Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Skyfall is HOMOPHOBIC

Was disgusted that the most loathesome gay archetype, The Sissy Villain (see below), was resurrected for the new Bond villain. Fuck you Mendes!

And screenwriter John Logan is gay! We are our own worst enemies.

by Anonymousreply 19907/20/2014

That's why I won't see this film. It's only a small part, but why shove money into the pockets of those who dispise us? These silly movies end up on TV rather quickly, but even then I wouldn't watch on a subscrition channel like Starz or HBO.

by Anonymousreply 211/09/2012

I've seen some reviews that complain about "misplaced homoeroticism that doesn't advance the plot." Straights love to whine about any homoerotic angle to movies even when they'd deny being homophobic. But what's the big deal, gays have been watching movies with heteroticism for eons. It's the very definition of homoPHOBIA to recoil whenever there's any gay subtext involved

by Anonymousreply 311/09/2012

Well if the screenwriter is gay r2, he unlikely he does despise us. Perhaps the OP is right, or maybe it's a misinterpretation. Sissy characters are often very interesting, depends on how they handled it. It's 2012 and it's a gay screenwriter so perhaps it won't come off as homophobic. Until I see more evidence, I can't be sure.

by Anonymousreply 411/09/2012

The point of the homoeroticism was to MAKE the audience groan. And yup, they groaned! I felt awful.

by Anonymousreply 511/09/2012

So you've seen it then, that makes me trust your impression more.

by Anonymousreply 611/09/2012

Anytime homoeroticism is protrayed as a negative, I am offended. I prefer seeing a staight character being offended that the gay character didn't find them attractive enough to have shown and interest in them. Any time homoeroticism is used to generate a feeling of disgust damns the movie and those involved with that fimn in my book.

by Anonymousreply 711/09/2012

Sure, homoeroticism can be misused. Which means the reviews that complain about it should spell out that it's a homophobic usage, otherwise it looks like they're just whining about homoeroticism in general. But straight critics have a really, really high tolerance for homophobia. It's got to be extremely obvious before they'll bother to slam the movie over it. One of the things that pisses me off about Ebert is he will once in a blue moon complain about homophobia, but I can tell he would've hated the movie anyway and that's the only reason he brings up the homophobia, as an additional reason to bash it.

by Anonymousreply 811/09/2012

Is he really a "sissy villain"?

I think this critic had a good take on it...

[quote]In what’s sure to be among the most discussed gender-studies moments of 2012, James Bond finds himself imprisoned on a devastated Chinese island by a nefarious character called Silva, played by Javier Bardem as the first overtly gay villain in Bond history. Now, the character of Silva is likely to be controversial on his own. I think [bold]he’s intended to offer a new twist on the long and unfortunate cinematic history of gay male psychopaths – he’s queeny and devious, but also plenty skilled in the male-coded arts of warfare[/bold] – but I’m not sure that entirely lets Mendes and the writers off the hook. Anyway, whether out of genuine desire or a desire to undercut 007’s masculinity, Silva slides up close to his bound antagonist and caresses his thighs: “There’s a first time for everything – eh, Mr. Bond?” But Bond meets his captor’s gaze with his customary implacability and asks, “What makes you think it’s my first time?”

[quote]No, I’m not suggesting that director Sam Mendes or his writing team (John Logan, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade) intend to raise serious questions about James Bond’s sexual orientation or possible level of bi-curiosity. [bold]It’s a gag, but a gag with a purpose: The ultimate secret-agent man’s man is familiar with the concept of homosexuality, and doesn’t view it as a matter for snickering or an outright impossibility. [/bold]Of such baby steps is a new society forged! More seriously, that moment captures the complicated dance the makers of “Skyfall” are trying to pull off: Situating James Bond in a more modern and slightly more realistic (or “realistic”) context, while holding onto his fantasy allure and remaining loyal to the ritualistic and episodic storytelling style that’s integral to this series.

by Anonymousreply 911/09/2012

I, for one, always LOVED the villains, and the more "fem" the better (without pushing it).

Take Leader Desslok for example. And beautiful body and face, too!

by Anonymousreply 1011/09/2012

Oh my God, this sounds like Basic Instinct all over again.

by Anonymousreply 1111/09/2012

Interesting. The pre-release press carefully portrayed a context where a pan-sexual villain made ominous, uncomfortable suggestions to threaten Bond. Craig seemed to place it in anything but a homophobic frame, given that it is a JAMES BOND movie and the every sort of stereotype in the world has been used with appalling - and sometimes effectively creepy-funny - vigor.

I'm not suggesting we are in the gay version of a post-feminist world. But neither do I interpret every portrayal of homosexual inclinations, sex, identity or culture that doesn't equate with "More Decent and Amazing than Gay Lincoln" as a knife aimed at my rights or my humanity. I do know homophobic situations when I see them, and react much as the OP does.

