Movie News

Sam Mendes And Mr. Beaks Talk SKYFALL! Spoilers Abound!

Published at: Nov. 13, 2012, 6:05 p.m. CST by mrbeaks

Do not read until you've seen SKYFALL.

The best James Bond movies are the ones for which you have to make the fewest excuses. Bond fans accept this. They understand that these are gargantuan entertainments beholden to formula, tradition and myriad commercial considerations. Once the basic template clicked into place with GOLDFINGER, the films stopped setting trends and began following them - aping or, in the case of the Roger Moore movies, cheekily parodying whatever was cool in popular culture. Even CASINO ROYALE, the down-and-dirty 2006 reboot, succumbed to marketing-mandated incongruity by replacing the pivotal Chemin de fer showdown with a high-stakes Texas Hold 'Em tournament (which Bond wins by gambling like a drunk frat boy). But these things happen. You just hope there isn't an invisible car or a snowboarding sequence scored to an atrocious cover of The Beach Boys "California Girls".

This is why SKYFALL is a minor miracle of sorts. Not only is it the best Bond since ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, it's the only one with real thematic texture. After the water-treading disappointment of QUANTUM OF SOLACE, SKYFALL brings the franchise back to zero by forcing Bond to confront his past. The brooding tone may suggest Christopher Nolan's deathly serious reconsideration of Batman, but Daniel Craig's Bond isn't tortured. He's annoyed. He doesn't know where/if he fits in anymore, and this pisses him off. And it's not until he's under siege at his childhood home that he figures it out: he has no nostalgia for the past, but he is deeply invested in the idea of being James Bond. By the end of the film, we're invested, too.

SKYFALL is an exhilarating franchise reset. It's also the first film in the series that feels like it was directed by a full-fledged fan. There was some concern at the outset that Sam Mendes might be too much director for a Bond movie, but only someone who grew up loving the character - smack dab in the middle of the Moore era, no less - could understand how to properly reconfigure the formula for modern audiences. By the end of SKYFALL, it's all in place: we've got a new M, a radically different (and far more capable) Moneypenny, and a recommitted Bond. Now bring on the next one already!

When I chatted with Mendes last week, I was keen to discuss his personal connection to the franchise and how that influenced his interpretation of the character. The film is filled with familiar flourishes (Daniel Kleinman's opening titles are his best work since taking the reins from Maurice Binder) and nifty callbacks to earlier movies (Bond's escape from the Komodo dragon pit is straight out of LIVE AND LET DIE), but Mendes never goes too far with the references. He also pulls off a couple of classic set pieces of his own. The stylistic high point is a nighttime assassination in Shanghai lit only by LED displays, which reminds us that, yes, we're watching a James Bond movie shot by the great Roger Deakins.

Once more for the cheap seats: there are spoilers aplenty in the below interview. You have been warned.

    

Mr. Beaks: What was your first Bond film?

Sam Mendes: LIVE AND LET DIE. It was 1974 or '75, so I must've been nine. I remember it quite vividly, and I've always had a soft spot for Roger Moore as a consequence. He was my first Bond. I remember all sorts of things: the voodoo stuff was really disturbing, Solitaire was impossibly pretty, and then the boat chase and the sheriff... everything really. It was overwhelming at that time in my life. And I am from that prehistoric era before video and DVD, where if you wanted to see a movie again, you had to go to the cinema while it was still on. Or, in the case of Bond movies, you waited until Christmas; they'd show one every Christmastime. I caught up with all of the Sean Connery movies sitting around the TV with my family.

Beaks: I grew up with Roger Moore as well. It seems that if you didn't grow up with him as your Bond, there's a real aversion to him.

Mendes: He had a light touch. I think that's the thing. And it was a different time. One of the things that is asked a lot of me, as if I would have any particular answer, is "Why has the franchise lasted so long?" Honestly, your guess is as good as mine, but perhaps one of the things is that the variety of people who have played Bond has been enormous. They didn't cast people who were the same as each other. They also cast people who had the courage to do it their own way. After so many versions of the suave Bond, Daniel took a big risk coming back as a much rawer Bond. He's much more emotional, much more vulnerable, and, physically, much more powerful.

Beaks: If CASINO ROYALE could be classified as a reboot, then I would call SKYFALL a reset. After this trilogy of movies, it feels like, at the end of SKYFALL, "Okay, we're back."

Mendes: But the key with CASINO ROYALE is that we couldn't have made SKYFALL without what Martin Campbell did on that movie. It's brilliant. It removed pastiche away from the movies. It took away that self-referential humor. It used to be, "Oh, it's okay to laugh. It's a Bond movie." Suddenly, it wasn't okay to laugh. And in the process, he removed Q, Moneypenny, and that sense that you had with Bond movies that there would always be the same scene played in every movie. "Here's the early scene where Bond is getting up to no good with some girl. And now he's brought in and chastised by M, who also gives him his mission. Then the next scene would traditionally be, 'Pay attention, 007! Here are your gadgets!'" Suddenly, all of that was gone, and that was Martin - and the producers and Daniel - starting from sea level again.
So, now, on this movie, it's possible to start reintroducing some of those things, but in a totally different way. We can reintroduce Q, but he's completely different and not what you expect - and he's not what Bond expects. I loved the idea that Bond would die in this movie and come back to find that everything has changed: him and MI6. M is not giving the orders anymore, Q is a young man, MI6 looks and feels totally different, and Bond is the dinosaur - and even he himself wonders if he should be doing it. That sense of self-doubt, cracking the character open a little bit to get the audience having a stake in him again, rather than Bond as a given or an unchanging figure in these movies. Actually, Bond is the story. Bond changes more than anyone in the movie, and that was something I was interested to try out.

Beaks: Prior to seeing the movie, we heard that we'd be getting a bit of backstory relating to Bond's childhood. Initially, I wondered, "Do I really want to know that?" And what I love about this movie is that Bond has zero nostalgia for his past. I love that he doesn't mind if the house gets blown up, but the Aston Martin? That's a problem.

Mendes: It's funny. What makes me sad is that, as you just said, "We heard before seeing it..." One of the wonderful things in England is that they didn't know what was coming. I love that about this movie. With a Bond movie, it's really difficult to hold off that sense of what's coming, and I would encourage anyone who's reading this on Ain't It Cool News to not read the spoilers. Don't know where Bond goes. Don't know what happens at the end. Because at the end of the day, it really does destroy your enjoyment of movies. I think that's happened more and more. On this, I was reading hundreds of reviews of the trailer before I'd finished shooting. The sense in which the marketplace chews up and spits out information at great speed, and almost robs itself of the delight of seeing a movie without any foreknowledge, deliberately destroys its own enjoyment, is bizarre to me.

Beaks: I agree. And we are responsible for a good deal of that destruction.

Mendes: But people get drawn to it! I know myself, I've felt, "I shouldn't read this!" And then I do, and I say, "Oh, I wish I hadn't read it!" (Laughs) The point is, if you've got chocolate in the refrigerator, you're going to fucking eat it. It doesn't matter if it says "Spoiler Alert!" You're going to read the damn thing! That's just the way it goes.

Beaks: Another interesting thing about this film is that you brought in one of the top cinematographers in the world, Roger Deakins, to shoot it. Not to diminish the careers of all the others who've worked on these movies, but the last time a world-class DP shot a Bond movie was Freddie Young on YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. That was only a few years after he shot LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Bond movies tend to have a uniform look, but Roger - and you in concert with him - definitely did his thing. How did you two arrive at the look of this film, and what were the challenges of shooting digitally?

Mendes: I think with Roger, because we had done JARHEAD and REVOLUTIONARY ROAD together, and they were both such different movies, we sort of have a shorthand now. Without that, this would've been impossible to do. Roger doesn't say a lot, but he preps an enormous amount. We talked a lot in prep, and on the day we didn't talk very much because we knew how we wanted it to look. We talked about not just general ideas, but building the entire office block in Shanghai in miniature with all the graphics of the LED displays planned out and timed, and all the glass partitions constructed in miniature, and then shoot it on a lipstick camera to see how the reflections interact with the people two months before we get to those scenes. Every set was prelit, everything was predetermined. We had very strict color palettes for each section of the movie. Deep midnight blues, deep greens and blacks for Shanghai, rich reds and golds and deep orange colors for the casino, in the sense that Bond almost goes back in time in Macau. There's almost a sense of the old Bond returning. And then the muted palette of Scotland, the bleak beauty of that landscape, and the hellish last sequence where the house is burning, and there's this sense that it's the underworld somehow. It's like his past burning, as you say.
With Roger, what he's not wild about is surprises. And the truth is on a Bond movie, you can't have surprises because everything has to be so planned on a movie of this scale, so you better know what you're doing before you start. It's not an organic process. I think he's done amazing work. I think so much of the job of a director of a movie of this scale is to push the white noise away while you're on set, and to try to make the process as simple as direct as possible: you, the cinematographer, the actor and "Go." You try to keep them from hearing everything else: what the studio is worried about, what the person you bumped into in the morning was telling you about what he wants to see from a Bond movie, the fifty press that are visiting on set that day and are looking at you from a distance, or the trailer that's just been cut, or the one-sheet that's just been put in front of your face, or the negotiations to do with the song, or a location that's just fallen through... you have to keep it all away. And a part of me was protecting Roger from that so he could be creative.

Beaks: When it comes to Bond movies, everyone has their preferences, and, speaking of LIVE AND LET DIE, you've certainly worked some of your preferences in. The opening credits sequence definitely has the flavor of Maurice Binder's '70s work.

Mendes: Danny Kleinman did it, and I gave him a very clear brief, which is that Bond falls into the water and effectively goes into the underworld. It was almost like Alice going down the rabbit hole; he passes by the story of the movie in a sense. It's a journey into Bond's unconscious. You give someone like Danny an idea that big, and he'll run with it. You do storyboards, then you adjust the storyboards, then you get an animated version of it, then you adjust that, and then he does the final version - because, obviously, you have to shoot elements of Daniel and Javier throughout. That was a pleasure. And he's doing a sequence to a great song, which also helps - and the song was written early enough for him to do the two things in tandem, as opposed to just guess.

Beaks: How did you feel when you first heard Adele's song?

Mendes: Relieved. (Laughs) Because I didn't have to give her any notes!

Beaks: It was that simple? She nailed it first time through?

Mendes: She came for a meeting, we chatted, told her the story, and she took the script away. And she said, "Look, I want to write a song. If I don't like it, or you don't like it, it's not going in - and don't worry about that." Her only concern was... she said, "I'm a personal songwriter. I write songs for myself. I don't know how else to do it. And I'm a bit worried that I'm writing a song for somebody else." And I said, "Then make it personal. Just find a way of making it about your own past." I mean, "Nobody Does It Better" is one of the great Bond songs, but it's not really about the movie. She puts one line in, "The spy who loved me," but you could argue it's completely irrelevant to the rest of the song. And Adele went on to write an incredibly specific song about the movie. That amazed me. Lyrically, it's actually very accurate to what the movie's about. That delighted me. It was a complete home run the first time we heard it. It was a little rough with her singing just with the piano, but it was clear that it was going to work. The mood was just right for me.

Beaks: And mood is important with Thomas Newman's score, which is very far removed from John Barry's work. What was your direction to him?

Mendes: The movie dictates the music in a way. You watch the movie, and you begin to work out what kind of mood it requires. Tom and I work a little like Roger and I. We have a preexisting relationship. You have a way of working, and you almost don't ask yourself how it works. He'll compose something, some of it will work, I'll give a note about something, it'll start to have a shape, and you'll think, "Maybe we should try this piece over here." It just happens organically. You don't go in announcing the feeling you want. The most difficult thing in the world in directing is describing music. It's nonverbal. It's a feeling. And what for you is a scary piece of music, might not be for someone else - and vice versa. You have to have a good sixth sense with your composer. And it's just taste. I love his music. Always have. And I felt it in my bones that he had it in him to write a Bond score: to be sweeping when necessary, to be thriller-like when necessary, to have the muscle and power when necessary, and to maybe do what I was trying to do with Roger, which is to break some of the conventions of the genre whilst not reinventing the wheel. To use as much tradition as we could, but to pull out a few shocks.

Beaks: Javier does something that is so distinctive and unforgettable with his character. Where did he start with the character, and did you have to refine it?

Mendes: It was a constant dialogue, but he made the really big leap at the beginning. Once he said yes to it, he said, "I've got a few ideas." He mentioned his eye color, his hair color, his silhouette, and the way his character dressed. To be honest, I said, "I'm not sure that's going to work." But I trust Javier's instinct to go in a particular direction, and you never know where it's going to lead. Often, you test things, and something else comes out of that that's a combination of what you want and what they want. But he walked onto one of the stages at Pinewood for his screen test, and, first of all, nobody recognized him. That was the first thing. I could feel people thinking, "Who's that blonde guy in the corner?" And then he walked on, the cameras rolled, he looked into the lens, and there was a different person. It wasn't him. It was thrilling and scary and weird, and everyone felt it: Roger, Barbara Broccoli... everyone. The studio wasn't sure, and I said, "Well, let him try, and let's have a look." But it's fair to say that all the things he tried basically worked. We made some refinements to it.
But you've got to remember that he is acting in not his own language, and he's playing a very verbal character. All the characters he's played in English films up to this point... I mean, look at NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. He's like an animalistic presence. But this is a very verbal character; he talks a lot throughout the movie. So you've got an actor who needs to communicate in very sophisticated terms. So what he did was he translated everything back into Spanish, he worked on everything in Spanish, practiced it, rehearsed it, then translated it back into English. He had very specific notes about words that weren't quite right, but we made quite small adjustments, probably more than you would with an English-language actor. And then he started having ideas. I think it's fair to say that the scene in the chapel at the end with him an M is almost completely born out of conversations between him and I that took place once we'd started filming. By the time we got to the end, every line in that scene had changed, the entire staging had changed, and it all came from the character that we felt emerging, and the weird relationship between him and M that we felt emerging while we were shooting.

Beaks: I have to follow-up on the Sean Connery story that came out recently, that you considered Sean Connery for the Albert Finney role.

Mendes: That's a misquote. Someone asked me if I ever considered Sean Connery for the Albert Finney role, and I said, "Of course, his name was mentioned, but I immediately said there was no way that was going to work." He's James Bond. That would take you completely out of the movie. I never considered Connery for a cameo. I should just say "No" when I'm asked those questions because someone will just spin it into a story.

Beaks: It's getting traction.

Mendes: Well, it's not a story. "There's an older man. What about Sean Connery?" "Of course not. We can't cast Sean Connery. That would take you completely out of the movie." (Laughs) That was literally the conversation.

 

SKYFALL is currently in theaters around the world. Go.

Faithfully submitted,

Mr. Beaks

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Nov. 13, 2012, 6:13 p.m. CST

    WHY NO TALK ABOUT DARK KNIGHT INFLUENCE??!

    by GrapeFruit

  • and I have a problem with the whole Bond can go anywhere and bed anything. It's really dated and needs to be brought into the present day. for gods sake, he's not Kirk!

