So, I tried to watch Sky Fall...

I was pumped to see Skyfall with all the buzz but I found it disappointing. I think part of that is that it's almost impossible to write a plot that we haven't already seen. I'm tired of the spectacular crap. Get back to a SPY movie in the "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" type fer cryin' out loud. Put in ONE plausible chase scene that doesn't require CG. My problem is that while what I have in mind would be a good movie it wouldn't sell any tickets....

I like Craig second only to Connery, but the movies are 50 years apart and the new movies have to reflect the times. It's just frustrating to see the characters who can't live with computers and cell phones and all the techno-glitz chrome plating.

Frankly, I enjoyed the movie. Prefer Craig to ALL the other Bonds, find him a more Realistic man. However, did they really need to destroy the original Bond DB4?

1. Brosnan fan here too, but we actually had fun at Skyfall.

2. DB5, I believe, but yes, it's too bad they destroyed it, even in a good cause.

Toyman01 wrote: I made it 45 minutes in and turned it off to read a book. Wow that movie sucked. I was under the impression it was supposed to be a James Bond movie not just another action flick. They missed that mark by miles. Slow, crappy CGI, no naked girls in the intro, no corny "Bond, James Bond", not shaken but stirred, just generally a bad movie. I give it a C-. I want my $20 back. Maybe it's just me, but movies seem to be getting worse. Maybe I'm just getting old.

Yeah, it's just you. Even Roger Moore says it was the greatest.

"So, what's your opinion of the latest James Bond movie, Skyfall? If I had not finished this book three or so months before it went to print, I would write another chapter, because I would have seen Skyfall, and having seen Skyfall, in my opinion it is the best, best Bond of all – and Daniel Craig, I am full of admiration for him. "

HiTempguy wrote: Ok, first of all... When did skyfall become good cinema? It was a terribly E36 M3ty movie. The action was mediocre, the plot sucked, and the hot chick that everyone is supposed to dream about wasn't hot (she was like 50!)

Oh, and 50 year olds aren't hot?

Craig is no pretty boy. He reminds me a bit of McQueen, big ears, lots of angles and creases, never smiles.

I liked Skyfall - the imagery was great, particularly on the moors.

Nothin' wrong with 50 year old chicks.

Again I have not seen Skyfall, but if they are trying to make Bond a touchy feely character then it is obvious the film makers did not look at the progression of the Mad Max movies. He started out as a tough guy driven by the death of his wife and kid, in Road Warrior he was the ultimate bad ass. Then in Thunderdome he turned too 'nice' and that's 90% of what killed it and thus the chance of reviving it for a long time. The same thing happened with the 'Alien' flicks, just with a different main character.

Bond, Ripley and Mad Max are not supposed to be characters in 'chick flicks'. (Sorry, Lesley! )

Oh good I thought I was the only person let down by Skyfall.

My dad's a hardcore Bond fan and loved it, to me, it didn't feel like a Bond movie. Slow-paced, low action, unambitious villain, traded in all the "fun & cheesy" for "dark and gritty." It was an average action movie at best.

The last Bourne was pretty dull in the middle too but I thought it was better.

Stealthtercel wrote: 2. DB5, I believe, but yes, it's too bad they destroyed it, even in a good cause.

They didn't really destroy a DB5. They built a 1/3 model of it, and destroyed that... Don't worry, the Bond car is okay.

Skyfall seems to be one of the most polarizing movies of the last decade. Nobody really says, "Yeah, it was ok." Its either fabulous or sucky. No middle ground.

The "Best Bond" argument will never be settled, nor should it be. I like Connery as an actor, but Christ, could his Bond possibly been stupider? I tried watching the one with Jill St. John...The boy was dumb as a post, and the villains no better.

Not a Bond fan here, but my wife is, and she says James Bond shouldn't be ugly. I don't disagree.

I liked Connery until he said that it was perfectly okay to hit a woman "to calm her down". I'd like to beat his old ass up. Would that be okay?

Agreed on the "chick flick" comment - pretty boys do nothing for me. Pierce Brosnan? C'mon, really?

If you read the books, I think the Craig Bond is the closest to the one from the books. He is a crude weapon by everyone's admission and he is utilized as a last resort. But when he is needed, there is no one better. He is shallow and materialistic as a result of being a public school kid in a world dominated by the private academy types and has an inferiority complex as a result.

But when he is unleashed, he is violent and effective like no other 00 agent. But he always leaves a mess, and he doesn't care.

