Skyfall (Bond 23)

[AzStevenCal]

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.

Somebody recommended Berry to me a few years ago so I read one of his, The Amber Room. I was intrigued by the idea but bored silly by his delivery. It's one of the few books that I made it halfway through and still failed to finish. I didn't care for his characters either especially his stereotypically manipulative female characters. I don't think it's fair to judge an author by half a book so I'm willing to give him another chance but I'm not particularly hopeful.

Steve

 

[Chaplin]

Here is a list of his novels in this series:

Cotton Malone Novels
The Templar Legacy
The Alexandria Link
The Venetian Betrayal
The Charlemagne Pursuit
The Paris Vendetta
The Emperor's Tomb
The Jefferson Key
The King's Deception

The Amber Room is a standalone, and I don't think I've read it (I'm not a big spy thriller reader and some of his stuff blends together). I do remember thinking the Templar Legacy wasn't bad.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

"Malone. Cotton Malone."

 

[Covert Rain]

I had forgot to comment on this but I finally got to see it over by X-Mas vacation. I have to say I was a tad disappointed. It was a very good movie but the way people were hyping it as "the best Bond film ever"....I just didn't see it. I bought into the hype I guess.

I thought the movie pacing was really slow at times (especially the start). Also, though I feel for example the newer Bonds got to reliant on gadgets.....just the transmitter? Really? I understand trying to tone it down but come on.

Here is the difference for me. I felt there were strategic elements in the movie (like the car) and some of the country scenes that were put in the movie to give you that nostalgic feel of Bond from the past. But those moments were fleeting for me and not the overall tone of the movie. The overall tone of the film felt less Bond and more like a typical spy movie for me. Something was missing for me and I don't know how to put my finger on it. Like I said this was a very good film but you could have named the guy Spy X and it still would have been a good film to me. This felt like a good spy film that just happened to have James Bond in it.

I have to agree with others Casino Royale felt much more like a Bond film to me in terms of overall "Bond" tone. Again, very good movie and worthy addition to the James Bond list of good films. Just not as good as advertised and definitely not "the best".

 

[Stout]

I had forgot to comment on this but I finally got to see it over by X-Mas vacation. I have to say I was a tad disappointed. It was a very good movie but the way people were hyping it as "the best Bond film ever"....I just didn't see it. I bought into the hype I guess.

I thought the movie pacing was really slow at times (especially the start). Also, though I feel for example the newer Bonds got to reliant on gadgets.....just the transmitter? Really? I understand trying to tone it down but come on.

Here is the difference for me. I felt there were strategic elements in the movie (like the car) and some of the country scenes that were put in the movie to give you that nostalgic feel of Bond from the past. But those moments were fleeting for me and not the overall tone of the movie. The overall tone of the film felt less Bond and more like a typical spy movie for me. Something was missing for me and I don't know how to put my finger on it. Like I said this was a very good film but you could have named the guy Spy X and it still would have been a good film to me. This felt like a good spy film that just happened to have James Bond in it.

I have to agree with others Casino Royale felt much more like a Bond film to me in terms of overall "Bond" tone. Again, very good movie and worthy addition to the James Bond list of good films. Just not as good as advertised and definitely not "the best".

See, you judge Bond movies by the old movies. I judge Bond movies by Ian Fleming's work. I can understand why it didn't feel as Bond to you, but to me, it felt more Bond.

 

[Covert Rain]

See, you judge Bond movies by the old movies. I judge Bond movies by Ian Fleming's work. I can understand why it didn't feel as Bond to you, but to me, it felt more Bond.

I see your point but I often don't feel the tones of books are the same as their movie counterparts and don't expect them too be exactly the same in tone. Especially, when you have different directors for each story.

When I judge the films in a series, I judge them based on that medium. It doesn't make much sense to me to judge a film based on the book material unless that is the topic at hand. It's a different judgement to me but like I said I get what your trying to say.

 

[Passepartout]

The film became the first ever Bond film to reach $1B all over the world. In it's 50-year history! Skyfall was the best ever Bond film I have seen so far!

 

[Mulli]

Wife and I liked this movie a lot. Bardem was excellent.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I had forgot to comment on this but I finally got to see it over by X-Mas vacation. I have to say I was a tad disappointed. It was a very good movie but the way people were hyping it as "the best Bond film ever"....I just didn't see it. I bought into the hype I guess.

I thought the movie pacing was really slow at times (especially the start). Also, though I feel for example the newer Bonds got to reliant on gadgets.....just the transmitter? Really? I understand trying to tone it down but come on.

