CINEMA

SkyFall - Retro James Bond

POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 09:14
SHORT URL: http://bit.ly/SdXiAA
VIEWED: 4365
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, November 9, 2012 11:07 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


My son and I do not miss a James Bond film ever since, well since he was old enough (12-13 y.o.) to see a 007 flick. We were not gonna miss this one.

I sent him a text and he called back eager to get in line with me. We went to a great theater, with stadium seating and a giant screen. We barely made the opening scene, we sat down and eased back into our seats, only to be brought to the edge.
Wow, what an opening sequence. Action right off, just like in the good old days with my fav Sean Connery. Daniel Craig for me, has been an excellent choice for the title role and this movie did not disappoint, save for one thing, the Bond girl was not that hot - but that's minor. Overall the movie delivered in action, plot and performances, especially that of Javier Bardem as the requisite baddie - he was deliciously evil.

I couldn't help but notice that the film had a nostalgic feel to it. Gone were the usual 007 gadgets, the custom cars and elaborate escape sequences. What you got was a mix of old and new James Bond - a dash of Connery with a hint of Brosnan. Of course, Craig's take is somewhat in the classic style of the original 00-agent, Sean Connery, choosing to use whatever means necessary to defeat the baddies chasing after him. This was an excellent mixture of character study and action. We find out a little more about 007s origins and why he is the way he is. It was flawlessly told, almost too flawless, but it drove home the plot with ease and aplomb with nary a wrinkle. Plus it had enough humor to break the tension of the action on screen.

The question remains: did it live up to the 007 brand - I say YES, in capital letters. Director Sam Mendes captured the essence of the original without losing anything on the modern take of the legendary character. There are a number of surprises, but they all fit well within the storyline and actually enhance the legend. Bond is alive and well, for die-hard fans it's a treat, but for the casual moviegoer - get the popcorn ready.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2012 5:30 PM

OONJERAH



Skyfall Review: Could This Be The Best Bond Movie Ever?
By Tim Dunn
http://www.newsforshoppers.com/skyfall-review-could-this-be-the-best-b
ond-ever/36710771
/


======================

A man's gotta know his limitations. ~Dirty Harry

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 24, 2012 3:51 PM

SAVEWASH

Now I am learning about scary.


I just saw "Skyfall" this past week with my sister and I REALLY liked it! Great Bond flick! It had several nods to the past, "Goldfinger" especially (they had a James Bond marathon on SyFy this past week, too). The two reviews above say it better than I could.

I've watched every Bond movie ever made (more than once), but I still have a question for those of you who know more about Bond than I do.

Select to view spoiler:


I was surprised that "James Bond" is his real name. I'd always assumed it was his "spy" name but that clearly isn't the case, at least as revealed in this movie. Is that true in the books?



Thanks! If you're a Bond fan, I strongly recommend "Skyfall"!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 28, 2012 6:23 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


SPOILERS............WARNING................SPOILERS

You know something SaveWash, as much as I would like to say I've read the books, no I haven't.

I assumed as well that his was a made-up "spy" name and that his "real" name would be Hubert McTavish or Engelbert Prim, you know something god-awful geeky like that.

Still though, I discovered something new as well, that he was an orphan and that he was trained at an early age; which for me, by the way, is a masterstroke to include in this latest installment of our beloved superspy.
Brilliant also was the emotion Bond showed toward M. It made our hero a human being and breathed new life into a previously one dimensional character. Sam Mendes should be commended for taking such a chance and for his brilliant direction.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 29, 2012 8:15 PM

FLORALBUNNY


In the book version of On Her Majesty's Secret Service (I haven't seen the film) Bond was in love with Tracy di Vincenzo. I cried at the end. But, I was a girl, so...

bun

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 16, 2012 5:08 PM

MAL4PREZ


Finally saw it today. The best Bond ever, is my first take. Best song by far, and best opening credits. I wanted to see those again at the end. So interesting and not the flat lame cartoons they usually have, like even in Casino Royal. I've been looking at some goth design things lately in an unrelated activity, and it was so bizarre to see gothic elements show up in a bond intro, moreso that they fit Adele's amazing song so well. And in an IMAX theater - nice!

I don't feel ready to sum up my thoughts on the rest of the movie. I'll have to see it again to figure what really worked and didn't with the plot. Setting aside the cerebral, though, I though it was absolutely beautiful and tense in the way that bond movies ought to be. Every second in Shanghai was perfect. The light up buildings and glass walls, and OMG, the Bond beauty in the casino with that dress? Flawless! The character Eve (no spoilers) right from the beginning I liked her.

