[Tapioca]

Originally Posted by SpartanAir

You guys are all on crack. i won't say it is one of the worst, but it is one of the most boring and unoriginal Bond films I've seen in a long time. Casino Royale is still the best Craig Bond movie, aside from the hour-long poker scene.

TL;DR, but here is my lengthy review of why it's so terrible. Hopefully some of you will see the light.

Spoiler!

I went to see Skyfall last night, and I must say, I haven’t been this pumped about a film in a long time. Javier Bardem is the villain, Daniel Craig is an awesome Bond…this is gonna be good. Supposedly the best Bond film in years. My hopes were high, my smile was huge…But sadly, right out of the gates, flags started to raise…

The opening sequence, compared to the last 2 Craig films, was just lack-lustre. The dirtbike chase was cool but…not that cool. I liked the train sequence I guess; using the digging machine to hook on to the train, that was neat…but haven’t I seen this scene before, a million times? Fighting on top of a train, and ducking for tunnels? What the hell? The Skyfall song was cool, and the “Bond-esque” opening sequence was awesome…but then the movie started and rather than being brought along for the ride, my brain couldn’t help but notice certain GLARING details…

What is the point of Bond dying at the beginning? They move through it so fast, he doesn’t learn anything from being dead. Bond doesn’t use his death to his advantage in any way. He seems all distraught on an island somewhere, drinking heavily, alone, banging random women etc. Then he sees Wolf Blitzer talking about the explosion at MI6, and he is instantly back in London at M’s apartment. And is unfazed and is ready to resume work. Why the hell did he die, then? Why does this even matter?

I’m assuming it was about 2 months after he was shot in the shoulder, and the wound must have been tended to in order to heal, but then, he decides to pull remnant shrapnel out of the wound? Why wasn’t this taken out before, in order to heal the wound? And seriously, only 3 people in the world use that kind of bullet? A uranium bullet? That would have seriously poisoned him if it was sitting in his shoulder for that long? And tracing a rare bullet is how you find your bad guy? Really, guys? And what happened to the wound that sent him off the train bridge into the water? Where was that wound? Wasn’t that more significant than his shoulder wound?

Ok, no gadgets, just a gun and a radio. Fine. But the gun gimmick had obvious outcome, the bodyguard was holding it and the ANNOYING and DISTRACTING lights were red instead of green (thank you writers, for making this distinction), so why was Bond even concerned about being shot? And the radio; Bardem when cornered says something like, “What are you gonna do, you’re all alone” and Bond says something like “No, actually”, and proceeds to hold up the radio and say “A RADIO. A NEW GADGET FROM Q.”, and the choppers fly over them. Thanks for clearing that up Bond. Who wrote this thing??

That’s another thing, the dialogue just seemed so unoriginal and flat. Where are the quirky witty lines? Why is everything they say so expository? Why is my hand being held on this “awesome” adventure???

Why, in a movie of this importance, and in this day in age, is the limited but crucial CGI, so TERRIBLE? Examples: 1) The scorpion on his hand. Terrible. Clearly fake, all shiny and poorly shadowed. Why not just make a little robot? Or even a plastic toy scorpion…at least it’s actually there. 2) The Komodo Dragons in the pit. I understand you probably can’t get trained Komodo Dragons anywhere, so what happened to animatronics? Jurassic Park still stands up to time to this day. Make some. These lizards looked fake and shitty, and therefore I don’t care about what’s happening on screen. 3) The crucial, revealing, weird-trait-revealing (inaudible) moment where Bardem pulls out his teeth and shows that the liquid cyanide (is that what it was?) melted away his mouth and teeth…I COULDN’T BELIEVE how TERRIBLE this looked. The CGI black hole was all moving around and not matching his head movement, and just looked like a shitty cartoon pasted over his face. This is supposed to be the moment where we are all disgusted and horrified at the disfigured villain…but instead it just made me cringe and laugh at how GODAWFUL it looked. For shame.

I must admit, I had a long day before seeing this and saw a late showing, but the first half of the movie was so dull, I was falling asleep. Until Bardem shows up, halfway through, it was just so slow. WHY NOT BRING HIM IN SOONER???

