Breaking Bond: Why Skyfall is the Worst Bond Movie Ever

[Nimzabaat]

SPOILER ALERT!

The main theme of Skyfall is that Bond is a dinosaur. He is obsolete, getting old, and has outlived his usefulness. This is driven home many times along the course of the movie. In the very opening scene Bond proves his incompetence by getting shot, chasing down a (proven later) pants-on-head-retarded goon and then not being able to cope with said goon. Then Bond ignores the information being communicated to him via his radio (because the old skool guys ignore radios!) and gets shot again. Then basically the movie rips off Dark Knight Rises, without (and this is important) the Batman er Bond getting his groove back part. Basically he fails all his tests to go back in the field but they just pat his head and send him out anyways. This is proven to be a mistake throughout the rest of the movie. Sure, Bond looks all badass by taking out C-List goons (Let?s face it, an A-List goon would not sign up with a villain who is out for revenge. That?s stupid. A-Listers go for villains who have plans that will make them rich, or at least richer.) but otherwise his flagging skill-set isn?t up to the task. Oh and the bad guy is Jason Bourne, with an inexplicable amount of resources and henchmen (again, C-List henchmen, but there's still a bunch of them). I?m not going into the ?James Bond isn?t his real name? argument (though that has been established as far back as George Lazenby) but the whole family homestead bit was incredibly stupid. But the thing that makes this the worst Bond movie ever? Bond fails. The villain gets everything he wants and Bond doesn?t stop him. The villain wanted three things: to reveal MI6s agents (He succeeds with no indication that anyone stopped him from revealing the rest of the agents), to kill M (One of his C-List goons actually kills M with a ricochet so? success!), and to die (Bond helps him with this in a bad-horror-movie-death-scene. Strike that, it?s a god-awful-horror-movie-death-scene.) The bad guy takes his time to call in reinforcements while Bond is doing a bad MacGyver impersonation. Seriously, the end of the movie is the stupidest part. Even M doesn?t pull her head out of her ass long enough to say ?we?ve had time to call in the entire SAS at this point?. So yeah, then there?s a bad melodrama scene where Bond realizes that his ?old skool? approach completely failed (I?m going to make a ?you had one job!? meme about that, though feel free to beat me to it) and after that? everything is forgiven. It?s like Bond is the part of the ?special? team and you can?t tell him that he screwed up or he?ll cry. I?ll admit that Ralph Fiennes is as good a choice for a replacement M as any, but it doesn?t really do anything more than point out just how bad Bond screwed up.

On the subject of Daniel Craig: I didn?t mind when he was cast as the new Bond. It?s been established that James Bond is just a codename given to agent 007 long ago. There could be a black Bond (Idris Elba apparently wants the part and I hope he gets it. I also hope he gets better scripts.) and it would make no difference as long as he was good at his job. The thing with the Daniel Craig Bond is that they?re trying too hard to make him human. Bond isn?t human, he?s a professional killer and that sucks the humanity out of you. Well this time to make Bond human they made him into a colossal failure. Well done. I guess that is someone people can relate to.

 

[Pandalisk]

How was he getting shot the first time him being old? That whole scene had nothing to do with Bond being old, it was setting the whole aspect of "M"'s relationships with her agents in the field. All subsequent scenes is just him rehabilitating at best and a wink in the direction of the aging film goers at worst.

And again he was set out into the field because of "M". It doesn't have so much to do with him being old than the movie was highlighting his relationship with "M" considering how that film ends.

Fair enough on the whole "should've called the SAS" deal but its an action film, your not meant to take this thing completely logically. You need to have a level of disbelief or you wont enjoy yourself, this has been the trend for All the Bond films

Also Bond is not a "Professional Killer" hes a professional and hes a killer but he's not a "Professional Killer". He's a larger than life English spy steriotype, not some cold, calculating hitman. They've toned down the goofiness significantly and upped the drama and human elements to be sure but he'll always have his british swauveness because its what defines him.

Women, Martini's (Shaken, not stirred),a Walther PPK, cars and a whole lot of cool, this is Bond.

My only gripe is that i didn't like the villian, found him a bit weird to be honest.