Deeper issues I won't get into until I see it again. The fact that I want to see it again says a lot. I'll have to get in one or two more views before I dive into the Hobbit. I can't handle that one the until the crowds drop a bit.

Oh - Bond's "gay" villain. I liked him. Bond had always had some sort of emasculated villain, which I've always found annoying. Bond fucks lots of chicks and carries big guns while the bad gay... not so much, and that rather crudely lets the (historically male) audience know who to ID with and who to hate. Which I find annoying because, really, it's always so transparent.

Kudos to these filmmakers for going all out - there was tongue in check humor there, as if someone come right out with a movie about the blatantly obvious though still strongly denied homoerotocism of cowboys. (Oh wait, someone DID do that that recently...) Bond's baddie was gayish, but that had nothing to do with what made him bad. James even suggested (tongue-in-check) that the flirting wasn't new to him, and he never corrected it. Bond is not afraid that someone might think him gay, so he's not swinging 2x4's wildly to make the point: "I ain't no gorramed filthy f%gg$t!" Good for him. More men ought to be like that.

Strangely, the thing I'm thinking of most is just what a beautiful film it is. I'm not a big movie goer, and I'm shocked at just how good they continue to get. Amazing.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 16, 2013 12:19 PM

BLUEEYEDBRIGADIER


Quote:

Originally posted by SAVEWASH:
I just saw "Skyfall" this past week with my sister and I REALLY liked it! Great Bond flick! It had several nods to the past, "Goldfinger" especially (they had a James Bond marathon on SyFy this past week, too). The two reviews above say it better than I could.

I've watched every Bond movie ever made (more than once), but I still have a question for those of you who know more about Bond than I do.

Select to view spoiler:


I was surprised that "James Bond" is his real name. I'd always assumed it was his "spy" name but that clearly isn't the case, at least as revealed in this movie. Is that true in the books?



Thanks! If you're a Bond fan, I strongly recommend "Skyfall"!



Being a very large Bond fan, I can answer your question(s) without hesitation...though hesitation isn't always a bad thing!

;P

But yeah...the novels have "James Bond" as 007's birth name (which original author/creator Ian Fleming borrowed from the author of the reference guide "Birds of the West Indies") and all the authors who took up the mantle have kept that tradition.

The whole "Bond as a code name" has come up due to the films having 6 different actors playing the character over a 50-year period and Bond's age not really changing much - well, the Roger Moore years did have him age and it got silly to see someone who should be nearly at pensioner age bedding women more than half his age and apparently doing action things that would hospitalize younger men - plus internal continuity being fairly fluid with very minimal referneces to previous films barring the odd moment or an anniversary film like The Living Daylights (25th anniversary of the film series' beginning), Die Another Day (40th anniversary), or Skyfall (50th anniversary of the film series' beginning). Well, that and the spoof version of Casion Royale with David Niven and Peter Sellers takes the non-canon stance of "James Bond" being a WWI-era spy who retired and MI6 gave the name to their replacement top agent to keep up the mythos...which the original didn't appreciate much ;P

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 18, 2013 5:57 AM

STORYMARK


I always liked the "Bond as codename" fan-theory, especially since it let me count "The Rock" as a Bond film... But I felt that Casino Royale had already dispelled that one, as it depicted him as "James Bond" before earning his 00 rating.

Now, when they enevitably do re-cast the role again, I think it might be cool to work that into the new continuity - with Bond getting killed off somehow, and a new spy assuming his identity for the good of Queen and Country and all...




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 20, 2013 11:47 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Hey Mal4prez,

I just wanted to drop you a note about your review. I liked it, I liked it a lot. Gotta admit that I agreed with many of your observations, but I have to go do some family stuff right now, I will have more to say at a later date.

Thanks for posting dude.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 20, 2013 11:54 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Oooooo, I'm liking that idea. Sort of like Batman or The Phanthom, someone taking over and continuing the legacy. I'm glad I've found some fellow Bond geeks here (and I am smiling as I type this), but I too thought it was a cover name, although I do like the reveal in Skyfall. Excellent Bond movie.


SGG

Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
I always liked the "Bond as codename" fan-theory, especially since it let me count "The Rock" as a Bond film... But I felt that Casino Royale had already dispelled that one, as it depicted him as "James Bond" before earning his 00 rating.

