After a bizarre encounter with Mr. Plinkett, Mike and Jay decide to see the latest James Bond film, Skyfall, starring that guy from Cowboys and Aliens.
Click here for YouTube version
Filed in: General Updates • Half in the Bag
Also, this is the best piece of satire on internet reviewers ever.
Many reviewers like this movie though. The internet forums? Very mixed.
Because the movie was truly an abomination.
I grew up on bond, could name em all in order and the like. Let me tell you this one, compared to Quantum or DAD, is far from an abomination. Tons of fan service, well made, and other tha the many little things you could pick at is a really good Bond movie.
It was more like reference the movie it had nothing of its own, it took from other bond movies, it felt like an anniversary special and it was full of plotholes.
I just figured it out: I bet the next Plinkett review drops on Turkey Day or Black Friday. Some of the other Plinkett reviews were timed to holidays as well.
How’s it feel to be wrong, jackass?
It hurts. It hurts bad. Real bad. I’m sorry that I’ve failed you.
I heartily resolve to do better in future. To improve my predictions. And to be as smart as you. If that’s possible.
Jay and Mike do My Little Pony please
!!! Fuck Movies was used before whawhwharawrawraw !
No no no.
They should do Boku no pico, Madoka Magica and Evangelion.
Wait, you want them to “do” My Little Pony, like to fuck it? You sick bastard.
Are you surprised? Bronies are a half-step removed from pedophiles
Uh oh, here comes the unsubstantiated damage control for your creepy-as-fuck ‘lifestyle’
What else do you expect from furries?
i loved skyfall
Brilliant, can’t wait to see this!
that verizon 4glte commercial can go fuck itself
It’s less insulting than the previous one where they show two people laughing at you if you click anything other than Verizon; I purposely click the lowest option because I hate these commercials so much.
Just get AdBlock.
Nah, I have to watch the commercials or else RLM doesn’t get money for me watching. Doesn’t mean I can’t complain about particularly horrible ads though.
That’s not necessarily true. Different sites use different data gathering tools and metrics, not all of them track adblock. They might, but I cant find that info for Blip. Can you verify that? Also we don’t know what Blip’s revenue sharing model is. It might not resemble the YouTube partner program at all. And finally, adblock has a variety of settings to adjust what kinds of ads come through, so you can still contribute to those who do have a model that requires ad views for revenue.
Half in the Bag Episode 41 is the 65th entry in the … aw fuck it
Seriously, give me a pizzaroll.
YouTube link? You’re killing me smalls!
i’m 5 minutes in and I love it. reminds me a lot of the “missing the point” angle you gave on Dark Knight Rises.
Fuckin’ rights it does.
Never seen it; everyone told me its cool but weird.
I’ve always loved their sarcasm! This one’s great! It’s almost as if they’re mocking the people that didn’t like TDKR cause of its plotholes by acting like they hate Skyfall because of its plotholes… wait…WHAT THE FUCK!?
“You see, it’s like poetry. It rhymes.”
TDKR was big, loud, and dumb. Skyfall was small, loud, and dumb. Yeah, that’s a big difference there. If the movie has to continually tell you “this villain is a genius”, it’s because he doesn’t do anything in the movie that supports that. The dumb writer doesn’t know how to write something smart to show his intellect. (See Silence of the Lamb’s for a HOW_TO example, and to see where Javier stole his performance from)
TDKR’s saving grace is that it was a visual spectacle, much like Prometheus.
Christopher Nolan…psshhhh. What an overrated hack – *I* could make a better film.
See that’s the thing. Dark Knight does NOT get a pass on its plot holes BECAUSE the point of the Nolan Batman movies is to present a modern realistic Batman with a believable plot, and they fail miserably.
Its gonna be great. “All James Bond Films”
Those first 6 minutes are amazing.
I felt like by the end all the old Bond tropes were new again. As in… made new by the film. If Casino Royale began the Bond reboot, Skyfall finished it, and the next movie can have say… Harris as Moneypenny and Fiennes as M and really hit all the old steps and not feel like it is in the same canon as Connery and Moore because we know a history we never did before.
Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd were actually the first gay James Bond villains, from Diamonds are Forever…but man were they terrible
Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd were awesome villains. Stop being wrong.
A lot of things in Diamonds are Forever are pretty bad,
but that Shirley Bassey song is great.
True, but Jill St. John was nice too, particularly if you love redheads.
You guys HAVE to review “The walking dead” Tv series, so many characters make illogical decisions about everything they do, I can’t imagine all the laughs my friends and I would have. (btw, its a good watch too!)
That was incredimail.
As God is my witness, The Spy Who Loved Me is still the best Bond film ever!!
It was the first one I saw in the theater. Oh, no, being overcome by nostalgia. Help, I feel a song coming on:
Memories, like the corners of my mind. Misty water-colored memories . . . .
One nerd objection: Silva was not gay, it’s part of the whole act. I think it adds depth to his character as well as Bond’s because they both went with the whole thing. It made the AUDIENCE uncomfortable, but the characters stayed cool. It’s part of their whole identity to seduce people in order to gain an upper hand, I think it’s saying they even seduce men if they have to. When Silva does it, he’s just trying to get into Bond’s head, but he knows the game and plays along.
me and my Cousin agreed that was the best game of gay chicken we’ve ever seen and were laughing so hard the whole time.
I thought it was a sly wink to the ‘laser’ scene in Goldfinger. Served the same purpose as it did back then, in regards to the audiences viewpoint.
Well I think he’s clearly attracted to Bond but he’s at least bisexual since I thought the movie made it plain that he’d has sex with Severine, she basically being his sex property or whatever.
Plinkett sitting down in agony had me howling out loud. Bravo, Rich Evans!
(However, I was fully expecting him to just stand up without any problems as the punchline.)
Funniest RLM moment ever!
Yes, great Foley.
I love you, Mike, Rich and Jay. You just get better with every video.
I got sad when y’all talked about how the Bond villain is gay and that they did it tastefully and not humorously.. Because I live in Nashville, Tennessee… And everyone in my theater laughed at him… :/
I wouldn’t get too upset, because there was humour in the scene, but it was because of the character’s reactions and quips, and not just ending the gag at “HA HA HE’S GAY HAHA”.
Well.. you live in Tennessee
the motorbike scene wasnt green screened they did put their faces on professional riders though.
Incorrect. This is the third gay Bond villain. The first and second respectively were Mr. Kidd and Mr. Went from Diamonds Are Forever.
The film is basically perfect, although I’m surprised Jay and Mike didn’t make more of the kimodo dragon scene. It was a little too campy for my taste, but if you think of it as a wink to the goofiness of the Roger Moore films it makes a little more sense.
Jaymes Bond movies should never be taken seriously because from the very beginning they were intended to be spoofs of the novels authored by me, Ian Flaming. True story.
You’re not Ian Fleming, creator of the James Bond series, you’re Ian Flaming, creator of the James Bondage series.
I would watch that
The most important point about the new bond movies, particularly Skyfall, is that they´re trying to be dramas as much as thrillers and action movies.
In the old days, people in Bond movies were constantly giving “wink wink” performances because it´s fun. Now they´ll throw in a sarcastic or funny line to endure their life and mask their pain.
Fun times are over, it´s all serious and dramatic now.
Did you see a lot of the old Bond films?
You obviously haven’t seen From Russia With Love and Her Majesty’s Secret Service.
Honestly, i like my spy movies serious and romantic. I am not into the ridiculous gadgets and cheesy villains.
But then again, i’m a fan of the Bond novels.
The first few Connery Bond movies – made in those very same proverbial ‘old days’ you speak of – really aren’t that much different from the Craig movies. The action has gotten more sophisticated but tone-wise they do have more of a scaled-down dramatic feel to them.
If anything one of the things I really liked about Skyfall was how it brings the whole thing full-circle. The action gets a little bit more outlandish, the gadgets and staple characters enter into the equation, and by the end we’ve basically linked back up with Dr. No.
I´ll agree, that there was drama in the old bond movies. But honestly: You couldn´t take it nearly as seriously. They were comparable to action movies in that regard. Sure the basic drama has you engaged, as in “What a bastard!” or “Kick his ass James!” But you know, that they´re not realistic in any way. They´re more entertainment than art.
Now they´re going for a balance of entertainment and art.
What about the Craig movies is ‘art’, exactly? If anything they’re far more into action movie territory than the early Connery movies were so I still don’t really understand what you’re getting at.
Bullet fragments in the chest?
Man-Eating CGI Kimono Dragons?
He chokes a guy underwater (let that sink in).
This movie blows.
For anyone who wants to down-vote this but can’t sign in, just like this instead
I have to agree the tone of the movie is anything but consistent. You forgot about the horrid introduction of the new Q and the terrible use of ‘computers in movies’: It’s a virus that displays a GIF animation on your screen! Encrypted files are shown as 3D models that changes colors and morphs!
As they talked about the movie “shifting gears”, I found the movie becoming more and more dull and less and less inventive. The entire movie seemed like a longer version of an episode of Spooks (that’s MI5, for those that watched on BBCA), but done worse.
If you introduce a “brilliant villain plan”, and that consists of nothing more that opening a few doors and walking underground, you are a fucking terrible and lazy writer. The whole ‘brilliant escape plan’ cliche was fail – and done way, way better in a movies like The Dark Knight, Mission Impossible 3, or even The Incredibles.
I agree — first time that I feel substantially different about a film than RLM. I appreciate that the film was competently put together, but I just didn’t feel anything. The tone was a strange mix of injoke wink-wink moments and joyless, depressing runs of personal failure and lots of fairly mean-spirited and ruthless killings. People are disposed with in a callous way so many times,
I didn’t really see what I was supposed to be excited about. It’s interesting that this was Jay’s first James Bond film; it was mine, too, and it surely doesn’t make me want to see any more of those, even though I might be missing out.
I felt the same way you did. Advice: watch Casino Royale.
Yeah, people say that — OK, I’ll give it a try. I’m not enthusiastic about the franchise at the moment, but I should probably not dismiss it entirely because of one underwhelming experience.
My pussy hurts too…. smh
”consistent tone is for pussys”-hitchcock
You’re seriously going to whine about the way they handled computers in the movie? You might as well whine about every single example of contemporary film or television that uses computers too. Yes, we get it, it takes hours/days to actually do that kind of stuff, A) who cares, it’s a movie, there’s a need to efficiently streamline the drive of the story that isn’t compatible with hardcore realism, B) who cares, it’s a BOND movie, nitpicking over crap like this is absurd in the first place.
I agree I’m not one of those people who hated Skyfall it still ended up in my top 10, but I didn’t fall in love with Casino Royale either so i figured it was just me
About the choking: that guy was holding his breath, but in order to stay alive the oxygen still needed to be transported from the lungs to his brain via the blood. Unfortunately Bond had him in a stranglehold and was compressing the arteries in the neck, cutting off his brain from the blood supply in his lungs. He passed out and subsequently drowned. Perhaps you should acquire some basic knowledge about how the human body works, or at least use the oxygen in your brain a little longer, before you knock a movie for something like that.
