There are larger, uncropped versions of this. Google reverse image search. When I get high res screen caps of the DB5 cruising through Scotland, my life will be complete.
StylinRed
11-12-2012 01:41 AM
well when the blu-ray comes out you can get stills :) and more promotional images will likely show up
strykn
11-12-2012 01:02 PM
movie was sick... needed more of that girl from macau
ursher
11-12-2012 01:32 PM
where can you watch this movie in vip??
G-spec
11-12-2012 02:36 PM
Saw it last night, the villain sucked so to me the ending was far from satisfying.
Also the idea of making Bond look "out of touch with the times" doing the whole new era of terrorism is hackers, etc....
Fckin lame, the whole premise of James Bond acharacter is that he's eternally cool no matter what the circumstances. Sam Mendes who directed it screwed this one up for me big time.
Casino Royale was twice the movie Skyfall is.. Posted via RS Mobile
Soundy
11-12-2012 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-spec
(Post 8079486)
Also the idea of making Bond look "out of touch with the times" doing the whole new era of terrorism is hackers, etc....
Fckin lame, the whole premise of James Bond acharacter is that he's eternally cool no matter what the circumstances.
Yeah, that's why in The World Is Not Enough, Judi Dench's M tells him, "...you're a sexist, misogynist dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War..."
G-spec
11-12-2012 03:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy
(Post 8079534)
Yeah, that's why in The World Is Not Enough, Judi Dench's M tells him, "...you're a sexist, misogynist dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War..."
I understand that point, but you're not understanding my point....
My point being is that James Bond is ALWAYS gonna be cool and good enough to get shit done, that's his whole shtick for frigs sake, nothing phases him he ALWAYS gets the job done...
So the idea of a bunch of nerd hackers overwhelming James Fuckin Bond, literally insults my intelligence. And that's what this movie tried to portray, it tried to take an element that's very current, the big thing last few years has been cyber terrorism, it tried to take that element and infuse it into the fabric of the movie.
For what reason exactly ? I mean this isn't Mission Impossible, this isn't Bourne Legacy the two series where they're constantly trying to stay super modern and "with the times"
That's not what the Bond movies are about, so to make it the main theme of the movie basically was a big mistake.
I'm curious to see what the critics are saying, especially in comparison with Casino Royale, will look into that later.
Soundy
11-12-2012 03:39 PM
Well excuse me for not getting your point, since I HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE YET. Thanks for the spoiler, though.
G-spec
11-12-2012 03:45 PM
I didn't spoil anything, YouTube trailer is more of a spoiler than anything I have written up there
Ronin
11-12-2012 04:02 PM
DAT SUIT.
ziggyx
11-12-2012 04:58 PM
Is this daniel craig's last bond movie?
haha13
11-12-2012 05:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggyx
(Post 8079607)
Is this daniel craig's last bond movie?
he signed for 2 more
kwy
11-12-2012 06:26 PM
He runs through like 10+ suits through filming. Those are ~5k Tom Ford tailored suits. Not as bad as the 5-6 Aston DBS' they've wrecked though.
Ronin
11-12-2012 06:32 PM
Cinematography was gorgeous in this movie. You could take stills from half of this film and frame it.
Sort of disappointed with the whole last act. Didn't feel particularly epic and didn't think the threat was severe enough...and plot holes...plot holes everywhere...but still had a great time watching it. And lots of great comedy, which I really liked about Bond but it was sort of missing in the first two Daniel Craig films. Daniel Craig is a great Bond too. He's the first one that's an actual badass rather than an actor playing a badass.
Tapioca
11-12-2012 06:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpartanAir
(Post 8079058)
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.
kwy
11-12-2012 06:53 PM
^Exactly. But I thought this movie blended both that central theme and traditional Bond elements together quite well.
Nabatron
11-12-2012 07:17 PM
comparing the movies to the last to bond movies skyfall for me was long and boring! New movies nowadays have to WOW me and this new one didn't!
Ronin
11-12-2012 07:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tapioca
(Post 8079714)
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.
Agreed. Could've used more scantily-clad women but there's no question that pre-Daniel Craig Bond wouldn't possibly exist in the modern world and that the villains aren't the same either. It's a Bond for the modern era, one where a remote controlled car with rockets in the headlights just isn't that impressive anymore.
I mean, anything we see these days, we know it's impossible and it's just done in After Effects by a film school nerd. They're giving us a decent plot and good actors in good performances to wow us rather than gimmicks. I like it.
Oleophobic
11-12-2012 08:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy
(Post 8079534)
Yeah, that's why in The World Is Not Enough, Judi Dench's M tells him, "...you're a sexist, misogynist dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War..."