Now, when they enevitably do re-cast the role again, I think it might be cool to work that into the new continuity - with Bond getting killed off somehow, and a new spy assuming his identity for the good of Queen and Country and all...




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 21, 2013 1:42 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey Mal4prez,

I just wanted to drop you a note about your review. I liked it, I liked it a lot. Gotta admit that I agreed with many of your observations, but I have to go do some family stuff right now, I will have more to say at a later date.

Thanks for posting dude.

SGG



Thank you Shiny!

I have watched the movie again, in Blue ray on my big TV. It's still visually beautiful, but kind of long. My attention wondered. And I'm rather bothered by the plot line...

Select to view spoiler:



that an agent kidnaps his boss, whisks her away, lets her get killed, and he gets a promotion for it. Does that make any kind of sense?



Still love the opening, the Adele song, the glass skyscraper, and the Bond girl. And I'm a hetero woman. I just think she's gorgeous! (It's a sad double standard that woman can say that kind of thing and men can't. Oh well.)

I've had some discussions with RL friends as to whether Craig will still be Bond in the next movie. I do like the idea above, that a new character replaces Bond, not just a new actor. But I don't think it'll happen yet. Craig still has bank in him, I think.

Do you think they can just turn away from the Bond=old storyline though?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:15 PM

MAL4PREZ


Oh! Something else that bugs me, though it's a bit weird... spoiler here for the first 5 minutes of the movie.

So, the opening credits make a big deal of the issue that Bond was shot. I understood it to be a big deal because he was shot by his own side. There's a betrayal theme through the whole movie, with the bad guy and all the stuff with M, so it makes sense.

But Bond was hit by a fragment of the bad guy's weird bullet too. Months later he cut out fragments of that bullet and used them to trace the bad guy. But he cut those fragments out of the same scar that he got from Eve's shot.

I don't know, it just seems weird that he got shot twice in the same exact spot, especially since they make a big deal out of the wound in the opening. It's not just the one wound - it's two. It confuses the meaning of it, the symbolism of betrayal.

I understand, I think too much. But that's what the internet is for, right? :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:40 PM

MAL4PREZ


Shoot, another one I just thought of. Bond meets the gorgeous woman on her boat, and he just strips down and jumps in the shower with her. Sorry, but his last encounter with her showed that she's a woman in terror of her "bosses". This is a woman who's been taken advantage of for her looks. That was pretty damned presumptuous of him to just come onto her like that. Clearly, she is living a life where she is not allowed to say no.

My radar went off: this is movie written by men, as a fantasy for men, that every woman wants you and you can just jump in the shower with the frightening victimized woman because hey - she wants you, and if she has complications that's not your problem.

I was not a fan of that scene.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 23, 2013 1:10 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Ok, I have to see this movie again (it's been a while since I went to see it) to answer you properly, but I will answer where I could. You really have some good observations.

I'm not sure about the "spoiler" part, I have to watch the film again, but
I really liked this movie for all the reasons you mention (gorgeously shot, etc.) But also the plot in regards to the relationship between Bond and M, also the betrayal factor, and the intro of the new boss, but, most especially, the homage to the old Bond.

Select to view spoiler:


the Bond car being blown to bits was telling

Select to view spoiler:




To me it was both paying homage to the old Bond, but introducing a transformation and a more up-to-date Bond. That's why I felt that Mendes direction was superb, bordering on brilliant. It was a delicate balancing act - old and new.

You're right, Graig still has bank. But I imagine if he decides to give up the roll for whatever reason, that it would be a good move to do the replace thing - both on an off screen. But I still say he's an excellent Bond.

As far as the old Bond storyline, I think Mendes may have given that notion a gentle nudge into the future.


SGG

Quote:

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey Mal4prez,

I just wanted to drop you a note about your review. I liked it, I liked it a lot. Gotta admit that I agreed with many of your observations, but I have to go do some family stuff right now, I will have more to say at a later date.

Thanks for posting dude.

SGG



Thank you Shiny!

I have watched the movie again, in Blue ray on my big TV. It's still visually beautiful, but kind of long. My attention wondered. And I'm rather bothered by the plot line...

Select to view spoiler:



that an agent kidnaps his boss, whisks her away, lets her get killed, and he gets a promotion for it. Does that make any kind of sense?



Still love the opening, the Adele song, the glass skyscraper, and the Bond girl. And I'm a hetero woman. I just think she's gorgeous! (It's a sad double standard that woman can say that kind of thing and men can't. Oh well.)

