Skyfall (Bond 23)

[Cheesebeef]

i thought it was good, not great. A little slow for me until he got to Shanghai.

not as good as Casino Royale IMO, but miles better than Quantum and worlds better than anything Brosnan was in.

 

[Chaplin]

i thought it was good, not great. A little slow for me until he got to Shanghai.

not as good as Casino Royale IMO, but miles better than Quantum and worlds better than anything Brosnan was in.

I'm curious, what makes Casino Royale better? I liked it, but it had an awful villain and it spent a lot of time on a card game that the normal viewer doesn't even understand. It also didn't have any signature James Bond moments - liked it, but I liked it on the level of a Bourne movie, not a Bond movie.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I'm curious, what makes Casino Royale better? I liked it, but it had an awful villain and it spent a lot of time on a card game that the normal viewer doesn't even understand. It also didn't have any signature James Bond moments - liked it, but I liked it on the level of a Bourne movie, not a Bond movie.

I just liked it better. I liked the reboot of his character and thought the movie was a pulsing, smart spy thriller all the way through. And I thought the parkour chase, Bond in the casino, Bond being tortured and begging for more and an entire building sinking in Venice were all signature James Bond moments for a new generation.

Really, it all boils down to how slow I thought Skyfall was after an awesome opening until Bond got to Shanghai. Once he got to the Casino in Shanghai, the movie took off, but there was a 15-20 minute period where I was just kinda bored. Bardem was great tho. No doubt about that.

all that being said, it still irks me a little bit that Bond through the eye doesn't come right at the beginning of these movies and is saved for the end.

 

[FArting]

Saw it over Thanksgiving weekend

Didn't think it was that good.

 

[Shane]

I just liked it better. I liked the reboot of his character and thought the movie was a pulsing, smart spy thriller all the way through. And I thought the parkour chase, Bond in the casino, Bond being tortured and begging for more and an entire building sinking in Venice were all signature James Bond moments for a new generation.

Really, it all boils down to how slow I thought Skyfall was after an awesome opening until Bond got to Shanghai. Once he got to the Casino in Shanghai, the movie took off, but there was a 15-20 minute period where I was just kinda bored. Bardem was great tho. No doubt about that.

all that being said, it still irks me a little bit that Bond through the eye doesn't come right at the beginning of these movies and is saved for the end.

Totally concur that Casino Royale was better!

 

[Chaplin]

I just liked it better. I liked the reboot of his character and thought the movie was a pulsing, smart spy thriller all the way through. And I thought the parkour chase, Bond in the casino, Bond being tortured and begging for more and an entire building sinking in Venice were all signature James Bond moments for a new generation.

Really, it all boils down to how slow I thought Skyfall was after an awesome opening until Bond got to Shanghai. Once he got to the Casino in Shanghai, the movie took off, but there was a 15-20 minute period where I was just kinda bored. Bardem was great tho. No doubt about that.

all that being said, it still irks me a little bit that Bond through the eye doesn't come right at the beginning of these movies and is saved for the end.

I thought Casino Royale was a good movie and a decent introduction to Daniel Craig as the character, but as a signature Bond movie? Didn't see that except for the over-reliance on the card game. I don't think the Bond torture scene was signature Bond at all--not sure where you form that opinion from. Perhaps from the books? There were some cool set pieces, no doubt, but those same set pieces could have been dropped into any generic spy thriller or Bourne movie and you would still have the same reaction--without the name James Bond entering the conversation.

Skyfall, however, has a lot of signature Bond moments and aspects that harken back to the series before Casino Royale, and in fact, before License to Kill for that matter.

Again, don't mistake me for not liking Casino Royale--it just wasn't a "Bond movie" in the true definition of the word. Just my opinion of course.

 

[Stout]

I thought Casino Royale was a good movie and a decent introduction to Daniel Craig as the character, but as a signature Bond movie? Didn't see that except for the over-reliance on the card game. I don't think the Bond torture scene was signature Bond at all--not sure where you form that opinion from. Perhaps from the books? There were some cool set pieces, no doubt, but those same set pieces could have been dropped into any generic spy thriller or Bourne movie and you would still have the same reaction--without the name James Bond entering the conversation.

