http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1074638/
November 9th, 2012.
YES.
Printable View
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1074638/
November 9th, 2012.
YES.
I didnt like QoS quite as much as Casino Royale, but im a sucker for bond and this cant wait for this.
What can wait for this?
He was pointing at his wiener.
Love that scene where he jumps on the train and straightens his tie. Love it.
Trailer is already a hundred times better than Quantum of Solace.
I can't wait for this, it looks awesome! Train jump is total bad ass.
Theme, by Adele.
Why do Bond's adversaries always have to look like faggots?
Chigurh is a bad ass looking dude. Why tart him up like that?
I diggs it. I diggs it all babay!
Some press screenings went down on Friday and the first reviews say it's one of the best movies in the series history. So stoked.
I'm hearing the same thing. I am so down.
Just saw this. It was fucking awesome.
Really good. It didn't have as much action as the other Bond's in this series, but that's ok. The story was generally quite good. I wish the bad guy took his mouth out at the end when he asked M to kill them both.
And OMG Bond may be bi!
Daniel Craig is my favorite bond so far I'm pretty stoked about this.
Craig knocks it out of the park in this one. You'll love it, trust me.
Haha, that would be interesting, but I think that was just him being a really good agent and dealing with that situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
Maybe! It was a freaky scene regardless, but it's amusing how it plays depending on where you watch it. My gf saw the IMAX showing in Manhattan during the week and she said the crowd popped big when Bond delivered the "what makes you think it would be my first time" line, but when she and I watched it last night in a suburban Long Island theater, the crowd seemed more...creeped out, I think. Guess they're more open-minded in the city. :)
People popped for the comeback (and the resurrection one) in my viewing. I agree — Daniel Craig's Bond has been stellar. I will say that I think he kind of lucked out and inherited Bond at a time when people were sick of the goofy dumb shit that had been going on for the movies prior. A lot of the stuff that makes these movies interesting is simply because it's such a great departure from the old Bonds (though they linked the franchise REALLY nicely in this movie — "I got in to some deep water").
Regardless, I think Craig is the best Bond. Dry, charming, strong and savvy.
The Pierce Brosnan era almost killed Bond for me. It was marked by forced adherence to every single tired Bond cliche ever...every film had to shovel in the stupid puns, the progressively sillier and sillier gadgets, the instant sexual conquests, the retardedly insane videogame stunts, the maniac-of-the-week determined to rule the world, the catchphrases...and, among it all, Bond himself never felt like an actual human being- just cold collection of established traits and mannerisms. He wasn't a character. Daniel Craig is, however, and as a result, he's a million times more engaging.
I haven't seen them all, but I really don't care for any of the Bond flicks except for Craig's Casino Royale. I really want to see Skyfall.
This was a great movie. It was great in the sense that you just don't see anymore in big-budget pictures. It was filled with great performances and exciting stunts. Just a fun picture all around.
Craig's first Bond picture, Casino Royale, was great but it was more of an "anti-Bond" picture. It was ostentatiously opposed to every Bond convention. Craig was fantastic, and I think Eva Green is the hottest Bond girl ever. But it was also very dark and brooding, and not all that action-filled. It's all about a Texas hold 'em card game tournament in Montenegro, for chrissakes. And it also suffers from origin story syndrome.
Quantum of Solace was interesting in that it continued the story of the previous picture, but that's really all I remember about it. Apparently they never really had a finished script when they shot it, according to the Rolling Stone article/interview with Craig that came out last month.
Skyfall mixes the gritty, interesting Bond persona from Casino Royale while smartly reintroducing all the fun elements from the classic Connery pictures. They even find a clever way to introduce an Aston Martin with ejector seats and machine guns.
Let me also say that I enjoy everything that Naomie Harris does. I've been a fan ever since 28 Days Later, and she was probably the best part of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. She was fantastic in this. I also love Albert Finney. I waited and waited for him to show up when I saw him in the opening credits, and when he finally appeared I was not disappointed.