I've had some discussions with RL friends as to whether Craig will still be Bond in the next movie. I do like the idea above, that a new character replaces Bond, not just a new actor. But I don't think it'll happen yet. Craig still has bank in him, I think.

Do you think they can just turn away from the Bond=old storyline though?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 23, 2013 1:26 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Damn, you're good. When did all this happen?
I thought he was shot once by the baddie, ok now I have to see it again.
My guess is that he could be betrayed at any time by anyone, on his side or no. And it does make sense.

Two bullets, two fragments, but one wound. Now he uses the fragment from the baddie to trace him, he finds out that he's also shot by Eve, but only goes after the bad guy. He later forgives Eve (after some soul searching on that island). It was interesting to me that she had great chemistry with Bond from the outset and he could tell that she wasn't cut out for field duty.

My take: Sometimes your friends hurt you, unwittingly, and you forgive them.
Too simple? In terms of the plot it was supremely important, as it turns out.

Select to view spoiler:


She is later revealed as Moneypenny, Bond's great love

Select to view spoiler:




As far as thinking too much, not in this instance. I appreciate your observations and questions, it shows you're paying attention and that this movie had something to it. Mostly all good movies do.


SGG

Quote:

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Oh! Something else that bugs me, though it's a bit weird... spoiler here for the first 5 minutes of the movie.

So, the opening credits make a big deal of the issue that Bond was shot. I understood it to be a big deal because he was shot by his own side. There's a betrayal theme through the whole movie, with the bad guy and all the stuff with M, so it makes sense.

But Bond was hit by a fragment of the bad guy's weird bullet too. Months later he cut out fragments of that bullet and used them to trace the bad guy. But he cut those fragments out of the same scar that he got from Eve's shot.

I don't know, it just seems weird that he got shot twice in the same exact spot, especially since they make a big deal out of the wound in the opening. It's not just the one wound - it's two. It confuses the meaning of it, the symbolism of betrayal.

I understand, I think too much. But that's what the internet is for, right? :)


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 23, 2013 1:45 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I agree with you that the shower scene is a male fantasy, that only takes place in the movies - porno and otherwise - not that I watch porno, but I've heard (ahem).....

But, unfortunately, Bond is known for his womanizing ways and the producers decided to keep with tradition in this installment. Not to defend that bit of action, but she was terrified of Silva, the Bond villain, who abused her in a seemingly non-sexual way, but from the previous 2 films it seemed to me that Bond was more a sexual animal than a womanizer. Of course, I could be wrong.

In Casino Royale, he was deeply in love with Vesper. I wasn't as impressed with Quantum of Solace, but I don't recall him taking advantage of the female lead. Do you? Anyway, I know it's thin, but there you have it. Still, I can see how that would turn you off. A hero should never take advantage of a woman, period. It's just not Kosher.

But that's me. Bond should only have sex when there is mutual attraction, which happens from time to time.


SGG

Quote:

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Shoot, another one I just thought of. Bond meets the gorgeous woman on her boat, and he just strips down and jumps in the shower with her. Sorry, but his last encounter with her showed that she's a woman in terror of her "bosses". This is a woman who's been taken advantage of for her looks. That was pretty damned presumptuous of him to just come onto her like that. Clearly, she is living a life where she is not allowed to say no.

My radar went off: this is movie written by men, as a fantasy for men, that every woman wants you and you can just jump in the shower with the frightening victimized woman because hey - she wants you, and if she has complications that's not your problem.

I was not a fan of that scene.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:49 AM

MAL4PREZ


SPOILER ALERT: don't read this if you haven't seen the movie! (I don't know, I just find it annoying to use spoiler tags on a longish post...)

Re the bullet wound: this is my thought process the first time I saw the movie. He gets hit by a ricochet just before he jumps from the bulldozer thing to the train car (awesome shot BTW!) He's shot straight through the shoulder, as there's blood on the back of his jacket. So: On no! - he's fighting on the top of the train, already wounded!

Then Eve shoots and he falls. OK, I know he's not going to die, but in my suspended-disbelief brain there is that thought: Oh no again! Where'd she hit him, did she kill him? Then we're in the intro with all the animation of the shoulder wound. I'm thinking: wait wasn't he already hit there? So where'd she hit him?

Yeah, too many words about something so small. It's just a detail I'd have changed if I was making the movie. Except that I'd have no idea how to make a movie, especially one this good LOL!