I agree with this dude. I love Bond films (the good ones anyway) and I really liked the first two Craig films (Quantum was not awful) but Skyfall had so many moments that dropped the ball. And I am not one to pick apart movies on plot holes either. Visually, a good movie really! Everything else was dogshit. Maybe the worst Bond movie in a long long time. Die Another Day was awful but at least it wasn’t trying to be serious.
So many choking a guy underwater moments in this film. Big disappointment.
Entertaining review by RLM though.
you defend quantum and die another day – then rip this ?
“He chokes a guy underwater (let that sink in).”
You do realize the entire first third of the review is mocking exactly the sort of inconsistency-nitpicking you’re doing right now, right?
Yeah they should be comopletely realistic and serious in James Bond movie. Thats what the review was about – a statement that movies about a martini drinking, woman-loving, gadget-using superspy from england with a licence to kill should be as realistic and serious as possible becauce thats what they are about.
How about that Naked Gun movies ? Seen any ? Boy were they unrealistic! You should write how bad that is immediatly.
My only problem is how they handled Eve there at the end. Finally a badass woman, who has good sexual chemistry with Bond….and she gets put behind a desk.
the motor cycle part wasnt green screened, most bond movies dont use cgi and that stuff to keep it more realistic
James Bond is still my second favourite Time Lord
WHERE IS IT
WHERE’S THE NEW PLINKETT REVIEW
I believe Mr. Plinkett can’t afford a VHS tape to his camera now, as he’s deposited all of his money to these two frauds.
Thats Fake Plinkett.
True Plinkett probbably blew off his cash on whores and cocaine while mumbling about upcoming Baby Genusues 2 review
Skyfall is a generic Action movie that doesn’t deserve to be called “James Bond” at all. They sucked out all the fun of James Bond by just ignoring the most important elements of the Bond Series. You could name this movie “Daniel Craig is chilling in a pool, is depressed and there are some action sequences”. If you guys dealt a bit more with Bond and knew more about it than just youtube scenes and the latest ( maye 9 ) movies, I’m a 100% positive you would make Plinkett reviews for the Craig Bond movies, because they equally suck and are shocking on the same level as the prequal trilogy were. I go as far and say they are even worse.
Casino Royale and Skyfall were fantastic and bold films. Quantum of Solace was just a cliched action film though.
Daniel Craig > Pierce Brosnan
Goldeneye was cool, but sadly it seems that this is true.
Funny you say that, since the Pierce Brosnan films are a lot more like generic action movies than the Daniel Craig films. Tomorrow Never Dies being the worst, as it feels like an American action film by Jerry Bruckheimer. And to compare Craig’s films to the prequel trilogy? Please. Daniel Craig’s Bond films have done for the Bond franchise what Nolan’s Batman films did for that franchise.
the prequels are bad for two reasons: First, they shit all over the previous movies; Second, each movie alone DOESN’T WORK ON IT’S OWN. It’s bad filmaking, they are bad movies, if they were released before the original trilogy Star Wars wouldn’t be successful and people would fucking hate the whole franchise.
The Craig movies may not be good Bond movies, I DON’T KNOW. You may be bitching because there’s not enough ridiculous shit on the screen, because he’s blonde or because the movie doesn’t open with the barrel gun, or you may have actual good reasons to bitch. I haven’t seen enough Bond movies to know. But they are good movies. Casino Royale and Skyfall are, at least. They are well directed, they have good actors, they have a nice script, they have high production values. Casino Royale is in my top 5 of action movies. It can’t be that insulting to you that these movies are about James Bond, because by the end of the they, they are good fucking movies. So make an effort and try to enjoy them.
You guys are so stupid. This movie sucked. I was so bored.
Nancy should have said “Computer Says No” and coughed.
Clips from James Bond vs Dracula!
I enjoyed Skyfall, but I had a sinking feeling that got worse with every nod to the classic Bond movies that we are about three years away from Daniel Craig being poorly green-screened skiing away from ninjas. I just don’t see a place for the schlocky Bond movies today. Bond doesn’t have to become a morally ambiguous Le Carre spy (Though I’m anxious to see a Tinker Tailor sequel), but why can’t we stick with the Casino Royale James Bond who bloodies his knuckles, runs through walls, and gets his balls crushed by the villain?
This movie was so bad that I almost threw up my soul.
Am I being edgy enough yet?!
FYI: This review is loaded with spoilers. I had to turn it off in the first few minutes… fuck guys. Love the show but give a little warning, though it would have been hard to do with the sarcastic review…
I thought the movie was pretty good, but I didn’t enjoyed it all that much. Maybe it was my fault but I felt that the whole “Bond is old” was way too much metalinguistic and it was way too much on my face, it took me out of the movie. Especially when the car came up…
Plus, I think it laked tone and that the movie took too much time before introducing the awesome villain (the movie became way better after his arc was introduced, thanks to Barden brilliant acting).
Overall it was a good movie but it didn’t engaged me too much. Casino Royale remains as the best Bond movie I’ve seen.
I agree with you a lot. And, although I enjoyed the movie, I didn’t really dig them taking Bond into the Nolan/TDKR, gritty, hero coming out of retirement territory with Bond. Bond should be a fun action movie.
I too thought the movie was metalinguistic.
Also, shallow and pedantic.
I’m gonna learn what those words mean… someday. but for now, up voted.
are you guys going to review Wreck-It Ralph?
How the fuck can Jay not have seen a bond movie before???
Is this your first HITB review? One of them is almost always saying, that he hadn’t seen previous movies of the series they are reviewing. It’s part of their theme.
I can understand not having seen Lost or the Scream series, but saying you’ve never seen a Bond flick strikes me as strange as someone who’s never seen a Disney movie – they’re just hard to avoid. How many 30+ year old cinephiles do you know who’ve managed to not see a Bond flick ever JMT? I love HITB but that struck me as just weird…
Jay just said he wasn’t familiar with it…
No he said he’d never seen one.
Seriously bizarre an ultra-film nerd like Jay who’s probably watched 5,000 films in his life hasn’t seen any Bond films. The other people posting “well they review other sequels they haven’t seen before” are seriously challenged. It’s fucking BOND you crackface’s, not Jeepers Creepers 2.
Neither of them saw the Resident Evil movies either but they reviewed the newest one anyway hahah!
And Scream 4 was the first Scream movie for I believe Mike
Right but those are both b-grade franchises. Are you telling me no one else sees the difference here…
Yep it kind of hard to believe. With so many movie in the franchise every time you watch TV you got good odds that some channel got a Bond movie playing, Not to mention the video store age, any half decent video store had a large Bond section.
Actually Jay did say he saw the first one when it came out, but had forgotten about it entirely. Watching the review made me glad I never subjected myself to that schlock.
I had never seen a Bond movie up to 2007 when I decided to sit down and watch Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and all the Brosnan films.
Gotta say I don’t see why so many people think From Russia With Love is so great. It did pretty nothing for me. Dr. No is a classic of course and setup a lot of what carried through many of the other films. Goldeneye was good fun but I could sense the pandering to Bond cliches. Tomorrow Never Dies started great but fell flat onboard the stealth boat. The World Is Not was pretty forgettable to me, save for the most unbelievable film portrayal of a nuclear physicist. And Die Another Day. Oh boy how stupid that film was. Lose any one bad element and I suppose it’d have been a decent film but combining the copious crappy CGI with stupid dialog and seriously over-the-top comic book action and you must reboot your Bond.
Months back Netflix had several films for a time. That’s when I saw License To Kill. I appreciate some of the cinematography and I really like the theme song but that Bond was so bland and flat IMO. Also saw Moonraker which was pretty fun albeit silly.
I hated From Russia With Love on first watch (except for the Bond girl and that adorable kitty cat) because it was so. Slow. Then a year later, when I re-watched it, a miracle happened: I really liked it! It’s slow to be sure, but that’s because the plot is a bit more complex than most of the era’s and it took me the second viewing to pick up on the purpose of much of what I had assumed was filler. Also that film has the best fight scene of the entire series IMO. GoldenEye was great *because* it addressed the Bond cliches; we hadn’t really had an examination of what made Bond tick before that point.
That clip of the fake-looking guy who pops like an overinflated balloon, that’s from the greatest Bond film ever, Live And Let Die. It’s Roger Moore’s debut, and it’s the reason why he’s the Bond with the most movies under his belt. The one where Bond goes to the moon was one of his, and it wasn’t even close to his last. They didn’t retire him until he’d gotten so old that his Bond films were kind of unsettling to watch.
Actually Roger Moore ties with Sean Connery when you include NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN. Both have seven movies under belts playing Bond. Oh, by the way, MOONRAKER was cool compared to the boring atrocity that was A VIEW TO A KILL.
You covered up the number for Wok-to-Go. How will I be able to call them and ask when they’ll have pizza rolls?
Well you are lucky Jay, my first James Bond movie was “Die Another Day” … And it is still the only one i have seen so far.
During the first half of the review, they don’t like it, then in the second half, they do. PLOT HOLE!!! What the hell!?!
Please Father tell me this is a joke! Please tell me people have not fallen so far!
besides, why must they go on and on about the lucas star wars disney thing. treated it as WAY too important. totally ruined the review for me.geez get a grip guys
Where do they go next? They need to bring back the Quantum organization. You can’t go setting up this big evil organization a la S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and not pursue it further.
I don’t care what you guys do, Half In The Bag, Plinkett, whatever.
You have a fan for life in me so keep it up.
Whatever it is, keep it up.
If I win the lottery any time soon you are guaranteed a donation of a few hundred thousand, maybe even a million depending on how much I win, should I win, on the condition that you keep it up.
If you don’t I will find you. And you will die.
Love you eternally, me.
I’m surprised you guys didn’t bring up the whole Home Alone influence.
Even ICE CASTLES was better than DIE ANOTHER DAY. Aside from the sword-fight Mike loves, the movie is complete shit. Anyone else upset they didn’t make the Jinx spinoff?
It all comes back to Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan.
I love you, but you don’t know what you’re talking about………this time
Was the point of this video to make me stop watching it part way, like I did with Skyfall?
very clever guys.
It’d be funny if they changed the tune at the end and said ‘here we go again!’.
I do not hold it against you two since you really do not know much about Bond movies, but Skyfall has basically the exact same problem Crystal Skull has, which was pointed in your Plinkett review on it. Those of us that love Bond movies love them because of the idea of being Bond. No one cares about the character himself, but we all want to be him. He is a badass playboy that we would all love to be. When you make him some washed-up has-been like he is in Skyfall, we now no longer want to be like him and the movie suffers. It is no different from having an old Indiana Jones that relies on green screens and Shia Labeouf for all the action because he is too old to do anything himself. We do not want to be old Indiana Jones, and we do not want to be a second rate James Bond.
these paragraphs came across cunty.
