Don't Waste Your Time With Skyfail...er, Skyfall

[futuresailors]

It's only slightly hyperbolic. It's like $12-20 for tickets. Plus you gotta get popcorn ($6) and maybe some nachos ($6) and a slush puppy ($6), cuz fuck it. Except New York is ghetto as shit so they only have Icees.

[behndy]

your descriptions get me so moist.

GAWD I WANT TO SEE YOU COVERED IN SLUSHIES. NEKID, FREEZER BURN SHRUNKEN MANHOOD. LET'S DO THIS.

[FuzzHugger]

Never seen a single Bond film.

[snipelfritz]

Never seen a single Bond film.

I recommend Casino Royale. As in the original from 1967. Excellent classic camp.

[Jwar]

So this is actually doing really well in the theatres right now. That means it actually probably does suck! LOL! Most people like shit movies.

[Helter]

New York is ghetto as shit so they only have Icees.

We've only got slush puppies here? I thought we were the ghetto ones

[andtheLiquidmen]

Saw it yesterday and loved it. I'm a huge Bond fan (movies and books), and I thought it was a great entry in the series. It definitely owes quite a bit to the Christopher Nolan Batmans (Batmen?), but borrowing the tone/scenes/genre from contemporary films has been something that the Bond series has done since the early 1970s.

Cinematography was top notch too, but with Roger Deakins behind the lens it's hard to get anything less. Newman's score had some nice moments, but overall fit into the overly-percussive-and-monotonous style of modern big-budget scoring.

There's never going to be a perfect Bond movie for anyone anymore, especially fans. The series has too much baggage for that. All we can expect is the the "take" on each movie to work as a movie, without looking only into personal preferences or biases of the series and character.

For the record, I really liked Casino Royale (save for the footchase and sinking-hour scenes), and hated Quantum of Solace.

[behndy]

yah. with you on the last two entries.

my little brother is a HUGE fan, more of the books than the moobies, and has been freaking out because he read somewhere that there was inserted sexual tension between Bond and The Big Bad. did you get that?

"HE'S THE PENULTIMATE WOMANIZER!!! STOP MAKING PEOPLE GAY HOLLYWOOD!! YOU WANT TO DO THAT MAKE A NEW CHARAAAACTERRRRRR!!!"

we actually fought/discussed that a bunch. i always saw Movie Bond more as a caricature of Ultimate Action Manly Man, so him being unexpectedly attracted to a dood is kinda awesome. little brother.... did not.... see it that way.

[coldbrightsunlight]

The more big film characters are gay the happier I'll be, but naww there's basically just one joke about it. Also I agree with your interpretation of Movie Bond.

[behndy]

yeah. i mean, i get it, i hated what they did to Han Solo by making him a bitch instead of Pimp Ass I'm'a Cut'cha Scoundrel..... so i see how it can be offensive if they take a character into wildly uncharacteristic directions... but making BOND have a "huh... booty... COULD be.... just.... booty...." moment could be done super well.

[andtheLiquidmen]

yah. with you on the last two entries.

my little brother is a HUGE fan, more of the books than the moobies, and has been freaking out because he read somewhere that there was inserted sexual tension between Bond and The Big Bad. did you get that?

"HE'S THE PENULTIMATE WOMANIZER!!! STOP MAKING PEOPLE GAY HOLLYWOOD!! YOU WANT TO DO THAT MAKE A NEW CHARAAAACTERRRRRR!!!"

we actually fought/discussed that a bunch. i always saw Movie Bond more as a caricature of Ultimate Action Manly Man, so him being unexpectedly attracted to a dood is kinda awesome. little brother.... did not.... see it that way.

Didn't get that at all. Bardem's character basically starts feeling Bond up trying to make him feel uncomfortable and Bond mocks him for thinking it would make him squirm. The whole sequence is REALLY well done by the two. Great pacing with the dialogue.

Movie Bond for the most part became action-guy towards the end of Connery's tenure when the scripts went from Bond driving the action to things happening and Bond just floating around from one set piece to the next. His performances in Dr. No and From Russia With Love are probably the most well rounded, with Thunderball being his most comfortable/fun take on it.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) is a verrrrry different film, and actually follows the book rather closely. Bond falls in love, gets married, and is left completely shattered at the end. Huge downer, and very much akin to Casino Royale and Skyfall IMO. Unfortunately, Lazenby left the series/was fired and the producers felt it was best to retreat to familiar territory after that. Moore's were 90% silly/tongue in cheek, and pretty much cemented the familiar pattern that the public would become accustomed to.

Timothy Dalton attempted to bring Bond back to Fleming's vision of an actual character, but again, action set pieces took priority due to the expectations of the public. There are some really great moments in Dalton's films that make fans wonder where it could have gone had there not been the massive failure of License to Kill/the gap between that and Goldeneye. It's pretty much what the producers did with Daniel Craig, but it wasn't what people wanted at the time. Brosnan's films were almost entirely generic action films with the usual martini's/gadgets/etc shoehorned in.

/nerd essay (sorry for rambling. I can go on for hours )

[snipelfritz]

I feel like Brosnan was a great Bond, but the movies he was in just weren't very good, especially the last one.

Maybe it's just because I came of age playing GoldenEye on N64 all the time, but he always just seemed to have the right swagger and look.

[behndy]

well, i LURV Craig. i have such a man crush on him. Unduring Love? 7 Layer? gawwwwwd i adore him.

he's the only reason i've been interested in recent Bond shenanigans.

cuddles. so many CUDDLES for that man.

[madmax1012]

I don't know why people hate on Craig. The dude's awesome.

[devnulljp]

This is James Bond

All the rest? Meh....