Breaking Bond: Why Skyfall is the Worst Bond Movie Ever

[IronMit]

Hi OP. I think skyfall was probably the worst movie I have seen in a decade but for other reasons. Here's a copy and paste of what i posted under the review in this site;

SPOILERS!!!!!! SPOILLLLLLLERSSSSS! SPOILERS!

This is the worst Bond movie ever made. Forgot Bond movie....it's the worst action film I have seen.
What is wrong with everyone??!

Every single time the plot advances there are several new plot holes and contrivances.

How does Craig continue fighting with a bullet in him? I know his awesome hard but his not terminator. (This is a film all critics are saying is now up-to-date and realistic.)

Bond was being held up by the throat on the train in the specific angle? this was the most imaginative way they could use to 'kill off Bond' and make him all upset about being betrayed?
Not only is it overdone & lacks creativity but it's still full of plot holes.

Bond could hear the order- he could of just dropped to the floor

Why didn't Naomi keep shooting?

How did Bond survive 2 bullet wounds and that fall? Bourne or the punisher survive..because this is how their journey begins...it's what makes them special. You can't do something like that to an already special established character

So we are just going to explain everything by hacking magic? can we have hacking defined in this universe because it's a bit vague- like how, the context, the limitations...kind of like how die hard 4, goldeneye do it? for all i know silva could of programmed a satellite to fall on people.

Bond pulls a uranium tipped bullet shrapnel out of his chest? led poisoning? does this isotope of uranium cause cancer? Only 3 baddies in the world use this bullet?!! his a ghost! but here's his flight manifesto! This is how we are going to advance the plot??!?!

Bond can't shoot and has crap fitness? is it mental or physical? -i need to watch it again.
Half way through the film his suddenly 100% again with no explanation

Bond follows an assassin and allows him to kill people. But in casino royale and QoS he grew into a character that at first didn't care (half monk half hitman) but then became a good guy (fell in love, saved cammille- even though he didn't have to). As part of a trilogy this is inconsistent.

The bad guys escape- the joker's was creative; silva had a convenient trap door? are you kidding me?!! I know lets put the hacker in a cell that's connected and controlled by our computer network. Lets not connect Silva's laptop to an isolated computer..this is hollywood hacking 101 stuff since 1997. Then they didn't even show the escape- how did he cover all that space between him and a trained agent with a gun?

Silva hacks everything and has planned everything but his master plan is a firefight in a courtroom?! Why not just kidnap M with hacking. He spends several years being a ghost then at the end his impatient, stupid and reckless.

Now i think about it..what did silva achieve by being caught? He could of had a convo with M at any time because hacking can do everything now. The joker got that chinese accountant person...silva got a free flight to london!

knowing all this lets go back to the start;

Why are there only 2 agents (+ 1 dead) trying to get the macgiffin list?

How did the bad guys get it...what was it doing in turkey?

What happened to the list half way through?

I thought this was a good way to start it...but looking at the lack of imagination & creativity throughout the rest of the film it was clear they just couldn't think of a reason. Even charlies angels 2 thought up those '2 rings'.

I'm going to stop here...the plot holes and stupidities of every character involved continue and i probably missed a lot out.
The point is a film like dark knight will have far fewer plot holes and stupid moments and when they do occur at least Nolan isn't regurgitating easy plot devices and is being a bit more creative about it. You can do mind gymnastics to answer questions but after about 5 major ones narrative coherence goes into the toilet.

Why is Q, the quartermaster a master hacker? These are completely different skill sets.

The themes are lame; james Bond in a new world. we did this in goldeneye already. and the last 2 movies, financing terror/civil wars, natural resources....i don't think we need this theme...just a harvey dent conference moment for skyfall. But for Batman it was relevant-his a vigilante, the whole point of what he done was to inspire the citizens and officals and thus was a theme throughout all 3 movies- Bond is a SECRET agent- this theme here was forced and out of place and not even done well.

There is nothing 'deep' about going back to skyfall/parents house. I can make a dozen fanfictions about the main character going to his old house to get cheap applause.