Skyfall, however, has a lot of signature Bond moments and aspects that harken back to the series before Casino Royale, and in fact, before License to Kill for that matter.

Again, don't mistake me for not liking Casino Royale--it just wasn't a "Bond movie" in the true definition of the word. Just my opinion of course.

Casino Royale was DEFINITELY a "Bond movie" in the true definition of the word...because it faithfully mirrored the material it came from. If your definition of a Bond movie includes a ton of cheesy gadgets and goofball antics...well, I don't think you're advocating that, but that's part and parcel a Bond movie. The torture scene from that movie does indeed make it well and truly Bond, because it was lifted directly from the book. That's what I loved about Casino Royale. Bond wasn't some suave guy that always did everything perfectly and didn't have to do much to overcome adversity. He got the crap kicked out of him all the time, and didn't win all the time.

Anyway, sorry for making it sound like an attack, as that's not what I'm trying to do. I loved Casino Royale for making Bond like he was in the books. I think Skyfall is the best they've done, and they'll be hard put to top it.

 

[Chaplin]

Casino Royale was DEFINITELY a "Bond movie" in the true definition of the word...because it faithfully mirrored the material it came from. If your definition of a Bond movie includes a ton of cheesy gadgets and goofball antics...well, I don't think you're advocating that, but that's part and parcel a Bond movie. The torture scene from that movie does indeed make it well and truly Bond, because it was lifted directly from the book. That's what I loved about Casino Royale. Bond wasn't some suave guy that always did everything perfectly and didn't have to do much to overcome adversity. He got the crap kicked out of him all the time, and didn't win all the time.

Anyway, sorry for making it sound like an attack, as that's not what I'm trying to do. I loved Casino Royale for making Bond like he was in the books. I think Skyfall is the best they've done, and they'll be hard put to top it.

Ok, I'll give you that, but Skyfall is EASILY the closest to the classic "Bond movie" that Craig has done. My question is why is Skyfall the best if it adheres more to the movies before it than the books (assuming you prefer and appreciate Casino Royale for it's relationship to the books)?

I did like in Skyfall that Bond was not "match fit" throughout the movie--it made him more human and that certainly isn't a "Bond movie" staple. So I did like that tact.

But again, if Casino Royale was good because it stuck with the books, it tells me that there is little originality in spy thrillers because either the books copied or have become cliches in the genre, or the countless spy movies (like Bourne) that come out owe more to Ian Fleming than people realize. I would guess the latter.

However, the Bond MOVIES have a uniqueness to them--and maybe that is unrealistic in the scheme of things, but it's also part of their charm. I love From Russia with Love for that very reason.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I thought Casino Royale was a good movie and a decent introduction to Daniel Craig as the character, but as a signature Bond movie? Didn't see that except for the over-reliance on the card game. I don't think the Bond torture scene was signature Bond at all--not sure where you form that opinion from. Perhaps from the books? There were some cool set pieces, no doubt, but those same set pieces could have been dropped into any generic spy thriller or Bourne movie and you would still have the same reaction--without the name James Bond entering the conversation.

LOL... you're making it seem like I'm completely out of the norm praising Royale as a classic Bond movie... when it was THE movie that completely revitalized the franchise, is looked upon universally as one of the best in the series and adheres closely to the sources material.

Skyfall, however, has a lot of signature Bond moments and aspects that harken back to the series before Casino Royale, and in fact, before License to Kill for that matter.

I never said it didn't.

Again, don't mistake me for not liking Casino Royale--it just wasn't a "Bond movie" in the true definition of the word. Just my opinion of course.

it's definitely your opinion... just one that I don't think is shared by many people, me, obviously being one of them.

I just think it's weird to compare Casino Royale, a deeply personal story of how James Bond became James Bond to a generic action movie... or a Bourne movie. Quantum of Silence I'd completely understand you saying that, but not Royale.