Oh, shit, that was the chick from 28 Days Later? I didn't realize it was her.
As far as the Pierce Brosnon era goes, I think GoldenEye is a great Bond movie. It was what, 6 years or so after Timothy Dalton did License to Kill. He was dormant for awhile, I think that movie did a lot right. I liked his Bond, the writing just got out of control with each movie after that. The cars were nothing really that special, the villains dull and uninteresting, the Bond girls average at best. There were a lot of action movies outclassing what the Bond franchise was doing after Goldeneye.
That's probably why I'm not crazy about Bond, I started watching on the Pierce Brosnan movies, and most of them were kind of lame.
The best Bond since Connery got the worst films.
(but Roger Moore is the Bond i grew up with so he is my favorite, though i can acknowledge that he isnt the best)
I like Roger Moore a lot too. I should be seeing this on Saturday, I can't wait.
Denise Richards was awesome as Christmas Jones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpy
I thought christmas only came once a year.
According to Bond, Christmas came three times in one night.
blvQuote:
Originally Posted by sleeve
Oh, she's right up there, that's for sure. Possibly my favorite as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeve
Another favorite is Britt Ekland in The Man with the Golden Gun:
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...1&d=1352948485
My personal fav was:
Attachment 67629
Sophie Marceau
I like Rosamund Pike, myself.
Attachment 67630
Attachment 67633
See also: Lana Wood, Diamonds are Forever.
Attachment 67631
Attachment 67632
High quality bitches, one and all.
Dude, whoever was the director of photography of this thing did an absolutly killer job despite the teal and orange creeping in. The opening chase, Chinese neon city, and final showdown especially. The neon city might be the best looking thing I've seen in decades.
Just wondering, did anybody else get the idea that this movie was strongly implying that the fan theory of each Bond actor actually being a different person in universe is correct?
No.
I dunno. It went out of it's way to show that Q, M, and Moneypenny were all different people in universe. It really pushed a theme of aging and the changing of the guard. It stopped just short of actually saying that James Bond is a code name passed down like the other 3 people. But why would it be so explicit about the other 3 people if it wasn't also trying to say something about Bond?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
Cheebs, stop trying to get us to read your Connery/Craig/Honor Blackman three-way slash fiction.
Just saw it, and he's not wrong. Since Casino Royale was a completely new timeline, and Quantum of Solace continued that one, this movie was fucking confusing in that one regard.
Otherwise the movie was damned good.
Loved it! What a great flick! Start to finish I loved it. So well made, this movie sounds and looks amazing. The best Bond villain in I don't even know how long. A personal vendetta, a true lunatic that pushed everyone to the limit. Javier rules! He's such a good actor. So many cool moments, brilliant miniature special effects! The interrogation scene with Bond and Silva got a WTF and a laugh from the audience and the DB5 got a huge pop when it was revealed. I loved all the nods to the franchise past.
I was surprised by the lack of gadgets and maybe one more action scene would have been welcome...maybe make the casino fight a little longer.
I don't put much credit into what Cheebs is thinking. These movies really don't have any continuity, main characters get replaced.
http://vimeo.com/53618018
Brilliant opening and title scroll.
Saw this on Friday, it's pretty awesome. Cinematography was indeed stellar (Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol was also great in this regard I thought), as was Javier Bardem.
I feel the same way. Same character, different actor. The occasional reference to past stuff is just a wink to the audience, nothing more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpy
The way Cheebs is talking, they could do a "Five Doctors" type movie.
It's all the same franchise universe, not dimensions and shit. That's just reaching for something that isn't there. It's just keeping the same name of characters around through generations of actors. Money Penny wasn't even in the last 2 movies.
lol noob.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpy
I saw this for a second time with my girlfriend. Still holds up, but I think the whole cyber terrorism angle was a bit of a cheap way out. The point and click crime scheme that has plagued both TV and movies in general is silly (live free or die hard did it too).