Here is the difference for me. I felt there were strategic elements in the movie (like the car) and some of the country scenes that were put in the movie to give you that nostalgic feel of Bond from the past. But those moments were fleeting for me and not the overall tone of the movie. The overall tone of the film felt less Bond and more like a typical spy movie for me. Something was missing for me and I don't know how to put my finger on it. Like I said this was a very good film but you could have named the guy Spy X and it still would have been a good film to me. This felt like a good spy film that just happened to have James Bond in it.

I have to agree with others Casino Royale felt much more like a Bond film to me in terms of overall "Bond" tone. Again, very good movie and worthy addition to the James Bond list of good films. Just not as good as advertised and definitely not "the best".

This is exactly, EXACTLY how I felt after watching this movie last week.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

This is exactly, EXACTLY how I felt after watching this movie last week.

Yeah I agree. Was decent and better than most but not Casino Royale.

 

[Mulli]

Yeah I agree. Was decent and better than most but not Casino Royale.

Disagree.

 

[RON_IN_OC]

Change the title and the names of the characters and this movie would have been better. It just wasn't a Bond film, to me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Stout]

Change the title and the names of the characters and this movie would have been better. It just wasn't a Bond film, to me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

The problem is, many people view 'Bond films' as gadget-heavy, easygoing James Bond. To me, it WAS James Bond because it perfectly encapsulated his character, that of the rough-and-tumble spy who gets his behind kicked but grits it out. I hate to make it a book vs movie debate, but Casino Royale and Skyfall really nailed them.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Disagree.

Well there were two parts to that opinion...

Better than most

and

Not as good as Casino Royale.

I assume the latter?

 

[Chaplin]

Interesting the love for Casino Royale, which I thought was a great Jason Bourne movie.

 

[Mulli]

Interesting the love for Casino Royale, which I thought was a great Jason Bourne movie.

I can't get past Bond surviving what happened to his family jewels.


And I am glad Skyfall just gave passing reference to the standard Bond sequences/phrases and went more behind the scenes, if you will.

 

[Stout]

Interesting the love for Casino Royale, which I thought was a great Jason Bourne movie.

Quintessential overlay of a book and a movie--perfectly done, IMO. It Bond from that exact book

I can't get past Bond surviving what happened to his family jewels.


And I am glad Skyfall just gave passing reference to the standard Bond sequences/phrases and went more behind the scenes, if you will.

Yeah, I was hoping they'd have that brutal torture scene in there--it was my barometer, going in, to see if the were willing to give the Bond stories the grit and realism (as far as it goes) they had in the books. They were.

 

[Chaplin]

Quintessential overlay of a book and a movie--perfectly done, IMO. It Bond from that exact book



Yeah, I was hoping they'd have that brutal torture scene in there--it was my barometer, going in, to see if the were willing to give the Bond stories the grit and realism (as far as it goes) they had in the books. They were.

Depends what you call a "Bond movie". Casino Royale was an adaptation of a Bond book, but wasn't a "Bond movie" because that term was completely invented by Dr. No. Bad or good, it's basically up to the viewer.

I did like Casino Royale as a spy movie, but it wasn't the Bond I was used to seeing. That can be a good or bad thing, depending on your point-of-view. What Skyfall did, IMO, is combine the grittiness of Casino Royale and the cheekiness of the "Bond movie" genre. And Sam Mendes did a terrific job with it. I'm fully expecting more of the same with the next one, but probably with more nods to the old style of the movie series while incorporating the grittiness of the books.

 

[Mulli]

Depends what you call a "Bond movie". Casino Royale was an adaptation of a Bond book, but wasn't a "Bond movie" because that term was completely invented by Dr. No. Bad or good, it's basically up to the viewer.

I did like Casino Royale as a spy movie, but it wasn't the Bond I was used to seeing. That can be a good or bad thing, depending on your point-of-view. What Skyfall did, IMO, is combine the grittiness of Casino Royale and the cheekiness of the "Bond movie" genre. And Sam Mendes did a terrific job with it. I'm fully expecting more of the same with the next one, but probably with more nods to the old style of the movie series while incorporating the grittiness of the books.

Woo hoo!

 

[Stout]

Well, as the books predate the supposed 'Bond' movies, I'll go with that definition

Yeah, it's all open to interpretation. I hold them separate. I enjoyed the Bond movies of yesteryear, because they were fun, overly cheesy, silly movies. I have a soft spot in my heart for those. I enjoy the modern Bond movies because they have captured the book (Casino Royale) and the spirit of the books (Skyfall). We'll just ignore Quantum of Solace

 

[cardncubfan]

This is exactly, EXACTLY how I felt after watching this movie last week.