Whole Skyfall movie was more about going back to roots (Skyfall manor) and clearing out skeleton in your closet to be honest. While you have a point with his age i don't think it was meant to be a theme, more an aspect of interest.

 

[Nimzabaat]

How was he getting shot the first time him being old? That whole scene had nothing to do with Bond being old, it was setting the whole aspect of "M"'s relationships with her agents in the field. All subsequent scenes is just him rehabilitating at best and a wink in the direction of the aging film goers at worst.

And again he was set out into the field because of "M". It doesn't have so much to do with him being old than the movie was highlighting his relationship with "M" considering how that film ends.

Fair enough on the whole "should've called the SAS" deal but its an action film, your not meant to take this thing completely logically. You need to have a level of disbelief or you wont enjoy yourself, this has been the trend for All the Bond films

Also Bond is not a "Professional Killer" hes a professional and hes a killer but he's not a "Professional Killer". He's a larger than life English spy steriotype, not some cold, calculating hitman. They've toned down the goofiness significantly and upped the drama and human elements to be sure but he'll always have his british swauveness because its what defines him.

Women, Martini's (Shaken, not stirred),a Walther PPK, cars and a whole lot of cool, this is Bond.

My only gripe is that i didn't like the villian, found him a bit weird to be honest.

Whole Skyfall movie was more about going back to roots (Skyfall manor) and clearing out skeleton in your closet to be honest. While you have a point with his age i don't think it was meant to be a theme, more an aspect of interest.

I personally think the villain should have been a henchman for a smarter villain. Then maybe he went rogue and took thing personally without that being the whole plot.

As for Bond getting shot in the opening scene? He's James Bond! He's supposed to be aware of his surroundings and situation at all times. That's why he's almost never wounded, especially in the opening scene. He was slipping even then. (And now that I think about it, didn't he get shot in the lower right side of his body? Didn't he pull the bullet "only used by three people in the world" out of the upper left side of his body? Doesn't that mean that Moneypenny was using the depleted uranium round? Okay that's just nit-picking).

I do like Bond's strategy with women; didn't use a condom? Better get her killed. (scumbag Bond meme anyone?)

The bit about M and her relationship with her agents? They are expendable. No relationship there. Bond hates her because he got expended. Then he gets all sentimental at the end? Why not just throw in a slow motion sex scene while they are at it? Wrinkly funbags galore!

So I have to ask though, what is cool about Bond being a complete failure? How is that cool? He screwed up, over and over again until the package he was protecting was dead. How can that be cool? How is that even acceptable? I sincerely hope that the mission that New M gave him at the end was to pick up his dry-cleaning.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Being an assassin and using a bullet only three people in the world use? That's pants-on-head-retarded. (Though technically that bullet was fired by Moneypenny, the assassin hit Bond lower on the opposite side).

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.

You're forgetting that Bond tracking Silva down and capturing him was all part of the plan? Nice selective memory, I can see why you like the movie.

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.

Basically Silva is disavowed and comes back for revenge. That's also Jason Bourne. Deal with it.

George Lazenby had a couple of funny failings and mentioned that this "never happened to the other guys" (Sean Connery, Roger Moore) IN THE MOVIE. Basically stating that James Bond not any of those characters real name.

So you prefer Bond being a total fuck-up because it makes him human? That works for a comedy, not for an action flick. Unless maybe this was a comedy?

Okay, I shall elaborate. Fighting the bad guys in the family home-stead with home made explosives and booby-traps is stupid. Didn't they have a cell phone? The bad guy took the time to call in reinforcements and get a helicopter! Bond, M and groundskeeper Willie dropped the ball thoroughly and completely there. That whole scene was just mind-bogglingly dumb. The stupid MacGyver (as in jury-rigged, not as in MacGyver ever tried to kill anyone) booby-traps, the "defending the home-stead that if you were any kind of man or professional you wouldn't have cared about or went near" thing. Worst part of the movie.

Saved countless lives? Who? The agents still got revealed (there's nothing to contradict that in the movie. Releasing five names a week can be set up with a basic algorithm and that was Silva's "thing"). M died, a lot of other people died. Bond COMPLETELY FAILED. Why do people like this movie?

