All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
The Elevator Most Belonging To Alice - Semi Final Bluecat, Runner Up Nashville Inner Journey - Page Awards Finalist - Bluecat semi final Grieving Spell - winner - London Film Awards. Third - Honolulu Ultimate Weapon - Fresh Voices - second place IMDb link... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7062725/?ref_=tt_ov_wr
It's better than the other 2, but, for me, not so sure it lives up to all the hype. If people like it, great. I just felt it started off a rip roaring pace and had too many flat spots thereafter. Some serious WTF plot hole in particular that made no sense to me. Could have easily cut 20 mins. 7 out 10.
I thought it was terrible...and I saw it at the Premiere with free food and booze and all that jazz which usually makes me more amenable.
The story doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense.
The problem with it for me is that you can't have a film that feels like it's trying to be serious whilst at the same time everything is cheesy, ridiculous and unrealistic.
I liked it. I thought the pace peaked and wallowed at times, but it wasn't your Atypical bond film.
My only gripe is that I was hoping for a more worthy adversary out of Javier Bardrm. He doesn't come into play until we're a third into the story. They could've given his character a lot more menace.
The thing I liked the most was the ending. Not just the epilogue, but the way the story ended...which I won't spoil.
The rest of the movie was pretty good, I thought. I'm not too discerning when it comes to Bond, except for Die Another Day. I have my reasons for liking each of the other movies, so this one was good and I'll figure out why I like it too. Probably the scene in Shanghai.
"I remember a time of chaos. Ruined dreams. This wasted land. But most of all, I remember The Road Warrior. The man we called 'Max'."
Thanks, actually thought that was the perfect time to head to the pisser, when he takes M to his old housr. I missed all the dialogue in that car ride.
Thanks, actually thought that was the perfect time to head to the pisser, when he takes M to his old housr. I missed all the dialogue in that car ride.
James
James, you have a bladder problem going on there, bro, or what? You can't sit through a fucking movie without having to get up and take a leak? Get thee to a doctor and get that "little problem" taken care of.
Decent but not the spectacular ride the marketing and PR bods have done a great job selling. It's essentially a reboot, fair enough. However, the tentacles of the story stretch out too far and the glue holding them together is too thin. Really didn't like the final third with the showdown in Scotland. It was a poor screenwriting choice, IMO, that must've worked better on the page than it ever could have on film. Part of that is likely loaded up in the fact we have effectively a second reboot with the same Bond, so to veer into this territory felt opportunistic rather than fluid and nuanced.
The action scenes were decent and the photography was largely stunning. That cannot cover for the fact Bardem was intro'd far too late and then used too fleetingly once with us. The lulls in pace were ruthlessly exposed by the fact very little narrative drive linked together the Skyfall angle with Bond suffering a I'm-too-old-for-this-moment a la Batman.
On the plus side, I thought Judi Dench was predictably brilliant. Not sure at all about the Moneypenny choice. Not Bond fit and a pretty average actress to boot.
I thought this one was great! Okay, maybe not spectacular. But by far, the best of the reboots (and the best Bond movie in years). I'll be honest, I didn't like Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace. Those movies didn't feel like Bond movies to me. Sure, I don't need all the cheesy gadgets and evil henchmen. But give me something even slightly reminiscent of the franchise. And Craig himself has said that those first two films were leading up to this one. I actually appreciate those films more now that I've seen Skyfall.
Kudos to Sam Mendes. Not only did he prove himself to be a competent acting director but the cinematography in Skyfall is gorgeous. The lighting and colors really popped in this film.
Sure there were some pacing issues and the CGI absolutely SUCKED. But I always knew what was going on and the plot was a perfect way to commemorate Bond's 50th anniversary. The film is very self aware in many ways. And I loved Bond's more gritty/dark persona this time around. It's about d amn time.
Although I love Bardem, I wasn't too overly estatic about his performance. Felt a bit weird to me. However I went in with REALLY high expectations. Regardless, I loved his character and the scene where he's fondling Bond. One of the best scenes in the movie IMO.