Regardless the acts of espionage weren't played up as much so it didn't ruin much if anything. Just seemed alittle cheap in a movie that got so much else right.
Yeah. My favorite was Mie Hama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
WTF is cheebs talking about?
Anyways I thought the movie was just ok. I know I'm a minority voice here. I was expecting something great from all the hype and didn't get that. I still enjoyed it though.
I'm probably even in a smaller minority. The new Bonds just do not do it for me. I really did not care for the last 2, and I tried to go into this one not looking at it as a Bond film but a whole new series, but it didn't really work. No doubt the action and visuals are incredible, but it is just not Bond to me. I hold the older Bond films sacred and I would just rather go back and watch them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
It's the "back in my day" syndrome. There are quite a few good old Bond movies but more of them than not are utter shit. This new rebirth is more consistently good than the others.
The action scene with the sniper in Shanghai in Skyfall was one of the most stylish fights of the series IMO.
I agree with you about the nostalgia. I know that the new films are very well done. I am just incapable of viewing them as Bond. I also think it is impossible to bring back that old style of Bond these days. I loved GoldenEye, but after that the movies just were not very good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
I think I get that. I just don't necessarily agree. There was only one thing that bothered me about this movie and that was the cyber attack magic that seemed too easy for its own good. In Mission Impossible you have spies readjusting satellites and climbing through vents to get in to mainframes, etc. In Bond it's an off-screen button push. I realize that this movie was more about Bond, personally, than a grand international opera, but some technical specificity would have been nice.
Small gripe.
By "in universe," do you mean "in the same universe?" If so, absolutely. I'm surprised to see that there are people who think otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
Yeah. The unseen "trail of breadcrumbs" with which Q was asked to draw Anton Chigurh to Skyfall was pretty egregious. A major, presumably interesting plot point was glossed over, kind of like the haphazard treatment of Dent and Rachel's abductions in The Dark Knight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
You can't just make huge leaps in narrative like that and expect audience credulity. It would be like showing Luke lying on Hoth's crust listening to Obi Wan about "the... Dagobah system," then screen wipe to him in a Celtics jersey drilling a telekinetic three pointer in an empty gym, willing the ball back into his hands, and Han yelling from the bleachers, "You're tellin' me you learned how to do all this in a swamp from something called Yo Dah?"
He plugged in a super computer evil geniuses laptop into his network. Really?
Yeah, uh... yeah. Hey, good flick other than that stuff, though!
I liked the movie, but agree the series has only superficial details in common with classic Bond. The pacing and structure of the movies are completely different. Like remember when there was a certain mystery to Bond, and he had to figure out what the villain was up to. In these movies there's just some random shit that happens until the villain finally confronts Bond, and just spills what he's up to. Not much hard thinking needed for Bond lately. He's traded that for freerunning.
You really going to hold that up to all the times when the villains make a super elaborate device that gives him plenty of time to escape? They're all silly movies.
They're all silly. Every action movie is, but Bond used to have a way about being silly. The new Bonds seem even sillier to me because they try to play part of it off as realistic, and then have Craig freerunning all over the place or villains secretly chatting during an opera. Instead of giving Bond the chance to escape, they kill him and he comes back to life anyway. He gets three lives in Casino Royale alone. I thought you only lived twice?
Unless you choose instead to die another day.
I have seen casino and this, I thought they were both, ok.
I haven't seen too much of the classic bond, was he more of a spy and less of an action hero?
Hey Rich, do you prefer women to cocks in your ass?
no
FixedQuote:
Originally Posted by Rich
He was less of an action hero in the technical sense, with there being less action scenes. Not sure I'd say he was any more of a spy.
There was at least a semblance of spying in the old movies. Though that's been gone since Goldeneye.
Tomorrow is never enough for The Spy who loved you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
I mean, I figure in the past he had to figure out the villian's plan, as opposed to now...Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronChance
That might just be wishful thinking on my part.