 

[crazyrabbits]

It's not the worst Bond ever (Moonraker and Die Another Day still have a lock on that), but it was pretty underwhelming. I think, because of the anniversary and the fact that QoS was such a debacle, the press overrated it. As it stands, it's decent, but it's still much weaker than Casino Royale.

My problem with this film is that there were elements that wouldn't feel out of place in a Roger Moore film. While I do know that depleted uranium bullets actually exist, the fact that Patrice uses such a rare type of ammunition (that allows Bond to narrow down and find him easily) is downright absurd. Also, the giant komodo dragons...I don't know what they were thinking when they wrote that scene.

But the thing that makes this the worst Bond movie ever? Bond fails. The villain gets everything he wants and Bond doesn't stop him. The villain wanted three things: to reveal MI6s agents (He succeeds with no indication that anyone stopped him from revealing the rest of the agents), to kill M (One of his C-List goons actually kills M with a ricochet so... success!), and to die (Bond helps him with this in a bad-horror-movie-death-scene. Strike that, it's a god-awful-horror-movie-death-scene.)

The problem I had is that everyone is made out to be a fool at one point or another. Q lays a "trail of breadcrumbs" to lead Silva to Bond's location, but they couldn't spare some extra troops to surprise Silva at the rendezvous? Q actually decided to plug the bad guy's computer in? Why did Bond go all the way up to Skyfall without bringing some extra weaponry or gadgets - what, he didn't think the place would be gutted by the time he got there?

I also agree that the handling of the leaked list of agents was very poor. It's a huge thing, and it just disappears after the committee scene.

They're minor issues, and there are elements I love (the cinematography and the fight scenes are all really good, despite being short), but I wasn't big on this one. I loved CR more.

 

[Pandalisk]

How was he getting shot the first time him being old? That whole scene had nothing to do with Bond being old, it was setting the whole aspect of "M"'s relationships with her agents in the field. All subsequent scenes is just him rehabilitating at best and a wink in the direction of the aging film goers at worst.

And again he was set out into the field because of "M". It doesn't have so much to do with him being old than the movie was highlighting his relationship with "M" considering how that film ends.

Fair enough on the whole "should've called the SAS" deal but its an action film, your not meant to take this thing completely logically. You need to have a level of disbelief or you wont enjoy yourself, this has been the trend for All the Bond films

Also Bond is not a "Professional Killer" hes a professional and hes a killer but he's not a "Professional Killer". He's a larger than life English spy steriotype, not some cold, calculating hitman. They've toned down the goofiness significantly and upped the drama and human elements to be sure but he'll always have his british swauveness because its what defines him.

Women, Martini's (Shaken, not stirred),a Walther PPK, cars and a whole lot of cool, this is Bond.

My only gripe is that i didn't like the villian, found him a bit weird to be honest.

Whole Skyfall movie was more about going back to roots (Skyfall manor) and clearing out skeleton in your closet to be honest. While you have a point with his age i don't think it was meant to be a theme, more an aspect of interest.

I personally think the villain should have been a henchman for a smarter villain. Then maybe he went rogue and took thing personally without that being the whole plot.

As for Bond getting shot in the opening scene? He's James Bond! He's supposed to be aware of his surroundings and situation at all times. That's why he's almost never wounded, especially in the opening scene. He was slipping even then. (And now that I think about it, didn't he get shot in the lower right side of his body? Didn't he pull the bullet "only used by three people in the world" out of the upper left side of his body? Doesn't that mean that Moneypenny was using the depleted uranium round? Okay that's just nit-picking).

I do like Bond's strategy with women; didn't use a condom? Better get her killed. (scumbag Bond meme anyone?)

The bit about M and her relationship with her agents? They are expendable. No relationship there. Bond hates her because he got expended. Then he gets all sentimental at the end? Why not just throw in a slow motion sex scene while they are at it? Wrinkly funbags galore!

So I have to ask though, what is cool about Bond being a complete failure? How is that cool? He screwed up, over and over again until the package he was protecting was dead. How can that be cool? How is that even acceptable? I sincerely hope that the mission that New M gave him at the end was to pick up his dry-cleaning.