OP saw the movie and I didn't. I'll reserve judgment, thanks.

by Anonymousreply 1211/09/2012

There's nothing wrong with the Sissy Villain. There are bad queens or gay men like there are bad straight men or women. The problem with this is how they portray it: totally cliched and one dimensional, which is terrible, or in a cool original way with the Sissy Villain being a fully fleshed out character but still villainous.

by Anonymousreply 1311/09/2012

There is something very wrong with the Sissy Villain when part of the menace of his homosexuality includes the potential to rape.

When Silva confronts Bond for the first time, Bond is captive, his arms are handcuffed to a chair. Silva, after giving the usual "I'm evil" speech, proceeds to unbutton Bonds shirt, very slowly, and then very daintily caresses his chest and his adam's apple. He then makes a more pronounced threat when he grabs Bond's knees and pulls his legs apart. The implication is clear. We've seen this scene before.

by Anonymousreply 1411/09/2012

Yes R14. We have seen it before, many, many times. Mostly in gay porn which is more often than not rapey and predatory, and full of stereotyping and heteronormative sex.

by Anonymousreply 1511/09/2012

R16,

That is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever read.

by Anonymousreply 1711/10/2012

I wonder if it's as offensive as the Uncle Tom Prissy Pants portrayals of simpering, squealing, useless queens devoid of any quality but assimilation ("Let's adopt a Chinese baby girl!") in TV shows such as Modern Family and Glee.

by Anonymousreply 1911/10/2012

Irish Times:

"Aspects of Javier Bardem’s undeniably entertaining performance as the deranged villain are more troubling still. Can Mendes really believe that, having gone through the full circle, it is now acceptable to portray predatory homosexuality as a symptom of criminal megalomania? When, having tied Bond to a chair, Javier begins fondling the agent’s nipples, one can’t help but think of the extravagantly dressed gays that used to molest Robin Askwith in 1970s Confessions films."

by Anonymousreply 2011/10/2012

Well, they're Oirish, they would say that.

by Anonymousreply 2111/10/2012

I saw the movie last night. I'm not sure of all the implications but Bardem played it so well that it was hard to be offended. The character was truly deranged and the sexuality was all rather ambiguous - it was more about him wanting to frighten/confuse Bond. There was a little bit - not a lot - of snickering or nervous laughter in the theater but people worry too much about that shit.

The movie itself was good not great, but Bardem really elevated every scene he was in. And the character wasn't at all "sissy" - he had an effete air in conversation, but had plenty of scenes where he was fighting, chasing around, toting massive weapons etc.

by Anonymousreply 2211/10/2012

What I found much more homophobic, but nobody seemed bothered about it, was how the one gay character in the all star British ensemble 'The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel' (the Maggie Smith-Judi Dench starrer) is killed off - the others continue living happily in india, but they can think of nothing to do with the gay one (Tom Wilkinson) apart from him dropping dead ?

by Anonymousreply 2311/10/2012

I agree, I have seen at as well and Bardems character was not at all sissyfied! He brushes Bond's leg sort of and unbuttons two buttons of his shirt but it's pretty benign.

by Anonymousreply 2411/10/2012

OP, I've just come from seeing Skyfall at an Imax cinema right outside of London in Greenwich and I can tell you that amid the constant noise from wrappers, cell phones, babies, etc., there was no sounds whatsoever of groans or groaning during this scene. In fact, there was near total silence with a few knowing chuckles at the audacity of it in a Bond film. But y'know, the British are different.

If there was homophobia in the cinema where you saw the film it was in the patrons and not the film. And Bardem, just by virtue of some subtle implications of his character's sexual orientation, does not wholly fit the definition of the "Sissy Villain" diatribe you linked to. Things move on, even societal norms progress, and I think the minute you start saying "gay people can't be villains" or "gay people can't die" you become marooned in a PC fantasy land.

Also, this week our Prime Minister David Cameron thought he was being helpful - supposedly - when making a statement about the claims of Tories who held high seats in gov't under Thatcher being responsible for committing acts of sex abuse against children, said something like, "We mustn't let this turn into a witch hunt, especially against gay people," and that he would link paedophilia and homosexuality really irked me when I first heard about it. It also irritated a lot of other people. So in the country I live in, in the midst of a child sex abuse scandal, when somebody - whether knowingly or not - tried to mix the identity of homosexuality with that of paedophilia, EVERYONE was quick to say, "What have these two things got to do with each other? What are you talking about? Paedophilia doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality." And I believe the Prime Minister had to release an additional statement before the end of the day clarifying his remarks. So that's where I live and I'm glad for it.