Usually Bond villains are dangerous to the whole world, and not just one person. I had trouble relating to the supposed personal relationship that Bardem had with M, and why it was such a big deal. I guess when I saw the trailer, I hoped they would use the awesomeness of Bardem to make an ultimate super-villain…but it turns out he just had a little grudge that the rest of the world could care less about, and if he succeeded in killing her, it would have just been a headline, they would have replaced M, and most of the world would carry on as if nothing happened. One of the coolest scenes in the movie was when Bardem is revealed and chats with a tied-up Bond. Classic cool Villain-on-Bond scene. But if you’re going to have this personal quarrel with M be the main plot of such an important movie, then give me more screen time with Bardem. Show me WHY he’s so dangerous to her and others. Commit to making the relationship really crucial, and make his character more important.

I did like the throwback with the Aston Martin DB5. But then, I like the Bond cars, and cars in general. But I was sad to see it all shot up. I guess that’s what you do in a “gritty” new Bond movie.

I thought the scene where they defend the house at night was really cool. Simple, not original, but cool. Rigging up booby traps etc. Where Bond is sitting in the car and uses the machine guns...awesome. But so much of the film was leading up to this scene. They get to this house, and then explain that this will happen. There’s no twist, it’s just…straight-forward. I guess that’s fine…but boring. In fact, there was nothing really ever shocking that happens in this film. It’s all so predictable and linear. You just kinda know where it’s going, all the time.

Who was this old dude at the end? Why should I care about him? Because he’s old and friendly-looking and has a heart of gold? Bond briefly explains who he is, but being the new “cold Bond”, doesn’t really acknowledge him that much or why he’s important. It honestly felt like they threw this guy in because it would seem silly if ol’ Judi Dench was crawling away on her own. And at the end of the movie, he’s just standing there, and has no involvement with Bardem’s demise, and just lowers his hat when she dies. Aw, poor guy…(?)

And the comical, played out death of Bardem? Bond finds an antique knife and throws it in the middle of his back? And he turns around slowly, and it’s just sticking right out, and he keels over. That’s it? No elaborate Bond villain death? I would have been satisfied even if the old dude distracted him somehow, sacrificed himself and Bardem shot him, and Bond just limped over and brutally shoved it in his back, that would have been gruesome and cool. But you don’t even see anything. Bardem just suddenly has a knife in his back, and he’s dead. Great.

Ok, M dies. It was sad…I guess? As much as I love Judi Dench, and her in this role, I kinda got the feeling from the start of this movie that this was going to happen. And Dame’s getting older, and probably wants out. So I was not surprised at all…again, much like with everything else that happens in this movie. And is it supposed to be a big reveal when ‘Ray Fines’ is the new M? Wasn’t it obvious? I mean, good choice, I love him and he’s a perfect fit…but wasn’t it just a logical decision?

And the ending, where Bond addresses the new M and is like “reporting for duty…EM”…”Let’s get back to work…on the next film!” He might as well have winked directly to camera, like “Well that was fun, but guess what folks, I’ll be back for more! Tune in next time, friends!” CUT TO: Bond strut in the gun barrel, turn and shoot, blood drips down the screen.” Ugh. It just seemed so anti-climactic. The whole feeling at the end of this film just didn’t seem to match what happened in it. Bond is distraught, considered dead, out of shape, and drags himself back to London to fight for his friend…isn’t quite fit for duty, but does it all anyway…and then at the end, is in tip-top shape to go back at it.

I love Daniel Craig as Bond, but the way they portray him is as aging and always conflicted with quitting his job. I think if they showed in bed with some trollop and M was trying to call him, and he threw a sheet over the laptop, and said a quirky line, and she said “Oh, James…”…I would be more excited about the next film. Because that would tell me Bond is back. But right now, I’m not sure if he is…or care if he is…

If you want to see a cool Bond movie about agent betrayal, please go watch Goldeneye.

To be honest, your review completely missed what Mendes and Craig are trying to do with Bond.

The reason why Skyfall is not only a great Bond movie, but just a good movie, is that it places Bond in the uncertain socio-political context that we live in today:
- Uncertain enemies (no longer countries, but ourselves)
- Technology vs. old-school methods
- The relevance of spy agencies, like MI6

Yeah, it could be argued that Bond has gone all Dark Knight, but you know what? Such movies are more satisfying for today's more sophisticated audiences than just a bunch of one-liners, gadgets, and scantily-clad women.