 

[Stout]

Ok, I'll give you that, but Skyfall is EASILY the closest to the classic "Bond movie" that Craig has done. My question is why is Skyfall the best if it adheres more to the movies before it than the books (assuming you prefer and appreciate Casino Royale for it's relationship to the books)?

I did like in Skyfall that Bond was not "match fit" throughout the movie--it made him more human and that certainly isn't a "Bond movie" staple. So I did like that tact.

But again, if Casino Royale was good because it stuck with the books, it tells me that there is little originality in spy thrillers because either the books copied or have become cliches in the genre, or the countless spy movies (like Bourne) that come out owe more to Ian Fleming than people realize. I would guess the latter.

However, the Bond MOVIES have a uniqueness to them--and maybe that is unrealistic in the scheme of things, but it's also part of their charm. I love From Russia with Love for that very reason.

You answer your question in the 2nd paragraph. It isn't that Bond isn't match fit in all the books--sometimes he is--but he gets the crap kicked out of him, mentally, physically, and emotionally. I loved that aspect of Skyfall, and felt it nailed the spirit of the books. I should say that Craig's Casino Royale was the best Bond movie by the books, because Skyfall isn't a book movie. Still, I loved Skyfall the best.

I do think spy movies owe more to Fleming than most would care to admit, yes.

 

[Chaplin]

LOL... you're making it seem like I'm completely out of the norm praising Royale as a classic Bond movie... when it was THE movie that completely revitalized the franchise, is looked upon universally as one of the best in the series and adheres closely to the sources material.

Hmm, I thought we were simply disagreeing.

it's definitely your opinion... just one that I don't think is shared by many people, me, obviously being one of them.

Obviously we disagree, but I'm not so sure about your "shared by many people" justification. I talk to the same amount of people you do, I'd guess. And they also like Royale, but not enough to create a conflict on this issue. Most are noncommittal on the subject.

I just think it's weird to compare Casino Royale, a deeply personal story of how James Bond became James Bond to a generic action movie... or a Bourne movie. Quantum of Silence I'd completely understand you saying that, but not Royale.

Again, it's simply an opinion. I'm just trying to understand yours, not denigrate it. And I would not call Royale a "generic" action movie. There are good ones and bad ones, some REALLY bad. Royale is a good one, just not what I'd call a signature Bond movie in the history of the franchise.

 

[Chaplin]

You answer your question in the 2nd paragraph. It isn't that Bond isn't match fit in all the books--sometimes he is--but he gets the crap kicked out of him, mentally, physically, and emotionally. I loved that aspect of Skyfall, and felt it nailed the spirit of the books. I should say that Craig's Casino Royale was the best Bond movie by the books, because Skyfall isn't a book movie. Still, I loved Skyfall the best.

I do think spy movies owe more to Fleming than most would care to admit, yes.

I definitely won't argue about Bond in the books, but from what I'm reading and what I've understood over the years, the Bond in the movies isn't the Bond in the books. And that's the real quandry there. Connery Bond isn't Craig Bond, even though in Royale, Craig Bond was the book Bond. Skyfall, to me, then, shows a Bond that is halfway between the books and the movies. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Mulli]

Youz guys have any spy book recommendations?

Sorry for hijack havent seen this yet.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Hmm, I thought we were simply disagreeing.



Obviously we disagree, but I'm not so sure about your "shared by many people" justification. I talk to the same amount of people you do, I'd guess. And they also like Royale, but not enough to create a conflict on this issue. Most are noncommittal on the subject.



Again, it's simply an opinion. I'm just trying to understand yours, not denigrate it. And I would not call Royale a "generic" action movie. There are good ones and bad ones, some REALLY bad. Royale is a good one, just not what I'd call a signature Bond movie in the history of the franchise.

okay.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Youz guys have any spy book recommendations?

Sorry for hijack havent seen this yet.

I'm not sure if you're serious here but if you are, just identify my avatar. Best action/spy series ever IMO although it would probably bore a lot of today's readers. I'm also very fond of Vince Flynn's Mitch Rapp series.