Re the sex scene, and this is bigger deal: This is not just the usual Bond womanizing, where he has great sex that obviously the woman likes, though there is no emotional bond in it. (I really tried to find another word to avoid the pun.) There's a power dynamic here.

The one time they talked, I didn't see a sexual connection or desire so much as fear and a need for help. When he shows up naked right next to her, what she could be thinking is: if I say no, he won't help me. Or if I say no and he doesn't stop, who's going to stop him? After all, she has no idea who this guy is, except that he's very good at killing people. What are her choices at that point, when this powerful guy is right beside her, naked? At the very least, it's damned presumptuous of him.

I think it's poor writing. It's out of character. Bond will and has used sex to do his job, but never (that I recall) with this kind of power dynamic. All they needed was some moment that suggests he asks, and she accepts. If she'd seen him fully clothed and given him a come hither look before he stripped - that's ok. That's within the Bond character as I understand it.

What really bothers me is that I think the writers didn't consider this to be out of character because they didn't consider the power dynamic or even think about her point of view. To me, it's yet another little indicator of how our society does not really understand what sexual abuse is.

Yes, I've been spending a lot of time considering Steubenville.

On the lighter side: I need to review my Bond history! I didn't know Moneypenny was a romance. I can totally see it though, her and Bond did have chemistry in spades.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 23, 2013 2:35 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.


While I have seen a lot of the Bond films I wouldn't call myself a fan of them. They are primarily action films and I am not a fan of pure action films. Some have had a decent story, but mostly they are just extended stunt scenes. I was bored with Casino Royale and never bothered with Quantum of Solace. Everyone has been raving about Skyfall, but I'm afraid I have to take a contrarian view of this one too.

Yes, it has great production values, great cinematography, and for the most part it is well acted. But well written? Nope.

In the scene of the inquiry into M's conduct and handling of the breach of security, they were implying that MI-6 might have outlived its usefulness. I was thinking the same could be said about Bond films.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:34 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


This coming weekend I will be going on vacation for some R&R (1 week) and I'm taking some movies with me, both watched and new, to veg out on the couch as I rub Noxzema on my sunburn. Skyfall will be one of them, then I will have a better understanding of your comments, and give you my take.

Re the bullet wound: I am not going to try and guess what the director was thinking there, it's just a bit weird. I have to be honest I don't recall the scene so well, other than the fact that Eve shot him. Perhaps it is like adding insult to injury, or part of the whole betrayal theme of the movie. I'm going to pay closer attention on the second viewing.

BTW: I agree, the opening sequence was killer.

Re Sex scene: But I think I can offer my view, as to the sex scene, based upon your observations and what little I remember of the movie, and the general approach in Bond movies.

Ok, I'm going to level with you - I'm not that big a fan about the sex scenes in Bond movies. Don't get me wrong, I love women, always have since 3rd grade (aw Karen, where are you today). But it always seemed to be tacked on for "Ain't he cool" affect - come on, we already know he's cool: a killer car and gadgets up the yingyang, duh!

But, ever since I was a kid I've marveled at his handling of baddies in the most dire of situations. Well, basically his cool under pressure. I always admired how he would use household furniture to fight off the bad guys. Anyway, for me the sex scenes were a bit of an annoyance. But I always felt that the ladies were, as you correctly stated, willing participants. I assumed, in Skyfall, that it was more of the same - more gratuitous sex and "ain't he the cool spy getting some." But I was not thrilled about this particular Bond girl. I agree with EC Gordon, it was poorly written into the story and poorly set up. I felt as though they said, "hey wait, we forgot the sex scene" and tacked it on.

One thing that I remember from Bond girls in the past, was the rather weird relationship with the bad guy. Goldfinger comes to mind. He had Pussy Galore (great Bond name). I think he too had a type of hold over her that was based on fear, a baddie's modus operandi. So yes, I can see your point. It is the driving force behind the evil genius and his lust for power. I also noticed that Bond always grappled with male evil geniuses and their lust for power, world domination - you know the usual bad guy stuff.

But, as you correctly stated, abuse comes in many forms, both intentional and unintentional (I'm referring to the extremely subtle mental abuse that comes from parental units and other child caretakers). But, to me, the character was so poorly developed that it requires a second viewing and careful scrutiny to pick up on the issues you brought up in your post. But you're right about one thing, from the female perspective, it would make for a better movie had they shown that she was a willing participant (aside from her accepting his naked advance). Maybe a come hither look (which takes all of 2 seconds) would show that she wanted him naked. Or better yet: "I'm taking a shower, you coming?"