Sean Connery was the pinnacle, but I like Brosnan better because he was sexist in an era when it was not acceptable, and he still pulled it off. Plus he wore a suit, as bond would, everywhere.

I loved the scene in the new one when Craig has been shot, leaps to the desintergrating train car and takes the time to adjust his coat.

THAT is James Bond

Lesley wrote: Oh, and 50 year olds aren't hot?

That one wasn't. Most aren't. Getting old sucks, which is why I make sure to bug older people about it as much as possible, because in another 20 years, I probably ain't gonna be that pretty either.

I'm rooting for Jennifer Aniston though, 44 and still SMOKIN!

How you view Skyfall I think depends expectations. If you have seen Bond movies before (especially the early ones) you will likely be disappointed in the lack of camp and gadgetry. If you go without expectations, you will likely find a rather well done (very good cinematography) movie that is a bit dark and far more realistic then the early movies.

I also always hurts to go into a movie hearing that it is a great movie. Too easy to be disappointed.

The Bond movies have been getting progressively darker and more realistic since the exit of Moore. Craig is just the culmination of this and is certainly the best at it. Not sure which represents the novels best, but I think it is a bit of a mixture of the two.

The movie wasn't dark, the villain wasn't evil, and the plot/plan was contrived and dumb. I'm still confused on how that makes good cinema...

Which Bond Girl is over 50?! All the ones I saw were 40 something and they were all stunning.

I wish I looked half that good now at 42.

Toyman01 wrote: I made it 45 minutes in and turned it off to read a book. Wow that movie sucked. I was under the impression it was supposed to be a James Bond movie not just another action flick. They missed that mark by miles. Slow, crappy CGI, no naked girls in the intro, no corny "Bond, James Bond", not shaken but stirred, just generally a bad movie. I give it a C-. I want my $20 back. Maybe it's just me, but movies seem to be getting worse. Maybe I'm just getting old.

Well, that makes two of us. Both of my brothers look at me like I'm the mailman's kid for not liking any of the new Bond movies. They are absolutely unwatchable to me, and I've REALLY REALLY tried.

And I'm NOT a "They're just blowing stuff up" snob.

Woody wrote:

curtis73 wrote: Bond has swagger. Bond is a salesman from whom you would buy anything. Bond has confidence.

Bond could sell you a Maserati BiTurbo that "just needs a battery". But he wouldn't.

"SAY WHAAAAAT?"

My movie success flow chart: did I enjoy the movie? If "yes," than file under success. If "No," then file under fail. I try not to compare movies directly to books they are based upon, simply because the two formats have very different strengths and time constraints.

HiTempguy wrote: The movie wasn't dark, the villain wasn't evil, and the plot/plan was contrived and dumb. I'm still confused on how that makes good cinema...

Agreed. I liked that they tried to add depth and dimension to the characters. I got irritated because they apparently did not bother adding any to the plot.

Just saw it. I laughed, I cried, it became a part of me.

Seriously, let's not over think this. It was an engaging movie for me and I found it entertaining. It wasn't particularly deep, but I didn't watch a Bond movie expecting it to be. I also didn't worry much about the movies that came before or the ones that will likely follow.

I love you guys but dear god anyone who thought Brosnan did any justice to the roll....WTF.

I longed for Brosnan to get the role, I thought he would be perfect for it. And then he got it and pussified Bond so much as to make it unwatchable. Craig, while not as polished as some of the former Bonds is at least masculine.

I enjoyed Skyfall FWIW, and Connery is still the best. Brosnan falls below all others.

The Bond franchise is a lot of things to a lot of people...and I'll catch hell for this one, but For Your Eyes Only remains my favorite Bond movie. Not because it defines the Bond character, but because I find it the most watchable and entertaining. Probably because of the 2CV.

Oh BTW as an actual computer expert, all the hacking in this movie is a laughable clusterberkeley, I tried to ignore it but I'm sure it contributed to my disappointment.

A few points I can remember:

• Blowing up Mi6 HQ with a virus. Only possible if there was a network-connected self-destruct system with poor security. A big stretch.

• The worst scene is where hacker boy connects bad guy's hard drive to his own computer and the hard drive infects his system and destroys its own data. This is so many different kinds of wrong I could bore you with a full page of how wrong it is, but to put it into car language, it's about three times worse than Vin Diesel's famous after-race talk.

It is mutch more of a Bond film than the last one. Q, new M, and Moneypenny is a strong throw back to the originals.

The other thing to keep in mind is that Craig's serious portrayal is more inline with the original character from the books.