Yeah I agree. Was decent and better than most but not Casino Royale.

I agree. Although I missed a lot of it due to the fact I was dozing off here & there.

 

[Bada0Bing]

Huh? He was easily one of the best Bond villains ever, certainly on par with Goldfinger and Blofeld.

Agree about Bardem, great villain. The guy from The Hour was a nice addition too.

I was glad to see them bounce back with a solid film after the last disappointment.

Finally done with the series. It only took 4 1/2 years. Some of the films in the 70's and 80's kinda run together, so I'll probably have to revisit these someday.



Bond ranking so far:
Goldfinger
Casino Royale
From Russia with Love
Thunderball
Dr. No
Skyfall
GoldenEye
Tomorrow Never Dies
The Living Daylights
For Your Eyes Only
The Spy Who Loved Me
Live and Let Die
On Her Majesty's Secret Service
The World Is Not Enough
A View to a Kill
Octopussy
Die Another Day
Licence to Kill
You Only Live Twice
Quantum of Solace
Diamonds Are Forever
The Man with the Golden Gun
Moonraker

 

[Covert Rain]

Depends what you call a "Bond movie". Casino Royale was an adaptation of a Bond book, but wasn't a "Bond movie" because that term was completely invented by Dr. No. Bad or good, it's basically up to the viewer.

I did like Casino Royale as a spy movie, but it wasn't the Bond I was used to seeing. That can be a good or bad thing, depending on your point-of-view. What Skyfall did, IMO, is combine the grittiness of Casino Royale and the cheekiness of the "Bond movie" genre. And Sam Mendes did a terrific job with it. I'm fully expecting more of the same with the next one, but probably with more nods to the old style of the movie series while incorporating the grittiness of the books.

Casino Royale felt more Bond to me than Skyfall and I thought it was a superior film. It's one of my favorites. Skyfall just felt to me like another spy film but not necessarily in the Bondverse. I liked the movie but it could have easily had a different back drop (not Bond) and been a good film. It was a good spy film that just happened to have a guy named James Bond in it.

It just didn't feel Bond to me which is the point of Bond films. The women, the locations, car chases, gadgets and crazy scenarios are what sets Bond apart. There is nothing wrong with grounding Bond a little bit more to make it realistic but don't dilute it so much that the character in the film could be called <fill in the blank>. The movie went to far in that regard.

 

[Chaplin]

Casino Royale felt more Bond to me than Skyfall and I thought it was a superior film. It's one of my favorites. Skyfall just felt to me like another spy film but not necessarily in the Bondverse. I liked the movie but it could have easily had a different back drop (not Bond) and been a good film. It was a good spy film that just happened to have a guy named James Bond in it.

It just didn't feel Bond to me which is the point of Bond films. The women, the locations, car chases, gadgets and crazy scenarios are what sets Bond apart. There is nothing wrong with grounding Bond a little bit more to make it realistic but don't dilute it so much that the character in the film could be called <fill in the blank>. The movie went to far in that regard.

Interesting you say that because IMO Casino Royale had NONE of that. Sure it had Eva Green, and Venice and Morocco, but that was it. No gadgets, no thrilling car chases. Hell, he was pretty much just playing cards for a significant amount of time and was brutally tortured -- again, not something we've ever seen in a "traditional" Bond movie.

Skyfall, however, had the new Q, gadgets, a beautiful woman, the underground headquarters, the traditional M, and Moneypenney (who herself wasn't ugly). Plus, it went to many different locations. It also had an over-the-top villain. How does that NOT fit your definition of a traditional Bond film?

 

[Shaggy]

Interesting you say that because IMO Casino Royale had NONE of that. Sure it had Eva Green, and Venice and Morocco, but that was it. No gadgets, no thrilling car chases. Hell, he was pretty much just playing cards for a significant amount of time and was brutally tortured -- again, not something we've ever seen in a "traditional" Bond movie.

Skyfall, however, had the new Q, gadgets, a beautiful woman, the underground headquarters, the traditional M, and Moneypenney (who herself wasn't ugly). Plus, it went to many different locations. It also had an over-the-top villain. How does that NOT fit your definition of a traditional Bond film?

I agree, CR was mostly in a casino but skyfall was action packed with gadgets, locations, and girls. It was a great bond movie.