You're right though, it's not Bond's character, especially this Bond. What I mean is the director went through great pains to humanize Bond's on-screen persona. So that scene was not in keeping with that train of thought.

Stubenville: In my day those 2 guys would have been pummeled to death by his fellow teammates. But kids today have absolutely no scruples.

BTW: It is just those details that make or break a movie, and those questions you raise are what a critic does. For me, I enjoy discussing movies and the little things that go into it. Sometimes there's something that you pick up on that I may miss (such as in that sex scene). I often do the same, look to change a detail that completes the set up in the script.

I.E.: the scene in Prometheus where the 2 scientists start playing with a snake-like creature. I was like: what are they doing? Now, if they were to act like real scientists-explorers, wouldn't they try to get a sample or place it into a beaker for study and observation back at the lab?

The script was rather frustrating like that, and kept it from being a great movie.

BTW, the sequel: In the early movies, Bond and Moneypenny would constantly flirt with each other (never consummated) and she gave as good as she got, sometimes getting the better of James (as she would call him). That was one of the brilliant script pieces within the movie that paid homage to the past and also updated the Bond legend. The chemistry was palpable. That, adding that element, I must say, was genius.


SGG

Quote:

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
SPOILER ALERT: don't read this if you haven't seen the movie! (I don't know, I just find it annoying to use spoiler tags on a longish post...)

Re the bullet wound: this is my thought process the first time I saw the movie. He gets hit by a ricochet just before he jumps from the bulldozer thing to the train car (awesome shot BTW!) He's shot straight through the shoulder, as there's blood on the back of his jacket. So: On no! - he's fighting on the top of the train, already wounded!

Then Eve shoots and he falls. OK, I know he's not going to die, but in my suspended-disbelief brain there is that thought: Oh no again! Where'd she hit him, did she kill him? Then we're in the intro with all the animation of the shoulder wound. I'm thinking: wait wasn't he already hit there? So where'd she hit him?

Yeah, too many words about something so small. It's just a detail I'd have changed if I was making the movie. Except that I'd have no idea how to make a movie, especially one this good LOL!

Re the sex scene, and this is bigger deal: This is not just the usual Bond womanizing, where he has great sex that obviously the woman likes, though there is no emotional bond in it. (I really tried to find another word to avoid the pun.) There's a power dynamic here.

The one time they talked, I didn't see a sexual connection or desire so much as fear and a need for help. When he shows up naked right next to her, what she could be thinking is: if I say no, he won't help me. Or if I say no and he doesn't stop, who's going to stop him? After all, she has no idea who this guy is, except that he's very good at killing people. What are her choices at that point, when this powerful guy is right beside her, naked? At the very least, it's damned presumptuous of him.

I think it's poor writing. It's out of character. Bond will and has used sex to do his job, but never (that I recall) with this kind of power dynamic. All they needed was some moment that suggests he asks, and she accepts. If she'd seen him fully clothed and given him a come hither look before he stripped - that's ok. That's within the Bond character as I understand it.

What really bothers me is that I think the writers didn't consider this to be out of character because they didn't consider the power dynamic or even think about her point of view. To me, it's yet another little indicator of how our society does not really understand what sexual abuse is.

Yes, I've been spending a lot of time considering Steubenville.

On the lighter side: I need to review my Bond history! I didn't know Moneypenny was a romance. I can totally see it though, her and Bond did have chemistry in spades.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:54 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


Of the 3 Bond films, I like this one best. I agree that Skyfall's script was uneven especially some of the plot twists. But parts were brilliant.

One particular script character that was fully realized was Eve. I thought, for my money, that it was brilliantly written and set up. It culminated in a brilliant reveal toward the end, paying homage to the original. Still Mendes took a major risk in changing some of the dynamics in the Bond world.


SGG

Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
While I have seen a lot of the Bond films I wouldn't call myself a fan of them. They are primarily action films and I am not a fan of pure action films. Some have had a decent story, but mostly they are just extended stunt scenes. I was bored with Casino Royale and never bothered with Quantum of Solace. Everyone has been raving about Skyfall, but I'm afraid I have to take a contrarian view of this one too.

Yes, it has great production values, great cinematography, and for the most part it is well acted. But well written? Nope.

In the scene of the inquiry into M's conduct and handling of the breach of security, they were implying that MI-6 might have outlived its usefulness. I was thinking the same could be said about Bond films.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 26, 2013 4:19 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.