Except he rises above second-rate Bond, that’s the entire point of the movie.
But he never does, Bond is not just about being able to shoot people and seduce women. He’s supposed to be one step ahead of everyone else, making the most of every situation and he’s supposed to be a great detective. In skyfall he acts like a fucking retard just going with the flow, why they made him a double 0 I do not know, anyone else would have done a better job. His detective work in skyfall is basically just going from one place to the next hoping to bump in to the same person.
I agree with Peetza and Banana man. I thought this bond movie was lame and they used almost strictly recycled ideas. Hard drive with the list of secret agents? See NOC list from mission impossible, estranged ex agent out for revenge? See Alec from Goldeneye or 100 other villain characters. And like the other two said, Bond is supposed to be a universal badass, not a geriatric failure. Like HITB said, he doesnt stop the assassin, doesnt get the information, and the whole point of him taking M out to Skyfall was that he was trying to get a leg up on Bardem and she fucking gets clipped by a ricochet or some shit and dies later. Lame… Bond totally failed. There wasnt even a sweet 1 on 1 knife fight like i thought was coming, he just throws that shit and Bardem says “Damnit” and then he dies. I can’t think of any bond movie where he completely fails at his main objective, and they just move on like “Hey, youre old, slow, failed as a double 0, but its all good, we got more work for ya.” As a standalone action movie it plays well, if not very well, but for us Bond fans out there, this was a disappointment.
Honestly, what bugged me most about the Bond aging subplot was that he just ‘gets over it’ when the plot needs him to. It really plays into my ‘pissy baby boomer’ theory about the movie. The subtext ends up being that all those people saying you can’t do the stuff you did when you were younger are just WRONG, damn it! I don’t care what the tests say!
The extent of Bond’s ‘detective work’ usually boils down to sleeping with the first Bond girl to get closer to the villain and/or somehow going undercover as a hired assassin or a henchman. He does both in Skyfall so how is it any different, exactly?
That’s… just wrong, do you really remember the good ones correctly? Watch dr. No for example, he’s basically just doing detective work the entire movie.
Dr No date back to 1962 the bar got a lot lower since. If anything it the exception not the rule.
It’s definitely a change in tone. However, Mike addressed his bias in this matter. He mentioned the thematic difference between the ‘Bourne Identity’ type of Bond and the more tradtional, and mentioned he liked both.
I agree this movie is does not fit the traditional Bond image. However, they took this same approach with Wrath of Kahn, and it worked. Kirk had a few more movies left in him and the character endures.
If it’s purposeful, it’s an interesting statement to make on the 50th Anniversary of Bond.
And this is why Roger Moore will always be the best Bond. He knows he’s indestructible so treats it all like a big game. No one ever agrees with me about this though.
I agree with you.
That’s cute, you actually think this movie was aimed at Bond fans.
Also, why is he old and washed up already? The whole point of the Craig reboot in Casino Royale was that he is new and inexperienced. They completely crapped on the whole “trilogy origin story” with this movie by having him be washed up. This movie is just a wholesale ripoff of Nolans Batmovies, and at the point I realized that while watching it, it just completely took me out of the movie. skyFAIL.
Yes, because the physical and psychological trauma of getting shot by your own agency and nearly drowned is so easy to come back from when you’re well past your 20′s, I’m sure. Maybe you forgot WHY he was supposed to be scrubbed and had “lost his edge”? Had nothing to do with ripping off Nolan, it had everything to do with giving tension to the plot by making MI6 vulnerable on every level, including their star agent.
Here’s the thing, though. I hated the old Bond movies. I don’t even consider myself a feminist, but I am when I watch the old Bond movies. This is just an opinion, obviously, but I hold that the old Bond movies are stupid. I only stopped saying in general “I hate James Bond” because the reboots had depth and insight. So maybe Skyfall has alienated some of the oldschool fans, but it’s also brought in new fans. And in the end, isn’t that what Christmas is all about?
Absolutely spot on.
Man with the golden gun car flip was actually done, as was most of the Skyfall motorbike scene was real too.
Skyfall lacked a good long casino scene most of all.
The opening of the review was like a huge sigh of relief for me. Awesome review, and thank you.
For guys who review movies, you guys sure haven’t seen a lot, haha
If Skyfall was really a good James Bond movie your review had actually looked like this:
a) you had big laughs and chuckles on some schlocky, ridiculous and hillarious typical James Bond action scenes. Never happened.
b) you wouldn’t have had to do a 7 minute sarcams-intro to shrugg of the haters. Instead there would have been more than a handful (and insight) arguments and reasons why this movie is actually good (other than “good actors, good director, good photography). Never happened.
c) you would have actually recommended the movie instead of just “giving it a pass”.
i really loved skyfall. was hell lot of better, than the last bond movies except goldeneye. just my opinion but loved that bond is back in UK
oh mr plinkett, you silly old fart.
by the way i love the way how daniel craig is running. pure awesomeness. it reminded me a little of the T-1000 from T2.
the movie was all right, boring here or there, but entertaining overall. it looks great, has a pretty strong visual style, the stunts are real (well, except the fucking CGI lizards – why, why, why), the jokes are mostly funny, the characters are likeable. i only hated Q, he’s too much of a stereotype – sure, everyone else is, but this “i’m a HACKER, so i wear glasses and i’m a geek” shit is really getting old. the whole hacking part is boring and stupid, but whatever. the ending sequence is brilliant with all the sets and oldschool fighting.
Aren’t American audiences confused by an English character that is not a villain?
Every time I watch Doctor Who, I’m so lost.
Yeah this was one of the first times where I significantly disagreed with them. I hated this movie and was literally falling asleep during it, one of the few times I have ever done that. I will give a Bond film some leeway in terms of plotholes and things that do not make sense but this really pushed it for me. But to say that this was better than Casino Royale, are you fucking kidding me?!
Skyfall was aight. It’s better than Quantum of Solace, so I think that explains the big pendulum swing to “OMG SKYFALL IS AWESOME” when really… eh. Casino Royale forever.
Any chance of a youtube link?
Fucking hell, Mike and Jay, if you’ve never seen Bond films before, you’re in a for a treat. May I recommend, in order of watching:
Goldfinger (this one isn’t just a great Bond fil, it’s a great movie)
From Russia With Love
On Her Majesty’s Sceret Service
Live & let Die
The Man With the Golden Gun
The Living Daylights
No seriously, get some beers and some fat-bottomed hoors and watch these films over a weekend.
I like your list. It’s surprising you have Golden Gun so high…. not that I mind.
As somebody who works in IT, I’m actually cool with the ridiculousness of how computer hacking and decryption is in movies like this. It makes sense. You need that to tell the story. Film is a visual medium. Computer programming is not a visual process, or at least, not one that can be easily understood by the popcorn-eating masses. It has to be a challenge for filmmakers to come up with an entertaining way to visually convey the information that’s being revealed in those kind of sequences. I like the way they did it here.
I am the only one, who cannot start the episode?
How can you call yourself movie fans/reviewers and never watched the previous Bond movies? Maybe I’m getting old, but it just seems bizarre.
The opening car chase of Quantum of Solace was awesome. I don’t care what you think.
The Plinkett chair segment with Mike and Jay filling up their coffee cups with candy made me laugh to tears. I literally spilled some coffee on my board in that scene because I couldn’t control myself!
They might have gone too far in a few places.
Exactly, review Zardoz and The Room together, then you can go to rehab
I, for one, did not like Skyfall all that much for pretty much for the opening train scene: just run away! And the pointless assassination scene. What was that for? It was good filler, but not worth paying full price in a theater.
Thanks guys, great episode.
Diamonds are Forever had gay hitmen.
Hey Jay, who is Daniel Cregg?
Can you fix the Half In The Bag Ep. 6? Thank you!
Wanna watch but havent seen Skyfall yet. Any spoilers?
I think what would be a clever Bond villain would be to go the Unabomber route, and have a villain who thinks the proliferation of technology is evil and the world needs to be purged of it.
Actually the motorbikes on the rooftops bit was real stuntmen on real bikes on real rooftops/sets. Watch the top gear james bond special, they talk to one of the stuntmen.
I love you guys more than my wife! Because she has cancer….
you guys didnt go see cloud atlas?
How in the hell can you guys not have seen these movies? I understand about the young guy, but these were PG movies, and the old dude could have seen the Roger Moore movies in the theatre.
But…how the hell could you not have seen these movies???
Thanks for the spoilers.
A little warning next time, assholes.
Um, there was a warning?
Request: An HitB James Bomd retrospective on:
Goldfinger, You Only Live Twice, Live and Let Die, Moonraker, Licence To Kill, Goldeneye and Casino Royale.
These movies are my picks, but you should consider a James Bond catch-up in general and might as well do a HitB on it. You like? Good idea? Yes?
When is the next Plinkett review?
Should I just do my own in a bad Plinkett impersonation?
Wonderful work guys. Solid critique as always, funny, and enjoyable.
What I didn’t like is how the main villain showed a lot of similarities to the Joker from the Dark Knight – he even had his story about the rats to match the scars stories. I always thought that Bond was better than plagiarism, which is why I don’t like Skyfall so much.
Not to mentioned Skyfall jacked the whole old hero coming out of retirement thing from TDKR. Or the whole mother/father complex with M and Alferd.
” Skyfall jacked the whole old hero coming out of retirement thing from TDKR” there’s only a few months between the two movies. how could they rip off tdkr? i mean really.
didn’t dark knight rip off Rocky 3 thou?
wtf? can’t this play on Mac’s? fascists…
I get what you guys were going for – but this movie’s biggest shortcoming was that it was a bland action flick – not that it had unrealistic plot points.
Also, comparing it to older Bond films, and their cheeky humor scenes, is invalid as well. The Craig films have tried so hard to be gritty and serious – why are you doing throwbacks to stuffing Tattoo in a suitcase?
Trying too hard, guys
Haven’t disagreed with half in Half in the Bag this much before. I knew they wouldn’t hate it since they seem to have grown soft or something (see: prometheus) but I really thought that Mike, who had already made the point that Crystal skull sucks because you don’t want to be Indy, would agree that this movie sucks because you don’t want to be bond. Not only is he a total wimp who can’t aim but he also acts like a retard and makes stupid desicions over and over again.
I really liked this Bond movie, though sometimes I felt the plausible and implausible aspects of the plot and characters clashed a bit, the universe was made out to be a bit more down to earth than some things that happened in it, if that makes sense. I was particularly pleased that the action wasn’t shot and edited by the same ADHD people who made Quantum of Solace. You can follow everything really well, and this means you can properly appreciate the work done on stunts and action scenes. I felt at times there were more than subtle winks at The Dark Knight, even going so far as to have almost identical scenes in some cases.