It's ridiculous to think that the Bond film is being homophobic. If anything, it is just acknowledging homosexuality in its fictional world; it's certainly not having a laugh at gay people's expense. It also goes way out of its way not to be misogynistic either so I doubt anyone involved had the knife in for gay people.

by Anonymousreply 2511/10/2012

R23, that's not homophobic it's just poor, sentimental, cliched scripting. I mean, it's perfectly plausible that a gay old man in India could drop dead of a heart attack or whatever. It's just not very imaginative. But is it a slur against gay people to depict them as mortal? I don't think so.

by Anonymousreply 2611/10/2012

OP, please reacquaint yourself with reality. For everyone's sake.

by Anonymousreply 2711/10/2012

r23, the gay character was created for the movie and served its purpose when he made amends with his Indian teen lover when he was a teen himself.

by Anonymousreply 2811/10/2012

sorry: ... he made amends with his Indian teen lover from when he was a teen himself.

by Anonymousreply 2911/10/2012

R25 = laughed when the prince was thrown out of the window in "Braveheart."

by Anonymousreply 3011/10/2012

Writers will write scripts with gay people as villains but not as heroes. Somehow they can't craft stories with gay people as heroes. There is a huge imbalance between gay hero roles and gay villain roles. The gay villain is a part of a much larger message of "things you don't want to be" that relates to portrayals of gay people in media.

by Anonymousreply 3111/10/2012

r31, a lot of writers implicate that gay people make good villains, because they lash out on society for not accepting them.

by Anonymousreply 3211/10/2012

R31, gay people can be heroes, but only if they die at the end.

by Anonymousreply 3311/10/2012

Saw this film last night. Yes Bardem was a "GAY VILLIAN". In the scene when Bond was bound to the chair, Bardem was obviously toying with him, trying to use his sexuality to unnerve Bond. At times he camped it up with swishy gestures and speech (you know some gays do that in real life as well). Yet once past those initial scenes he was a clever protagonist, powerful and commanding,instilling fear in M and giving Bond a run for his life. Bardem played him with his despair and desire for revenge as central, not his gayness.

I had no problem at all with the character.

by Anonymousreply 3411/10/2012

R25 = has never seen Braveheart

by Anonymousreply 3511/10/2012

So just to clear up OP's and a couple other posters position here. The movie was homophobic because a gay character made the audience members in your theatre nervously chuckle and the movie itself was homophobic because the gay character was evil and not Judi Dench's hairdesser. Gotcha.

by Anonymousreply 3611/10/2012

This film, more than any other in recent memory, has convinced me that critics are paid to hawk films. Skyfall is just another stupid Bond film, yet, where I am, the tv critics were orgasmic about this thing. Making a huge deal about the scene on train where he checks his cuff links and blah blah. You would have thought they discovered life on Mars the way they carried on about this scene. Bond films tend to be mediocre action films with this assholish "super" spy running around and a lot of really bad acting.

by Anonymousreply 3711/10/2012

Can someone please make this into a thread? It's hilarious DL gold, the jokes will just write themselves, people:

South African arrested with 'nephew's genitals in his wallet'

by Anonymousreply 3811/10/2012

Daniel Craig ahas stated that he liked playing the Bond character as if Bond might be bisexual.

by Anonymousreply 3911/10/2012

Gay people can only ever be presented as fully butch, fully sympathetic characters, because that's always the way we always are! How dare they present a gay character as a villain or as effeminate? I am going to my boudoir right now to take my smelling salts!

by Anonymousreply 4011/10/2012

Really R32? And black actors and actresses play a lot of slaves and cleaning people. So what else is new?

by Anonymousreply 4111/10/2012

r42? If you're going to make pronouncements from your mother's basement you'll have to get permission first.

Twilight will knock Bond out of top BO spot next week.

by Anonymousreply 4411/10/2012

R45 is all pissy that his hero lost the election. Typical conservative behavior.

by Anonymousreply 4611/10/2012

The weird thing about Braveheart and the complaints about it being anti gay, is that that is how that particular person was described by the historical record, as being effeminate. If that's how he was, then that's how they should portray him, not make him butch and change history to appease some people. There were plenty of straight bad guys in the movie, too.

by Anonymousreply 4711/10/2012

Ha ha, the bigoted tool @ R47 got called out.

by Anonymousreply 4911/10/2012

Saw the movie today. Loved it. The scene with the villain and Bond was great.

by Anonymousreply 5111/10/2012

Oh yeah, I feel really 'owned', R49! How is it any skin off of our backs if the guy was(see link). Most of the bad guys weren't, nobody is saying that's what made him bad. Do you have much interest in history? Would you cover for the log cabin republicans, too?

by Anonymousreply 5211/10/2012

[quotes]If that's how he was, then that's how they should portray him, not make him butch and change history to appease some people.

Braveheart changed more history than almost any biopic out there. The Scots didn't even wear kilts for another 400 years.

by Anonymousreply 5311/10/2012

Even though Skyfall did well it's first week in the USA I doubt it will have legs and will go into obscurity fast.

by Anonymousreply 5411/10/2012

I don't doubt that, R53, I never assumed these 'historical' movies are accurate. I never assumed that all Scottish were good and that all English were bad. All I know is that they didn't make this particular guy girly in order to make him a bad guy.

by Anonymousreply 5511/10/2012

[quote]The weird thing about Braveheart and the complaints about it being anti gay, is that that is how that particular person was described by the historical record,

Mel Gibson created the character. He was not a real person. History isn't your thing I'm guessing R47.

by Anonymousreply 5611/10/2012

[quote]because they lash out on society for not accepting them.