Eh perhaps, It might throw everything out of sync, if this side villain is too prominent in the film yet has no backstory or build since he's a henchman it draws the luster from the final encounter. I think the main reason i disliked the main villain was i just didn't understand him, were told his pain "wah, i was left to the Chinese" and in a completely unsubtle way shown he's the "badguy" because he killed a hot girl and is leaking agent identities (which i wasn't that into either, kinda "oh really? well that..sucks". I get it, he's on a revenge mission, but he's only introduced in what? the 3rd? 4th act? I feel if you want a revenge theme to work you need to show it in the opening act during the time when his motives for revenge are being formed, him being betrayed, "M" being all cold and stoic. Then cut to Adele's song and then cut to bond being bond. Or something along those lines.

As for being shot, well it was a Magic Mcguffin for the plot but if you want to look into it sure, it was kind of a weird scene, i was shocked that he was shot, but the way he kinda shrugged it off, broke the suspense really, i think he should've been showing his bullet handicap yet still going toe-to-toe with the goon. As for the bullet, why does a high-profile assassin use a unique bullet? man was begging to be caught.

I never saw their relationship as that though. More of a caught between duty and friendship kinda thing. The new "M" even mentions a snide remark about their closeness. Now while i hate the fact the movie felt to tell us this and not y'know, show us this annoys me but i chalk that up to the two characters really. They are not open characters, it has to be an unspoken friendship, and that's hard to convey in film. I can't think of a film that's done that right at the moment.

I did love the "Q" scenes though, homages to the old films ahoy!.

Through his failure he becomes more human, your right he does fail, but in every film i'm pretty sure he's fucked up at least once or twice (Girl is kidnapped, Badguy gets away, what have you). So i forgive his early failures because he did overcome them with his normal suave, i find overcoming, rather than ballsing your way through something is more entertaining and heroic. After all take Dark Souls, Its more of a success knowing you failed and then made a comeback and beat that boss than it is to just flat out beat that boss (though that feeling has its moments)

As for the ending, well it was honestly drama for drama's sake, no denying it, It was a Pyrrhic Victory for Bond and for the main Villain. One lost his "friend" or person of great respect (whatever you want to call it)and the other died. To be honest i feel they put it in because they knew it was Judy's last take on "M" they must've been compelled to let her go with a bang. Better they do it this way than some bullshit side-act where they tell us "Oh yeah, and the previous "M" died/retired" in the next film. pleh.

Oh and too be fair to Bond, its not him that's the problem, its his women, man can't catch a break to be honest.

 

[Nimzabaat]

It's not the worst Bond ever (Moonraker and Die Another Day still have a lock on that), but it was pretty underwhelming. I think, because of the anniversary and the fact that QoS was such a debacle, the press overrated it. As it stands, it's decent, but it's still much weaker than Casino Royale.

My problem with this film is that there were elements that wouldn't feel out of place in a Roger Moore film. While I do know that depleted uranium bullets actually exist, the fact that Patrice uses such a rare type of ammunition (that allows Bond to narrow down and find him easily) is downright absurd. Also, the giant komodo dragons...I don't know what they were thinking when they wrote that scene.

But the thing that makes this the worst Bond movie ever? Bond fails. The villain gets everything he wants and Bond doesn't stop him. The villain wanted three things: to reveal MI6s agents (He succeeds with no indication that anyone stopped him from revealing the rest of the agents), to kill M (One of his C-List goons actually kills M with a ricochet so... success!), and to die (Bond helps him with this in a bad-horror-movie-death-scene. Strike that, it's a god-awful-horror-movie-death-scene.)

The problem I had is that everyone is made out to be a fool at one point or another. Q lays a "trail of breadcrumbs" to lead Silva to Bond's location, but they couldn't spare some extra troops to surprise Silva at the rendezvous? Q actually decided to plug the bad guy's computer in? Why did Bond go all the way up to Skyfall without bringing some extra weaponry or gadgets - what, he didn't think the place would be gutted by the time he got there?

I also agree that the handling of the leaked list of agents was very poor. It's a huge thing, and it just disappears after the committee scene.

They're minor issues, and there are elements I love (the cinematography and the fight scenes are all really good, despite being short), but I wasn't big on this one. I loved CR more.