Overall, I almost liked it as much as Casino Royale (a movie that to me does almost nothing wrong in terms of action scene editing, characters, and plot), and a lot more than Quantum of Solace.
Thanks for another HitB, love you guys.
7:30 to avoid the snark.
Why would you ever want to avoid snark? That’s why we’re here!
Another Great Review! I was puzzled at first… These just keep getting better. Thank you.
The next Bond should be smaller-scale, shorter and cheaper. We suggest an adaptation ‘The Harpies’ or a 21st century version of ‘Colonel Sun’. Not only would it most likely still be great, it would make any big-budget Bond movie that comes after it more interesting, too, due to the contrast.
Watching Rich sit down and get up made me choke on my fucking tacos
for schlocky, campy bond Tomorrow Never Dies, it’s totally one of those so bad it’s good films
We get it. You’re guys who became famous for nitpick bitching about movies who are sarcastically above other people who nitpick bitch about movies. You’ve run your sarcastic superiority into the ground defending mediocre movies with high promotional budgets that don’t need your help swatting down people who expect a little more from their entertainment.
They’re not famous for nitpicking. They’re famous for pointing out major storytelling flaws, and then making fun of people like you that don’t understand the difference between that and nitpicking.
Nobody’s got a gun to your head forcing you to watch it. If anything I give them props for apparently striking a nerve in uptight assholes like yourself.
Nobody put a gun to Mike’s head and made him watch the Star Wars prequels either… what an “uptight asshole!” But from a quick scan up and down the posts in this thread, it does seem someone has a gun to your head forcing you to jump on anyone who posts a negative opinion and offer catty fanboy insults. I’m praying for your safe delivery from this deadly conundrum.
Love half int he bag but this was a chore to get through.Smarmy sarcasm can only go so far,
Yeah! Why do these guys that are famous for being sarcastic and smartass have to be so sarcastic and smartass???
Had to turn the sound off on Rich Evans screaming, that guy is definitely not as amusing as Mike and Jay think he is.
” that guy is definitely not as amusing as I THINK HE IS.”
See, that’s how opinions work.
HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS
i love you
Jay hasn’t seen a single Bond film? Wow, I always thought he was the doofus of the pair and really not needed, but that confirmed it.
I didn’t like this one. I thought the action was boring as hell
Javier Boredom wasn’t the first gay Bond villain. You forgot about Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd: “I must say Miss Case seems quite attractive… for a lady.”
As long as the cuffs and collars match.
Well done, sirs. Quite a few chuckles.
I’ve never seen a James Bond film either!
Grrr I’m angry that your rational take of this film doesn’t validate my negative opinion! Skyfall is the worst James Bond film ever even though it has great cinematography, great performances, well executed action, and a surprising amount of characterization that the Bond films aren’t generally known for. But other than all those positive attributes, it was terrible…for some reason.
Can you guys put it on YouTube? please please
I loved the movie, it could’ve been better but it was thrilling and the ending was really suspenseful. The nighttime flaming camera shots in the ending were beautiful.
I also absolutely loved this review. When Rich Evans tried sitting down I almost spit out water all over my keyboard. The sarcastic beginning with the insertions of Moore-era clips also had me laughing out loud several times.
The whole plot with Plinkett’s almost sleepwalky behaviour was hilarious. It bugged me how unrealistic it was though, Half in the Bag has always been very grounded in reality after all. You could also clearly make out the greenscreen when you toss out your coffee on the wall.
Mike, if you enjoy schlocky James Bond movies you would probably enjoy all the Roger Moore ones on that level. They are pretty silly for the most part. There’s some fun/funny stuff in the Connery ones (Diamonds are Forever definitely comes to mind, it’s ridiculous), but the Roger Moore ones take it to a new level. The Timothy Dalton ones are a little over serious, and the Brosnan ones are kind of in the middle, with Die Another Day being pretty Roger Moore-like.
Bond does have it’s own Schlock, and Moore was king.
One of my favorite scenes was the drinking with a scorpion on your hand scene.
Ooh. Look at the white man who is able to preform a feat no other can. All the nebulous/South American ‘natives’ are in awe
They were obviously Greek. You’re not likely to wash up ashore in South America after falling into the sea near Istanbul.
this fuckin guy did a full on review of “baby’s day out” being a horrible movie, when it was merely a cartoon ported over into live action. its a childs film! yet, the bond franchise has always had a goofy, unrealistic side that made is STAND THE FUCK OUT from all the other movies. They were slick, silly and Bond always won. They were episodes about everyones favorite british spy. However, now he likes the more “realistic” bond movies because… THEY ARE LIKE ALL THE OTHER FUCKING MOVIES. Are you mentally retarded? go watch bourne identity, dont support the people fucking up the bond franchise. if you were a james bond fan you would realize why a blonde haired, blue eyed muscular jock james bond with mental issues ISN’T FUCKING ENTERTAINING and why goofy stuff that they did by pushing the envelope every single film was what made the film series a classic. “I like both bonds” good for you. you get to have your cake and eat it too!
ps. daniel craig sucks dick at acting. i cannot name a worse actor, him and his non emoting mutant face is the worst.
You’re a fucking idiot, dude.
Daniel Craig is the best actual actor to actually play Bond, actually, with Timothy Dalton close second. I’m not saying they’re the 2 best Bonds but they’re definitely the 2 best actors who have ever donned the Bond-cape and Bond-cowl.
what makes Craig a good actor?? Every role he plays, he walks around with a frown/semi-angry look on his face. Ashton Kutcher – who yells all his lines – has more range than Craig
He’s much more versatile than you give him credit for, although Ashton Kutcher is pretty good too.
Yeah, you’re saying so doesn’t make it true. Name some examples. He
was the same in Layer Cake, Dragon Tattoo, and Bond. ‘The guy who looks serious’
Looking serious on camera and being a serious actor are 2 different things
I could understand Bond and whoever he plays in Cowboys and Aliens (serious guys who look seriously serious), but how the hell is he the same in Layer Cake, Dragon Tattoo and Bond? He may be serious-looking sometimes (super serial at certain points and in certain things), but it’s not like he’s emotionally concrete as far as performance goes. How about Road To Perdition? The Jacket? Even The Invasion. Not all great movies but great examples of Craig’s versatility. He isn’t always a face of solid stone.
I’m sure that I would be a worse actor than Daniel Criag.
Not the first gay villain. Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint from Diamonds Are Forever were a gay couple.
Not the first gay villain. Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint from Diamonds Are Forever was a gay couple.
Wint and Kidd always get denied the love the deserve.
You need to do an epic review of he twilight series, bring Rich Evans and his laugh. It will be put to good use.
Rich Evans will always be Spacecop to me.
You didn’t even mention the awesome cinematography and how it was so stylishly shot! some of those settings were definetly worth a mention!
We going to get a new review as a Thanksgiving treat or what? Each new post you guys throw up that isn’t the new review makes me feel like you’re all Lucy pulling away the football. So cut the shit… Do appreciate HitB though.
I think the movie review you are giving Skyfall is an ordinary, watch the movie, analyze it scene by scene sort of approach, which I know is how all movie reviews should be conducted; however, with a bond movie I find it necessary to have seen the other bond films in order to give it a fair review. Like at 10:32, Ray says he understands the staples of a bond film, and says it opens like a bond movie. There was no gun barrel scene, it happened at the end, and it happened so quickly no one probably saw it. The gun barrel scene is what sparks the beginning of the film because it’s so fucking awesome. I’m sorry, but this was not a traditional bond film. Much like the original star trek movies and the most recent one, I think Skyfall was a much more modern version of a classic Bond film in that it went over the top with the action. Like when Bond got into the CAT on the train and started to claw away at the train, I thought Optimus Prime was going to start fighting in the background. Although it maybe time consuming, I think you guys should watch the bond films and then review Skyfall. Kind of like with the paranormal activity 4 review, you guys were able to realize it was complete shit because it was basically the same crap from the other three movies. Now if you guys hadn’t seen the other paranormal activity movies, I think you guys would have taken a different approach to it. Much like the paranormal activity movies, the same goes for Bond films, but hell that’s just me. My opinion of the movie is if someone who has never seen a bond film and has no knowledge of James Bond previous to seeing the film decided to watch this movie, they would find this movie good because it has action and a good story line. but for someone like me who has seen the other bond films, it seems liked Neal Purvis and Robert Wade just pulled this movie out of their asses much like what they did with Quantum of Solace, the only difference being Quantum of Solace put me to sleep the first time I saw it.
This post put me to sleep the first time I read it…
How many fucking times did you read it?
I’m 1 of 3 people who didn’t like Skyfall. I went in thinking it was going to be the best Bond ever. Between the insane amount of nodes to the old films and going to the trouble of saying that Silva (and was to assume all 00 agents) had a spy name but then reveal that James Bond is the dude’s actual name. there was a lot that was just bad to me about it. I love the shlock from the older Bond movies and the crazy gadgets that Q gave Bond, but this movie was just really bizarre to me.
. . . Also another thing that bothered me was when Q says “Security through obscurity,” without spoilers, that is totally not what that means. It’s like someone through out a hacking term and no one bothered to look it up.
I didn’t hate this movie, but I didn’t like it.
I wish I could make you like it, but I know better. It’s possible your expectations were too high.
Quantum of Salace.
Quantum of Salad.
i watched the first 10 minutes of this review, glad to know it sucked before i wasted money on this flop.
I will only see the next Bond movie if agent “M” has a nude yodeling scene. No exceptions.
God, please let there be a Paranormal Activity 5: Activity Reloaded.
Where the hell is your promised Plinkett review you assholes. Stop dicking around with our emotions!
Loved the ridiculous, tongue-in-cheek opening to this review. Skyfall is without a doubt, the best Bond film I’ve seen since… Goldeneye I guess. The ending is great; Bond fans will find it very satisfying.
But what the fuck do I know.
fuck all, apparently.
Yet another juke from the shifty Mike and Jay! This hitb episode and not some 2 min shit in your face preview has bought you 1 more week of time to release that plinkett review. You have been warned!
Your review sucks. In fact I am beginning to wonder if you are getting paid to give Skyfall a positive review.
Yes, because clearly the studio behind Skyfall need all the help they can get when it comes to spreading positive word on this film, you fucking idiot.
If you hadn’t used that foul language I might have given you a proper answer. Instead I’ll just say go fuck yourself.
If you’re honestly so stupid that you believe RLM is getting paid to give movies good reviews, nothing about your answer would be “proper.”
wasn’t the general from golden eye gay?
The Sarcasm in this episode goes three levels deep!
This much Sarcasm within Sarcasm is too unstable!