Plus the third act simply kicks ass. I'm glad they didn't spoil it in the trailers.
F uck the dark knight. And f uck spiderman. I want more Bond.
And that scene where Bond jumps from one train carriage to another before adjusting his cufflinks?! Hello spotted underwear.
This was a serious disappointment. After hearing all the reviews saying this was the best Bond ever, and that Bardem was the greatest Bond villain ever, it just fell staggeringly short of my expectations. I loved Casino Royale, and thought Quantum was a decent, if inferior, followup. But this flick never had the feel of a Bond film, where the nefarious plans of the genius bad guy creates this nonstop propulsion of the story. Skyfall lagged again and again. Bardem's character was weird but unmemorable. And the third act at Skyfall ranch was just ridiculous. Really, wouldn't the two old folks know better than to turn on a flashlight when there's a death squad a few hundred feet away? Stuff like that annoyed me. Craig was solid as ever, but they didn't give him much to work with here.
Meh... plenty of stupid things in it (Bardam can defeat MI6's firewalls but can't find M's home? [JB has done it twice!] Bring a helicopter to an old stone house carrying a chain gun and small arms but no air-to-ground missiles to level the mini-fortress), several good ideas (All you old people gotta go, the world has changed. DNA ID confirming pistol that's good for a single gag...) ... but they don't go anywhere.
WTH would I want a pistol with three green lights effing up my aim + potentially disclosing my position?
WTH would Q plug Bardam's computer directly into MI6's computer?
Bardem wasn't xrayed for buttbombs or goofy appliances in his face?
Since when do James Bond movies have to be perfect? Back in the 70s and 80s, the main concern was to make them and make them halfway entertaining. If they were imperfect, BFD. That's why they rock to this day.
These days, it's like everybody's putting too much effort into Bond films, from the producers to the fans. There's gotta be a quota of action sequences, the villain has to resemble another villain from a trending franchise, plotholes are inexcusable, the story and action should be realistic, there's gotta be nonstop action, etc. Ugh. It's nauseating! (I guess a lot of that pressure comes from MGM, who's in bad financial shape, and must deliver the goods so that the sponsors keep Bond alive.)
Hopefully, since the Broccolis have gone back to the biennial production schedule, a single Bond movie won't make or break the franchise. Maybe everyone will become less concerned with making the perfect movie, and just have fun making or watching James Bond. If not, they should go camp out for the next Chris Nolan film and leave Bond the hell alone.
"I remember a time of chaos. Ruined dreams. This wasted land. But most of all, I remember The Road Warrior. The man we called 'Max'."
Since when do James Bond movies have to be perfect? Back in the 70s and 80s, the main concern was to make them and make them halfway entertaining. If they were imperfect, BFD. That's why they rock to this day.
These days, it's like everybody's putting too much effort into Bond films, from the producers to the fans. There's gotta be a quota of action sequences, the villain has to resemble another villain from a trending franchise, plotholes are inexcusable, the story and action should be realistic, there's gotta be nonstop action, etc. Ugh. It's nauseating! (I guess a lot of that pressure comes from MGM, who's in bad financial shape, and must deliver the goods so that the sponsors keep Bond alive.)
Hopefully, since the Broccolis have gone back to the biennial production schedule, a single Bond movie won't make or break the franchise. Maybe everyone will become less concerned with making the perfect movie, and just have fun making or watching James Bond. If not, they should go camp out for the next Chris Nolan film and leave Bond the hell alone.
#Rant
Can't speak for others, but my analysis certainly wasn't predicated on the search for a perfect Bond movie. There were things I liked, and things I didn't. The latter slightly outweighed the former, hence the analysis. Simple.
You're definitely entitled to your opinion, but the problems you cited are things I'm willing to overlook in a Bond movie. As long as it doesn't stoop to Die Another Day, I'm happy.
"I remember a time of chaos. Ruined dreams. This wasted land. But most of all, I remember The Road Warrior. The man we called 'Max'."