I don't recall it taking up more time than reading your post out loud, in that there was a declaration of, "Boy, we sure do need to figure out what's going on," and that was pretty much it until the villain did their explanation monologue. But it's also been a long time since I've seen any of the really old Bond movies and the only thing I remember clearly was being bored a lot, so I could be way off.
The bad guy in any of the classic Bond flicks was usually revealed within the first 30 seconds or so of the movie, usually during M's initial briefing ("We know he's behind it, Bond, but we can't prove anything. We need you to go in and blah blah").
Usually the villain was known and that they were behind something, but it was up to Bond to infiltrate the villains organization to find out what it was and prove they were behind it. The villain would catch on that Bond was a spy and the end would have a climactic battle sequence. the first Austin Powers movie does a pretty good job of portraying the earlier Bond flicks, yet with a bit more intentional humor, but it was of course a satire on Bond.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
If you haven't watched any or much of the earlier Bond films, some of my personal favorites are You Only Live Twice, The Man with the Golden Gun, Live and Let Die, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, For Your Eyes Only, The Spy Who Loved Me, and Moonraker.
Moonraker?!?! You mention Moonraker and not Goldfinger?
Well I didn't just want to list every single Bond film up until Dalton. Funny that you mention Goldfinger. Don't know if you remember Goldfinger's little operations room (all stone and wood), but I have this memory as a child being in some place very similar (no idea where or when it was or if it actually happened) and pretending I was Bond. I think it was at some local animal conservatory that had this really nice cabin as it's information/ranger station.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpy
Did someone aim a laser at your cock like in Goldfinger?
Now that you mention it, I do remember some kind of bright light/laser, but then it goes all fuzzy. Next thing I remember is a petting zoo with a bunch of hay bails and pumpkins.
I've just never seen anyone recommend Moonraker before. That movie stinks.
But... Jaws finds true love!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpy
Goldfinger has the best villain telling Bond what his plan is moment, and he even has an actual excuse for keeping Bond alive. I still like Dr. No for how cold blooded the whole movie is, and have this odd soft spot for Moonraker.
Just got out of the theater, this was fantastic!
It was, wasn't it?
It was the best Bond film in a long time.
This movie took itself waaaay too seriously. Lets see if we got all the neu-Bond tropes:
A) The World Is Different, what's a super agent to do?
B) I'm old, waaah
C) Being a super agent is Serious Business
D) No, really. Serious. Business.
Bardem reminded me of Christopher Walken's Zorin w/that blonde hair and backstory (super agent gets revenge on his puppet masters).
Scotland is cool.
Daniel Craig looks great in a suit.
I liked this movie in the theater, but watching it again I find myself skipping over large swathes of it. The whole Shanghai section is super boring and way too long.
I tried giving this a chance, but I just found it so incredibly boring. Cinematography is great, but it was dull and not very fun to watch for me. I just think it is sad that some people consider these past few Bond films the best in the series.
GoldenEye was way better. At least it had some humor in it and felt like an actual Bond film.Quote:
Originally Posted by Advocate
Go watch Dr. No and tell me which movie is closer to it in style and mood, Goldeneye or Skyfall.
I like Goldeneye a lot, but I think there is a frame of reference bias. It was the first Bond movie that came out when I was old enough to care about this stuff. Plus Famke Janssen and Izabella Scorupco.
The Craig movies are really cool. They look great, action scenes are tight and lean, no bullshit like the later Pierce movies, etc. they portray just a bit of the "human side" of Bond without turning it schlocky.
Watched this again tonight, still loved it. It's really well paced, each segment keeps things moving and it's always gorgeous to look at even when there is no action (still think the Macau casino fight is under cooked, could have been longer and more involved).
I cannot say this, or the other Craig films, are bad films, just that they are not for me. I truly try to go into them without bias or anything. I really wanted to like this latest movie. I just can't, and that is me. For me, it is not Bond. Nothing against these films, or those that like them, but despite my trying, I cannot enjoy them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Is this movie worth the watch?
I'd say it's a Rolex in a line up of Swatch.