I didn’t see you guys touch on it but I was completely caught up in the filmography. The intro to the Casino, the shots in Shanghai, the orange-glow of the field scenes, so many other scenes included were just shot so beautifully.l
Cinematography. Unless you mean you really liked the things Daniel Craig has been in before.
i just had to mention, the scene where they are on motorcycles on the roof was not green screened. that was shot with stunt actors riding at up to 70mph on the roof tops. saw interviews and behind the scenes showing it.
You guys should familiarize yourself with the Bond series outside the Brosnan and Craig movies. I’ll give you a little rundown.
Connery movies for the most part are rather good, Diamonds are Forever is kind of a dud though but the rest are worth the time, From Russia with Love especially. I would say it’s the best of the franchise, Connery was never smoother and it’s just part a great Bond movie and part great spy set up. I say Dr. No and Thunderball are the other main ones though a lot will say Goldfinger is, but I’d disagree. Still a better Bond film of course.
Lazenby’s one outing in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is kind of divisive but I say it’s one of the best as well.
Roger Moore’s movies are mostly silly schlock but Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only are worth seeing.
And last there’s Dalton who I think is pretty underrated. His first movie isn’t that great but he still makes for a great Bond and License to Kill is pretty solid (Not to mention one of the rougher ones).
I volunteered to be an in house expert, but the won’t return my calls.
Seriously RLM, the bell has got to go.
No Cloud Atlas review?
Mike also left out the court scene. I thought it could end there too.
You guys are fuckin AWESOME! Your always welcome to come and get a free tattoo from me anytime! I almost passed out laughing on this one! Lmfao …
How the hell do you want to review a Bond movie if you don’t know any?
This was the worst Bond movie ever and all you said was that the movie would have sucked if it wasn’t a Bond movie….WHAT?
The word you are looking for is “back hoe” as opposed to “Crack ho.”
I have some question like,
When is the next Plinkett review?
When is the next Plinkett review?
This movie is a great argument for giving action films to real filmmakers. Take them away from hacks like McG or whatever his stupid name is.
It’s always weird for me when Mike and Jay’s take is so far off from my own, because usually I’m sitting here laughing and shouting ‘spot on’ and so forth to compensate for spending my saturday alone on a computer. The only other time I was on such a different wavelength was the Captain America review.
All the callbacks and the Bond feeling his age stuff just took me right out of it for a few reasons. It jars with the very deliberate ‘reboot’ in Casino Royale. Granted, you should probably ignore continuity between Bond films, but the audience can only be expected to do that if the film makers don’t go out of their way to bring it up. Why does the Craig Bond care about the old Aston Martin (complete with machine guns and ejector seat)? How can he possibly be getting past his prime when he just became a double-O two movies back? How weird is it that they’re doing this ‘maybe he’s too old’ plot in Craig’s third movie when he’s currently something like two or three years older than Brosnan was in Goldeneye?
All this meta-textual 50th anniversary stuff was also plays a part in the thing that really put me off it, the ending’s weird subtext that they’re going to get back to proper old-fashioned Bond stuff, complete with a Q, a male M, and a flirty secretary named Moneypenny (why is that line not getting the same universal mockery as the ‘Robin’ line in Dark Knight Rises?). It felt like the franchise was apologizing for ever trying to do anything original and promising not to do so again, which isn’t exactly exciting me for future installments, and ends up having some vaguely sexist and pro-security state implications to boot.
TLDR version: This is the most acutely aware I’ve ever been that a film was aimed at my Dad’s worst pissy baby-boomer inclinations.
I think your confusing a desire for nostalgia with “apologizing for every trying to do anything original”. That’s not to say you don’t make some good points.
You know what I really should have put a SPOILER WARNING on my post down there. Sorry for anyone I may piss off.
All of these little nitpicks actually lowered my opinion of the movie quite a bit.
So, by the standards of this review, The Phantom Menace is now a great movie?
Only if you totally lack any comprehension skills.
I like half in the bag but you guys should consider going a little lighter on the sarcasm and spend a little more time actually reviewing the movie. I like hearing you guys actually talk about the movies but the extra fluff you put into your reviews can get out of hand sometimes.
It felt like a reboot of a reboot
Yeah – Spoilers –
I friggin’ hated it.
Awesome set up, awesome bad guy all the way until they drove north and the film turned into a remake of Precinct 13 (or a really violent Home Alone). Set in the most improbably named Scottish estate of Skyfall (it’s like they came up with a cool name and then wondered where they could stick in the film).
The first a middle part of the film sets the stakes, the bad guy has the names of undercover spies, he’s releasing them on youtube, he’s bombed MI6, he has an island filled with computers and he can do anything. He’s two steps ahead all the way – and what’s his master plan?
He wants to shot Judi Dench.
All the stakes established in the first 2 hours of the film – forget about that, not important, here’s a shoot out in a castle.
For me this shift in direction did not tie sufficiently to what was established earlier in the film and was massive disappointment.
I’ve learned not to watch reviews these guys make of movies I like lol they’re a little bit snobbish, I HATE HATE HATE when people do this , but when they gave Xmen First Class a negative review because of the way the crew in the warship was filmed i stopped watching
Yeah, because the way a scene is filmed doesn’t have any affect on its quality or how the audience perceives it.
Also, did you watch this entire review? I’m assuming not because there’s no way you would have missed the point so badly.
I didn’t watch the review. That’s why I said “i’ve learned not to watch reviews” I didn’t mention this review I mentioned the First Class review.
And they where talking about a specific shot. as in if they had picked a different shot it would’ve been fine or at least better, that just seems like nitpicking to me which is fine it’s their review I’m not complaining
They were talking about the odd shift in tone that First Class seemed to have, as if the director didn’t realize he was framing his scene like a freaking parody. That’s not nitpicking, it’s raising a good point.
And if you had watched this review you wouldn’t have made your first remarks. They LIKED this film.
When you call a shot by name and then lists it’s uses that’s nitpicking for me. And hey that’s my opinion i know it’s tempting to try to jump on the sword for these guys but I’m a fan just like this.
Maybe that’s why people are getting butthurt. Personally I can’t stand when somebody says they won’t do something and then through lack of will power watch it anyway just to get upset. Sorry for sticking to my convictions
Skyfall, QoS, Casino Royale are not Bond Movies. Even before that Bond Movies had been going down hill. The action scenes are getting faster and faster but the thought and effort being put into them and the plot and the dialogue is getting dumber and dumber.
Umm…major plot hole in your review: You assclowns didn’t talk about the literal plot hole in the beginning when Bond has a bullet hole in his shoulder from when he got shot in the construction digger, yet he can still fight and punch no problem. WTF? How can he do that? PLOT HOLE!!!!
How old are you? Shoulder shots are like being brazed with a bullet… IN EVERY MOVIE SINCE 1980.
I kept waiting for the part where you hilariously explain how nothing the characters do makes ANY SENSE (you did this so brilliantly for Qui-Gon “Gin” — this movie could have used the same loving treatment!)
Warning: SPOILER ALERT!
- Bond switches cars to keep Silva from tracking him, but then has Q lead Silva right to them.
- Bond picks as his fortress his childhood house, where his only assets are an old gamekeeper and some guns that aren’t there. What about involving the government and military resources to which M undoubtedly has access?
- When Silva shows up, he tells his men something like “I want M alive, she’s mine,” and then immediately starts lobbing grenades into the house with no reason to believe she’s not in there.
- When Bond wires up the house to explode, he hangs around in the tunnel for no apparent reason waiting for it to detonate, forcing him to narrowly jump out of the way when it does blow.
- During their covert getaway, M and the gatekeeper stupidly shine their flashlight around like they’re a casino in Las Vegas, allowing Silva to easily see them in the dark night. The head of British Intelligence who makes calls about when agents should shoot in the field apparently has less field competence than a third grader playing hide and seek.
The extreme nonsense of all the characters’ actions made the last action sequence so boring. This doesn’t even cover the gaping plot holes, which you said you said you’d give a pass (like: where is the bullet wound from the shot so powerful it knocked Bond off a train?)
My VCR actually needs repairing. Too bad Lightning Fast doesn’t exist. I love you guys.
Guys you started so well on this movie! I’ve been dying to hear your review!!!
And then you ended up liking this Rubbish movie!!!! Gutted!!!
I’ve been a real bond fan except for Pierce Brosnan!!! I’ve just seen Skyfall and Sam Mendes has done a rubbish job!! Is this really the best they can do for the 50th anniversary!! So last time they copied the The Bourne Identity!! Which was ok and i agree with your points on that! But this time they copied The Dark Knight!!
Love Craig as Bond he does a great job. But this new bond again falls short! Thought we where moving on from the cheese of Pierce Brosnan and the over the top plots and going more realistic!!!
We’re supposed to believe one guy can Basically cripple MI6 and the whole country and his only reason for doing this is that he has a bone to pick with M!!!! With the world climate, being what it is today!!!
REALLY IS THIS THE BEST STORY THEY COULD COME UP WITH???!!!!
Then there is the home alone ending!!! I could go on!! RUBBISH!!!
Mizz Broccoli why don’t you cough up and get a proper director next time!!
Guy Ritchie, Christopher Nolan or Danny Boyle far better directors if you what to stay British!
Mizz Broccoli needs to give up the reigns… she’s fucking this shit up. I liked the movie but ALL your negatives can be traced back to her.
I feel like you guys are completely forgetting that this is supposed to be a “prequel” to the other bond movies. Bardem was pre-metalmouth Jaws, the black chick was Moneypenny, and M’s replacement was the guy in charge in the old movies. I think they did this really well, except Moneypenny’s name should’ve just been on a namplate or something instead of being said aloud,
The villains were gay in Diamonds Are Forever
Blofeld was gay? Oh you mean them…. french tart ….
8 minutes of sarcasm? Really?
You guys really missed the point of the movie. You’re dumb and your opinions are dumb.
Hahaha you see how funny that is? When I said something that I didn’t really believe?
Or did you maybe think it was pointless and not funny at all? Because I can definitely see how you might think that.
Nothing beats Sean Connery’s Bond movies.
Go to the store and rent Goldfinger or From Russia With Love, if you want to see a REAL James Bond movie.
I thought skyfall was the worst movie let alone bond movie ever made. My friend suggested i not watch your review because it would make me hate you guys and I really don’t want to hate you.
Go watch Die Another Day again and jerk off blood.
You forgot the awful action sequence with the cartoon lizards though
1. that was less than 10 seconds.
2. They looked that fake to you? I thought it was good.
I love your deadpan humor.
just in case you didn’t realize, you CAN, in fact, walk onto damn near any construction site and almost every piece of machinery(CATs, etc.) will have their keys in the ignition. used to do it all the time, go play with them a bit when i was young! hahaha
How you gonna drive it off the train at wherever it’s going without keys?
nice skit and finish to it
I think you should review at least one old james bond movie, The Spy Who Loved Me is the one with the best amount of kitch and laughs….
