＂Skyfall＂- Your Opinion?

[jyl]

As it says, what did you think.

[Moses]

Maybe the best one ever.

[Evans, Marv]

Interested also. Told the wife we should see it tomorrow.

[Steve Carlton]

Liked it a lot. Great action, creepy villain, storyline weak. I liked Casino Royale better.

Goldfinger is still the best in my book.

[MFAFF]

Great movie...perhaps not the best 'James Bond' movie...
Saw the Imax version ... makes a difference!

[MotoSook]

Wife and I: two thumbs up

[Laneco]

Steve and I - two thumbs up. This is a transitional movie - it introduces new, permanent characters. This movie also provides more history into Bond and the villian than I've seen before. Provides a little insight into their respective psyches.

Casino Royale is still my favorite.

angela

[stomachmonkey]

I liked it

Great villain

But I don't like the tortured/flawed Bond

007 does not have baggage

[A930Rocket]

Saw it last night. It seemed to be missing something compared to previous movies.

Casino Royale was better...

Edit: The skyfall song by Adelle (sp?) was nothing to write home about.

[epbrown]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

I liked it

Great villain

But I don't like the tortured/flawed Bond

007 does not have baggage

007 has always had baggage, and in this film, like all the others, he wasn't tortured by it - he's always simply had another martini and got back to work.

I thought the film was entertaining, but really it covered no new ground - it was mostly an exercise meant to reboot the series for its 50th anniversary by re-introducing characters, events and places. The theme of the film was "Meet the new James Bond, same as the old James Bond."

Semi-poilers below:



















As much as I liked it, it was actually a little redundant - the villain was very similar to "Goldeneye," and even had similar dialogue, and we were just re-introduced to Bond in "Casino Royale" when Craig's Bond achieved 00 status. When you take into account that "Quantum of Solace" takes place immediately after "Casino Royale," then we've seen Bond go from rookie 00 agent to old hand in what is - for the character - a fairly brief period.

[pksystems]

It has to be better then Quantum of Solace.

[mikesride]

Does he drive one of these???

.

[biosurfer1]

I'm glad to hear the good reviews of the villain...Javier Bardem seemed to be a perfect fit for a Bond villian! Can't wait to see it

[Hugh R]

I thought it was good, a few moments that didn't make sense, but I don't want to spoil it for those who haven't seen it.

[McLovin]

I saw it last night. I'm a pretty harsh movie critic.

I give 4 out of 10 movies that I see a "eh, it was ok".

5 out of them I almost feel like demanding my money back.

1 out of 10 I really enjoy.

I'd put this one in the top category. And this isn't really my kind of genre of movie.

It certainly was very well cast. That bad guy from "No Country for Old Men" is great. He's one of the great bad guy characters of our time, and his performance in that plexiglass holding cell was awesome!

It also was very well made. Really great visuals throughout. (Lighting, scenery, camera work, etc.). It's a beautifully made movie.

It had a lot more below the surface stuff than a typical bond movie. Which IMO is good or bad, depending on what you like. Bond is shown with more foibles than normal. Red eyed, tired, stubble, etc. at the beginning.

M was shown as being far less than perfect, and the bad guy was shown as having, arguably, some good reasons for what he was doing. Or, at least, he wasn't simply evil for evil's sake.

They seemed to want to modernize the movie, so that it was very focused on computers and technology. But what they gave up was a lot of cool Bond "gadgets." He really had none (the gun that only he could fire was the only one, but that's not really a gadget or that interesting). I kind of missed that.

He also wasn't as suave with the ladies as in past films. Is this the older, slower Bond? (Maybe setting up a product placement for Viagra in later films?)

It's of course difficult to compare it to the great old ones (like The Spy Who Loved Me), because they are from such different eras. But overall this is clearly one of the top of the modern era Bond movies, and I think it holds up pretty well to any of the previous Bond movies.

[rwest]

I saw the movie Saturday and really liked it, although I think buying it and watching it again on my own couch will help me with stuff I missed.

Like McLovin said, not much for gadgets this time around, and to me gadjets are what makes the Bond movies different from other spy thrillers, so for my tastes, bring on the cool watches, pens and other devices.

Rutager

[MRM]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

I liked it

Great villain

But I don't like the tortured/flawed Bond

007 does not have baggage

The Bond as written by Ian Fleming was tormented by demons of the past. In the books, especially early on, he was much crueler, though equally open to great mercies and romantic flourishes. In fact, one of his lingering grievances with MI6 and M was that he was originally considered little more than an assassin, a killer, an expendable thug that the Service didn't care too much whether he lived or died, no matter the quality of the service he provided. The original Double Os were a response to Soviet spies operating in the West that couldn not be arrested and brought to justice the usual way. They were to be identified and killed - hense the need for Double Os. Bond did something in the War that got him selected to be one of the first Double Os. This was a mixed blessing and a mixed compliment to him.

He's had problems his whole life, from watching his parents die to his unexplained but traumatic war experience, to losing Tracy to his ongoing concern that he is stuck in a job he'll do until he dies, in which he is not fully appreciated, and for which his total loyalty is required to people who will not give any loyalty in return (sound familiar, anyone?).

On Her Majesty's Secret Service is probably the best example of the original Bond as written by Fleming, although George Lazenby was clearly the weakest actor ever to play Bond, even considering Timothy Dalton. Bond is dark and brooding and smart and cunning and is the match for all the nefarious enemies, foreign and domestic that he has to encounter. But he is never common or uncouth: He is Bond.

[badcar]

Great movie with good backstory and action. Tied with Casino Royale in my books.

[TheMentat]

I'd put it a notch below Casino Royale... but still a great movie!

[strupgolf]

Just got back from seeing it. Wife liked it 100%, me, not so. I've liked others more, but as a thriller in the Bond theme, it was good.