Steve

 

[Mulli]

I'm not sure if you're serious here but if you are, just identify my avatar. Best action/spy series ever IMO although it would probably bore a lot of today's readers. I'm also very fond of Vince Flynn's Mitch Rapp series.

Steve

I was serious.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I was serious.

That's too bad because I was only half serious. My avatar is the spy in a series that is probably more aptly referred to as men's action. It's a cold war series that, like Bond, was made into a series of movies. Unfortunately, the filmmaker decided to spoof the espionage genre instead of adapting Donald Hamilton's books. The actual series is long out of print but I remember reading last year that someone was going to start re-issuing the Matt Helm books in 2013. Anyway, Vince Flynn is probably a better recommendation.

Steve

 

[Mulli]

That's too bad because I was only half serious. My avatar is the spy in a series that is probably more aptly referred to as men's action. It's a cold war series that, like Bond, was made into a series of movies. Unfortunately, the filmmaker decided to spoof the espionage genre instead of adapting Donald Hamilton's books. The actual series is long out of print but I remember reading last year that someone was going to start re-issuing the Matt Helm books in 2013. Anyway, Vince Flynn is probably a better recommendation.

Steve

thx

 

[Chaplin]

Of course, you could read the James Bond or Jason Bourne books.

 

[Mulli]

Of course, you could read the James Bond or Jason Bourne books.

that counts as a recommendation. Thanks!

 

[AzStevenCal]

Of course, you could read the James Bond or Jason Bourne books.

that counts as a recommendation. Thanks!

Speaking of the Bourne books, have you read any Robert Ludlum? I think more than recommending the Jason Bourne titles I'd just recommend the author in general. Most of Ludlum's titles are formulaic but they are still very entertaining. The Bourne Identity is actually one of his later books (well, maybe middle of his career) and I mostly prefer his earlier stuff but it's all pretty good.

BTW, you didn't comment on the Vince Flynn recommendation - have you tried any of his books? Also, I've always thoughy Ian Fleming's books were a bit overrated - I'd take Matt Helm over him any day of the week.

Steve

 

[Mulli]

Speaking of the Bourne books, have you read any Robert Ludlum? I think more than recommending the Jason Bourne titles I'd just recommend the author in general. Most of Ludlum's titles are formulaic but they are still very entertaining. The Bourne Identity is actually one of his later books (well, maybe middle of his career) and I mostly prefer his earlier stuff but it's all pretty good.

BTW, you didn't comment on the Vince Flynn recommendation - have you tried any of his books? Also, I've always thoughy Ian Fleming's books were a bit overrated - I'd take Matt Helm over him any day of the week.

Steve

No comment on Vince Flynn. Picked one up at an airport once. Pass.

 

[Chaplin]

Even though he isn't the greatest writer, I like Steve Berry--he specializes more in DaVinci Code type stuff--he's got a horribly named character named Cotton Malone and most of the espionage revolves around some historical artifact or event. Mindless fun, but fun nonetheless.

 

[AzStevenCal]

No comment on Vince Flynn. Picked one up at an airport once. Pass.

From what little I know of your movie tastes I wouldn't expect you to like Vince Flynn but I thought I would ask anyway. If you want to go a different direction than the Mitch Rapp/Bourne type stuff then I'd recommend John Le Carre, Len Deighton, Ken Follett and Frederick Forsyth. One of my favorites is The Day of the Jackal, it's excellent and should hold up well today. I'm not as fond of Jack Higgins (one of the many names Harry Patterson wrote under) as a lot of people are but he wrote several thrillers, many of them of the spy type.

Steve

 

[Mulli]

From what little I know of your movie tastes I wouldn't expect you to like Vince Flynn but I thought I would ask anyway. If you want to go a different direction than the Mitch Rapp/Bourne type stuff then I'd recommend John Le Carre, Len Deighton, Ken Follett and Frederick Forsyth. One of my favorites is The Day of the Jackal it and should hold up well today. I'm not as fond of Jack Higgins (one of the many names Harry Patterson wrote under) as a lot of people are but he wrote several thrillers, many of them of the spy type.

Steve

Thanks!