I don't think they're that bad, but they bring the Book > Movie to a new level, for sure. I do think the books are better ( :P ), but the films are amazing as well.

Personally, I would never claim a book to be better than a film because of the difference in medium. That would be like saying that apples are better than oranges. For me a more precise wording would be that "I prefer apples over oranges". Personally I think the HBP book was miles better as a book than HBP was as a movie. In other words I prefer the book over the film, which goes to show that even I have preferences, but on a rather reflected level if I may say so myself since I don't really compare them, but judge them on their own merits.

You see, preferences are fine IMHO...as long as you're honest about them. Sincerity is something I appreciate and respect. I just wish purists would be more humble and admit that they do judge the films in comparison to the books rather than act like they are so knowledge about filmmaking. If they are to deem them bad, they better evaluate them on their own merits. Or at least from an adaptation POV. It's not like all the choices the filmmakers made were good IMHO, so there's plenty of room for discussion if they are willing to open their eyes a little bit and consider the adaptation choices in relation to their function (or lack of thereof) in the movie. Otherwise just lay the cards on the table.

Leaves out boring convos. Uses time to add gold.

The thing is that I don't see that as a joke when the *** purists have been pointing out that for months. I fail to see how that pretentious smart-ass picture is witty.

Leaves out boring convos. Uses time to add gold.

Can't take a joke?

What joke?

Skyfall

I'm disappointed. Let's face it: Sam Mendes is no action director. While he and Deakins use shadows and lighting effectively (very cool opening shot for instance) to create atmospheric scenes, there is no rhythm to the action. The visual look is fabolous, but the movie lacks swiftness and engagement. The action is best described in a metaphor as a bumpy ride. There are too many silent pauses and one-liners in the middle of the action scenes that don't increase the suspense, but rather take you out of the situation. There is an unnatural stillness to it that I don't like, which allows the characters to get back on their feet before the fighting, running or action continues again. A train is approaching, mr. Bond, but you're telling me that a door is standing in your way? Yeah, let's just chill and enjoy death for a while. Another example of a terrible action scene; M quoting a poem while Bardem's character shoots his way to the court room. The silence that accompanied it was simply put out of place. Rather than feel involved in the situation, I was just wondering why that film convention was used in the first place. My answer? Because Mendes must have gotten inspired by some other filmmakers who utilized the same technique in a cool manner. Sadly, the style wasn't put into a narrative nor thematic context. Did we see M breathing nervously knowing that a shooting massacre is happening because of her? Silence could here work to emphasize nervousness, but alas. Were we ever shown the villain getting closer and closer to his destination? Did the various shots and editing convey their geographic placement and the distance between them at all? No, no and no! Although Quantum of Solace chopped the action to death, it had at least intent and direction. The opera scene in QOS was poetic, and the choice to remove sound effects in favour of opera music never took you out of the moment; it was a natural stroke of genius. Mendes on the other hand merely goes with the flow and borrows cool film tropes because it's cool without putting it into a context or even giving it his personal stamp. That said, two action scenes stood out positively; the train fight in the opening and the hotel scene with the dazzling city lights in the background and the blue colour scheme chosen for that sequence. Good ol' eye candy! Visually, the explosive climax was also very pleasing.

More relevant to the plot, the villain's plan to get caught and then escape, what purpose did it actually serve other than to emphasize the incompetence of the guards? It hit me as a needless plot twist to hide the fact that there is basically no plot here. We get it; he wants revenge, but there is nothing more to it. I always expected a shocking turning point such as M being his mother or something, but unfortunately nothing of interest happened. Well, something dramatic did happen at the end, but it left me cold because no close emotional attachment had been formed between them. The drama was in fact disappointingly flat throughout the movie. I'd wished it explored M as a character, her past and her relation to Bond, but the little screentime devoted to it was handled on a surface level.

It wasn't a complete lifeless movie however. Some humorous remarks were fun, Ralph Fiennes's character got some development and it was interesting to get back to Bond's roots; from learning how the death of his parents impacted him to become the agent we know to introducing Moneypenny. Equally exciting was the depiction of an older Bond who is falling behind. Skyfall is clearly a story about feeling inadequate as time gets the best of you and it seems that society doesn't need you anymore in favour of younger talents. I commend Mendes for the story he chose to tell, which is why it's so unfortunate that the plot is so lacklustre. It's by all means more coherent than QOS, which could be summed up as a random collection of plot events, but it doesn't touch the brilliance of Casino Royale's captivating plot.