Oh guys, where to start? This bond movie sucked.
Is it really plausible that a laptop, one, is going to have the information of all operatives in the world? Can we not move past the laptop harddrive plot crap I mean really?
The characters came accross as arrogant and full of themselves, save for A.Finney but can we please have no more cliche arrogant hot wisecrack black women quasi love interests in these movies please?
When bond was fighting that other guy on the train and she shot bond, eh, did that not occur to anyone that will now leave a 100% chance NOW to shoot the villain? The way bond fell off the train, including motion means the train was far from the tunnel so she easily had the time. She had a clear shot after bond got shot for christs sake! Dan C is like watching a scripted robot, egads what relationship did he have with M? That has to be the coldest acting gig for mom “affection” ever. A note on that, what is with the cold lifeless acting we see today, I mean who gives a shit if that old bag M gets shot, this womans a bitch! Seriously why is acting today so frikken cold and scripted today, do we really have any connection to the characters, where’s the “charisma”? This is bond…right?
Lets go to the part where he chased after the assassin in the building, NO gloves to hide fingerprints, NO mask, nothing? Just kill gaurds merrily on your way? Are these people that devoid of modern technology to at least do the bare minimum to conceal themselves? Have you ever, I mean EVER seen an elevator where you can jump from the lobby to grab underneath? What was the point of that whole sequence to begin with?
In the Macao casino do you realize if you had a fight in a casino, a Macao casino there would be a swarm of security on your ass practically immideately?
What about the fact that Q, who is barely 22, designs the security systems for entire MI6, the British intelligence agency, gets hacked and cannot figure it out only for bond solving the hack when he is portrayed as a luddite aged spy? Creme dela Crap
By the way, Bond was supposed to be an orphan (said in movie), last I checked an orphan lost their parents somehow but he was old enough to, according to the movie, hide under the house and come out a man. Yes I know that’s a metaphore but he would have at least been 10 to 12 years old for that scene to happen. Also, what about the caretaker not seeing bond in over 35+ or – years (assuming 12 years old orphaned bond) and immidiately recognizing him, I imagine you look abit different from 12 to 45. And did that caretaker spend 45 years in that house which looked like an abandoned castle? Really? 45 years paying the upkeep etc?
The plot was lame, the action scenes implausible, the typical smart yet dumb villain who couldn’t kill a clearly easy target but everything else around it, the stereotypical sarcast hot black counterpart, the cold scripted acting, no original content.
Garbage, 1/2 star out of 5
Sounds like someone’s got a case of the MONDAY’S.
I could write twice as much about Quantum of Solace or Die Another Day. But I wont because… fuck you.
This film wasn’t very good at all, sure some OK fights, some minor boring technology, horrible ending, it was pretty bad all around
Drinking 312. Nice.
They usually drink Spotted Cow, this disappoints me.
In response to your question on villains Mike, and I hate to use this as an example, but the Joker is probably the best example of a villain who has no need to be a technological genius. He has a gadget or two yes, but their often very crude and merely serve an explosive purpose. That’s a strong point though for Bond, it’s been quite awhile since the Glory days of Blowfeld and Goldfinger. No need for computers so much as nuclear weapons and lazers aimed at Sean connery’s crotch.
The bike chase through Istanbul was actually not green screen. They actually drove a couple of motorcycles over rooftops like madmen.
I was with you for the first 3 minutes of the review (before you went overly sarcastic with the fake criticism). Movie was a let down (even more so than QoS).
Oh, and the motorcycles weren’t greenscreen backgrounds. The actors faces were green screen onto stunt performers.
Q was the only thing i hated about this movie. He is introducing himself as this IT genius who invented hacking, but he only gives James Bond2 gadgets that each get used once and fails horribly at cybersecurity. He lets M keep her infected laptop and connects another infected laptop directly to the MI6 network. You don’t even have to be an IT expert to know that those are bad ideas.
… gotta admit you have a point.
With the first 8 minutes Jay and Mike are mocking all of you and everything you stand for. And your families as well I’d wager.
Why is there a hobbit advertisement? I thought this site gave the movie a bad review.
I didn’t hate or love the film but it definetly didn’t resonate with my view of Bond aesthetics as much as CR did. I really totally forgot the whole quantum of soullace or whatever was ever even a part of the reboot trilogy.
The real problems of the film aren’t the massive plot holes (how did the bad guy know where to plant the bomb on the subway, and how did he know he and bond would be there EXATLY at that time) or the lack of a general tone (is he old, young, amazing or are we just doing a character study on him…), the jarring inconsistency of the bond physical attributes… I said that already.
In anycase. It’s all these together that make for a less than stellar movie. Didn’t hate it but it surely wasn’t the best bond ever. There are omissions I’m willing to make for a movie like suspending disbelief when a guy attacks a train with a diggirydig-machine, AND the train still doesn’t stop OR that the passengers all just sit there quietly. I am willing to let these go. But if there are just too damn many moments that take you out of the film magic pixie whatever. It’s just not going to make for a good movie.
Furthermore. I was really confused as to what was the point of the ride of the valkyries? TOTALLY different movie and theme… or was the bad guy just a fan of Apocallolypse now? Was he trying to be funny and crazy? Shit, I don’t know.
And why did he feel the need to total the aston? Again, that was a staple of the older bond movies. Go figure.
What I kinda did like were the gentle and not so gentle nods to the older bonds. But again. That was more of a fan service than actually doing something original.
I’m conflicted… I need my meds—
Why am i writing this to an old forum…. fuck!
btw. love the RLM. Never laughed so hard when watching the Phantom menace analsys.– -
The first “gay” villain since Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd from Diamonds are Forever (1971).
Ding Ding Ding winner winner!!!!
I love On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (the one with the violet wallpapers in the hotel’s casino) for the fist fights between Bond and Drago’s men. Sean Connery always looks stiff during fight scenes and all fights I remember from other movies of the franchise are way over the top so I instantly understand they’re ridiculous. Like in the one in which Roger Moore wrestles with Jaws on the top of a plane and then Jaws lands on a the roof a circus or something else not funny in a Bond movie. OHMSS also contains one of my most favorite soundtrack ever. OHMSS is the only movie of the series which made me wonder how Connery would have played this more sensible Bond who’s willing to leave the Service along with his adventurous lifestyle in order to get married to the only woman he really loved.
“Real” fans love OHMSS. MY favorite Christmas movie.
To me OHMSS is just a well done movie and George Lazenby – though not the best actor – portrays Bond in a way that I like Bond. He and Connery are the only two actors who play Bond as I like him. Roger Moore feels too stiff and “English” and the humour in his Bond movies is too childish or let’s say the humour takes me out of the movie, kind of like the humour in the opening of Revenge of the Sith destroys the tone. Well, and the other Bond movies are too unrealistic and action-driven. This is why I love Dr.No the most. Every scene reveals some facts about Bond’s character and Sean Connery reveals so much just using facial expressions without performing hammy. His performance feels natural and the story unfolds the same way.
Shut up Hakeem!
LOL that was funny, but at the end I expected they’d try to fool Mr. Plinkett by giving him some random papers instead of money. As far as skyfail goes, it was entertaining, but I wonder why they had to unnecessarily shove in the sex bit after his “death”, I mean, I know it was just to show what a manly man he is, but it bothers me how he’s shown to be a man who does not care about women, other than M for some reason. Later when they end up killing that other girl in the red dress, he kills them all but Silver after she dies, why didn’t he do that before? Then after she gets shot, Bond only makes a comment about what a shame it was the whiskey was wasted by falling from her head. That made him look like an asshole.
I know this is old, but the guys opened this review with exactly the same kind of garbage spouted by neckbeards who seem to think every movie has to be ultra realistic and everything in a movie needs a reason and resolution. And STILL the comments thread is filled with this stuff! I honestly think it often boils down to this: “I should like this, but it is popular with the masses, so I do not like it anymore.” ie Dark Knight, Inception, Star Trek etc etc. The reasons are worthless, they are required only to conclude.
I want to believe that Mike and Jay made fun of such openings in the opening of the Oz – HitB when Mike sings gleefully and Jay stops him and Mike remembers his supposed usual role, answering: “Oh, what I meant was:” and the whole screen turns grey, a tremoring sound plays and his good mood and his body collapses into a state of depression.
With you on the point about ultra realism, especially when applied to certain genre films (like super heroes), but I’m rather tired of films that don’t have reasons and resolutions, and they take 2 plus hours to not have a reason or resolution. Films at one time could tell a complete story in 85 minutes.
You really should watch Sean Connery films. There’s a reason that everyone went crazy about Bond franchise back then, and Connery is that reason. He’s absolutely awesome.
From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball. These are the best Connery Bonds. You can throw Dr. No in there if you want, it’s pretty good. Connery’s last two (Only Live Twice & Diamonds are Forev) suffered due to Connery’s ego, which had grown to the size of a secret volcano layer by that point.
That is quite harsh on Connery I think! Yes, the “official” reason why he quit the role is that he was unsatisfied with not getting a wage raise or a cut off the merchandise. But honestly, who wouldn’t? The bond producers actually owed him quite a bit. He was the superstar that made Bond a global icon, and still he didn’t get a raise as te franchise grew and the production budgets skyrocketed.
And yes, he looked somewhat bored in his last two films. But again, who wouldn’t? I bet I would be pretty upset and maybe lost some motivation too if I was forced to dress up like a Japanese, being beat up by “Bambi and Thumper” (???) and goofingly pretend to be a bad English speaking Dutch: “Who is your floor?” Dear god…
To blame those two films solely on Connery is just unfair! In fact I think some of the aspects that made those films suck was the very reason he got fed up with the role and the franchise. Both films are essentially farce and emphezised goofy ideas and silliness over any kind of plot or character developement. For an actor who had a dream of working with Hitchcock and wanted to establish himself as a serious actor, its not hard to see why he wanted to get out. Its no secret that the more serious FRWL was his favourite, and allready back in Goldfinger he had questioned Guy Hamilton if not having “a guy killing people with his hat” wasn’t taking it a bit too far. I agree with you that Thunderball is a good film, but it also kind of marked a point where the franchise was growing out of hand. In short, Connery wanted to move on too more serious stoff, and I can’t really see what that has to do with “ego”?
Besides, calling a guy who donates his entire wage bill for DAF to “The Scottish International Education Trust” “a huge ego”, is just plain wrong!
That volcano lair wasn’t due to Connery’s ego, it was because of the Producer Albert Brocolli’s ego. We can thank him for that huge awesome set, and of course the guy who built that set in 1968 for about a million dollars.
As far as Silva being the first gay Bond villain (though technically I think he was bi), I was really worried when he first started caressing Bond. It almost felt like the writers were making the first “gay” villain a sexual predator, but I was relieved when Bond said this wouldn’t be his first time. It instantly relieved the tension, and it became about witty banter. Nicely done, if nothing else.