I enjoyed Skyfall a lot, but frankly, I enjoyed even the sheer idiocy of Die Another Day's third act over the Scotland ranch business. At least the former was spectacular in its failure. The ranch stuff was just dull (although the explosion was nice; not enough movies end with an enormous explosion these days).
The actor playing Moneypenny was severely uninteresting in every possible way. She came across roughly as realistic as those godawful Komodo Dragons. Dench and Fiennes were excellent, of course, and Whishaw was, I dunno, acceptable. Bardem was the best villain since Ledger's Joker, in my opinion.
It was the grand ol' adventure tone of the movie that kept me engaged and excited. Watching it felt the same as watching the Connery flicks on VHS in my youth, which was great. Lots of flaws aside from the third act, but for the most part forgivable and even occasionally endearing -- some of the outrageously illogical moments made me like the movie all the more. Action movies should have a "kid playing with action figures" feel to them some of the time, and Skyfall definitely had that.
I also can't believe what I'm reading here. Granted, I did have some issues at the start of the film - diving right in and whern it dawns on us what's going on - those pesky Noc lists! - I'll give it two points for, on reflection, serve up the primary motivation for Bardem's Silva. The other thing was got me worried was, as mentioned, the song.
Other than those two things, I loved this film. I thought it was well written, directed and...especially in that third act - the cinematography was stellar. By the way, I thought Bardem was excellent, and might be an Oscar contender again.
Yes, he arrives late (whoopee-frakin' doo! so did Dr. No, once upon a time!) but OFF CAMERA his actions take the fight to MI-6. Suilva, for the most part, dealt with cyber-terrotism. His motivation was pure revenge. Much is made over M's contreversial yet usually neccesary judgment calls. We were given two examples of it before the title sequence: the agent who dies (who Bond tried to save) and, of course, the order for Eve to take the shot, which results in Bond's injury and forced retirement (although not for long)
This is what drew me in. There is conflict on whether or not M has lost her edge. There is the fact that she fudged numbers in order for Bond, who isn't 100 percent, go get back in the field and go after the assassin. Bond has trouble shooting his handgun on long range. I like this setup. I like it that they explore the characters of both M and Bond. More I like, more I love. I like Silva playing mind games. I loved it when he showed the bad results of a botched cynide capsule.
I didn't mind the length of the film. I thought the pace was just fine, and was more in tune with the pace of Casino Royale. I think Skyfall is one of the best films of the year.
Yes, the cinematography is excellent, we're talking freakin' Roger Deakins here. But good images don't make the movie. The plot at time was nonsensical. Why did no one search anyone's bodies? I facepalmed so hard when Bond waltzed right in to Bardem's lair and NO ONE TOOK THE RADIO COMMUNICATOR AWAY FROM HIM.
What the hell? I would've enjoyed the logic and the ladies would have enjoyed a lengthy strip-search scene.
I facepalmed so hard when Bond waltzed right in to Bardem's lair and NO ONE TOOK THE RADIO COMMUNICATOR AWAY FROM HIM.
You must have had a pop or bathroom break when Bond discovered that error was intentional, as Silva wanted to kill kill M personally. Part of Silva's plan was to be captured.
Skyfall was released in Australia; we’re a tad behind here. I’ve had a quick peek through previous comments and see it’s a mixed bag on this one, not surprised.
I have to admit enjoying this one but this comes from someone who loves pretty much every Bond movie (Looking forward to my Bond blu-ray boxset this Christmas)
The plot had holes no doubt but there’s been a lot worse – Moonraker coming to mind. Would anybody have survived that initial fall from the bridge with a gunshot wound – probably not and there many other questions like why Bond and M didn’t get more equipped before driving out to the middle of nowhere.
One thing that bothered me for some reason - why didn’t the bad guys check the Aston Martin when walking towards the house? A quick peek through the window wouldn’t have hurt. Surely standard practice for trained killers or even random henchmen.
But on the whole, nearly every Bond movie has these plot holes and I'm willing to overlook them for the sake of entertainment.