My main beef is that Bond films have been so inconsequential in the scheme of real espionage. It's always been about the megalomaniac super genius bent on global domination, nothing about the real world of a spy. MI-6 is supposed to be one of the world's premiere intelligence units, but instead of a fictionalized account of intrigue in the Middle East, Russia, China or North Korea, the best they could come up with was a disgruntled ex-employee? Didn't they already do that with Sean Bean's character in Goldeneye?

The Bourne franchise has been much better, but that is still more about internal struggles within a domestic spy agency, very little about rooting out terrorists or preventing war. In fact, if we can judge British Intelligence, the CIA and FBI, etc. on the way they are portrayed in movies and TV, then we are truly in a heap of trouble.

Most anyone else will say that I am over-analyzing it, that Bond is really fantasy and you shouldn't worry about it not making sense. I just wish that when they spend all that money on great cinematography, expensive sets and intricate stunt sequences, that it make a bit of sense now and then.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 27, 2013 1:20 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
My main beef is that Bond films have been so inconsequential in the scheme of real espionage. It's always been about the megalomaniac super genius bent on global domination, nothing about the real world of a spy. MI-6 is supposed to be one of the world's premiere intelligence units, but instead of a fictionalized account of intrigue in the Middle East, Russia, China or North Korea, the best they could come up with was a disgruntled ex-employee? Didn't they already do that with Sean Bean's character in Goldeneye?

The Bourne franchise has been much better, but that is still more about internal struggles within a domestic spy agency, very little about rooting out terrorists or preventing war. In fact, if we can judge British Intelligence, the CIA and FBI, etc. on the way they are portrayed in movies and TV, then we are truly in a heap of trouble.

Most anyone else will say that I am over-analyzing it, that Bond is really fantasy and you shouldn't worry about it not making sense. I just wish that when they spend all that money on great cinematography, expensive sets and intricate stunt sequences, that it make a bit of sense now and then.



Have you read John Le Carre? Not being a spy, I can't say for sure, but his books feel quite "real" to me. Being a spy seems like it'd be more about reading people and manipulating them than having pretty guns and hot cars and sexpot women. Le Carre shows the real cost of this kind of manipulation.

The human side is part of what I liked about the Jason Bourne character, too, though the movies didn't do it justice. In the books Bourne is a chameleon. He reads people and situations and creates a character for himself that gets the job done. Damon would have been awesome at that, but that's not how the character was written in the movies. I actually the new Bourne movie did a better job showing this side of a spy, but it might just be my little crush on Jeremy Renner talking.

Yeah, Bond is completely not real. I don't think it really tries to be, no matter that it's gotten more gritty in the new movies. I actually enjoy that it fully throws itself into the fantasy. You're right, though, that such things have to be well done. Too many inconsistencies and the movie, no matter how pretty, is no longer fun.

SGG: looking forward to your report!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 6, 2013 9:07 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


EC, I agree with you 100%, spy movies should be a little more intelligent, hell all movies should have a lot of intelligence. But we are talking about Hollywood here, where, occasionally, a well-scripted movie will get made despite input from the suits. Take Kubrick for instance, he had complete artistic control of his movies.

But spy movies are a different animal, besides how much should a director have access to? You do get the occasional brilliant spy movie (I heard Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy was excellent). And I remember Michael Caine in a brilliant spy movie called the Ipcress File (1965).

But Bond has always been about the huge set pieces, intricate chase scenes and beautiful girls, not to mention the resident bad guy. I remember Goldfinger being of particular interest to me, but they want it to appeal to the masses. Hence, the generic plot points.

Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
My main beef is that Bond films have been so inconsequential in the scheme of real espionage. It's always been about the megalomaniac super genius bent on global domination, nothing about the real world of a spy. MI-6 is supposed to be one of the world's premiere intelligence units, but instead of a fictionalized account of intrigue in the Middle East, Russia, China or North Korea, the best they could come up with was a disgruntled ex-employee? Didn't they already do that with Sean Bean's character in Goldeneye?

The Bourne franchise has been much better, but that is still more about internal struggles within a domestic spy agency, very little about rooting out terrorists or preventing war. In fact, if we can judge British Intelligence, the CIA and FBI, etc. on the way they are portrayed in movies and TV, then we are truly in a heap of trouble.