QoS wasn't well made if people didn't get it but there was a coherent point, minimal plot holes and character development of the origins of Bond that made sense. Did this film just reboot the reboot of the origins of Bond, one film later?

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Nah.

I still think that Eurotrash Wotsisname renditions of deconstructed Bond in Quantum of Suckage (and to a certain extent Casino Royale) was the low point for the IP. Well lower than frilly Lazenby.

I'm not much of a fan of Javier Boredom, but I think he does a decent job with the material he's given. Bond could just as well be gay, a beardy wahhabi or a castrate compared to Connery's or Moore's more flashy and more manly ways of cool. I don't think Remington Steele dude's efforts matter much, as he was mainly a BMW poster boy, which still sucks. Bond cannot and must not be about German cars. It's just wrong.

I actually like Daniel Craigs Bond, but I hope they'll find the inner Broccoli to get the IP back on track. More humour, more sexy, less philosophical ponderings on mortality and squeezing a completely obsolete prequely reveal out of thin air. I don't mind the CSI style computer nonsense much, I don't mind Bardem doing Aryan blonde Gollum mutant, but I do hope the next Bond builds on Skyfall and pretty much forgets all about the two previous ones that deserve to be buried in the E. T. landfill.

I liked a lot of the stunty, superhumany action in Skyfall. It's just well done. It's modern pacing but good old handiwork. No computer-generated stuff that hurt eyes and intellect, safe for the HQ explosion that looked a bit too tacked on in after effects. I liked the Highlands location, even though it was wasted in darkness and indoor shots of what could just as well have been the mines of Moria. I didn't get the frosted over lake thing, that came out of nowhere for me. I didn't like the A-Team McGyver approach, but it was at least logically sound and not too annoying. The whole plot looked a bit like an attempt to re-invent a Bond for our modern times so as not to spook the Jersey Shore watchers away and not get sued for sexism, racism and animal abuse as outlined by the cohorts of raging lawyers from the legal department. I think it's an OK movie, but a bit of a cheap bargain bin looking production for what Bond used to be back in the days. Still, I prefer to have a Bond like Skyfall than no Bond at all.

The only reason I owe a copy or two of Casino Royale is Mads Mikkelsen. Love that guy. Not sure he'll be much fun to watch as Hannibal on TV next year, but I find it hard to get my fill of Mikkelsen.

 

[Acton Hank]

Then basically the movie rips off Dark Knight Rises

For that matter Fliming for Skyfall started on the 7th of November 2012 and finished on the 25th of May 2012. Again you'll notice that these dates precede The Dark Knight Rises' release by sevral months.

So you're saying that Skyfall finished filming before filming actually started?

That makes perfect sense.

 

[IronMit]

Then basically the movie rips off Dark Knight Rises

For that matter Fliming for Skyfall started on the 7th of November 2012 and finished on the 25th of May 2012. Again you'll notice that these dates precede The Dark Knight Rises' release by sevral months.

So you're saying that Skyfall finished filming before filming actually started?

That makes perfect sense.

lol. basically Nolan thought where do i take the batman story after The dark knight.
Then Mendes saw dark knight and thought 'i like this....how can i take it further'
Thus 2 titles that came out at the same time had a few similarities.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

I can't take you seriously in any possible way. The best way to destroy any of your credibility is to name something "WORST (INSERT TYPE OF MEDIA) EVER!!1"

So in your opinion Bond movies should always be the same and never change even in the slightest detail, until the world stops turning? Jesus christ, why am I even wasting my time on a topic like this. Oh wait, yes I do.

 

[Zen Toombs]

Okay all previous Bond villains have a scheme for MAKING MONEY. Can you understand the concept? People who have plans to MAKE MONEY attract like minded individuals. Maybe they are henchman types, maybe they are elite henchman types. The whole thing that motivates them is MAKING MONEY. There is NO MONEY in revenge. Period. None. Silva didn't want to extort money for revealing those agents, he didn't want to make money at all. So how could he attract like-minded people? The answer is he got the henchman rejects.

Methinks you missed Silva's intro scene. There, he established he has the means to have ALL of the money using the fancy power of hacking. Yes, revenge is his main goal, but he established that he does have a lucrative side job, otherwise how could he pay for his helicopters and his explosives and his army of henchmen?