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 6:18 p.m. CST

    Skyfall was fun but Casino Royale was better

    by Lovecraftfan

    If your not a big Bond guy like me Royale was refreshingly different.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 6:21 p.m. CST

    Easily the BEST 007 film made. Is it the most FUN? No.

    by AntonStark

    I loved it, but I didn't feel like I'd been on a roller coaster by the end. Which is fine. But the trailers made it look more like a roller coaster. Except for the first trailer. That trailer nailed the tone and if I'd walked in thinking that was what I was going to see I would not have been waiting for the film to turn into a roller coaster. I am watching it again this weekend with my wife (saw it with my brother first) and I expect to enjoy myself even more the second time. And I'm making sure I see it on a bigger screen than the first time, because the film is beautiful.

  • It's actually possible that Skyfall is going to earn a billion worldwide. Definitely $900 million. Simply amazing.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 6:26 p.m. CST

    When did Sam Mendes become an old man?

    by Silv

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 6:27 p.m. CST

    total garbage

    by animas

    I never saw the other Daniel Craig Bond movies. If they are as fucking terrible as this one, then my instincts were right.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 6:28 p.m. CST

    Awesome film

    by Ghostshrimp

    Had a very good time seeing this, most enjoyable for me since Goldeneye. Cannot recommend enough. Special shout out to Roger Deakins who most assuredly should receive the oscar if not at least a nomination, just a beautiful film.

  • Ehh, I am going to go out on a limb here buuut I'm pretty sure neither director or producers had that particular idea in mind. At all. But whatever. Anything to back up a limp dick point.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 6:50 p.m. CST

    A real let down

    by Geoff

    And why didn't Moneypenny shoot the bad guy with the rifle she shot bond with when said bad guy first got on the roof of the train? A lot of illogical moments in it for me. I know its Bond, but it's not the Bond we grew up on, so therefore my observations are valid. Oh and the motorbike chase was badly choreographed too. I can't stand it when it looks so obvious they are riding on some kind of rig. Far better to use some cg, like Mendes' ex in that famous titanic scene, and let the viewers see the whole bike, not just the top half up. Just saying.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 6:51 p.m. CST

    Casino Royale will get viewed more than this

    by Geoff

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 6:54 p.m. CST

    kindofabigdeal

    by JAMF

    he looks half asleep for most of the film so yes he may indeed be daydreaming about something...

  • Worst, rumor idea, ever!

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 6:56 p.m. CST

    And why did i feel like i was watching a Nolan bat film...

    by Geoff

    When he grabbed the bottom of the elevator?

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 7:03 p.m. CST

    YAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNN!!!

    by frank

    wow, i and my friend almost felt asleep 5-6 times during this overrated, over-hyper borefest. Prometheus, TDKR, Skyfall are the biggest well-polished turds pretending to be masterpieces this year. With the exception of the Avengers (and hopefully Hobbit), 2012 turned out to be the biggest disappointing year in recent time.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 7:05 p.m. CST

    darth_wiggo BINGO!

    by frank

    that bike rooftop chase annoyed the hell out of me. you could literally see the almost new planks put on the roofs so that the stuntmen can do their work. It put me immediately out of the mood of the sequence.

  • how come, the film critics didn't pick this up? or is this what they meant when they said that Skyfall is a return to old school Bond?

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 7:11 p.m. CST

    I enjoyed skyfall a lot, but it's too early to call it Craigs best yet

    by Redhead_Redemption

    Casino royal has the advantage of being seen dozens of times and it still hold up for me, Quantum seems to get more forgetable the more i watch it. skyfall i thought was amazing and second best film of the year. but it'll need a few more viewings and a few years before i say it's craigs best. CR is still his best for me One thing i hope they return to for the next one is to stop making bond a rogue agent, Bond is the best at what he does but we don't need to see him breaking the rules and going over his boss's heads. I'm hopping a new M (thank god M is a man again, I hated the mother/son relationship with judi dench) will groud bond and allow him to be less KJack bauer or jason borne and just get back to being james bond

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 7:13 p.m. CST

    I grew up on Roger Moore Bond...

    by palinode

    so the grittier, more serious take on the character is never going to work completely for me. But holy shit, this film was beautiful. The Shanghai sequence is the one of the most gorgeously shot things ever.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 7:15 p.m. CST

    @kindofabigdeal

    by Geoff

    Lucas secretly shot a scene where Luke throws his dad onto the fire and then realises he's a machine and can be fixed. It must of been Lucas who spread that rumour so it would justify him releasing one more time a special special edition. But yeah, a fucking stupid idea. But one I think may have some life. We shall see.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 7:15 p.m. CST

    Bond was not a rogue agent in Skyfall...

    by frank

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 7:15 p.m. CST

    Too mucstyle over substanfeh

    by Geoff

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 7:16 p.m. CST

    God damn phone

    by Geoff

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 7:20 p.m. CST

    The silly hoopla over exploring Bonds past...

    by Jay

    ...is, for the most part, all from the books. It's been VERY amusing seeing some fans whine about "knowing too much" about Bonds past. Anyone who's read the books already knows it all. We know how his parents died. We know where Bond grew up and went to school. His military training, etc. And not only did I love what Mendez did with it, I couldn't believe how true and faithful it felt to Flemmings work. I was very worried they would throw in a "your parents were murdered!" scenario. Thankfully that's not the case. Casino Royal & Skyfall make the perfect metaphorical prequels to the Connery movies. It was a beautiful film. It works as entertainment, it works as a thoughtful character study, and it works as an exploration of the aging franchise. What a perfect way to celebrate Bonds 50th. And for those still whining about digital photography, Skyfall once again shows what it's capable of when in good hands. Deakins did a brilliant job.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 7:23 p.m. CST

    Boring? terrible? What a bunch of idiots.

    by Saracen1

    As for the chauvanism: Bond is a fucking misogynist. It's part of who he is. Get over it and go back to reading Twilight. It was a bloody fantastic film.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 7:25 p.m. CST

    It was as a good medicine for insomnia.

    by frank

    zzzzz....hrrrr....zzzzz...

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 7:26 p.m. CST

    Btw how did Bond's parents die in the books?

    by frank

    use spoilers if you want to answer this.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 7:27 p.m. CST

    Predictable - the gripes; not the movie

    by John

    Why do some people have the need to be contrarian and shit on something just so they appear to be "discerning"? I get that Skyfall might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it certainly isn't a terrible movie by any standard.

  • SCREENSHOTED for future reference. thank you very much.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 7:33 p.m. CST

    SPOILERS over Bonds parents...

    by Jay

    They died in a mountain climbing accident. Nothing special. A genuine accident.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 7:47 p.m. CST

    Skyfall rocked

    by HoLottaMo

    And a pre emptive FUCK YOU to all. You fucking faggots who disagree

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 7:52 p.m. CST

    CGI KOMODO DRAGONS

    by Robert Hand

    that logic DOES NOT COMPUTE.

  • was it that difficult for Bardem to paint his hair blond? or use makeup for his disfigured face?

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 8:13 p.m. CST

    Btw did Bond confirm that he is gay in the movie?

    by frank

    because if i am not mistaken, he indirectly said that he had sex with men.

  • Javier's villain helps make this (he's creepy and disturbed, not over the top) and the assassination attempt in London was to me the best action set piece in any Bond period, almost to realistic in a chilling way.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 8:15 p.m. CST

    Hopefully we will finally see Bond get a nomination for Pic

    by iluvsyfy

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 8:27 p.m. CST

    by John

    He was taunting Silva. As Bond would.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 8:34 p.m. CST

    Nah, he looked pretty serious when he said that.

    by frank

    It is official. Bond is gay.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 8:40 p.m. CST

    Bond's sexuality

    by MrD

    Silva was flirting with Bond to rattle him, to get him off guard. Bond's comment let Silva know it wasn't going to work, an attempt to turn the tables. I don't think it was anything more than that.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 8:43 p.m. CST

    Nah, he looked pretty serious when he said that

    by John

    Well, if that makes the movie work for you, enjoy!