Most anyone else will say that I am over-analyzing it, that Bond is really fantasy and you shouldn't worry about it not making sense. I just wish that when they spend all that money on great cinematography, expensive sets and intricate stunt sequences, that it make a bit of sense now and then.

SGG




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:14 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Hey there, saw the film last night and found it a bit more exciting than the first time around. Sometimes it takes a second viewing to appreciate a film.

Re: The Bullet/train fight

I got the impression that he wasn't hit by Eve at all, but then I saw what seemed to be a second scar on his chest which indicates that he was hit by Eve's bullet, but it's not clear.

Re: The Sex Scene

When they were in the casino talking, there was fear and panic in her eyes, plus she said that the bodyguards would kill her if she went with 007. So yes, there was definitely fear involved in the relationship between her and Silva. But I didn't get that fear factor once Bond insisted that he would kill Silva. She felt somewhat relieved at Bond's promise. When he entered the shower it seemed that she was quite receptive to his advances.

Bond reassured her and perhaps some of that fear melted away. In the Bond world sometimes sex is used to relieve tension, in this case it was also sealing the deal/pact he made with the woman. In other words she was a willing participant. With the inclusion of this character, and her subsequent demise, used the moment Silva shot her as a type of "look what this madman will do", a kind of unpredictability. That scene, when Silva just shot her and said "I win", baffled me at first. But then I thought that the writers used a rather cheap technique to move along the plot.

As I watched the shower scene, I became convinced that 007 was being depicted as a kinder gentler secret agent.

I'm getting sleepy, so I'll end it here.


SGG

Quote:

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
My main beef is that Bond films have been so inconsequential in the scheme of real espionage. It's always been about the megalomaniac super genius bent on global domination, nothing about the real world of a spy. MI-6 is supposed to be one of the world's premiere intelligence units, but instead of a fictionalized account of intrigue in the Middle East, Russia, China or North Korea, the best they could come up with was a disgruntled ex-employee? Didn't they already do that with Sean Bean's character in Goldeneye?

The Bourne franchise has been much better, but that is still more about internal struggles within a domestic spy agency, very little about rooting out terrorists or preventing war. In fact, if we can judge British Intelligence, the CIA and FBI, etc. on the way they are portrayed in movies and TV, then we are truly in a heap of trouble.

Most anyone else will say that I am over-analyzing it, that Bond is really fantasy and you shouldn't worry about it not making sense. I just wish that when they spend all that money on great cinematography, expensive sets and intricate stunt sequences, that it make a bit of sense now and then.



Have you read John Le Carre? Not being a spy, I can't say for sure, but his books feel quite "real" to me. Being a spy seems like it'd be more about reading people and manipulating them than having pretty guns and hot cars and sexpot women. Le Carre shows the real cost of this kind of manipulation.

The human side is part of what I liked about the Jason Bourne character, too, though the movies didn't do it justice. In the books Bourne is a chameleon. He reads people and situations and creates a character for himself that gets the job done. Damon would have been awesome at that, but that's not how the character was written in the movies. I actually the new Bourne movie did a better job showing this side of a spy, but it might just be my little crush on Jeremy Renner talking.

Yeah, Bond is completely not real. I don't think it really tries to be, no matter that it's gotten more gritty in the new movies. I actually enjoy that it fully throws itself into the fantasy. You're right, though, that such things have to be well done. Too many inconsistencies and the movie, no matter how pretty, is no longer fun.

SGG: looking forward to your report!



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
What Are Your Must-See Films For 2019?
Thu, August 22, 2019 22:43 - 143 posts
Discussion of Alita: Battle Angel
Sat, July 27, 2019 07:51 - 64 posts
Top Gun: Maverick
Thu, July 18, 2019 16:17 - 12 posts
Spiderman: Into the Verse
Wed, July 3, 2019 20:11 - 10 posts
Alita: Battle Angel
Wed, June 12, 2019 17:58 - 47 posts
Godzilla: King of the Monsters
Sat, June 8, 2019 16:39 - 33 posts
What Are Your Must-See Films For 2018?
Sat, June 8, 2019 15:42 - 174 posts
Avengers: EndGame
Fri, May 31, 2019 19:53 - 25 posts
John Wick 3
Sun, May 26, 2019 17:38 - 15 posts
* Topic reposted in correct forum *
Wed, May 22, 2019 18:12 - 6 posts
May The Fourth Be With You, 2017
Thu, May 9, 2019 22:33 - 14 posts
Captain Marvel, DC or MCU?
Tue, April 30, 2019 14:04 - 126 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL