James Bond Skyfall (1 Viewer)

[SkyblueBazza]

I have seen it & was very pleased. It's more realistic...meaning fewer gadgety nonsense. You can believe more a villain conning a small island's inhabitants to leave & setting up this hi-tech system...rather than building an underwater kingdom or space station without anyone noticing! There is feeling there too.
And that's the real magic of Bond - I use to think Roger Moore was great with his Tongue-in-cheek approach, Sean Connery was brilliant in a different way...& so is Daniel Craig. So I like him as Bond & I actually think this I's by far the best Bond film for ages.

 

---

[Diehard Si]

I'm actually pretty disappointed it wasn't now. That would have been brilliant.

 

[stupot07]

Just been to watch it. Absolutely brilliant, like people have said above more action less gadgets.

 

[Otis]

Sounds like my wedding night after my wife's solo career finally came to an end.

 

[CCFC Germany]

Just been to watch it. Absolutely brilliant, like people have said above more action less gadgets.

I love 007 for those gadgets...

 

[Macca]

Otis you are quite right about how the old bonds are cheesy and corny but that's why they remain my favorite

 

[Otis]

But I do think the Connery ones have stood up quite well. It's the Moore ones that now look a tad embarrassing in my opinion.

I think Diamonds Are Forever is still deliciously dark with it's two gay assassins etc. and Goldfinger remains a classic.

Live and Let Die is still one of the best Bond's but with Moore's outfits, the silly music, the ever increasingly bad puns and stuff like Jaws and his girlfriend holding hands in space, they have not stood up at all well.

Been re-assessing them all. As I say, Sky have a Bond channel at the moment. Back to back Bond's all day every day.

The first Dalton one looks really lame now, but Licence to Kill stands up really well. The Brosnan ones are still okay, though a bit gadgety and Connery still looks good as Bond in most of his.

Not seen the new one, but for this modern age I think Craig is pretty flawless.

 

[ccfc92]

Connery is THE James Bond, from a 20 year old :wave:

However, saw Skyfall the other day, Brilliant :claping hands:

But poor story line :thinking about:

 

[dutchman]

Bob Simmons was by far the greatest actor ever to play James Bond and I think played him more times than every other actor put together? imp:

He even played Pussy Galore for fuck's sake!

 

[Disorganised1]

I saw it last week and thought it was great. I think Craig is very much the Bond of the books, though he probably seems totally wrong if you've only seen the films.

 

[Otis]

Agree with that. He's more true to the Bond of the Fleming books.

 

[AngryAnt]

Really enjoyed Skyfall the other night. It was good to see the bond film's take a different direction and while i won't give it away, it was unexpected in what happened.

 

[CCFC Germany]

I saw it last week and thought it was great. I think Craig is very much the Bond of the books, though he probably seems totally wrong if you've only seen the films.

That might be true, I read three books and I've got to admit that I liked the old movies more.
I love them for all those shooting pens, magnetic watches and swimming cars as well, that's probably why I won't get along with the Craig Bond movies.

 

[oldskyblue58]

saw it last week and loved it ............ it was good to see a bond movie stripped back in terms of gadgetry, i also think it work making Bond more vulnerable. If there was a criticism that i have it is that I think the film was about 10 minutes too long but that is a very minor point and didnt spoil my enjoyment

For me Daniel Craig is the best bond - i like the gritty unforgiving nature of his portrayal and the fact that his 3 movies have sought to get behind that facade to expose frailties, but each of the incarnations have all offered something different to the role. Some have bourne the test of time better than others certainly but all have entertained

 

[AngryAnt]

saw it last week and loved it ............ it was good to see a bond movie stripped back in terms of gadgetry, i also think it work making Bond more vulnerable. If there was a criticism that i have it is that I think the film was about 10 minutes too long but that is a very minor point and didnt spoil my enjoyment

For me Daniel Craig is the best bond - i like the gritty unforgiving nature of his portrayal and the fact that his 3 movies have sought to get behind that facade to expose frailties, but each of the incarnations have all offered something different to the role. Some have bourne the test of time better than others certainly but all have entertained

I agree that they did stretch the ending out a bit and could have finished it a few times before then, still it was good.

Yeah, i think that all the bonds were set in their decades and while some really haven't aged well, they do (to me at least) show a little insight into peoples mind sets in the decades they were made. The music for one, the gadgets etc..

Craig has however had one really bad one, QoS, but the other two are pretty damn good.

 

[Diehard Si]

I read somewhere that QofS was only half written due to the writers strike. They went ahead with only half a script.

Big mistake in hindsight

 

[evo87]

I have never felt fhe urge to watch a Bond film. Am i missing something. Please advise me why all the hype.

 

[Otis]

Cos it's a British institution.

You're not truly British unless you embrace Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Sherlock Holmes, Gilbert and Sullivan, The Beatles and The Kinks, Wallace and Gromit and buttered scones.

........ and James Bond.

 

[Disorganised1]

Cos it's a British institution.

You're not truly British unless you embrace Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Sherlock Holmes, Gilbert and Sullivan, The Beatles and The Kinks, Wallace and Gromit and buttered scones.

........ and James Bond.

:claping hands:
and tea.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Wasn't Bob Holness the first Bond?

 

[dutchman]

[video=youtube;5FWfg__wKSY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWfg__wKSY[/video]

Warning: this is only for those who've already seen the movie as it contains many spoilers.

 

[Paxman II]

It was a mixxed bag for me I'm afraid. I'm a huge fan of daniel craig ever since his role in 'Munich'.
In this recreation of this franchise Craig brings Bond to a slightly more realistic level and a believably agent capable of killing most before him. Someone you don't want to mess with. The Franchise began with him developing into this agent. I bought into most of that and enjoyed the first two in that build up.
However this 3rd one simply stripped him of all his strengths and character. Someone we don't recognise as Bond. It went way too far for me in this direction. Also this need to have M in the field somehow weakens the films.
Bond films are for the imaginary. The dark characters of twisted minds.
In this new Bond film we see a quite exceptional performance that almost steals the movie from Javier Bardem in his opening scene but later deteriotes to a very poor CGI of a train coming through a hole, like we have never seen this before? Bond is seen looking knackered, incapable and this theme goes on and on until I'm expecting him to retire any moment and collect his pension! The use of being miled up and radio linked for an agent who makes his own rash decisions normally just turns it ito a jason Bourne or Mission Impossible style nonsense at times and frankly less enetertaing of either of those two.
I sincerely hope the next one gives us the Bond we all grew up to love in a fantasy world on screen. Sorry while it had it's moments it did not do it for me and can't understand all the hype around it. If you have seen it watch it again, see some of the poor lines, badly delivered, the overacted parts or scenes that were wasted.
For me it didn't work, especially when the very end brings us back to believe where it all began - sort of, which seeems to suggest he's going to be all fighting fit from now on?