I 'Oh Dear' myself. It should be lash out at society not 'on' society.

by Anonymousreply 5711/10/2012

[quote] Even though Skyfall did well it's first week in the USA I doubt it will have legs and will go into obscurity fast.

How wrong you are, R54. This one's going to be the biggest one yet:

by Anonymousreply 5811/10/2012

Get over it everything that isn't gay friendly isn't HOMOPHOBIC.

by Anonymousreply 5911/10/2012

I'm not talking about the guy thrown out the window, but the Prince.

by Anonymousreply 6011/10/2012

Get over it = Shut up, and stop talking about stuff I don't want you to talk about.

by Anonymousreply 6111/10/2012

Here's what R2/R7 said in another thread:

[quote]I freely admit I'm sometimes racist in my comments on DL

[quote]most often I find black people a real pain in the ass.

by Anonymousreply 6211/10/2012

Dear r14,

LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and any number of Hollywood prison shows depict/suggest the rapists as MACHO, PRIMARILY HETEROSEXUALLY ORIENTED MEN DOING THE MANRAPE.

Not a genuinely gay-oriented and effeminate man, who is even less likely to rape, much less attack and subdue a grown-ass straight man with combat experience.

A real sissy fag is even much LESS likely to BLOW UP YOUR COUNTRY.

SKYFALL amped up the threat, the monstrification and trafficked in homophobia A WHOLE LOT MORE than LAWRENCE OF ARABIA.

by Anonymousreply 6311/10/2012

[quote] It’s a gag, but a gag with a purpose: The ultimate secret-agent man’s man is familiar with the concept of homosexuality, and doesn’t view it as a matter for snickering or an outright impossibility.

Guess what, assholes?

An ounce of good or "progress" doesn't justify a pound of bad; even when the bad done by the filmmakers is unconscious.

"Hey, it doesn't matter if I murdered the guy -- I gave him a blow job first!"

by Anonymousreply 6411/10/2012

Sam Mendes is a closet case

by Anonymousreply 6511/10/2012

r16 and the Salon writer are presuming intentions and audience reactions that are ENTIRELY OF HIS OWN MAKING.

He has no proof of why the filmmakers did what they did, nor "how it played" in Britain or the U.S.

Speak for yourself, asshole. To make claims on behalf of other people without proof is a very DANGEROUS, FOOLISH HUBRIS on your part.

You simply DON'T HAVE THE POWER to make those claims.

by Anonymousreply 6611/10/2012

No, r19, it's NOT as offensive as those other stereotypes you mentioned because:

A). The stereotype in question is almost never true-to-life but trotted out by HOLLYWOOD all the time

B). Those other characters didn't rape, murder, pillage, plunder, intrigue against nations and terrorist-attack Britain.

SKYFALL is a WHOLE new moral ball game with barely any conceivable resemblance to reality. Bond villains are often highly exaggerated and it was extremely irresponsible/ insensitive/ provactive to make such an overwrought monster out of a fag, which society has no great track record of respecting as heroes or good.

by Anonymousreply 6711/10/2012

r23,

The Wilkinson storyline was trying to show you that his love, guilt and hope for the Indian lover he left behind was basically all that he was living for -- it's a profound statement of love made most powerful by him "dropping dead."

Don't say "killed off," it's obvious that the author cared a lot for that character. Having Wilkinson live "happily ever after" would have been a weaker ending, immaterial to the main lessons learned or storyline developed.

by Anonymousreply 6811/10/2012

Wrong, r25.

SKYFALL exploited homophobia probably consciously, for either good intentions or bad.

It certainly exploited homophobia for suspense and threats, that's why they included the rape, and Judi Dench put it best when she said "What do you fear the most?" before the parliamentary inquiry.

SKYFALL served up the same, false-to-life, defamatory stereotype of the Sissy Gay Rape Monster, only this time, he's a terrorist who will blow up your country, too!

I don't know how conscious of an exploitation of homophobia SKYFALL was on the part of the filmmakers, but it's DEFINITELY irresponsible in the face of a massive, mainstream, worldwide audience with a VERY POOR TRACK RECORD of understanding, respecting or loving gays.

I believe the filmmakers did probably did this all for the conscious purpose to provoke and seem brave/original and make money, which is VERY irresponsible in light of their audience's size and majority viewpoint toward gays.

by Anonymousreply 6911/10/2012

Dear r25,

You're marooned in a fantasy land if you think the exploitation of homophobia, conscious or otherwise, doesn't have massive consequences on gay people when demonized as a supervillain of terrorist/ nationalist proportions before a society that already hates them.

Much of the audience will use the depiction for homophobic purposes, conscious or otherwise and it's bad for the gays.