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 8:44 p.m. CST

    Neither Silva or Bond are gay.

    by Kurt Walter

    Silva was getting into Bond's head and Bond was giving it right back. Everyone is missing the point of that scene.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 8:46 p.m. CST

    Meh, the villain was just so so...

    by deus vitae 13

    I thought that Mads from Casino Royale was a more nefarious villain. Good, fun movie but not the best villain, certainly not the best Bond film in my opinion but high up there anyway. Craig is great as Bond, but he needs a real, fleshed out antagonist. To analogize; a Moriarty to his Sherlock. I dunno, I'm not a writer, but I don't see why this can't be done. Maybe I'm alone in thinking that the villain here was not as compelling, oh well...

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 8:47 p.m. CST

    Saw it, bored to tears!

    by Phategod2

    Don't believe the hype this movie was Gawd Awful.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 8:50 p.m. CST

    Both Silva and Bond are gay.

    by frank

    Silva was literally going to rape Bond and Bond admitted that he had already experienced sex with other men. so yes they are gay.

  • Oscar material.

  • and Moneypenny comes with a katana to save his gaped ass.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 8:57 p.m. CST

    Some things I want to see from Craig's next Bonds:

    by Kurt Walter

    1. It is clear Bond needs a new place to live. I would like to see May. (If you don't know who May is you are not a Bond fan.) 2. We need more of Felix. 3. I would like Bond to continue going after Quantum, the head of which we find out is Blofeld. 4. I would like to see a remake of On Her Majesty's Secret Service with Craig. This would finish his story arc. Very few people have seen this movie and it is Flemming's masterpiece. Flemming references Vesper and it would bookend Casino nicely.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 9:02 p.m. CST

    It was.... Okay

    by shalashaska

    Pretty good. Thats the best I can do. 7/10 The beginning was great. Somewhere around the middle it got so boring. Just chasing on and on and on. Also the childhood stuff was way over my head. Didnt give a shit. Took so long. It was okay but I"m in no rush to see it again.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 9:03 p.m. CST

    I dont think he admittied to being a homo

    by shalashaska

    He just said something along the lines of... What makes you think i havent done this before. It came off pretty gay though. James bond doesnt have dicks in his mouth thank you sam mendes.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 9:07 p.m. CST

    A very boring film

    by peter skellen

    Don't understand the hysterical reviews or the nonsense by Beaks in his intro. The more I think about this film the more it annoys me. He became James Bond because he was locked in a cupboard? Is it just me or did Daniel Craig look about 200 years old in this film? I think the new Q might have to build him a wheelchair soon.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 9:23 p.m. CST

    cavejohnson

    by one9deuce

    Why did you screenshot the comment about Bond being a misogynist? I'm genuinely confused about why you would say that. Enlighten me.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 9:35 p.m. CST

    Now that Bond has been re-rebooted...

    by John

    How would people feel about remaking all of the Fleming books in order that they were written? Next up after Casino Royale... Live and Let Die then Moonraker (but obviously with no space colony and no rubber pythons!) The best part is we won't get back to Octopussy until 2038!

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 9:42 p.m. CST

    cavejohnson. Don't expect everyone to be gay like you.

    by julia

    Skyfall is a very good film. And if you don't want to see that is because you like to be an asshole. Now, don't you forget to turn off the lights of the basement after you are done with the computer.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 10:14 p.m. CST

    hey you leave octopussy alone!

    by ben sheppard

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 10:16 p.m. CST

    now bring on the roger moore and louis jordan gay scene...

    by ben sheppard

    ...now THAT'S what I'm talkin about. the eye ball eating moment is pretty sexy by itself.

  • I saw that in the "On Set" book, which has some really great pics from making the film. The one "spoiler" that I read that turned out to be wrong, (and I'm glad!) was the Ralph Fiennes was Bloefeld! (Which makes a twisted kind of sense, because he's almost always a villain in films.) Otherwise I was totally unspoiled for this film. And I'm glad, too! It was really great! I had some minor quibbles with the plot, but the directing, the acting, the emotional beats, the cinematography, the music, the production design, all were just TOP notch! Easily the most beautiful Bond film ever put to film. Roger Deakins should win an Oscar for that, alone! Sam Mendes should stick with the series. It could be his "Batman", now. I'm all for it, personally! The End of "Skyfall" but Sam Mendes will return in...?

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 10:30 p.m. CST

    Was this really the Bond movie you wanted?

    by Black Dante

    We only get a new Bond movie every 2-3 years. It's supposed to be big. Bond is supposed to save the world from danger. In this, he runs away from danger and he blows up a house in the middle of a field. This was a very good movie, but also very disappointing.

