Wow...I was really pleased and at many many points downright giddy with what unfolded on screen. So damn good.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Skyfall
- Thread starter tplyons
- Start date
+1 Great choice for a bad guy.
It was a great movie but there was one item that has me
scratching my head. Bond gets in an underwater fight with a
guy and strangles him. Why do you need to strangle a guy
who can't get any air anyway? What's up with that?
Saw it Thursday night and really enjoyed it. A vast improvement on "Quantum of Solace" and definitely on a par with "Casino Royale". DC is the best Bond IMO, and it's great that the new films are grittier than a lot of the Bond movies from the last 30 years.
Chock holds don't work by stopping air but by stopping blood to the brain. I would have to see the opening sequence again to see what kind of strangulation took placewarnergt said:
by the time the bad guy runs out of air, so would Bond.
If he cuts off the artery to the head, the guy's dead before Bond runs out of air. I think.
IMO this was definitely the best bond film. Ever.
Saw it last night and would go back to see it again.
I dont normally do that sort of thing, but for this film I would..
oh, and +1 for "Welcome to Scotland"..
It was okay. Not Craig's best Bond movie (that was Casino Royale, by miles) and obviously it's not fair to compare it to the Connery classics at this stage.
Funnily enough, Connery was my favourite Bond - I didn't think anyone could surpass him until DC turned up...
+1
Better than Quantum, a far cry from Casino.
I thought Quantum set us up for a storyline, odd they chose not to follow it.
Just got home from seeing it. I liked it; it was definitely worth the ten bucks. But I don't think I liked it as much as Casino Royale. Not sure why exactly - maybe there was more tension in CR? I like Daniel Craig as Bond, hope we get a few more good films out of him.
He just signed on for two more. Hopefully they're more like Skyfall and CR than QoS.
I honestly thought it was kinda meh. The first half was good then the rest was so-so. The computer hacking scene made me laugh, and what was with the super complicated plan to get M?...All that just to burst into a hearing and open fire? And he can afford a helicopter but no rocket launcher? Come on now....Just blow up Skyfall and call it a day.
Good acting bad script.
Good acting bad script.
My in-laws wanted to see it on Thanksgiving, so I went with them. Let me preface the rest of my comments by saying I find action movies boring. The hero gets himself into an "impossible" situation, and always gets out. When you know that the hero wins in the end, there is no tension. The only surprises in the movie are which minor good guy will be killed off and how many times the writer relies on deus ex machina to save the hero. With that said, my expectations were low, and I wasn't disappointed.
***WARNING: PLOT SPOILERS BELOW***
The plot was ridiculous, even more so in hindsight. If the information on that hard drive was that sensitive, it wouldn't be on a hard drive in the field. It would be accessed via a secure, encrypted internet connection. It was fascinating to see the drive thief manage to decouple a train by shooting the coupler in half.
It was quite fortuitous that the backhoe was ready to go for him. I'm sure he'd survive that fall. And then it gets to the ridiculous part. The plot to kill M.
And what a plot it is. I'm going to skip ahead to when Bardem escapes from MI6. To escape from MI6, he had to have Q attempt to hack his computer. This means that his plan was to have Q hack his computer. In order for that to happen Bond/good guys had to: 1) find the thief, 2) catch him with the special token, 3) redeem the token, 4) not get killed by the henchmen, 5) seduce the girl, 6) convince her to take him to Bardem, (So up to now could be coincidence, and once Bond was on the way, Bardem changed his plan), 7) make his location know to MI6, 8) Kill the henchmen, but not Bardem, 9) get the computer to MI6, 10) Lock him up in that "cell", 11) attempt to hack his computer, 12) find the "secret password", 13) chase him through the underground, 14) catch him in the exact location where the explosive was preset, 15) not have any people on the tube during the day, 16) have M ignore explicit warnings and stick around at the hearing.
Or Bardem could have waited until she was in the office to blow it up. I'd definitely go for the first option there. The more convoluted steps, the more likely everything is to go right.
What a turd of a movie. There is only a plot because an evil "genius" chooses a ridiculous path to achieve his goal instead of the easy one.
***WARNING: PLOT SPOILERS BELOW***
The plot was ridiculous, even more so in hindsight. If the information on that hard drive was that sensitive, it wouldn't be on a hard drive in the field. It would be accessed via a secure, encrypted internet connection. It was fascinating to see the drive thief manage to decouple a train by shooting the coupler in half.
It was quite fortuitous that the backhoe was ready to go for him. I'm sure he'd survive that fall. And then it gets to the ridiculous part. The plot to kill M. And what a plot it is. I'm going to skip ahead to when Bardem escapes from MI6. To escape from MI6, he had to have Q attempt to hack his computer. This means that his plan was to have Q hack his computer. In order for that to happen Bond/good guys had to: 1) find the thief, 2) catch him with the special token, 3) redeem the token, 4) not get killed by the henchmen, 5) seduce the girl, 6) convince her to take him to Bardem, (So up to now could be coincidence, and once Bond was on the way, Bardem changed his plan), 7) make his location know to MI6, 8) Kill the henchmen, but not Bardem, 9) get the computer to MI6, 10) Lock him up in that "cell", 11) attempt to hack his computer, 12) find the "secret password", 13) chase him through the underground, 14) catch him in the exact location where the explosive was preset, 15) not have any people on the tube during the day, 16) have M ignore explicit warnings and stick around at the hearing.
Or Bardem could have waited until she was in the office to blow it up. I'd definitely go for the first option there. The more convoluted steps, the more likely everything is to go right.
What a turd of a movie. There is only a plot because an evil "genius" chooses a ridiculous path to achieve his goal instead of the easy one.
Most action films require a suspension of disbelief to be enjoyed.
I agree with posters saying Skyfall asked a bit too much of us. And, unfortunately, it wasn't the action, but the plot that is to blame.
I agree with posters saying Skyfall asked a bit too much of us. And, unfortunately, it wasn't the action, but the plot that is to blame.
Damn them for not making a Bond film realistic
LOL! Suspension of disbelief: never a requirement for a spy caper.
let's go back and make all spy capers 5 minute long movies to appease _______.
Welcome to Scotland
A line that would have been ten times more epic if Sean Connery had been playing the groundskeeper
Great movie though!
There was a brief moment where they had talked about getting Connery to do a cameo, but felt it would distract from the movie if they cast him as Kincade.