You really think it's okay to use gay people in any old way you feel for a profit? When it's not true?

by Anonymousreply 7011/10/2012

And the case on r45 comes to a close ...

by Anonymousreply 7111/10/2012

Just saw the movie. Bar deem was very good in an adequate movie..OP I don't agree with your assessment.

by Anonymousreply 7211/10/2012

Dear r47,

The English king in BRAVEHEART WAS a bad guy, too, and portrayed as such by Mel Gibson and the script.

What people rightly faulted BRAVEHEART for was the callousness and the glee viewers took (and were supposed to take) from seeing sissies thrown out the window to their deaths.

That bolsters the film's depiction of the English king as a bad guy, but it also exploited gay people for a cheap, homophobic laugh.

by Anonymousreply 7311/10/2012

[quote]The English king in BRAVEHEART WAS a bad guy, too, and portrayed as such by Mel Gibson and the script.

I haven't seen Braveheart in years, but IIRC, the English king (Edward I) flings his son's BF out the window - the son being the future Edward II. However, the fact is Edward's BF was never killed by Edward I. In fact, he outlived him. The BF was killed years later during the time Edward II was ruler.

FWIW, Braveheart was filled with one historical innaccuracy after another.

by Anonymousreply 7411/11/2012

Alright, bitches, for once and for all: the scrreenwriter of Skyfall has SAID himself that he wrote in the homoerotic scene TO ESTABLISH THAT BOND HAS FUCKED AROUND WITH MEN BEFORE. It's not to explicitly make him gay or bisexual, but just so that the audience is exposed to the fact that Bond has had previous experience with a man, perhaps even Bardem's villain.

It's the very OPPOSITE of homophobic. He is trying to break the straights in gently.

by Anonymousreply 7511/11/2012

Yes, OP. Why can't we have the type of Bond film from the original Connery era? You know, where 007 basically rapes one or two women in every film?

by Anonymousreply 7611/11/2012

How could he have had sex with Bardem's villain, since they were talking abut whether it was Bond's first time or not.

by Anonymousreply 7711/11/2012

I saw the movie, people were mocking the fag!!!

by Anonymousreply 7811/11/2012

Saw it tonight and the audience laughed at the "first time" comment. I saw nothing homophobic in that scene at all. r75 got it right except the comment pretty much establishes that Bond never made it with this villain.

by Anonymousreply 8011/11/2012

People laughed at the "first time" comment in my theater, too.

It was very interesting seeing a scene like that in a James Bond movie. Bond seemed bored, actually. As if he had done this before. It was hot, frankly.

Wasn't that really pretty girl with the Silver character? She knew him enough to know where he was. I thought they we together.

by Anonymousreply 8111/11/2012

Probably good movie because of Javier Bardems performance. Craig Daniel is very boring (as always)on screen. Judi Dench is also brilliant. So you have to sit though one hour of watching Daniels dumb face before the movie becomes interesting.

by Anonymousreply 8211/11/2012

I hate gay people (in addition to jews, asians, negros, and women of course)

by Anonymousreply 8311/11/2012

Adele's song is a bit twee, isn't it?

I think the last two good Bond songs were Tina Turner's Goldeneye and Garbage's the World is not enough.

by Anonymousreply 8411/11/2012

Do US audiences clap like seals at everything? I read often about all of these audience reactions for so many movies. Saw Bond in the UK and the scene didn't get anyone snickering. In this case homophobia's in the eyes of the knuckle-dragging idiots, and whilst Bond is hardly high art, the creators shouldn't have to acquiesce to the idiots when they want to have a gay villain.

However, wasn't the girl a sex-slave of some sort? Bond asks her in the casino how old she was, and it seems to be implied that she's been sold into human trafficking. I thought Bardem's character was meant to be bi.

by Anonymousreply 8511/11/2012

[quote]I thought Bardem's character was meant to be bi.

no such thing.

by Anonymousreply 8611/11/2012

[quote]Some of us actually have careers in the media here.

"ma, bring me back more cheetos. The apprentice is on tonight."

by Anonymousreply 8811/11/2012

[quote]...toting massive weapons...

Come to Daddy!

by Anonymousreply 8911/11/2012

R66 see R25 for my real world account from just yesterday afternoon in a cinema just outside London.

We get it, hon. It's important for you to feel victimised. Clearly, it's all you've got. And as we see from the GOP all the time, you think that being the victim gives you moral superiority. But you're a ridiculous prisspot for thinking this Bond film is homophobic. You can't even explain it. You've just gone "sissy flag archetype = Bond film."

And now you're upset because you're wrong. Do you live in a homophobic environment? Yes. Is the Bond film homophobic? No. If you put a scene from anything in front of that audience that depicted two men kissing that audience would groan.

by Anonymousreply 9011/11/2012

I guess R63 - R73, give or take a few posts qualifies as a total meltdown. And we're supposed to believe the archetype of the "evil sissy fag" is a myth? You sound really unloved.

by Anonymousreply 9111/11/2012

R75 = moron if he really believes that.

by Anonymousreply 9211/11/2012

Who the hell wants some faggoty Bond movie?

by Anonymousreply 9311/11/2012

It makes the lead actor, who plays bond, look less gay.

by Anonymousreply 9411/11/2012

Just came from a 10 a.m. Sunday morning matinee of SKYFALL, and nearly every seat was filled, which I found shocking.

