boring.......


thats what I thought while watching this wreck.



 

Meh, that scene was one of the most interesting ones in the movie. I question the need to "go there" BUT: you have a villain who is seemingly a bit light in the loafers combined with one of the more James Bondian portrayals in the movie. Villain is attempting to fuck with protagonist, protagonist gets clever and throws a curve ball that the villain did not expect. It's a nice bit of acting, even if the scene was unnecessary to establish character identity. We already know the villain is probably gay, and Bond is (by definition of the James Bond character) the most amusingly chauvinistic embodiment of manliness since time began.

No, I think that is the point. The book portrayal of Bond is different from the film version. In the books he may be human, but in the movies he damn well isn't. To quote Trainspotting:



From the beginning, across actors Bond has been a nearly superhuman character. While I do appreciate the notion of going a different direction, taking a risk, and changing his character... that's like digitally making Gredo shoot, then making some mythos about "Han shot first." You don't fuck with canon.

Not surprised considering how bad Quantum of Solace sucked.

And gold plated too.

But I don't wanna be a pirate!

Much more entertaining...

Plus "President Palin" too!

Fixxed it for you...

Cyril can give you about 12 reasons why

I thought it was crap and one of the most boring movies I've seen in a while.

Bad plot, terrible Q actor, forgettable main villain, and ridiculous action scenes

I liked it....

The cinematography was hands-down the best ever in a Bond film, and entirely deserving of an Oscar.  I'm just disappointed that the plot failed to quite live up to the perfection of Casino Royale.  There were plenty of almost-perfect moments, but none that truly caught hold in the way that CR did.  Rather than an entire film dedicated to the Bond/Vesper story, and where that would lead to, Skyfall focused on M and MI6.  Interesting, and enjoyable, but since it wasn't ever about Bond in the first place, it's impossible for his character to truly shine through, imperfection and all.

I can only barely recall what the book Bond was - but in the back of my mind, the agents were chosen BECAUSE they had issues.  They tended to be orphans, so they would be completely loyal to state.  Likewise I think they were intended to be somewhat emotionally crippled.



My main problem with the movie is they blew up his car.

I'll agree.

He is still the best Bond though.

Sam Mendes fucked that movie all to hell. He made a fuckin Moore Bond film and that doesn't fit with the hard reboot of Craig's movies. Skyfall was terrible in just about every way. I'll never understand why this one is the most financially successful Bond film and the first to pass the billion $ mark.

I thought it was good.

Um...Inflation

I did, too.

I thought Javier Bardem was fantastic, as usual.

Got it at redbox yesterday.  

The gay stuff was crap and the villain was just dumb no matter who they had doing the acting.  It was too long and Bond didn't get enough poon.  The end was a snooze.

Wish I had my $1.30 back TBH.

It sucked.

Even besides inflation this one has the most ticket sales by leaps and bounds

The franchise pretty much had to once the Bourne series completely changed the spy thriller genre.

Very boring movie.

I agree with you OP, the movie sucked ass.

Pro:
* Good villain.  Sure, the double agent thing has been done before, but it was actually alright.  Right up to the climax, you felt like the villain was in control, exploiting the weaknesses of an organization that he knew literally from the inside.  Moreover, he actually used that knowledge and power to attack the organization.  No idle threats - he simply blew the fucking HQ up.  He shot the girl.  He was an evil sonuvabitch, and he didn't hold back.
* Good fight scenes.  Bond is supposed to use the environment and such, and the "casino" scene was double extra excellent.
* Good production value and awesome guns/cars/gadgets/wardrobe.
* Prologue to the future movies = awesome.

Con:
* The ending was 100% lamegay.  I get that the guy had a deathwish - I can get behind that.  What I don't understand is that he walked right into a trap (not that it was much of one) and didn't use superior firepower to his advantage.  I completely buy that he didn't give a shit about his mercenaries, and would let them get slaughtered for the lulz, but what doesn't make sense is that he would do it without a clear purpose.  Everything else he did was precisely planned out, so why get so close to what you want, and then just fly by the seat of your pants?
* Believability of Bond's last stand wasn't there.  Shotgun shell traps?  Limey, please.  Bond can do better than that.  Would have been better if the "arms room" was there, and it was a ton of WW2 ordnance and such.  That would have been believable, and cool.  Shotgun shell traps is just fucking retarded.  To be fair, the double rifle was beyond badass, but other than that...

But you fix those two things, and you've got a B, maybe B+ movie.  As it stands...  eh, C-.

I got it on bluray from redbox last night

it was okay

I noticed a few flaws in the plot, but didn't let it get to me.

I liked some of the old-school bond that was incorporated into it.

would have been epic to have Sean Connery do a cameo as the house keeper