I don’t think it was meant to declare Silva’s character as gay or bi, none of that matters. It was the first time the villain ever threatened Bond with his penis.
Ahhhh why did you have to go and say that the script was good? McGuffin and train sequences ripped straight from Mission: Impossible, villain copied and pasted from Goldeneye (albeit with a different goal), and a third act that was simply a more violent version of Home Alone. Bond may sometimes be outlandish and hokey, but this was just unoriginal shit.
“…this was just unoriginal shit.”
Yep. Because all the Bond movies have been full of nothing but originality, right?
I went too far with that last part, as I did like the movie. I just find everyone’s praise for this one as being one of the best Bonds ever unfounded. It really isn’t anything special. Others in the series are recycled and unoriginal as well, but they don’t try to take themselves as seriously as this one, and they typically aren’t as blatant with it.
You’re right. Die Another Day didn’t take itself series…. and the people who made the film didn’t take it seriously either, hence, why it sucked. To an extent, you need to take something seriously, or you end up with garbage films like the last three Brosnan films.
I think the plot had a lot of holes especially in linking the 3 different acts together but the acting and the cinematography REALLY elevated the material. The action scenes weren’t amazing but they were done at a good pace with nice points.
I think people just like the less-campy, more mature approach to these newer Bond films. Taking itself too seriously? There’s that risk, but I don’t think Craig Bonds have failed at this. To your points…
Trains are everywhere. In tons of movies. Everywhere.
Why do we rip on mcguffins? They too are everywhere. MOST action/adventure movies use them as a story-telling device. Name any action movie and I’ll point our the mcguffin.
I really liked the third act of Skyfall. It wasn’t the protagonist making his way into the villain’s secret volcano layer for the final stage and final boss fight. It was the other way around. That’s new for Bond. In fact, Casino Royale and Skyfall have done a good job of defying normal Bond stereotypical plots. Not from a bird’s-eye-view, just in their particulars.
To clarify, I wasn’t ripping on McGuffins. This particular McGuffin (List of agents or something to that effect) was the same as Mission: Impossible’s. I can forgive trains, but the combination of the two is too much.
Less Campy? Sky Fall is a camp fest. Terrible one liners, terrible compositing work (bike sequence), tired “old dog” themes, and a Bond character that is a mishmash of all previous Bond characters instead of the “more realistic” Bond that we were awarded in Daniel Craig’s first two outings. A huge disappointment.
Wow. Campfest? Tired ‘old dog’ themes? Mishmash Bond character (on the 50th anniversary of Bond)? Huge disappointment? Good luck finding agreement on these points.
No one thought it was too campy. No one disliked Craig’s character. No one thought the lines were bad. And no one was disappointed. That is, no one that matters or knows what they’re talking about.
you are living in a dream world. there are a lot of people who dislike this film.
Sure and I think the camp might have been there, but it is WAY more subte than, say, “Die Another Day.” Talk about campfest.
92% on rotten tomatoes
81% on metacritic
$1.1 billion worldwide
Mike/Jay (not at all Bond fans) give it a thumbs up
The numbers disagree with you. Not that professional critics and dollars are the final judge of art, but I don’t know anyone (except my friend Ched) that dislikes this movie. Anyone I’ve talk to enjoyed the film and even thought it was one of the best. No one thought Quantum was better. No one thought Skyfall was taking the franchise down the wrong path. This is what I’m seeing. So who’s in the dream world?
But that’s not the point. I’d say I’m a Bond expert. I know all the films very well. Some are good, some suck hard. Skyfall is certainly one of the good ones. ‘Camp’ might be a matter of opinion, but as Tapeworm points out, there are far more campier Bond movies. Some (like Die Another Day) are too painful to watch. But I’d also point out that you can’t have a Bond movie without a little fan service. They’re not Bourne movies. The audience expects spectacle, action, humor, nostalgia and excitement when they come to see a Bond flick. To deny them of any of this would be a mistake. The film can fluctuate on these ingredients, but they all must be there to some degree.
This is my opinion. I know that younger generations like Die Another Day a lot. Just to explain where I’m coming from, my favorite Bonds are From Russia with Love, Goldfinder, Thunderball, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, The Living Daylights, Casino Royale. Not all are perfect and some Bond movies that I didn’t mention have their qualities, but I think these movies that I’ve mentioned mostly hit a great tone.
you are generalizing, and keep saying “no one”, obviously that is false.
No, I mean it. NO ONE that I have talked to thinks that this movie is bad. But yes, we are talking about a subjective topic: is a movie good or bad. And I am free to safely generalize, NO ONE thinks Skyfall is bad.
But we can do statistics too, which I have already given you. 1.1 billion clams say that Skyfall is a profitable success. 92 out of 100 doctors say that Skyfall is good for your health.
Seriously though. Relax. You didn’t like the movie. Ok. Someone had to not like it, might as well be you. I hated Star Trek Into Darkness. I feel very alone. The numbers aren’t in my favor. But I still think that movie sucks. I hate that fuckin movie. I’ll keep saying it until my last days. Sometimes we’re alone in our perfect opinion.
James Bond is growing up, but with today’s internet-based spying and computers doing all sorts of incredibly complex and visually uninteresting stuff, we need the “schlock”; some bad-guy has a disc with the agents on it, or he’s got the bomb blueprints, etc, etc.
Modern spying could be cool, but I don’t think Bond would be able to easily transition to that from the explosive pens and stuff. I liked it a lot.
The plot doesn’t have to be realistic, it just has to be able to resolve itself using the rules it defined for itself! If you have to warp the rules that you created to finish your own story properly, you’re making a mistake. Surely we all agree with this, right?
Of course there are plenty of movies where you don’t feel like thinking is important, and Bond isn’t very cerebral, but it’s still fun.
Real spying doesn’t make for good film. Real spying is mostly dull. We could have a whole Bond film of just him posing as an intern in a Russian office building. The climax will be when Bond forgets his ID badge in the car and has to walk back outside to get it.
Yeah, but the difference is, they were played for laughs.
You can play bombe surprise for laughs if you want, I’d rather not blow up. These guys also killed about 3 people in not so funny ways….
who the fuck are they even arguing against here
3:42 Ummm… I know you guys are being sarcastic but the other guy can’t run away, mostly because of everything. They’re on a train that’s going like 60 mph so the only way to get off is by stopping the train, which would take a lot of time. It makes much more sense for the evil agent to try and shoot Bond, especially since he has him out gunned. What a plot hole in this review. Who directed this episode, Christopher Nolan? That overrated hack.
Actually, the water stealing plot is probably ‘inspired’ by Bechtel’s attempt to privatize part of Bolivia’s water supply. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechtel#Bolivia
Thanks for mentioning this. I tell people that it was inspired by real world events and people look at me like I’m crazy.
I thought it was a nice idea, and realistic in its own way; instead of using a laser to melt the ice-caps or mutating everyone into monsters, he’s a sneaky evil businessman. That grounded it and made it seem plausible.
I really think that the next iteration of Bond should be set back in the 60s
It would set it apart from the likes of the Jason Bourne movies and it sounds like a fun idea. There have been a couple of good John le Carre books made into movies; check out ‘Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy’ if you haven’t already, it’s like a 1960′s James Bond movie, but it’s more of a thriller and has far less action.
I think Bond is easiest to relate to when he’s in the 21st Century, as a modern man. I’m not explaining it very well, but I think the audience can relate best to the character when he’s kept modern? I hope you get what I mean. Heheh.
I adore Tinker Tailor. I also highly suggest tracking down the TV show that they made off of Le Carres Karla books, starring Alec Guiness as Smiley. They made Tinker Tailor.., but they also adapted Smileys people, where Karla is actually confronted (played by Patrick Stewart, so, there you have your fanfiction about Obi Wan Kenobi trying to bring down Jean Luc Picard).
I get what you are saying with the modern Bond being more relatable, I just think that the idea of a Bond as a spy in smart suits, with gadgets and visiting more vaginas than yeast infection ever managed to, is esentially 60s cold war power fantasy. And setting it up back in that time with very clear sides with no need to constantly come up with some corporate villains could be fun and should not necesarilly hinder actually exploring him as a character. And for fucks sake, get Brad Bird to direct it.
Yes, we all love everyone these days, and movies are an international business – so, naturally, we can only poke fun at ourselves, since we’re all so peaceful and lovely. They do need to grow some balls; just because a villain is evil, it does not mean all members of their race or culture are evil.
Hell, I’m British, but I like to see an evil, moustache-twirling British villain (with the Southern accent that makes us all seem like upper-class Oxford graduates) as much as the next guy. Still, Bardem was a memorable villain, and although his character seemed subtly off to me (I can’t quite place the problem), it was a good performance with clever dialogue. I liked it when he says something like “wow, James, your knees must be killing you!” after he catches up to him in the tube, and some of his other lines made him… more original?
I’ll check out the Le Carre stuff, thanks. It’s a lot more grounded and gritty than Bond, but that can be a bad thing; don’t want it to be too dreary and depressing.
Have we all grown bored of terrorists? It’s been done to death!
Exactly. And the dryness is actually part of the charm of Le Carres stuff. He wrote Smiley as antibond, even adding him being constantly cheated on by his wife while he deeply loves her and is always faithful. Brittish people make the best villains you are right there for sure:)
I don’t think Bond is threatened by Bourne films, nor vice versa. I don’t know why people compare them. Bourne is in no way ‘out doing’ Bond in the spy genre. They are not the same. They have far more differences than similarities. Seriously. Think about it….
Profession: Bond is an assassin. Bourne used to be one, but he’ll be damned if he can remember how or why. He is certainly NOT one anymore.
Murder: Bond kills dudes and women liberally. Bourne rarely kills anyone (with the exception of flashbacks). Really, check the Bourne movies, you can count on one hand all the people he kills in all the movies.
Spying methods: Bond does a lot of role playing that allows him to have dialogs with the villains. Bourne does not. In fact, he rarely even meets the villain.
Spying motivations: Bond spies because it’s his job. Bourne spies for his own interests, never for geo-political reasons, and only to find out more about himself.
Movies: Bond movies are sensational action-packed good vs evil films, confident and jet-setting with a smirk. Bourne movies are paranoid thrillers, dark and vulnerable.
They do not threaten each other. I love them both, but for totally different reasons.
Exactly, I like both franchises and see them as almost polar opposites. For one thing, Bourne is all about getting away from his spy life and the plot is basicly slowly revealing just how creepy and menacing the spy game can get. Whereas Bond is always on his mission, always loyal and enjoys killing the fuck outta people. You are right about Bond being sort of timeless. I guess I just would love to see a good action movie, where bomb is an oldschool alarm clock tied to couple of sticks of dynamite
I must admit I hadn’t really thought of it all that much, and even thought the plot and characters are different, James Bond movies go for big, extravagant action scenes and they remind me of some of the scenes from the Bourne movies.