Why do people like this movie?

Because it was BLOODY AWESOME that's why.

Frankly, your arguments do a halfway decent job of arguing that Skyfall is not a good movie, but do a horrible job of arguing that it's a bad Bond movie.

"But the plot holes! But the nonsensical epic fight scenes!" you say. "Have you SEEN a James Bond movie before?" I respond.

 

[Zen Toombs]

The first half of the film, especially the China sequence, was pure Bond, and pure cinema for that matter. I loved this movie.

HOW DARE YOU HAVE OPINIONS GARBLEGARBLEGARBLE

Which popcorn should I eat as people dissect th[e OPs] very poor point?

I have 2 kinds here, White Cheddar Chipotle and Fudge Drizzled Caramel.

CARAM... ahem, I mean Caramel. It's far yummier.

 

[Vivi22]

I'm sure Dark Knight Rises was in development at some point before it was released. Your idea that it was shot, edited, and released instantly is a little... naive.

That sound you hear would be FargoDog's point flying clear over your head.

When Bond boards the train, he has a blood stain on his right side from nipple height to bottom of the rib cage. When Bond removes the bullet, it is in his left side just below the collar bone. It's that "paying attention" thing that I mentioned earlier.

For someone who rails on about paying attention so much you apparently did very little of that yourself. The bullet hit him in the right shoulder. Their was blood, clearly present from his shoulder, down the right side of his shirt because, gravity being a thing which does exist, blood tends to run down. When you see him removing the bullet fragment later, they are showing him do it in a mirror, and specifically film his reflection, not him. This is why it appears that he's pulling it out of the left shoulder.

So please, before you whine some more about other people not paying attention, take your own advice, because these two things you're complaining about being inconsistent weren't at all. In fact, I doubt they could have made them any clearer in the film.

Now, I'm going to swiftly exit this thread lest I succumb any more than I already have to this shockingly successful attempt to troll.

 

[Nimzabaat]

I'm sure Dark Knight Rises was in development at some point before it was released. Your idea that it was shot, edited, and released instantly is a little... naive.

That sound you hear would be FargoDog's point flying clear over your head.

When Bond boards the train, he has a blood stain on his right side from nipple height to bottom of the rib cage. When Bond removes the bullet, it is in his left side just below the collar bone. It's that "paying attention" thing that I mentioned earlier.

For someone who rails on about paying attention so much you apparently did very little of that yourself. The bullet hit him in the right shoulder. Their was blood, clearly present from his shoulder, down the right side of his shirt because, gravity being a thing which does exist, blood tends to run down. When you see him removing the bullet fragment later, they are showing him do it in a mirror, and specifically film his reflection, not him. This is why it appears that he's pulling it out of the left shoulder.

So please, before you whine some more about other people not paying attention, take your own advice, because these two things you're complaining about being inconsistent weren't at all. In fact, I doubt they could have made them any clearer in the film.

Now, I'm going to swiftly exit this thread lest I succumb any more than I already have to this shockingly successful attempt to troll.

So now Bond has a magical shirt that cleans up blood at the point of impact and moves it downwards? That's AWESOME!!!

When he removes the bullet his back is to us and he is looking in a mirror. The wound is on the upper left side in the mirror, which since his back is to us, is HIS upper left side.

It's not really relevant to the discussion anyways, but if people can't battle any other argument they try for the little ones I guess. The point is that Bond is supposed to be good at this. He's supposed to be frikkin legendary for his skills. He's not supposed to get tagged at all because he's been in a lot of firefights and has some situational awareness going on. The performance Bond gives in the movie suggest otherwise. He's only good enough to take on minor henchman types and constantly makes bad judgement calls. The new Bond movies were supposed to be a little better thought out than the old ones. I wonder if that's why Skyfall is doing so well? The LCD wanted stupid and they got it.

 

[Nimzabaat]

I think we all nee to take a step back and acknowledge something.

This man is trying to claim that Skyfall is the worst movie in a franchise that includes Moonraker.