Was the pacing slow? Maybe it was after such a blistering start but this helped give M more screen time which was needed for a more pivotal role.
I also liked the Bond being considered a tired, worn out spy even if this doesn’t really fit in with the previous two Daniel Craig flicks. It gave Bond a flaw – that he wasn’t up to the task and if anything, think they could have played it out more.
I thought Silva was a decent villain, maybe lacked some of the characteristics of previous ones. I wish he didn’t hide his deformity. I liked his motive, he wanted revenge on M, yet I got the sense that he couldn’t push himself to actually kill her, hence why there was no just random bombing of M’s house. He felt betrayed but still loved this mother figure.
As others have mentioned, the action scenes and cinematography were good. I had no problems with the acting and think the new Q (Ben Whishaw) will be a nice addition to the franchise.
Saw this last night. I'd have to give it a Worth the Admission.
It's a James Bond movie. There are things it's supposed to be and things it ain't.
The visuals were often stunning, especially Shanghai. A Bond movie is supposed to be bombs, bullets and broads, and there was enough of that. Well, bombs and bullets mostly.
There were reasonably effective attempts at character depth. Even a Bond flaw, and some Bond tears, as well as his background history. I have not seen all the Bond movies, but this was the deepest Bond I've seen.
And then there's the villain, always important in a 007 film. Tough to come up with one that's not familiar, but I thought they did a reasonably good job at that. And it matched the theme very well. The bad guy here is an ex-agent who felt used by MI6. And here we have 007 going through a similar struggle as he is first shot by his own partner and then is coldly forced to confront his age related decline by his superiors.
And there was some very clever dialogue. Like at the end when the bad guy makes fun of Bond for "all this running".
The Skyfall premise where he takes M to his ancestral homeland...well, there's just no way to make sense of that, so we have to live with it.
And the fact that Bond gets apparently killed, but actually survives, and yet they show nothing of how, seems really hard to accept in a plot. Possibly even worse, they don't effectively show why this leads to his questioning of his job and his sinking into alcoholism. It's like there's something missing, perhaps cut from the final script.
I sympathize with the writers more than I would find fault. It must be exceedingly difficult to accomplish all of the story needs: set ups and pay offs, the rebooting of the 007 legend, the character flaws and arcs, and the ever-present bombs and bullets.
I grew up loving the Bond films of the 70s. I saw Moonraker in the theater and loved it(I was about 10). Those stories could not withstand microscopic dissection either.
The goal in the reboot here was to make Bond fun, cool and relevant. And as a bonus they added some character depth. Viewed in the scheme of the Bond series over the last 50 years, they did a pretty decent job.
I watched it last night. It's been awhile since I've been to the Cinema and a while since I've watched a film, so this was the mindless entertainment I was looking for. It delivered for me.
The only gripe about the writing I would have is that Bardem's character goes a ridiculously long way round to get his revenge and his motives just seemed paper thin and childish, when considering he should really have known the dangers of his previous employment. (but maybe that was the point? Typical Mommy issues that a lot of villains have?).
I wasn't entirely sure about the Straw Dogs final act (what, no bear trap?). However, all in all I thought it was a fun film that made me escape the real world for two hours, and to be honest that's all I want out of a movie.
Some critics think it's the best Bond ever? Hmmm. It's not as good as Casino Royale, but alot better than QOS, granted. But considering my fave Bond is Timothy Dalton, I'm apparently no expert!
Just got back from seeing it about half an hour ago. Personally I put it up there with the likes of From Russia With Love, Goldeneye and Casino Royale as my favorite Bond films of all time. Yep. Thought it was that good. Loved the shout-outs to old Bond flicks, loved that they delved a bit into Bond's childhood and where he grew up, and loved the Moneypenny bit. If there's any doubt that the series was rebooted with Casino Royale, this one pretty much proves we're dealing with a Bond still relatively early on in his career.
Blond lunatic with facial deformity blows stuff up, gets himself caught on purpose, then escapes spectacularly to enact his true master plan while the hero kicks ass and faces the reality that he can't continue to fight crime this way.