  • It was clearly done to rip off Star Wars. But I've noticed that the Craig Bond's are, by far, the most grevious thieving magpies of the entire series. I'll explain.... The Brosnan Bonds decended into the usual Roger Moore assclown bullshit (invisible cars, ice palaces ect....) by the time Die Another Day came out. But between DAD and Casino Royale the first two Bourne movies were released. Now, The Bourne Identity was a very good spy-thriller and reminded people that the genre wasn't about stupid gadgets being thrown around by a clothing model. It came out in 2002 and made Die Another Day (also released that year) look like a ridiculous piece of shit. It's clear that the Bond Producers (Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson) took a look at that when they started putting together Casino Royale. By 2004 The Bourne Supremacy had been put out but luckily Martin Campbell had returned to Direct Bond after helming Goldeneye which was my favorite of the series movie until CR. But most significantly you’ll notice that they hired Bourne Identity second unit Director Alexander Witt for the same job on CR while cutting down on the gadgets and going for a tougher, more “realistic” feel towards the action scene’s. This approach was a huge boon as it made CR feel fresh and helped to make it the best Bond movie IMHO. But it helped that they were working from a good novel and had the right Director for the job because the biggest problem with the Bond series lately has been Neil Purvis and Robert Wade, Brocolli and Wilson’s in-house writers who have been scribbling the Bond movies since The World Is Not Enough. These two are the Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman of the Bond franchise. Their scripts are weak and have left a stink on every Bond project that they’ve been a part of with the exception of CR and I believe that’s because the quality of the book, Director Campbell and script polisher Paul Haggis ‘ contributions outweighed the shit produced by those two fucking script monkey’s. The proof of this theory is Quantum of Solace which I will now refer to as Suckass. That movie is a horrid piece of shit. The first problem is nice again letting those two cocksuckers develop the script while Haggis returned for a polish, but you can make a turd shine. The second problem is that after Bond showing a strong emotional core in CR, Broccoli and Wilson made the mistake of hiring yet another HACK, Marc Forster, to Direct when he was only known for one films, 2001’s Monsters Ball, which won Halle Berry her Oscar. But that movie sucks shit and Forster has made nothing but fucking trash his whole worthless career. They just hired him to Direct the “dramatic scenes” while leaving the action to the second unit as had been the standard for most of the Bond movies. With Campbell the Producers got lucky with a Director who can do both action/suspense as well as good drama. Forster is incompetent at both. So hiring Forster on top of Purvis and Wade just compounded every problem. But even worse is that you can tell exactly what the Producers were doing. Broccoli and Wilson have a tendency to revert the Bond franchise back into the same old mold every time. Look at the Brosnan era; Goldeneye was the first Bond without Barbara’s father, Albert R. Broccoli who died in 1996, who Produced every Bond from the very first film back in 1962. I get the feeling that, as it was their first solo Bond, Barbara and Michael G. Wilson (step-son of Albert, half-brother of Barbara) took extra special care on Goldeneye which is why that movie was an extremely well-crafted action-thriller. But soon after the wheels started to come off and by the fourth Brosnan film they were back in Roger Moore territory as previously mentioned. This is why they re-booted Bond and although I adore Casino Royale, it’s a shame that the films development wasn’t organic and rather a by-product of the success of the Bourne films. But with Suckass they reverted back to type in only the second film while also aping the Paul Greengrass Bourne movies. The script for Suckass was fucking terrible, as per usual from Purvis and Wade, but even worst than that, on Suckass they hired Greengrass’ second unit Director from his Bourne flicks, Dan Bradly (who apparently played Jason Voorhees on the first day of shooting Friday the 13th part 6!), and this outright plagiarism extended to that goddamn motherfucking headache inducing shaky cam approach which made the Bourne sequels all but impossible to watch. Suckass was trash, end of fucking story. Which now brings us to Skyfall. It’s clear that Same Mendes (American Beauty, Road to Perdition, Jarhead, Revolutionary Road, fucking Kate Winslet!) was once again hired to do the “dramatic” stuff while the second unit took care of the action business with Alexander Witt returning for the PEW-PEW-PEW-KABOOM! But from minute one it was clear that Mendes and the Producers intent was not to rip-off the Bourne movies as it was to Xerox Christopher Nolan’s Batman films, specifically The Dark Knight. I knew this going in but I wasn’t prepared for how much wallowing this movie was going to be doing into the dark recesses of the human soul or some such bullshit that Mendes wanted to convey in his grade school psychological exploration of a fictional character who became famous for his globetrotting, woman fucking and bad guy killing exploits that have been reincarnated several times over. Bond is a fantasy character. He became famous with the Connery films because of it was a Playboy magazine come to life. Exotic locations, hot bitches and licensed to murder, who doesn’t dream of such things?!? *cough* The point is that there is a serious fallacy of trying to do a psyche assessment of a character who isn’t a “hero” and is in fact a vicious, cold-blooded killer. Because that is what Bond would be in the real world. Batman has always been a vigilante and what Nolan did was return him to the moral ambiguity that was always at the heart of Bruce Wayne. But if Mendes was to do a proper representation of a “realistic” Bond then it would have to deal with a man who works as a secret agent, not for Queen and country, but because he gets to travel the world with an expense account, is permitted to seduce and destroy hot women when not indulging in stress relieving murder. A Bond movie that has the character come to terms with being a sociopath and the fact that he enjoys it would be something interesting. But that wouldn’t wash with the producers who just want a simple “good vs. evil” story while the details of Skyfall have been lifted wholesale from a dozen different sources; the ex-agent with a grudge – Goldeneye; the stolen spy records – Mission: Impossible (1996); crazy disfigured villain who allows himself to be caught as part of his plan – The Dark Knight; along with an “over-the-hill” Bond coming to terms with his own mortality while dealing with young newcomers Q and Moneypenny and his relationship with mother figure M. We’ve seen all of this shit before in many, many other movies and there’s nothing new to any of it although it sure does look purdy due to Roger Deakins photography. But a psychological case study is not what I wanted and Skyfall is as trite as I expected a Same Mendes Bond movie to be. Great action films can be dramatically satisfying but Skyfall comes off as just dull. This feels like two separate movies (character study/action) molded into one when it should have been a solid suspense-thriller that revealed character through the narrative as opposed to bashing everyone over the head with how “deep” it is before throwing yet another by-the-numbers action scene at the audience to wake them the fuck up. And now Bond is at yet another crossroad where it appears that this franchise will once again revert back to type with Q, Moneypenny and a male M in place before a cat stroking villain makes an appearance no doubt. Yawn, James Yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz………………..

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 10:46 p.m. CST

    Thought it was the most complete Bond film, and a good one at that

    by PhineasFlynn

    This was the first Bond film that I felt was influenced by and referenced all of the previous eras of the franchise. The ties to the Connery-era films were obvious (the DB5, Scotland, the final scene of the movie at MI6). You also had a touch of the Moore-era camp with the escape from the komodo pit. You had the more personal focus on Bond, as you did in "OHMSS". You have the rawer presence of Bond in Craig as you had in the Dalton-era Bond. You have the relationship between Bond and Dame Dench that kicked off with "Goldeneye" and has lasted 17 years and through 2 actors as Bond now. At the same time, there was no mistaking this as anything but the current-era Bond that Daniel Craig has crafted over the past 3 films. The meta-story that is the first half of the film --- does the world need Bond/the Bond film franchise... this is a young man's (Bourne's) game --- is strong. However, the turning point comes midway through the film when Silva asks Bond what his hobbies are. "Resurrection." Brilliant! The second half of the film is all about resurrecting the franchise. We get the references to Bond's past (both the character's and the film franchise's), we see both literally blown up, and both resurrected for a modern audience. That final scene with Bond walking into the office at MI6 (complete with coat rack), having a little exchange with Moneypenny, then going through that leather-padded door to get his next assignment from M (with Ralph Fiennes channeling Bernard Lee) was a superb nod to the longtime fans and gave us a place to take a deep, cleansing breath and reboot along with the franchise. Resurrection accomplished. Loved every minute of it. One of my top-4 favorite Bond films (along with "From Russia With Love", "Goldfinger", and "Thunderball" --- what can I say, I'm a Connery-era fan). As an aside --- we know that M, Q, etc are designations within MI6, as are double-0 agents. We had the exchange with a captured Silva at the makeshift MI6 where M calls him "Silva" and he tells her to call him by his real name, which she later reveals to Bond. With all that set-up, I was really expecting the film to show us (once we got to Skyfall) that James Bond was not always "James Bond". I thought that maybe whichever agent attained 007 status, whether replacing a deceased or retired agent, took the moniker "James Bond". That would have given us an explanation as to why we have these different characters over the past 50 years having these adventures and all of them being that era's James Bond. I was a little disappointed that the story didn't take that path (since it was already set up that way). Maybe that's just my human nature showing through --- maybe I wanted it to go that way and was a little disappointed when it didn't. Anyhow, like others have said above, I'm ready for the next film to give us more of a global threat and a more traditional villain, be it QUANTUM, Blofeld, or something new along those same lines.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 10:51 p.m. CST

    For me at least, it was what I wanted

    by NoQuarter

    It had a very intimate feel to it. I was not bored at anytime during the film.

  • He was fucking with Bardem's character, the same way Bardem's character was fucking with him. It's calling ACTING, for fuck's sake.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 10:53 p.m. CST

    People just want the same thing, over and over again...

    by Jay

    People are actually complaining that it doesn't follow the Bond formula? Have you ever picked up a Bond book in your life? Why is that people who claim to be such big fans, clearly aren't? Stop pretending like you want filmmakers and studios to take risks. You clearly don't.

  • Nov. 13, 2012, 11:45 p.m. CST

    The Movie turned into Home Alone for adults.

    by Phategod2

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 12:07 a.m. CST

    creepythinmanforever as always well said.

    by frank

    you and Turd's posts are always a delight to read and the main reason for coming in this site. that and laughing at people with poor taste and bad critical thinking about cinema.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 12:21 a.m. CST

    Bond is gay. The scene was played straight.

    by frank

    No implications or hints or after-scene explanations. Silva's character was a gay character throughout the movie. He was not =acting= as gay in that specific scene only. He was literally flirting with Bond. Besides, if this was supposed to be a game of psychological intimidation then it was pointless because they were both MI6 spies so it could not affect neither of them. The thing is that Bond's reply that he had gone with men before was dead serious and Silva's reaction to that was a sincere surprise. And i am sure, it surprised the audience too, at least those who hadn't slept yet. And that was the point of the scene, to surprise the audience: the womanizing Bond had sex with men. Mendes must have burst into laughs while shooting of scene and thinking of the audience's reaction that it would cause. So yeah, Bond is gay. Admit it you pathetic homophobes.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 12:27 a.m. CST

    cavejohnson, you should check out the numerous interviews...

    by Cody

    ...where Sam Mendes explicitly states that both Bond and Silva are straight and that it is just an intimidation game and that thay was essentially his direction to Craig and Bardem. Sorry that doesn't fit into your preferred narrative.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 12:28 a.m. CST

    @odysolo link or it didn't happen.

    by frank

    come on.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 12:37 a.m. CST

    It was an interview on Hitfix

    by Cody

    I'm on my phone and am not going to waste my time finding it again, since anyone who watched that scene and came away thinking Bond is gay has no idea how movies work.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 12:55 a.m. CST

    @codysolo link or it didn't happen.

    by frank

    save the excuses.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 1:24 a.m. CST

    Nope

    by Cody

    There is a link, and it did happen, but I'm not going to do your legwork. The mental skills you will have to utilize or develop in order to find the interview I'm referring to may also serve to help you in the future at finding the actual character dynamics at play in motion pictures. I owe you nothing, just trying to help you realize why you're wrong.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 1:27 a.m. CST

    Saw it tonight...

    by Dancingforever

    When the fuck did James Bond become gay? I watched specifically for the scene after hearing about it so much here and yes he absolutely admits to being gay. The director (SM) might be trying to re imagine that moment now because the film is being so poorly received, but it's clear as day in the context of the film he does openly admit to at least experimenting with men in the past. A very awkward moment in a poor film.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 1:40 a.m. CST

    The point is...

    by Cody

    Bond didn't make the same kneejerk homophobic response that most of us straight guys would make if a guy tied us to a chair and started stroking our chest...because James Bond is cooler than us. The line in question ("What makes you think this is my first time?") is, for Bond, the ultimate heterosexual expression of being secure with one's sexuality. He's toying with Silva because Silva thinks he has brought the alpha male in the room down a few notches. Bond's unusual and unexpected response reestablishes him as the alpha male. It's the only thing, in retrospect, he could have said and still remained the alpha male, because any homophobic response would have shown that what Silva was doing to unnerve him was successful at doing so.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 1:55 a.m. CST

    @codysolo link or it didn't happen.

    by frank

    still waiting.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 1:56 a.m. CST

    @dancingforever exactly that. well said.

    by frank

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 2:36 a.m. CST

    People talk about the Dark Night influence

    by chinofjim

    But no one has commented on the uncanny From Russia With Love elements that are in this film. An important part of the film takes place in Turkey. The villain in blonde In both films said blonde baddie is stabbed by Bond with a knife There is a fight on a train The most 'iconic' scenes in each of the films is a fight between Bond and a hired assassin Bond is attacked by a helicopter whist in the countryside A signal flare plays an important part at the climax of the film

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 2:46 a.m. CST

    When he grabbed the bottom of the elevator

    by chinofjim

    It didn't bring to mind Nolan to me. It bought to mind the For Your Eyes Only climbing scene, with that real physical sense of effort and peril

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 3:05 a.m. CST

    cavejohnson, please get over yourself

    by Jaka

    Your complete misunderstanding of that scene would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. <p> Clearly, you're gay and identifying with Bardem's character, or you wouldn't be so shallow and obtuse as to accuse others of being 'homophobes' for believing the simple truth that the James Bond character is straight. It has nothing to do with homophobia and your assertion that it does is a much greater insult to your own intelligence (or lack thereof) than it is to any of us. <p> Many of us have read the books. Most of us have seen more than one of the movies, if not all of them. Clearly, you haven't, or you would understand that Bond was MESSING with Silva. In character, he was ACTING. It's something the character does REGULARLY. Like, in pretty much every movie. He's a spy for fuck's sake. He's trying to get what he wants out of other people and he does a damn good job of it. How you could not understand such a simple, basic and deeply engrained character trait is utterly beyond me. <p> Silva is gay, he's coming on to Bond, who he has strapped to a chair and is more than likely planning on killing. Bond knows this, so he using the only weapon he has at his availability. His sexuality. He's PLAYING the guy. Just like he's done over and OVER to women in all the other movies. How could ANYONE think that that small interaction suddenly makes James fucking Bond gay? How could ANYONE not understand what was happening in that scene?! It was so completely obvious.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 3:06 a.m. CST

    codysolo, oy! Voice of reason! Thank you.

    by Jaka

    So glad to know that my understanding of the way movies work isn't broken. lol

  • The end felt like "STRAW DOGS". In fact this is the first Bond movie that dosen't look like a Bond movie. Ans that's a good thing for me. Is the first time that at the end of a Bond movie I feel hungry for the next episode.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 3:19 a.m. CST

    An OSCAR for Javier Bardem, NOW!!

    by kim

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 3:57 a.m. CST

    There is no way it is better than Casino Royale.

    by Righteous Brother

    No way.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 4 a.m. CST

    Aesthetically gorgeous

    by bubcus

    I was fascinated with the colors and cinematography at certain points of the film. I liked Q, loved M as always, Adele's song was absolutely appropriate, and Craig has been outstanding as Bond. Ultimately an enjoyable film and I look forward to the next one.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 4:01 a.m. CST

    Is waaaay better from Casino Royale.

    by kim

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 4:16 a.m. CST

    codysolo...

    by Righteous Brother

    100% correct.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 4:30 a.m. CST

    creepythinmanforever

    by Mr Kite

    Excellent post. You hit the nail on the head.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 5:06 a.m. CST

    What makes you think this is my first time?

    by nameitpurple

    Codysolo, good luck with the attempt to explain the concept of subtext. I think you also have to look at that line as a direct callback to the torture scene in Casino Royale. This is indeed not the first time Daniel Craig's Bond has been strapped to a chair and had his masculinity attacked. And compared to last time.... Silva just ain't worrying him.

  • If he had to have his ass pounded by a man so he could pass as gay and have information or access to something as part of a mission, pretty sure he would do it.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 5:17 a.m. CST

    re: "Bond is gay. The scene was played straight."

    by buggerbugger

    If it were played straight, Bond wouldn't be gay, he'd be bisexual, considering all of the women he's shagged senseless. He'd be bi. Bi, James Bi. Bond is so confident in his heterosexuality that he can shrug off suggestions of being homosexual and even play along with them himself. FUCKING DUH!

  • The morale of the story. don't let Daniel Craig go out to Hollywood fucking parties and sign up directors and bond villains. hugh jackman i'm looking at you buddy.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 6:19 a.m. CST

    What makes you think this is my first time?

    by Luke

    All the debate is irrelevant, as asking the above question, based on grammar alone, is NOT categorically saying 'I am gay.' Cody is 100% right anyway, but the above just proves it further. Plus, he fucks women enthusiastically and often, so if anything he'd be bi. A bi Bond? I don't have a problem with that. Dude's so badass he'd probably fuck a horse if the option arose.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 6:45 a.m. CST

    Dog Paperweight

    by high_as_in_berg

    I loved the fact that M gives the dog to Bond at the end and Naomie Harris' line, "I guess it was her way of telling you to take a day job." And then Bond's response: "Just the opposite." Perfect! At first I thought focusing on the dog would reveal some camera inside or something, but the fact that it is intended to represent Bond (the dog miraculously survives an explosion, much like Bond himself during that final showdown at the house) and his loyalty to M put a huge smile on my face.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 6:45 a.m. CST

    DESK JOB, not Day Job... Duh

    by high_as_in_berg

  • Never felt disoriented by the extended action scenes and loved that Mendes even locked the camera down for the silouhette fight with the sniper, showing that endless cutting to disorient the audience is so tiresome - it is far more thrilling if we can actually follow the action (Michael Bay, take note). Also, each action scene paid off! I was getting annoyed at how they kept cutting back and forth between Bond chasing Silva through London underground and M defending herself in court, but when it all built up to Silva fucking crashing the party and almost killing M, I was speechless. Great payoff! Not to mention the ultra cool Bond turning his gun on Fiennes just to shoot the fire extinguishers. Nice. The movie was so great in its subtle details that I was a little disappointed in the scene where Silva shoots the girl and Bond casually quips about the "waste of good scotch" just to get the upper hand. It would have been nice to see Bond show a little remorse over her death after they captured Silva, it would have extinguished the misogynistic flavor the scene left in my mouth. She just seemed to have no value as a human being to Bond as a result, which felt inconsistent with the other Craig films. Certainly not a deal breaker, but it did bother me while watching the rest of the movie.

  • that you are not also gay. Admit it boys and girls, Bond is gay thanks to Skyfall.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 9:09 a.m. CST

    haha bond is gay! we're all gay thanks to glee haha! woo!

    by Stephen

    midichlorians make you gay.

  • Machiavellianism, morons, look it up.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 9:25 a.m. CST

    or Bond, for that matter.

    by Vindibudd

    nm

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 9:25 a.m. CST

    Bravo creepythinman

    by Geoff

    I've never been so drawn into a post such as yours on this site ever.....FACT Exceptionally well written Sir.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 9:29 a.m. CST

    And furthermore, Bond's comment kills Silva's buzz.

    by Vindibudd

    So obviously it worked.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 9:50 a.m. CST

    they should change the iconic openning of Bond shooting the gun barrel

    by Spandau Belly

    to Bond chucking that dog knick-knack at the gun barrel.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 10:18 a.m. CST

    creepythinmanforever

    by one9deuce

    You're totally off the mark. You can't really bitch about the BOND series becoming too much like the DARK KNIGHT or BOURNE films, then complain that they might re-introduce classic Bond elements in the future. You can only change so much before you don't have the same character anymore. It's like in the past when they considered making Bond an American. Well, he ISN'T an American. Or when they considered making him a woman. Well, he ISN'T a woman. Do you see what I mean? I don't want Bond to be Bourne. I don't want Bond to be Batman. I don't want Bond to be an American. I don't want Bond to be a woman. I want James Bond to be James Bond. And yes, that includes some very James Bond elements. Like secret bases in volcanos, an ejector seat in a car, a villain with a cat on his lap, a jet pack, a Lamborghini submarine, and SPECTRE trying to take over the world. I hate that you think the return of Blofeld would be bad. It's EXACTLY what the series needs. With your way of thinking we wouldn't have gotten Heath Ledger's Joker. Just because something has been done campy before doesn't mean it always has to be campy. The crowd applauded when they saw the DB5 and the full on James Bond theme. Do you know why? Because they're fucking awesome and iconic! They've let Bond become a little too generic. Do you think that anything from SKYFALL will show up in a 007 movie in 50 years and have people applaud? Fuck no. I'm so sick of everything trying to be real world and grounded. Let's have some fantastical elements again. Those are the things we remember fondly.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 10:20 a.m. CST

    For the next 007 JAMES BOND film...

    by one9deuce

    bring on QUANTUM!

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 10:23 a.m. CST

    I'm in the middle...

    by Lou Stools

    Enjoyed Skyfall, noticed the pacing problems...a lot of it dragged. Casino Royale is still the best and balanced the harder-edged, dramatic Bond while retaining the excitement and action. Skyfall also borrowed elements from Goldeneye (ex-00 bad guy) and The World Is Not Enough (MI6 blown up over personal vendetta against M). While everyone is comparing Skyfall to the TDK, I also saw some TDKR in there too: villain who uses the underground...hero out of shape at the beginning having been out of action for a while...character reveal at the end...and we learn Bond has his own Alfred hanging around his boyhood estate.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 11:07 a.m. CST

    Bond gay

    by Hipshot

    Well...no. Bi, maybe, but not judging by the vast amount of internal monologue in the books, or any of his actions in any films. Clearly, women are entertainment, and occassionally actual love interests. However...as the world becomes more sexually ambiguous it is fair play for them to insert a question mark (if not an erect penis) into the conversation (or his ass). If gay guys want to fantasize about 007, why the hell not. The rest of us do. Just not...uh...that particular way.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 11:42 a.m. CST

    Thoughts on Bond/Batman

    by Stephen

    Something has been lost with modern cinema. Maybe I'm just older and looking on the world differently, but when I was a kid guys like Bond and Batman were heroes. You watched their exploits and you took notes. You were never supposed to relate to them, you were supposed to look up to them. And we did. My mom always hated James Bond. Well, no she didn't. I mean, she didn't burn Fleming books or anything. And she let me watch the movies, but she would always do so disapprovingly. But that's good. My mom ain't supposed to like James Bond. I am. I'm a kid who wants to be cool. James Bond is nothing if not cool. Of course you grow up and then you're not cool, so there's always gonna be some resentment. Inherent jealousy. Fine. You either become a dick and start hating Bond movies because they're silly and not "intelligent" or you just ignore it altogether, or you keep trying to understand why James Bond is cool and you're not. Then its 2006 and they reboot and you have your choices splayed out in front of you again. On one hand, the new Bond is everything you said you wanted when you started hating Bond. On the other hand, here you are again. He's cooler than you. But even on the other hand (we're on feet now I guess) He's not as cool as he used to be. So you can rejoice in gritty-Bond as many did. Or you can lament the loss of the old "traditional" Bond, even though you had started to hate him. Or you can sit confused and quietly give up movies forever because you don't know what to think anymore. One of the key changes that came along with the realism movement is character vulnerability. Roger Moore was untouchable, dancing across alligators like a boss. Daniel Craig gets in these brutal fistfights. There's so much more danger. Danger is fundamentally an attempt to make the audience relate to the situation the character is in. To make the audience feel Bond's pain. But as I explained before, Bond is fundamentally unrelatable. That's why we liked him in the first place. He's our aspirations, not our faults. Almost the exact same thing happened with Batman. Bale had these great melancholies. Batman's always been dark, but he bordered on mopey. The filmmakers gave both Batman and Bond love interests and had them genuinely hurt because of it, all in attempt to humanize the characters. But these aren't humans. Batman? James Bond!? These are gods. No matter how good these movies are (its damn near consensus that The Dark Knight and Casino Royale are winners) there's still a problem. The problem is that they portray these characters as hating their life. Craig doesn't bed beautiful women because he wants it, he doesn't appreciate the exotic locales, he just works with a grim efficiency. Bale is so overly pained by the existence of crime, he never enjoys what he does. And the whole there's guys in the audience going "why the hell are you so sad? You're fuckin' BATMAN!"

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 11:44 a.m. CST

    creepythinmanforever

    by kim

    The times are changing. We don't need more of the old BOND. A character with no psicology or personalitty, who kills with no remorse, fuck models and have impossible gadgets to BOOM BOOM everything on his way. I prefer a BOND who thinks, suffers have contradictions an is human as you and I. With all the respect, If you one BOOM BOOM and gadgets, I recomend you Agent Cody Banks, Spy Kids or Inspector Gadget. The times and the problems of the world we live in now, have nothing to do with the Connery or Roger Moore era.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, noon CST

    booger_t, you're somewhat correct

    by Spandau Belly

    I agree with you that I enjoy Bond more when he's having a bit of fun. I like the character being depicted that way. I wouldn't say that the old films were without a sense of danger or brutality though. I think it just seems less harsh because the films have aged. Connery and Moore got slugged around plenty, Brosnan even got tortured for a long period, and there would be frequent shots lingering on them grimacing as they dangled from ledges or in uncomfortable situations. Even in a movie as silly as MOONRAKER, Moore is clearly in danger during the part where they try to kill him in that shuttle simulator. As for Batman, I actually think the character should be brooding. I think Nolan's interpretation of the character is fine. But just because the character is brooding, doesn't mean the overall movie has to be joyless. I thought the first two of Nolan's films had enough comic relief and fun action to balance out the brooding main character. The Joker as a villain brought a certain liveliness to the film that was much needed. TDKR however was mopey. Alfred was one of the sources of humour in previous films, but even he seemed like he was in on the competition to out-sulk Batman.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 3:15 p.m. CST

    Being bi, does make you gay.

    by frank

    It doesn't matter how women he fucked, he still tasted some dick in his mouth. Not that i have a particular problem with that, Bond being gay and all but i find it entertaining how some homophobes, like Jaka, are trying so hard to persuade us that the scene was not played at all like this, that Bond was not genuinely revealing that he had gay sex. Pathetic of their part, actually.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 3:24 p.m. CST

    I guess I'll be that guy...

    by Bill C.