The Bardem character was one of the nastier Bond villains, but his villainy was not power or self-enrichment, but rage at having been betrayed so badly by the institution he had worked for and defended even to the point of being tortured. His gayness didn't seem to have much impact on anything, except in an attempt to unnerve Bond in that one scene, and Bond tossed it back at him with the bisexual comment, which let him know that Bond wasn't unnerved in the least.

I didn't find the movie, or the character's portrayal, homophobic in the least. Remember, the character used to be MI6's top agent back in the day, at least as good as Bond. Not a bad position for an openly gay man.

by Anonymousreply 9511/11/2012

Sorry, r75, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions and you're a fool to take the screenwriter's word for it.

The screenwriters sold gay people out with the extreme demonization of a queer molester/international terrorist in front of a massive, worldwide audience that already hates fags.

How naive of you to assume that this isn't classic, deliberate pandering to a homophobic world for cash. How naive of you to overlook the screenwriters' interest in provocation for monetary gain and literary posterity. How naive of you to think that even a gay screenwriter could sell himself out, consciously or otherwise.

This movie exploits homophobia to the hilt, consciously or otherwise and it WILL embolden gay haters, which is the majority worldwide.

It's reckless profiteering and provocation at an already maligned minority's expense; NOT AT ALL TRUE OR LIKELY TO BE TRUE.

Keep on telling homophobes and opportunists what they want to hear.

by Anonymousreply 9611/11/2012

The screenwriter said Bond had gay encounters, NOT THE MOVIE, which can easily be interpreted simply as Bond fucking with Javier Bardem's mind as enemies do.

And I'll remind you, r75, even if most viewers assume that Bond is now bi, an ounce of good doesn't justify the pound of evil.

by Anonymousreply 9711/11/2012

[quote]The screenwriters sold gay people out with the extreme demonization of a queer molester/international terrorist in front of a massive, worldwide audience that already hates fags.

There is so much wrong with your statement that I hardly know where to begin.

He wasn't a molester. He was an openly gay agent at the top of his game when MI6 abandoned him.

He wasn't a terrorist. None of his actions were calculated to create terror in the populace. His sole focus was to kill M (and JB) and ruin MI6.

The worldwide audience is far more queer accepting than the US audience is.

And the screenwriters did not demonize him. He behaved as any villain does. The vast majority of Bond villains have been heterosexual. Why don't you think that demonizes heteros?

by Anonymousreply 9811/11/2012

What did you feel was misogynistic about SKYFALL, r79?

by Anonymousreply 9911/11/2012

[quote] the creators shouldn't have to acquiesce to the idiots when they want to have a gay villain.

You're right, r85, NOBODY HAS TO HAVE ETHICS. Keep pretending you live in a world without consequences.

by Anonymousreply 10011/11/2012

Too bad you couldn't answer any of my points, r90, you just fabricate personal accusations.

FYI, victims don't fight, they accept BULLSHIT from people like you.

by Anonymousreply 10111/11/2012

Good thing Daniel C. has clarified that Bond is not and never will be gay. That leaves room for the villains!

by Anonymousreply 10211/11/2012

I don't believe the filmmaker's were intentionally homophobic yet either, r95.

But SKYFALL will have homophobic repercussions that are bad for the gays, and the Sissy Gay Rape Monster is an age-old, false-to-life stereotype from Hollywood that bigoted straight people relish in.

If the Sissy Gay Rape Monster occurred in reality as often as it occurs in Hollywood, I'd have A LOT more ass to show for myself.

Not only does the Sissy Gay Rape Monster attack, subdue and molest grown-ass straight men with combat experience, now he's going to blow up your country!

by Anonymousreply 10311/11/2012

Guuuurl, you know one day I'm taking over the world, Miss Thang!

by Anonymousreply 10411/11/2012

Dear r98,

Javier Bardem's character DID MOLEST JAMES BOND ON SCREEN, EVERYBODY CAN REPLAY THE VIDEO.

Bardem's character DID DERAIL A TRAIN FULL OF INNOCENT PEOPLE and gun down a ROOM FULL OF INNOCENT PEOPLE ON LIVE TELEVISION DURING A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY and clandestinely BLEW UP THE MI6 BUILDING with the possibility of collateral damage.

Even if a terrorist is just targeting Judi Dench or her organization, HE'S STILL A TERRORIST and quit pretending that MI6 isn't a NATIONAL defense apparatus.

BOND MOVIES SURELY DO DEMONIZE HETEROS. All villains in movies can be demonized and Bond amps them up to the hilt at nearly cartoon levels.

But guess what? THE WORLD DOESN'T HATE AND PERSECUTE HETEROS.

Keep pretending you live in a world without consequences, bigotry or long traditions of joyously shitting all over the fags and killing them. Keep pretending that ethics don't matter and people's intentions are what they claim.

by Anonymousreply 10511/11/2012

So the only homosexuals onscreen should be GOOD homos because gay people are still being persecuted?