Yeah, I guess I didn't see the good guys being total screw-ups and not doing anything right as a minor issue. I do agree that the komodo dragons were very "old school Bond". Next time it's sea turtles!!!

I do like Daniel Craig as an actor and even as Bond. I just don't think the scripts are up to snuff. You can't have an action movie where the good guy is a washed up has-been who doesn't even manage to pull a win out. It's one thing to root for the underdog, it's another thing to root for the underdog that gets beaten.

Though it just occured to me that maybe no one was upset about his failure was because it was the best option? M was being retired anyways, who wants all those secrets to be accesible? Maybe having some psycho kill her was their perfect out? That would explain a lot. Hm, maybe Bond was even in on it?

 

[Pandalisk]

Her dying certainly tied up a lot of loose ends at any rate.

Besides, surely this is what you want no? you wanted a "professional killer" whose cold? that's the only outcome for the next Bond film. I reckon he'll be a lot darker next time round.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

The only point I'll pick on here is that Silva demonstrates he is capable of causing a stock market crash using his computer, I'm pretty sure he's capable of paying an infinite number of goons if he wants using those skills.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

You're forgetting that Bond tracking Silva down and capturing him was all part of the plan? Nice selective memory, I can see why you like the movie.

So Bond was expected to know this somehow. And then what? Just kill him? Short movie.

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.

Maybe he already had money to pay them with? He is established throughout the thing as a brilliant hacker and systems expect as well as an ex top-level MI6 agent, you'd expect him to have a fair amount of dough after all that.
Assume that people suck at their job if the film shows them sucking at it. If the ilm shows them being effective - which it mostly does, except Bond outclasses them - then trying to claim that they're useless because of a contrived assumption doesn't work.

Basically Silva is disavowed and comes back for revenge. That's also Jason Bourne. Deal with it.

Bourne wins through brute force, sheer physicality and an almost instinctive awareness of his surroundings, as well as an ability to predict what everyone else is likely to do and plan for it well in advance. Silva has that last part, but turned up to 11, and none of the rest of it. And a lot of characters are after revenge; that fact doesn't make them similar in any other respect.

So you prefer Bond being a total fuck-up because it makes him human? That works for a comedy, not for an action flick. Unless maybe this was a comedy?

Why doesn't it work for an action flick? Do you like Mary Sue characters better?

Bla bla bla... The stupid MacGyver (as in jury-rigged, not as in MacGyver ever tried to kill anyone) booby-traps, the "defending the home-stead that if you were any kind of man or professional you wouldn't have cared about or went near" thing. Worst part of the movie.

The booby traps were pretty damn effective... you're claiming that they were stupid, but they did exactly what they were supposed to? And the whole idea of that scene was to put bond back in control by choosing the place for the battle, somewhere out of time where Silva would lose his advantage. The scene accomplished exactly that.
As for no cellphone... Eh you have a point there, I was wondering the same thing in the movie. But that doesn't undermine the fact that the scene does its job.

Saved countless lives? Who? The agents still got revealed (there's nothing to contradict that in the movie. Releasing five names a week can be set up with a basic algorithm and that was Silva's "thing"). M died, a lot of other people died. Bond COMPLETELY FAILED. Why do people like this movie?

I think you need to take it as a given that the revealing agents thing died with silva. Also, that entire thing was just a ploy to get taken into MI6 HQ, so it probably ended after that anyway.

 

[Waaghpowa]

I didn't bother reading most of the post, but I will repost the gist of what I wrote in the comments for moviebobs review.

By no means do I believe that Skyfall was a bad movie, I actually thought it was a very good movie. I do think it was a weak "Bond" movie.

What I mean is that Classic Bond films were always about an attractive, charming super spy who would save the world from megalomaniacs and always got the girl in the end. The classic films were spy thrill fantasy films. They frequently featured several attractive woman, outrageously over the top and unrealistic gadgets and fucking awesome cars. Classic Bond films were fun, in short and didn't necessarily attempt to make itself to have an real world or realistic connection.

