I'm Chicken Little
Saw Skyfall last night. Ina adores this movie and it has been hugely well reviewed, particularly in this country, so I started watching half in anticipation, half in scepticism, because I JUST DO NOT LIKE JAMES BOND. No, not even Sean Connery. In fact, particularly not Sean Connery, who is an actor who just plays himself. All the fucking time. I dislike Bond in the books even more, if that is possible. (The man doesn't even known how to make a Martini - all shaking does is turn it cloudy, which is why Martinis should be stirred, not shaken. Twit.) I did quite like the remake of Casino Royale but prefer Bourne.
I now find myself reviewing half in praise, half in unmoved scepticism.
It is gloriously photographed. It is well paced. The opening sequence is excellent. The reinventions of Q and Eve are great, miles better than earlier versions. There are a couple of excellent jokes. I enjoyed seeing Klingon High Command (our long-standing name for the SIS building - no, it is not bloody MI6!) being blown up. There were some great locations.
But, but, but... The villain is ridiculous - even more ridiculous, if that is possible, than Blofeld - and I spent a lot of time wondering if they could not have bought him a better wig. He was straight out of the Moore era where it would have been okay - because that was sending up the whole spy thing - but I thought this new Bond was supposed to be more gritty and a tad more realistic. Those shout-outs to earlier Bond movies that got the fanboys so excited either passed me by or bored me.
As for the plot.... it had more holes than Bond's target at the range - far more, actually. Not holes 'noticed on the rewatch' either, but boggles during the movie. I howled with laughter at the computer display (not to mention at the idea that the SIS firewalls are the best in the country - but that latter comes of working for the British government for a fair proportion of my life and knowing what they pay their own computer people and how often they are bamboozled by consultants.)
Then there was Craig's none-acting. I think he was trying to be Connery.
So, yes, one of the best Bond movies I've seen, but that isn't exactly a recommendation. Time filler.
I now find myself reviewing half in praise, half in unmoved scepticism.
It is gloriously photographed. It is well paced. The opening sequence is excellent. The reinventions of Q and Eve are great, miles better than earlier versions. There are a couple of excellent jokes. I enjoyed seeing Klingon High Command (our long-standing name for the SIS building - no, it is not bloody MI6!) being blown up. There were some great locations.
But, but, but... The villain is ridiculous - even more ridiculous, if that is possible, than Blofeld - and I spent a lot of time wondering if they could not have bought him a better wig. He was straight out of the Moore era where it would have been okay - because that was sending up the whole spy thing - but I thought this new Bond was supposed to be more gritty and a tad more realistic. Those shout-outs to earlier Bond movies that got the fanboys so excited either passed me by or bored me.
As for the plot.... it had more holes than Bond's target at the range - far more, actually. Not holes 'noticed on the rewatch' either, but boggles during the movie. I howled with laughter at the computer display (not to mention at the idea that the SIS firewalls are the best in the country - but that latter comes of working for the British government for a fair proportion of my life and knowing what they pay their own computer people and how often they are bamboozled by consultants.)
Then there was Craig's none-acting. I think he was trying to be Connery.
So, yes, one of the best Bond movies I've seen, but that isn't exactly a recommendation. Time filler.