*END SPOILERS*
Did you guess The Dark Knight? Well, you'd be wrong. It's the latest Bond flick Skyfall.
Seriously, I finally saw this, mostly because I was excited that Javier Bardem was the villain, plus I like Daniel Craig as Bond.
I don't think this compares to Casino Royale. Not even close. I think it's entertaining and fun to watch, but in a lot of ways it doesn't feel like Bond.
For one, Bond villains usually have big plots. They do things like steal spaceships and threaten to instigate World War III. Silva just wants to kill one person in the most convoluted assassination plot in history. Sure it's got big events like a subway train running off a cliff, but the plot feels so small in scope.
I can't even get started on the plot holes and conveniences. Bond movies have always had these things, but here there doesn't seem to be the razzle dazzle that ordinarily helps you let those things slide so easily.
It is a fun movie. It's got plenty of action. Overall, I enjoyed it. But it feels more like a conventional espionage thriller than a grand Bond adventure. The film opens in Istanbul. In an early scene, Bond rides a motorcycle across the same rooftops seen in the film The International. Looking back, that kind of foreshadowed the feel of the whole movie.
So go see it for action and entertainment, but don't expect a memorable Bond film. This one falls in the middle somewhere.
Saw this a while back, just couldn't find the thread for it.
I thought it was a little slow at the start to be completely honest. I found myself fidgeting quite a lot and hoping it would pick up soon. Thankfully, it did and I found that I loved it afterwards.
Particularly impressed with the cast here. I'm a big fan of Ralph Fiennes, Judy Dench and Albert Finney and seeing them all together in one film is just awesome.
It didn't feel like 2 and a half hours, surprisingly. But, it also didn't feel much like a Bond film, either. I'll take that as both good and bad.
I don't think the story or plot was well conceived or written at all. I found much of the decisions and action to be downright ludicrous, and I missed much of what I expect in a Bond film, but somehow, some way, I still enjoyed this much more than Daniel Craig's first 2 Bond outings.
The cinematography was indeed beautiful. I enjoyed the score and locations as well. I guess I liked Craig's darker version of Bond...seemed more down to Earth, more real.
Overall, I liked it much more than I thought I was going to, and that's always a plus.
They've gone and done it. They've made Bond into an everyman secret agent. Gone are the iconic spy gimmicks that made these movies great.
I never liked Craig as an actor and especially not as Bond. If you've noticed they give him very few lines of dialogue in this film. That's because he can't hold the movie by himself. So the movie is no longer about Bond, the supporting actors have to carry the film. Though Craig does look good with his shirt off that's not all an actor should be about.
The action in this film was excellently done and it looked great - don't get me wrong - but despite the side trek into Bond's past this film was as shallow and vacuous as taking pleasure in watching Daniel Craig with his shirt off.
I too was lulled into a false sense of Bond bliss by the opener. And then I could've taken an hour long potty break before Javier shows. :/ If Silva had more of a presence in the film, I would've been fine. But no Javier until one hour and fifteen minutes in?!? Ouch.
And was it just me, or did Silva sling some swinger vibe at a bound Bond? I wish Silva seduced Bond more actually, semi-convince him of M's sins. Legitimately consider how he's been lied to and used like scrap over the years. If there was some legit truth to that, Silva would've really won me over. Villains seducing heroes with partial truths like that really heats up the conflict. I guess I just wanted a lot more for Javier Bardem to do.
In the end, this kinda felt like the Star Trek: Generations of the Bond series. One staff passing the torch to the next tentpole supporters. Despite a rocking opener and the dazzling Shanghai stuff, the film felt TRANSITORY.
Didn't buy CG enhanced stubble Bond as a washed up spy. At all. Injured? Sure. But not the suds the cast was selling about old age.
Let's hope Bond has his Star Trek: First Contact installment next!
E.D.
LATEST NEWS CineVita Films is producing a short based on my new feature!
Pages: 
Author
Skyfall
Logged
Locked Board