    ...and feed the trolls, if in an askew way: http://www.eonline.com/news/361425/daniel-craig-gay-james-bond-never-going-to-happen And the relevant quote from CR, if folks recall, was "Now the whole world's gonna know that you died scratching my balls!" (Bond, Le Chiffre, and the rope).

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 3:27 p.m. CST

    @booger_t: to be honest, it's not just cinema IMO.

    by Bill C.

    TV, too...everything's been on a serious, occasionally upgraded to gritty and fucking depressing, kick for a very long time. If it's supposed to be a reflection of our society and times, I kinda think I want 1989 back...

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 3:30 p.m. CST

    Too late Craig. The scene is in the movie now.

    by frank

    You can tell anything you want but the fact remains that there is a scene where Bond openly admits that he is gay or bi. And judging by the fact that the people behind the movie took it to themselves to set things straight concerning Bond's sexuality, it is pretty clear that they are doing damage control for a scene which caused a lot more stir among the fans, than they had anticipated it. That's what you get, when you try to modernize a 60 years old fictional character. Still though, no black Bond..

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 5:01 p.m. CST

    cavejohnson

    by Hipshot

    How many lies has Bond told over the course of the series? About his name, his occupation, his intent? Kinda silly to say that something he says under duress, tied to a chair with guns pointed at his head is "the truth." Oh, please. But yeah, there'll be a black Bond one day. Get used to the idea.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 6:03 p.m. CST

    You guys realize that cavejohnson doesn't ACTUALLY think James Bond is gay right?

    by KEVIN_COSTNERS_RECYCLED_PISS

    He just really REALLY hates this movie and is just trolling anyone who liked it.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 8:53 p.m. CST

    midichlorians make you gay.

    by Jaka

    I laughed.

  • Nov. 14, 2012, 8:55 p.m. CST

    kevin_costners_recycled_piss, actually, no

    by Jaka

    I think he has an agenda, and a ridiculous one at that. Trust me, I know the type. That's cool, let him go out into the real world and try that shit. See how far he gets. The fact that ANYBODY would misunderstand what was happening in that scene BEAUTIFULLY explains why so much of our entertainment has become numbingly watered down and boring. That being, most human beings are base, shallow, ignorant little creatures who are devolving at an alarming rate.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 3:35 a.m. CST

    So Robert Elswitt's not a "world class DP"?

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    Roger Deakin's wishes that were the case. Then he might have finally won an Oscar for "No Country For Old Men" - but then there was Elswitt and "There Will Be Blood" rightfully reigning supreme. Even though "World Is Not Enough" isn't the greatest, I'm fairly sure Adrian Biddle was a "world class" cinematographer. I prefer Phil Meheux also. Roger Deakin's barely even even makes the top twenty currently working DPs. Roger Deakins is good. He's a great lighter. He's not a master. Deakins has never even once shot with anamorphic lenses - which is the gold stardard for cinematographers. OVERrated. Just stop patting yourself on the back for memorizing a name. Personally, I think Sam Mendes should drop Deakins and go with John Toll, who is probably the closest thing to the late great Conrad Hall, whom Mendes' collaborated with to the tune of two consecutive cinematography Academy Awards out of two tries. Digital is counterfeit cinema.

  • Nov. 15, 2012, 4 a.m. CST

    Creepythinman.I worked at the school Mendes was as a young lad.

    by allouttabubblegum

    ....Magdalen college school.Oxford. Poncy school full of poncy kids.The kind of school where at career day they say "I want to be a filmmaker"..."here you go sonny go spend a month at Pinewood! jobs in the bag" Watching Skyfall reminded me of the amatuer dramatics they did at the school. Pretentious pompous fluff. Typical Mendes miserable mess. Met Mendes once also. Stick up ass guy.

  • Bisexual means that he's bisexual. He's neither gay nor straight. He's a third option. If being bisexual means that you're gay, it also means that you're straight, just... not "exclusively" straight. Which is, of course, nonsense. If you're going to repeatedly assert "Bond is gay!" you might as well say "Bond is straight!" because that's what being bisexual means, according to your logic.

  • it was a long post anyway. A month ago or so I was watching a cartoon called Young Justice. (I don't get a chance to watch much TV anymore, so I don't know the current shows) It really struck me how the characters were all these kids with kid-type problems. Yeah they were big save-the-world types, but they had these innate adolescent uncertainties that I never felt were there in Batman TAS or Superman TAS, the show's obvious predecessors. I think Teen Titans and other shows that give kids (the target audience) young characters they can connect to as opposed to older characters to admire (like Batman) are destroying the fundamental point of Superheroes. (Bond is a superhero too) Which is that "I wanna be you when I grow up" type of mystique.

  • Nov. 17, 2012, 8:52 a.m. CST

    Keep learnin kids. Someday you will obtain ultra.

    by UltraTron

  • movie has the most seamless integration of bluescreen elements ever. All miniatures and effects look perfect. Just as good as can be and even ditches the dench for a perfect M.

  • Nov. 17, 2012, 10:51 a.m. CST

    It must be..

    by Dheep

    It must be So painful for some of you here to be alive. Surrounded by a sea of Total mediocrity. Knowing in your heart you were meant for far greater things... And yet , here you are - down in the wasteland with the simpletons. Reading such dreck. Wasting your time of greatness commenting about total Garbage. How terrible for you.

  • Nov. 17, 2012, 10:51 a.m. CST

    Skyfall ?

    by Dheep

    Oh forgot...loved it.

  • Nov. 17, 2012, 11:07 a.m. CST

    Adele's song was absolutely appropriate,

    by Dheep

    Correct. Song -appropriate. Choice of vocalists - NOT. What a LAZY vocal. Don't know if she can't or just was lazy - but at the turnaround when she hits the high notes. Cringe- worthy. Listen to it again. Just terrible,unenthusiastic, plain draggin' Ass !

  • Oh goody, he left his password out in the open in clear text! Nothing suspicious about that!

  • Nov. 18, 2012, 9:46 p.m. CST

    And, I still hate the new Q.

    by Royston Lodge

    I thought it should have been someone like Jason Statham, but with a cane or something. Desmond Llewelyn's Q was a Major. Make the new Q a Royal Engineer whose ambition was to become a double-o, but ended being injured so he had to settle for the position of Quartermaster. Give him a chip on his shoulder because he's jealous of Bond. Do NOT make him a computer hacker whiz kid. Since when is computer hacking in the job description for a fucking quartermaster?!?! They handled this better in the Brosnan era. Q was the quartermaster. That black guy was the operations guy. Two entirely different jobs.

  • In no other Bond song is the title repeat THAT MANY TIMES. Fuck, we get it. The movie's called Skyfall. Thanks for reminding us already. Now shut up.

  • Nov. 18, 2012, 9:47 p.m. CST

    Not the worst Bond flick, but nowhere near the top either.

    by Royston Lodge

    I like Quantum of Solace way better than I liked Skyfall. Fuck the haters.

Top Talkbacks