skyfall

[JET50213]

I'm not going to say it was a bad movie...just not a good Bond movie. The wife and I went to see it last weekend. 845 showing was sold out, so we bought tickets for the 1005 showing and waited. There were some neat things that they did, but overall, we were pretty disappointed. I found I had difficulty staying awake in certain parts. The guy next to us slept through the entire movie. It was just missing something. I found myself in suspense, waiting for the movie to "take off" and get the blood flowing. It just never happened.

[jktruckin06]

damn... i was excited to see it too. guess i`ll wait for redbox

[2Kblacksleeper]

Jet, your review is spot on. I fought the trying to stay awake at certain parts also.

I don't know what but it was missing something.

[Maximus]

No Shit. That sucks.
According to the reviews, it was suppose to be the best bond film ever. :(

[Goldenpony]

This is the first negative review I've seen. We can't wait to see it.

[2Kblacksleeper]

It was a good movie, but not edge of your seat. You could tell they tried for the bond humor but it just wasn't there.

[redfirepearlgt]

Sometimes its best to retire a character and leave that character in the era from which he/she came. You can't have a good Bond movie and bend to modern day political correctness IMO. Either write the character and portray the character as Flemming intended him to be or retire the character.

Long live the Bond of Connery and Moore. Those will be the movies we covet in the years to come, not the Remington Steel drivel coming out the past 10-20 years.

[JET50213]

Actually, I absolutely loved the first two Daniel Craig Bond films. They didn't try to make him what the others were. They need to get back to that recipe!

[Goldenpony]

I must disagree with some of you. We saw it tonight and my wife & I both liked it a lot. I read the Bond books many years ago, and I think Daniel Craig recreates James Bond to a Tee. Love the new Miss Moneypenny.

[redfirepearlgt]

Sometimes its best to retire a character and leave that character in the era from which he/she came. You can't have a good Bond movie and bend to modern day political correctness IMO. Either write the character and portray the character as Flemming intended him to be or retire the character.

Long live the Bond of Connery and Moore. Those will be the movies we covet in the years to come, not the Remington Steel drivel coming out the past 10-20 years.

Well I must recant some of this statement. I forced myself to sit and watch Casino Royale through entirety when it was on TV the other day. Daniel Craig is no replacement for Sean Connery or Roger Moore IMO, but at the same time he is a 150% improvement over Timothy Dalton amd a 300% improvement over Remington Steele's Pierce Broz...whatever his name is. So he will do. They could have picked worse, granted.

That all being said I still found the action/suspense scenes of Casino Royale the same, way overdone (overcooked would be a better term) and way overlength in general for my taste. I like action/suspense but no twhen it takes 20 minutes to get somewhere in spite of the FX.The movie could have been 15-20 minutes shorter and still had the punch of a great 007 movie from an action standpoint. Guess I may sit through Skyfall when it comes to TV.

[04 Venom]

I must disagree with some of you. We saw it tonight and my wife & I both liked it a lot. I read the Bond books many years ago, and I think Daniel Craig recreates James Bond to a Tee. Love the new Miss Moneypenny.

I agree with Goldenpony. This film delves much deeper into the Bond psyche and less on the slam, bang, boom chase scenes. It is the best of the recent Bond movies. Craig plays Bond superbly.