This is why TLA Releasing still gets people buying crap movies set in gay ghettos where nothing happens.

by Anonymousreply 10611/11/2012

Slightly off topic, or maybe not. Ben Whishaw who plays Q is family.

by Anonymousreply 10711/11/2012

So I finally watched Skyfall this afternoon and I'm guessing OP is just trolling for shits and giggles.

Silva's character was trying to mindfuck Bond. He didn't molest bond it was crap we've seen in spy movies. Use psychological tactics to unnerve. Then Bond threw it back like, 'who said it was my first time' and Silva then let it go, untied him and then had him play the gun game against the poor chick who was his former girlfriend.

The audience I watched it didn't react to Silva's comments but more to Bond's 'who said it was my first time'. It was funny.

The whole point was that M betrayed Silva. He had been her star pupil before James Bond. He got too independant and went up against the Chinese. She used him and gave him up to the Chinese who tortured him for months. He then realized she betrayed him and when he gave up and broke the cynide pill with his teeth it didn't work and messed up his inside. The whole story is about mommy betraying her baby boy and never looking back. He just wanted to kill her off and die in peace. I thought he was a great character. I wish he would have been fleshed out more.

No homophobia nor reaction from the audience in the theatre I went to (UWS).

by Anonymousreply 10811/11/2012

[quote]So the only homosexuals onscreen should be GOOD homos because gay people are still being persecuted?

That seems to be what this unhinged poster is going on about. OMG, how dare a villain be gay?!

Silva is already being considered one of the great Bond villians, that he also happens to be a ga/bi character is awesome.

I'm very happy that a gay character played such a large role the latest bond film. That is cool progress. You seem a bit crazy, Silva was a "likeable" and respectable antagonists. It wasn't some insulting portrayal.

by Anonymousreply 10911/11/2012

So true R109. I wish we had Silva for a longer time in this film or in another. Fantastic villian and a genius. The fact he played everybody and was one step ahead of was fantastic. One of the few times I was rooting for a bad guy to come out alive and get his revenge. M and the agency did betray him big time. Bond knew he was dealing with somebody on top of his game not the 'sissy bad guy' of The Celluloid Closet fame.

by Anonymousreply 11011/11/2012

[quote][R16] nails it. The way UK and US audiences respond to homosexuality is VERY different. US is infinitely more uptight. It's because of the culture.

What country do you live in?

by Anonymousreply 11111/11/2012

I am not going to watch this crap, heard it was disappointing anyways and Bond is a sell out! Isn't it true that he's drinking Heineken in this flick instead?

by Anonymousreply 11211/11/2012

[quote]. M and the agency did betray him big time

No. You missed the point of leaving the dying agent and then the "take the shot." decision. He knew the rules. She sometimes has to make hard choices.

by Anonymousreply 11311/11/2012

Agree with R108 and I don't think his sexuality was more than an afterthought for the audience i saw it with.

Loved the movie, Bardem was having fun with the inevitable camp/miss thang aspect of all Bond villains. Thought it was a great movie overall with an actual plot, stunning Roger Deakins photography, more M, a cute new Q, Ralph Fiennes fitting right in, two great "Bond girls" and the ever delicious Mr. Craig. Worth every penny and soooo much better than Nolan's pretentious Batman movies.

by Anonymousreply 11411/11/2012

Saw it last night. Eh. Not one of the best.

If homoerotic overtones is the topic I'll take a repeat of "Casino Royale" with Mr. Craig tied naked to a chair while the villan does some serious CBT on him. Now THAT was homoerotic overtones.

by Anonymousreply 11511/11/2012

M said Silva went beyond the realm of duty so she gave him up to the enemy. By giving Silva up she got six agents back from China thereby getting something in return for betraying Silva.

M came across even colder than usual in this film. The first hint was letting the agent die (before opening credits), then telling Moneypenny to take the shot while Bond was in range and then telling Bond that she exchanged Silva (who was practically her son) for six agents. No regrets..and then she died.

by Anonymousreply 11611/11/2012

[quote]Ben Whishaw who plays Q is family.

...who has never come out and no one knows for sure. As per usual.

by Anonymousreply 11711/11/2012

While Silva is flamboyant and feminine, he is no sissy. In fact, he is a tough guy, albeit one with straw yellow hair and light-colored suits. He walks like a dude and is surrounded by a host of big tough guys that are at his every command. I was somewhat uncomfortable with Silva's sexual exploration and banter with Bond, but this is mitigated by Bond's spot-on response to his pawing between Bond's legs "There's a first time for everything" with a spot-on,"“What makes you think it’s my first time?” The audience I saw it with thought that line was hilarious.

by Anonymousreply 11811/11/2012

Give me a fucking break.

by Anonymousreply 11911/11/2012

It is important to note that Bond does not seem bothered by Silva's touching and flirting with him. Also, while Silva seemed rather flamboyant and feminine on the island, Bardem plays much more masculine when the character is off the island.

