, however should obviously be avoided lest we jeopardise future film production and let the terrorists win.

Oh, and Die Another Day is obviously the worst Bond film in every possible way.


----------



## yardbird (Jan 3, 2013)

DivX version pulled - still up in flash.


----------



## yardbird (Jan 3, 2013)

I thought the "For Your Consideration" was M sending Bond subliminal information


----------



## editor (Mar 3, 2013)

I've just watched it and rather enjoyed it.


----------



## starfish2000 (Mar 4, 2013)

I went to see it with high hopes.

I loved Casino Royale, but to me theyve set Daniel Craigs Bond up as a reboot, so to bring in the Connery Aston Martin, was just cheesy as fuck and undermined the whole enterprise. Cinema is about the suspension of disbelief, at that point I felt aware of the franchise and that killed the story. If you did a trick like that in your BA Media studies short, the lecturer would damn you, somehow Mendes chose to do this?

The story was a great idea, but could have been better. i think the screenwriters were awful. Remember in an earlier Bond Robert Carlyle's baddie who couldn't feel pain? That was another missed oppertunity.

Luc Besson should write and direct a Bond film end of.


----------



## Reno (Mar 4, 2013)

starfish2000 said:


> Luc Besson should write and direct a Bond film end of.


 
I couldn't think of a worse idea for a Bond film.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 4, 2013)

Nick Love directs Danny Dyer?


----------



## Santino (Mar 4, 2013)

Women in it either get fucked by Bond, need protecting by Bond, or are told by Bond not try being a field agent like him. Leave shooting and running about to men like Bond and the new M, love.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 4, 2013)

Lol at complaining that a Bond movie didn't suspend their disbelief.


----------



## thriller (Mar 4, 2013)

having re-watched this  2nd time. thought it was okay. much prefer this new bond to the shitty chessy connery and moore bonds which I find so dull.


----------



## starfish2000 (Mar 8, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> Lol at complaining that a Bond movie didn't suspend their disbelief.



But successful cinema does do that, Amelie is a fantastical, surreal film, but at no point does the director trip up the character once she s established....thats the whole point.

Skyfall sets itself up as a serious action movie and then goes cheesy at the end. In 10 years time I dont think it will be remembered as fondly as the hyperbole now.


----------



## Reno (Mar 8, 2013)

starfish2000 said:


> But successful cinema does do that, Amelie is a fantastical, surreal film, but at no point does the director trip up the character once she s established....thats the whole point.
> 
> Skyfall sets itself up as a serious action movie and then goes cheesy at the end. In 10 years time I dont think it will be remembered as fondly as the hyperbole now.


 
You have disqualified yourself from being taken seriously by holding up the two shittest of French directors as examples of great film-making. Amelie is not a surreal film and her character needs no tripping up, because after Jar Jar Binks and Ruby in The Fifth Element, she is the third most irritating character in modern cinema.

And I'm not sure where you signed that contract to see a Bond film which is a "serious action movie". You can't have seen many Bond films in your life. As a Bond film Skyfall was about as good as it gets.


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 8, 2013)

*just watched it*

its not bad for a bond film.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 8, 2013)

Aw, I liked Amelie. 
I didn't find her irritating. 
I wanted to bone her.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 8, 2013)

Objectification.


----------



## starfish2000 (Mar 8, 2013)

Reno said:


> You have disqualified yourself from being taken seriously by holding up the two shittest of French directors as examples of great film-making. Amelie is not a surreal film and her character needs no tripping up, because after Jar Jar Binks and Ruby in The Fifth Element, she is the third most irritating character in modern cinema.
> 
> And I'm not sure where you signed that contract to see a Bond film which is a "serious action movie". You can't have seen many Bond films in your life. As a Bond film Skyfall was about as good as it gets.



Ok lets do this another way.

Lets say you watched Batman begins and The Dark Knight and then you turn up to see The Dark Knight Rises and they throw in a character reference to the Michael Keaton Films, surely that would confuse you and ruin your enjoyment of what you ve seen so far? That was the perfectly valid point I was making, which you chose to ignore and dismiss me, which I find weird.

Im a bit concerned that your trying to make this personal, you don't know me and yet your coming to simplistic pub banter criticism, whats your problem? The last time someone was like this towards me Id fucked their girlfriend. At least that guy had a valid reason for his male inadequacy.


----------



## T & P (Mar 9, 2013)

starfish2000 said:


> But successful cinema does do that, Amelie is a fantastical, surreal film, but at no point does the director trip up the character once she s established....thats the whole point.
> 
> Skyfall sets itself up as a serious action movie and then goes cheesy at the end. In 10 years time I dont think it will be remembered as fondly as the hyperbole now.


 What Bond film does hold up to scrutiny though? I know a lot of them are fondly remembered, but if one is to be honest they're full of lousy acting, cliches and special effects. Skyfall is no candidate for best movie at the Oscars, but as Bond films go it is second to none IMO.


----------



## starfish2000 (Mar 9, 2013)

Live & Let Die is brilliant as is Goldfinger, I like Daltons second Licence To Kill.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 9, 2013)

It's not Octopussy


----------



## Santino (Mar 9, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> It's not Octopussy


What is?


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 9, 2013)

A candidate for best Bond movie, let alone best movie at the Oscars.
It's not even a candidate for best film in which Roger Moore dresses as a clown


----------



## silverfish (Mar 9, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> A candidate for best Bond movie, let alone best movie at the Oscars.
> It's not even a candidate for best film in which Roger Moore dresses as a clown


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Mar 10, 2013)

Santino said:


> Women in it either get fucked by Bond, need protecting by Bond, or are told by Bond not try being a field agent like him. Leave shooting and running about to men like Bond and the new M, love.


Where as sexism in films is something I find highly annoying, Bond always gets dispensations from me for this because, well, it's _Bond_ innit, and really it's so ridiculously sexist it comes out the other side as highly amusing. IMPO of course. And in some ways they have tried to progress in these more equal op times (M being female in the last few films, Moneypenny being black), well there's only so far they can go because essentially Bond is about a posh boy who tends to shag up to three women a film!  Unless Bond got such a dramatic reworking to be barely recognisable, there's always going to be classism and sexism in there. 

In regards to the self-referential stuff and the nods to Bond franchise cheese, personally I loved all that in Skyfall, I much prefer the later Bond films with this aspect to them than the ones trying to be deathly serious. And maybe my views on the above  is part of the reason for this. The sexism is more palatable when there's a playful edge to the films, iyswim.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 2, 2013)

Just saw this yesterday, and enjoyed it, lots of great bits (fight scene up the tower with a jelly fish projection was very stylish). Some of it was way over the top of believability, but a good ride still.





Re sexism, yeah its part of the course of a Bond film of course, but what was a bit bad taste was that the 'bad' woman (as opposed to the agent) shower sex scene was pretty inappropriate i thought. In the bar he spots her tattoo and wins her over by identifying her as having been brought up as a sex slave her whole life and offering to kill her 'keeper'. Cue next scene he jumps in the shower with her. Didnt sit right with me. It was a short scene and could've easily been cut, but i reckon they felt obliged to do it 'cos its Bond'. The female agent bit was pretty naff i thought. Aside from the script for her 'not cutting it' (and ending up as moneypenny) I dont think the actress had enough front - a bit too preppy. But that must have been how they told her to act it, to tie in with her future secretarial role in the next bond movie.


----------



## thriller (Jul 11, 2013)

Next bond due 2015

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23268463


----------

