Login   Sign Up 



 
Random Read
BANG by cake




  • Giles Coren on Skyfall: "sick, reactionary, depressing...
    by EmmaD at 13:15 on 04 November 2012
    I am ashamed, as a journalist, of the five star ratings this film garnered across the board from sheep-like critics afraid or unable to look through the hype, to its rotten soul.

    I am ashamed, as a man, that women are still compelled in the 21st century to watch [such] movies...

    I am ashamed, as a British person, that this film will be mistaken abroad for an example of prevailing values here. It is a sick, reactionary, depressing film and its director, Sam Mendes, should be ashamed of himself, all the way to the bank."


    Discuss. (Quotation edited to avoid plot spoilers)

    http://reciperifle.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/bond-villain.html

    (Oh, and as it's really Mrs Coren's blog, there are some very excellent recipes in other posts, to take the taste away - banana bread, anyone?)
  • Re: Giles Coren on Skyfall:
    by cherys at 15:00 on 04 November 2012
    Well yes, and what he says is interesting but he's being reductive and selective. One could as easily say that most men are disposable gun toting rapists, incapable of expressing or even possessing feelings, if we take the male roles offered in Skyfall.
    A woman (M) has the power to destroy them at will with no regret or empathy.

    SPOILER ALERT>
    This is what she did to the wickedly wonderful Bardem who exacts his revenge, and in a subtle mirroring, it's what she almost does to Bond at the outset when she asks Moneypenny to shoot, despite the serious threat to his life, as he is part of the moving target. So M and Moneypenny are hardly stereotypical at these points in the film.

    Have you seen it, Emma? What did you think?
  • Re: Giles Coren on Skyfall:
    by Terry Edge at 11:11 on 05 November 2012
    We watched it last night. I wouldn't have gone, because I find Bond films repetitive and predictable, but my partner's a fan. In the event, I enjoyed it more than any Bond film since the Connery days. Although that may not be saying much. This one had more of a personal approach, which gave it some grip beyond the usual running around and shooting stuff. However, at the end of it, there is still little to go on with Bond; he remains more of a symbol than a man. Also, while they've given the films some needed seriousness (as opposed to non-stop flippancy), they lack the levels of character complexity and arcs, humour and sheer fun that the best Marvel films have developed.

    Also - and this may be just my personal thing - it contained a large number of illogical plot points, which I won't list here. This seems almost inevitable with action movies, although I still can't figure why with a budget of 130m or whatever, some time couldn't have been spent with the writers round a table thrashing out the bits that just don't make sense.

  • Re: Giles Coren on Skyfall:
    by Jem at 16:56 on 06 November 2012
    I have always hated Bond movies with a passion. Never managed to sit through any of them. I was persuaded to go to the first one Daniel Craig was in because my daughter had seen it and said that it wasn't like the others. Well, after 20 minutes I was clawing the walls to be let out. So I won't be going to see Skyfall. Or Skyfaw, as Adele says.
  • Re: Giles Coren on Skyfall:
    by alexhazel at 22:02 on 06 November 2012
    it contained a large number of illogical plot points

    Well, you don't get many of those in most action films do you?

    SPOILER ALERT
    In Battle Los Angeles, we had aliens who had the technology to come here from who knows where, yet their spacecraft, despite having been capable of traversing the Earth's atmosphere without being burned up, were utterly vulnerable to perfectly normal munitions. How did they get past space dust and meteoroids, at what must have been near-light speeds, without being vapourised?

    In Hunger Games, an apparently-totalitarian regime allowed contestants to essentially cheat the system without feeling obliged to retaliate in the way that most such regimes would.

    In action films in general, the rival factions are able to leave bodies scattered liberally about the place, without the police ever showing an interest (except where this suits the plot).

    What exactly did the aliens in Darkest Hour do to the people they disintegrated? And why did they need to? They were invisible, so had no need to do anything.


    I haven't seen Skyfall yet, but it is on my list of films I want to see. Although, these days, I tend to watch Bond films purely to see whether his Superman suit is visible under his shirt.

    (By the way: my favourite Bond film is On Her Majesty's Secret Service. It's the one whose plot was least mucked-about with, and whose Bond character is closest to the one in the books. I would go as far as to say I think Lazenby was the best of the Bonds, in his portrayal.)