That was in GoldenEye :p
Lomac
11-12-2012 08:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
(Post 8079792)
I mean, anything we see these days, we know it's impossible and it's just done in After Effects by a film school nerd. They're giving us a decent plot and good actors in good performances to wow us rather than gimmicks. I like it.
Sad to say, but while I loved this movie, some of the effects actually looked like they were done in AE by a film school student. The breath steam during the night scenes in Scotland were terribly done and the flashlight in the field was equally bad. MGM obviously put as much money behind this as they could, but there were definitely a few areas that were glossed over when it came to cost.
MindBomber
11-13-2012 12:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwy
(Post 8079690)
He runs through like 10+ suits through filming. Those are ~5k Tom Ford tailored suits. Not as bad as the 5-6 Aston DBS' they've wrecked though.
Far more, 40 variations of a single suit were made.
The suits also are not Tom Ford, except for those used in product placement scenes. Tom Ford's tailors made the suits, but the costume designer, Jany Temime, made lots of subtle design and movie specific alternations from a standard TF design. In the action scenes, the fit makes it quite apparent that the movie suits are not the equivalent of a regular TF.
Regardless, I'm being overly picky, Daniel Craig makes the TF design cues look unbelievable. Perfect suit for a 00 agent.
Gumby
11-13-2012 08:44 AM
Spoiler!
We were having dinner, I brought up Skyfall, and my mom told me she read that M dies. Thanks for spoiling the movie, mom! :flamemad:
SpartanAir
11-15-2012 07:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tapioca
(Post 8079714)
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.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa...let's just back this truck up just a tad here.
First off, I COMPLETELY understand what Mendes and Craig are trying to do with Bond. I like the darker, more human Bond. They just SUCKED at doing it.
I like Daniel Craig as Bond, I like the acting in the film, and the casting, cinematography, locations etc. But the way it was put together sucked. If you read my review, you would see that I talked about how the story and action is linear and boring for the most part. Do today's "sophisticated" audiences deserve played out, predictable stories with expository dialogue ans shitty graphics?
Spoiler!
If you're going to have his death be a part of the movie, make it actually matter. He doesn't use his anonymity at all within the story and just immediately comes back. Why doesn't this matter more in the film? If he's down and out, sure that's fine, but he was DEAD. DO SOMETHING WITH THAT.
And Bardem's character was awesome, but unlike Goldeneye, which built a relationship with 006 at the beginning, Bardem just appears out of nowhere with no history with M, other that what we are told. How close were they? What caused him to go from good to bad so fast, and why can't we see some of that?
But also, he could have killed M by blowing up her office when she was there. Problem solved. And then he plans to be caught, and then escapes?? Not only is this the oldest trick in the book, but he could have done everything he did without getting caught first, and saved us from that ridiculous plot line.
I don't mind if there aren't one-liners, gadgets, and naked women, necessarily; but make the story good enough so I don't notice these things missing!!!
Spoiler!
And you're right, what is the relevance of MI6 if they are stupid enough to leave all of this sensitive info on one hard drive? (and why is the anniversary Bond film stealing a plot line from Mission Impossible?)
Read the first few pages of IMDB user reviews...you will all see that I'm not alone in my opinions. In fact, having read them after I wrote mine, my review missed out on many other glaring problems.
^ I agree with you, this is not the best bond, as touted by some. It's not as good as Casino Royale, and no where near as emotionally involving as it either... I was bummed out that Javier Bardem's villain wasn't as maniacal or as deep as I thought he was going to be(his one shot entrance and sexual advance towards Bond being highlights). I felt like too much was made of the many bond references(which weren't entirely over my head), the humour was excruciatingly dry, and the character of M being a central part of the plot a huge mistake. M dragged the film down, I did not care for her and
Spoiler!
actually felt sadder watching the Aston get destroyed than when she died...
I didn't hate the movie, but man, was I disappointed with it. If you're going to go in a darker direction with your franchise, make it worthwhile and not just an excuse to have a shallow lead character... These last 3 films have been heavily inspired by the Bourne franchise, but they have never achieved the depth of that character...
It's still one of the best looking films of the year though, so that's something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lomac
(Post 8079820)
Sad to say, but while I loved this movie, some of the effects actually looked like they were done in AE by a film school student. The breath steam during the night scenes in Scotland were terribly done and the flashlight in the field was equally bad. MGM obviously put as much money behind this as they could, but there were definitely a few areas that were glossed over when it came to cost.
Just wanted to add, that adding people's breath digitally always looks terrible, for example Social Network.