Now Skyfall, again is a great film, but it's a poor Bond film because it's simply not as fun as the classics. With the Daniel Craig Bond, they've focused more on characters and realism. They've given us a look at Bond as a real person, someone who is human, has human emotions and human flaws with a difficult childhood to go along with it. In doing that, they've taken that spy thriller fantasy out of the recent films that is one of many integral parts of the Bond film series of the past.

If you're focused on simply comparing them to the classic formula, then yes, it's fairly weak (or bad, depending on opinion). As much as I love the classic formula, even Bond has to evolve at some point, and I think this recent film is proof that he can (or has).

 

[halfeclipse]

Then basically the movie rips off Dark Knight Rises

I stopped reading right there. That's the stupidest thing I've read this month, and I just spent two days helping grade thirty essays on marijuana legalization.


1: Skyfall started devlopment back in 08. As in before the Dark Knight was a thing, let alone 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.


2: If I felt your statement was worth being funny, here's where I'd tangent into in a chain of X ripped off Y which ripped it off Z which etc, coupled with a few amusing ancedots. Instead I'll just link this [http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/iliad.html] and recomend you take the chance to brush on your classic literature before attempting any further critiques of lit, flim or theater.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Then basically the movie rips off Dark Knight Rises

I stopped reading right there. That's the stupidest thing I've read this month, and I just spent two days helping grade thirty essays on marijuana legalization.


1: Skyfall started devlopment back in 08. As in before the Dark Knight was a thing, let alone 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.


2: If I felt your statement was worth being funny, here's where I'd tangent into in a chain of X ripped off Y which ripped it off Z which etc, coupled with a few amusing ancedots. Instead I'll just link this [http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/iliad.html] and recomend you take the chance to brush on your classic literature before attempting any further critiques of lit, flim or theater.

So you're saying that they started work on Skyfall before they finished Quantum of Solace? That's amazing... I can see why you stopped reading. And then you went on to compare a classic piece of literature with Skyfall? That's like comparing War and Peace with Star Wars XXX a Porn Parody. There are words in both, I will grant you that. I'm not sure if you should get out more or less...

 

[Woodsey]

'It's been established that James Bond is just a codename given to agent 007 long ago.'

They're all playing the same character. In fact it's been during Craig's tenure that he's been most explicitly sign-posted as James Bond for realsies.

As for your point about him not supposed to be being a human being, that's rather been the point of the last three films: he's losing that part of him and he knows it. And if they're acknowledging that, it means he has to fuck up. Saying it's the worst Bond film ever because Bond doesn't outright win is plain stupid.

Then basically the movie rips off Dark Knight Rises

I stopped reading right there. That's the stupidest thing I've read this month, and I just spent two days helping grade thirty essays on marijuana legalization.


1: Skyfall started devlopment back in 08. As in before the Dark Knight was a thing, let alone 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.


2: If I felt your statement was worth being funny, here's where I'd tangent into in a chain of X ripped off Y which ripped it off Z which etc, coupled with a few amusing ancedots. Instead I'll just link this [http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/iliad.html] and recomend you take the chance to brush on your classic literature before attempting any further critiques of lit, flim or theater.

So you're saying that they started work on Skyfall before they finished Quantum of Solace? That's amazing... I can see why you stopped reading. And then you went on to compare a classic piece of literature with Skyfall? That's like comparing War and Peace with Star Wars XXX a Porn Parody. There are words in both, I will grant you that. I'm not sure if you should get out more or less...

Actually, he's pointing out that everything derives from something, not that Skyfall takes directly from The Iliad.

The film was influenced by The Dark Knight (not Rises) in that it encouraged them to explore greater themes despite being a blockbuster.

 

[FaceFaceFace]

Someone needs to point out that you're wrong. The henchman shot Bond in the shoulder while Bond was trying to operate the crane thing, and that is where he pulls the uranium rounds from. Moneypenny shot him in the lower gut. No plot holes, just your poor memory. I agree using rare ammo is pretty dumb for an assassin, though.

 

[gigastar]

Ok, reading all of Nizmabaat's posts, his entire argument for why Skyfall is allegedly the worst James Bond movie yet, boils down to...

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

Aah. this is one of those "X is the worst Y ever" threads.

Your biggest mistake is posting this on The Escapist. Where accepting and acknowledging diverse opinions is the norm, not the exception.