That automatically makes him completely wrong.

I think you need to acknowledge something. Moonraker came out in 1979. 1979. Nineteen seventy nine. At the time Moonraker was a good movie. Now it's laughable and campy. If Skyfall had come out in 1979 I would be a lot more forgiving. 1979.

 

[mattttherman3]

The only scene I did not like is the one where silva was first introduced. Granted, I laughed audibly in the theatre at it.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

The first half of the film, especially the China sequence, was pure Bond, and pure cinema for that matter. I loved this movie.

HOW DARE YOU HAVE OPINIONS GARBLEGARBLEGARBLE

Which popcorn should I eat as people dissect th[e OPs] very poor point?

I have 2 kinds here, White Cheddar Chipotle and Fudge Drizzled Caramel.

CARAM... ahem, I mean Caramel. It's far yummier.

I just had both :S

 

[Vivi22]

It's not really relevant to the discussion anyways, but if people can't battle any other argument they try for the little ones I guess.

If you had bothered to make a reasonable argument for any of the others they may be worth debating, but all you've said has amounted to little more than "this and that are stupid because I say they are." At least your bullet argument is something which can be proven wrong since it is an objective matter easily refuted by simply paying attention to the movie. Something you didn't seem to do.

The point is that Bond is supposed to be good at this. He's supposed to be frikkin legendary for his skills. He's not supposed to get tagged at all because he's been in a lot of firefights and has some situational awareness going on.

This argument is blatantly ridiculous. No amount of situational awareness is going to keep someone from getting hurt eventually. We had two movies before this where Bond took greater risks with his own life and safety for the job than in probably any movie in the history of the character, and if you didn't notice, he gets the shit kicked out of him quite a bit in the other movies. He still comes out on top, but he's been absolutely brutalized before this.

If the best argument you have for this movie sucking is that a secret agent who frequently gets shot at finally got shot, and a man who was trained by the same people, knows how they think, and is almost as good as he is nearly outsmarted him, then you don't really have an argument. Sorry, but you completely missed the point of that movie because you were too busy fiddling with some stick up your ass about how Bond is apparently invincible and infallible. Two things which are categorically opposed to the depiction of this version of Bond from the very beginning. He's good, because he can get the shit beat out of him and still come out on top. He's good because he can have things go sideways on him but manage to keep pressing forward with a bit of thinking and some creativity. He's good because he will do what it takes to get the job done, no matter the cost to him.

If he were absolutely perfect and infallible as you think he should be, he wouldn't be a very good character. In fact, he'd be absolutely boring.

 

[Schtoobs]

What a load of tripe. I really liked the film and thought it was a step up from QoS. You wanted Bond to win everything didn't you? Yeah, me too. But I still prefer it this way. Just because you guessed that they would

Spoiler

kill M off

doesn't make it a bad film. I guessed it early on as well... still enjoyed it. Most of your complaints are about realism and silly coincidence and you say this is the worst of the Bond films? You might want to watch them again with your new critical eye.

Don't complain about coincidences in movies based on fiction and expect it to matter. Everyone else noticed already so you are just pointing out the obvious like it's an incredible insight. A suspension of disbelief is required when viewing almost any movie. You should be better at watching movies.

 

[Zen Toombs]

Which popcorn should I eat as people dissect th[e OPs] very poor point?

I have 2 kinds here, White Cheddar Chipotle and Fudge Drizzled Caramel.

CARAM... ahem, I mean Caramel. It's far yummier.

I just had both :S

I thought I'd suggest that, but then I realized that Cheese + Chocolate/Caramel might not be all that tasty.

The only scene I did not like is the one where silva was first introduced. Granted, I laughed audibly in the theatre at it.

I actually really liked it. The rat story was cool and the scene established Silva as powerful, intelligent, insane and SCARY.