Regardless, I think that people looking for a good action film would find themselves caught between choosing James Bond or Jason Bourne.
Is Bond timeless? In my eyes, it seems very much a product of the 1960′s and 1970′s, and its retro-camp is quite amusing sometimes.
I, too, would enjoy seeing the old trope of a bomb made with an alarm clock used in movies. These days it’s more likely to be a laptop computer with a special device attached, or some everyday item hiding a secret explosive, because that’s kinda topical, right..? Bah.
I’d like to see more larger-than-life villains, because their charisma and speeches (Javier Bardem’s soliloquy about rats was a lot of fun) and weird little habits are the sort of thing that sets them apart from your usual ‘boilerplate’ villain, which defaults to a rich, white American–possibly a white European with a strange haircut.
Since ‘Casino Royale’ had a secondary-villain in the form of that African(?) militia leader who gave his money to Le Chiffre, and I’d like to see a bit more variety like that. Would you agree?
That’s a good idea. I don’t know if it would fly with Barbara Broc, mainly because one of the things Bond is ‘supposed’ to do is remain relevant in the modern era.
Another thing that makes that hard is that Bond films really don’t exist in time. I know, what I just said is confusing. But think about it: if you acknowledge that there is a ’60s’, then you’re acknowledging that Bond is like 70 or 80 something years old.
This is why the Craig Bonds work, because we out here on the interwebs don’t bother to nitpick that Casino Royale was supposed to take place before all other movies and Skyfall claims to take place in Bond’s later years. Does it make logical sense? No. Do I care? No. Bond is an idea that sometimes reflects the times. Not a young man or an old man. No time owns him.
Now I’m going to read what I just wrote and try to understand it. Nonetheless, a 60′s Bond would be certainly rad.
All these other guys are giving there opinion so I’ll give mine! They need to remake “Thunderball” in an epic way and play it strait. First off, that movie where they nuclear warheads are stolen and ransomed is the quintessential Bond parody, yet is still relevant. Playing it strait is a slap in the face of all the parodies and unsanctioned remakes (Never say Never Again). The movie doesn’t have to be set in the 60′s, it can be set now. And of course they can twist the script in many ways to fit whatever they wish. It’s too DAMN EASY! So do it!
The real problem with Bond is they’e been chasing trends. Back in the 60′s Bond was the trend setter for action movies. Now they react to Borne and we get Casino Royale. They react to The Dark Knight and we get Skyfall. This is all bullshit. Bond needs to take a calculated risk and go a little retro…. do what it’s always done best, the over the top crazy shit that is Thunderball!!! It will make action movies re-watchable again.
Bond doesn’t actually go to moon in Moonraker
Check your facts.
Your first sentence lacks a period.
Check your punctuation.
this review is really disappointing, after how well thought out the star wars reviews are- this review doesn’t feel like they put any thought into it at all- at the end they admit to not really knowing the Bond series and that certainly plays out through the entirety of their discussion.
shame, i was really looking forward to an insightful look into what is a really bad film for the Bond series.
It’s funny how the first third of this review sarcastically makes fun of people just like you who are joyless and cynical assholes who cannot enjoy a film for what it is; I bet up until they got serious you agreed.
I want to see James Bond punch out a bunch of chavs in the opening sequence of the next movie.
I never really thought about it before, but he must have subscription to Daily Mail, right?
I finally got around to seeing Skyfall, and I hated it so much that I have to write this. –SPOILERS– First of all, there’s that scene where Moneypenny shoots Bond. You’re obviously supposed to think that the situation got out of hand and she made a mistake as a result, but it looked more like M was ordering her to shoot someone, and Bond was the only guy there. And the whole point of the movie is that these things happen sometimes, so the movie really needed this scene to work, and it just didn’t. Also, I thought the chases were lame and Octopussy-esque. It’s just Bond constantly running around in circles and chasing people in various locations. And later on, the villain played by Javier Bardem even says something to Bond like “aren’t you tired of constantly running around in circles and chasing people in various locations?” So it’s like the movie realizes how much it sucks. Another thing is that Bond’s plan at the end made no sense. The whole point of the plan was to keep M alive, but it sounded like he was just going to put her in a house and let the bad guys blow it up. So I kept waiting for the clever part of the plan, but it never came. He put her in a house, the bad guys blew it up, and M died. And then the movie ended? Also, there’s that villain. First of all, his motivation is that he used to be an MI6 agent, but then he got caught and MI6 disavowed him, so he swore revenge. Except every spy agency does that, because they have to, and everyone knows it. This even happens to Bond in Die Another Day, and he didn’t become a supervillain, because he’s not a sad little weenie unlike the villain of this movie. It’s like they tried to do a story about MI6′s past coming back to haunt them, like in Goldeneye, but in Goldeneye the villain actually had a good reason to hate MI6. There’s a pretty good scene early on in this movie, where Bond is seducing one of the villain’s sexy henchwomen, and she goes on and on about how dangerous and terrifying this Javier Bardem villain is. But then Bond actually meets him, and almost immediately he shoots the sexy henchwoman, and almost immediately after that he’s captured and taken to MI6, where he sees M and cries like a baby, except then it turns out he wanted to get caught so he could upload a computer virus into MI6, but all it does is unlock his cell so he can leave. And I don’t think the villain even had an escape plan beyond that, he seems to get away mostly through sheer luck. None of this seems to live up to the sexy henchwoman’s descriptions of him. I was also bothered by the scene where M has to explain her actions in detail to the public. I know it’s just a thing they made up for the movie, but I keep imagining a total idiot seeing that and thinking that’s how it really works, and that we need more PATRIOT Act stuff to get rid of all our pesky rights and freedoms so these spy agencies can protect us better. There’s also a ton of things that end up being totally pointless, and one of them is even a major subplot of the film, namely the one where Bond goes into hiding and returns to service years later with reduced skills. The movie also played the Bond theme at the weirdest times. I vividly remember it playing when the villain shot his sexy henchwoman, because it was so inappropriate that it actually made me yell at the movie. I think it also played when the Aston Martin first appeared on screen, which was just a random car at that point in the story, so that was a little weird also. I’m probably forgetting stuff, but I’m tired now.
You were just spouting facts about the movie! What the fuck was the point of all of that? I’m barely even seeing an opinion inside that nonsensical monstrosity you posted…
…the hell is wrong with you!?
You’re confused because I supported a small amount of opinions with a large amount of facts? I’m kind of wondering what’s wrong with you. Okay, long story short, the movie sucks in many, many ways.
Most movies do tend to have inconsistencies…so big fucking deal there.
Also, I’m still not certain you had a point but to basically say “hurr hurr, plot holz, dis movee r stoopid,” which is largely how it sounded to me…
Please tell me this is an ironic post in the same vein as the ironic review that Mike and Jay give in the beginning of this video.
I certainly hope it is. The existential horror of somebody who can say so much while saying nothing at all is, frankly, just fucking wrong…
1. M ordered her to “take the bloody shot.” What this means is that M didn’t care about Bond’s safety, she only cared that Moneypenny took the only opportunity to shoot the bad guy that she had, whether or not she hit him. The point you’re to take from this scene is that, despite their seemingly close relationship, M wouldn’t hesitate to sacrifice Bond to save her own skin. The parallel you’re supposed to draw to Silva’s story is obvious.
2. As to the chase scenes, they were staged very well using mostly practical effects which take a lot of skill to accomplish. For someone who appreciates the lost art of making action films with practical effects, those scenes were pretty great. It’s your opinion on this of course, and you’re entitled to it, but as Mr. Plinkett says “Mine is the right one.”
3. Bond’s plan was to use M as bait to draw Silva and his men to the house and take as many of them out as possible, Straw Dogs-style, before escaping through the secret tunnel that nobody else was supposed to know about. Plans don’t always go as perfectly as one would hope, however, which is kind of in keeping with the theme of the film, isn’t it? That Bond, despite the 50 years of film history behind him, is fallible after all.
4. He got revenge because he was pissed off. He also survived a cyanide pill? I mean that’s pretty outlandish already, isn’t it? So is it that much of a stretch to think that the trauma of his ordeal drove him a little insane? Also, it’s explained that Silva, like Bond, was once M’s favorite agent. Unlike Bond, when M “betrayed” him, he wasn’t ok with it. People are different. Bond understood that she was only doing what was necessary for the mission and the lives of those agents on the list. He’s more businesslike than Silva, who let his emotions get the better of him.
5. Silva’s plan was to cause a distraction at the MI6 bunker and then have them so preoccupied with finding him that the could slip into the hearing and murder M before anyone knew what happened. Of course, Bond thwarted this plan by surviving in the subway and following him there. Also, did you see his face without his false teeth? That would be pretty terrifying if it were real.
6. MI6 is a government agency. Therefore, oversight. They want to know what happened and why all of the agents’ names are being released publicly. Not at all inconsistent with reality. Look at all the hearings on the Benghazi embassy attack conducted by Congress. Or the hearings concerning the NSA wiretapping scandal.
7. How is that subplot pointless? It factors in a few times after that as well, most prominently in the scene where Bond is unable to hold on to the assassin and accidentally lets him drop to his death. He’s “slipping” (get it?). Did you think he dropped him on purpose?
8. I haven’t seen the film recently enough to remember where the Bond theme plays but I never noticed it during the film myself so it couldn’t have been that bad.
Hope that clears everything up for you.
for some reason i have zero interest in the new bond… now i havent seen it, and all ive heard is how good it is.. and so in a lot of ppls minds its awesome.. i dont wanna take away anything from them… but ahhh i just couldnt be fucked even watching it at all… the new bond just doesnt appeal to me.. its kinda like…. a five star restaurant.. but ahh id rather just a big mac and beer.. now they sell him as a big mac n beer type guy… fist punchin and shit.. butt.. he works for a intellectual female.. and that kinda blows… women for bond are sposed to be flirted with.. cause thats what he does.. he flirts .. now before ya piss off every woman on earth… intellectual women are cool.. but.. even they are to be flirted with… i just want a cool car, some women, and a cheesy ass villain.. and funny one liners… ya know… fun?.. its just too clean or somethin these days… too dam serious.. too dam i dont know.. clean
to answer who wrote the script, the same guy who wrote star trek nemesis who i believe mr plinkett described as a “C grade hack film writer”
Did you even watch the video?
After the next James Bond movie, I will drive down to Milwaukee from Eau Claire at my expense to comment on the movie. While I don’t disagree with your review I just really want to call myself an expert and appear on a moderately popular website and talk about a subject I totally love and know a lot about even though I’m a very unattractive man. Also show a Bond clip before 1973. Also, not the first gay Bond Villain.
Probable? Wint and Kidd were full on gay, even in the book.
↑ Back to Top