Also, I have a thing for continuous shots.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

When Bond boards the train, he has a blood stain on his right side from nipple height to bottom of the rib cage. When Bond removes the bullet, it is in his left side just below the collar bone. It's that "paying attention" thing that I mentioned earlier. So basically he was removing Moneypenny's round, not Patrice's. Now, realistically, some military rounds are designed to tumble inside the body causing greater internal damage. If you prefer, maybe Patrice's bullet entered on the right side and tumbled through to the left side? Maybe Bond had a scar from a different wound that was conveniently close enough to where he felt the pain that he just decided to "go in from there"? If it makes you feel better we can go with that

Captcha: know your rights (damn straight!)

At 2:13 you can quite clearly see he was shot by patrice in his upper right torso. when he is removing it, it appears to be in his left side because he is doing it in a mirror.

 

[Ftaghn To You Too]

Moonraker exists. All arguments are invalid.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Here's a few facts:

1. Gritty Realism is now the norm. Until the current reverses, we won't ever see more of the Ultracool Tuxedo-rockin' Walther PPK-totin' and lady-bangin' James Bond. Take Strawberry Fields in Quantum of Solace. Her name is a reference to the classic "Bond Girl" stereotype (and also an odd Beatles reference), but we only come to know her as Fields, with the focus being put on what she can do as an operative. She's not there to provide another pair of tits for a more lecherous Bond to fondle. That alone should clue you in as to what is the aim of the newer crop of Bond films.

Deconstructing heroes or making them vulnerable is now commonplace, appreciated and accepted. We've moved past simply following the Rule of Cool for its own sake. I personally loathed the Brosnan Era because of how indulgent it was, and I'm a big fan of any Bond flick that actually has a head on its shoulders. Bonds that focus on the tropes of the series, like Octopussy, are just terribly boring to me.

2. M dying more or less substantiates the fact that for some key members of MI6, their apparent identity is only a cover-up. I'm fairly sure James Bond *is* the man's name and that there's only been one instance of the man per universe (if we acknowledge the fact that every movie pre-Casino Royale is part of the same timeline, with CR acting as a neat break of previous continuity and as a reboot).

This means there's two distinct timelines, and two distinct James Bonds. The first one only had the distinction of being played by a wide variety of actors. The second one is still in his nascent phase, so we've only got Dan Craig for the time being. I fully expect M to make a return in the next movie, with a new face. Helen Mirren, maybe?

3. Bond flicks have always been silly to a degree or another. The Craig Era is Bond at his most serious to date, but I'm not too surprised to find silly hazards like Komodo dragons or scorpions get thrown in the mix. It's a nice echo to the character's Pulp sensibilities and so long as it's used in moderation, I really don't mind.

As far as the theme not fitting the character, I have to disagree. We're in 2012. Stories of government-sanctioned cutpurses or throat-slitters are starting to feel like they belong in Regency Era court dramas or World War II epics. Governments have more or less embraced electronic warfare as the new means to snoop on would-be enemies, and spies are actually more sheltered than ever. Instead of hoping you'll be able to make the drop for your appointed courier; one quick email and you're done.

Considering this, exploring the relevancy of oldschool spies is more than appropriate. Cyberwarfare and virtual intrusions are eventually going to supercede any flesh-and-blood cloak-and-daggers material. For better or for worse, intelligence agencies have been adapting to this for the better part of the last fifteen years, give or take a few.

Being a Canuck, I can only base myself off of what I'm seeing in terms of how the RCMP is handling sensitive cases or online crimes. From what I can see, the new James Bond is a guy who's sitting at a computer and who gets paid to play the part of everything from a sixteen year-old girl to a would-be purchaser of illegal weapons or drugs.

 

[halfeclipse]

Then basically the movie rips off Dark Knight Rises

For that matter Fliming for Skyfall started on the 7th of November 2011 and finished on the 25th of May 2012. Again you'll notice that these dates precede The Dark Knight Rises' release by sevral months.

So you're saying that Skyfall finished filming before filming actually started?

That makes perfect sense.

YOU SAW NOTHING! NOTHING! Edited, Not that 2011 was typoed to 2012 is terrible hard to infer.



Point remains, Skyfall finished filming well before rises was released. Unless you wish to make an unsuportable claim that MGM ordered a rewrite of the entire first act, then had it reshot?

 

[Captain Anon]

worst James Bond movie? *cough* On Her Majesty's Secret Service *cough*