by Anonymousreply 12011/11/2012

Additionally, it seemed to me that Silva was rather bisexual. He seemed to express desire for women too.

by Anonymousreply 12111/11/2012

They imply Silva was bisexual. The woman at the casino (who had been part of the sex trade since she was 12) told Bond that her lover/Silva was dangerous. She thought Bond might help her escape from Silva and that's why she brought him to the island. Unfortunately for her she was just another way Bond got played (Silva knew Bond would miss the shooting the scotch glass game, so Silva killed her for sport and to prove a point-that he would be the last 'rat' alive).

by Anonymousreply 12211/11/2012

I didn't find Bardem to be flamboyant, but maybe after reading this I was expecting Little Richard.

by Anonymousreply 12311/11/2012

Good riddance. That bitch Judi Dench dies. Does Ralph Fiennes take over the Secret Service? And welcome back a black Ms Moneypenny. Bardem's character reminds me of "No Country for Old Men" the British edition.

by Anonymousreply 12411/11/2012

Silva was flamboyant in hair, clothing, and affectation on the island, but not in the way people think of when they think a feminine man. He was both macho and non-masculine at the same time. But he was much more masculine once he left the island.

by Anonymousreply 12511/11/2012

In Skyfall, Javier Bardem essentially steals the show.

by Anonymousreply 12611/11/2012

As a hispanic I have to say that I just found Silva to be more of a stereotypical 'evil latin' rather than 'sissy'. Maybe it's a cultural thing. He had an affectation but to me it just read "evil latino doing his over the top, soapy best".

Basically, both spies had unresolved Oedipal issues. Only thing was that one spy actually got to kill his mom as a resolution! Delicious. I was surprised that there wasn't more sibling rivalry between 007 and Silva.

by Anonymousreply 12711/11/2012

Agreed R117. I was hoping that poster was referring to Ben Whishaw being openly gay and was sad to see he has never identified himself as such and instead plays the whole glass closet/vague answers crap.

Another reminder that though it is 2012, so little has changed for up and coming actors and everyone's default is still to hide being gay.

by Anonymousreply 12811/12/2012

Why do you people always see homophobia in everything?

by Anonymousreply 13111/12/2012

R117 He's in a relationship with Mark Bradshaw which is fairly well known among those who know of Ben. He's a prat for not being completely out.

by Anonymousreply 13211/12/2012

OP, just shut up.

by Anonymousreply 13311/12/2012

r20, the movie has nipple play?

by Anonymousreply 13411/12/2012

More importantly, do we get to see Craig in a square-cut bikini?

by Anonymousreply 13511/12/2012

What I saw was Silva using what he assumed would be Bond's homophobia in an attempt to intimidate him. Bond neutralized Silva immediately and turned the psychological tables. Silva lost interest in that tactic as soon as he saw that Bond was unaffected.

by Anonymousreply 13611/12/2012

Isn't Silva bisexual? Or was the Dragonwoman just be kept for decoration?

by Anonymousreply 13711/12/2012

I'm surprised no one has brought up how Silva's "mommy fixation" is another characteristic of the "Sissy Villain" trope ("Psycho", "Strangers on a Train", "The Manchurian Candidate")

by Anonymousreply 13811/13/2012

R132 What do you define as 'completely out'? Taking out a full magazine cover to announce the obvious? Oh and OP is a twat if he thinks that evil gay guy = homophobia. As for the people who claimed the scene was there merely to get a negative reaction out the audience, the problem lies with the bigots who were watching it with you, not the film itself. If the audience reacted badly when Bond was with the black chick, then I guess the film makers are racist too, right?

by Anonymousreply 13911/13/2012

this was top notch Bond, from the unforgettable theme song to the epic plot that wasn't afraid to shake up a stale franchise like a vodka martini.

by Anonymousreply 14011/13/2012

[quote]What do you define as 'completely out'? Taking out a full magazine cover to announce the obvious?

Quit trying to purposefully dense, one does not need a magazine cover to announce their sexuality, neither Zachary Quinto or Matt Bomer did that. Just a casual mention of his boyfriend or referring himself as a gay man.

The fact is Ben Whishaw has purposely not done, even while being interviews by a gay magazine, because he doesn't want to be "on the record" as a gay man. Not many actors are willing to make that step unfortunately. It isn't that complicated.

by Anonymousreply 14111/13/2012

R139 It's the avoidance of answering a question directly which annoys me. He just says the usual it's nobody's business who he sleeps with. He's right in one sense but he could just say he's gay. He doesn't need to tell people about Mark if he wants to keep his relationship private. I just find it annoying when basically everyone who is interested knows anyway and most other people wouldn't be bothered to find out nor care much anyway. It's just the same old argument and we'll a go around in circles with it so I'll say no more.

by Anonymousreply 14211/13/2012

A huge percentage of men who are attracted to or involved with men do not identify as gay. Deal with it.

by Anonymousreply 14311/13/2012

Then they are in denial. No man who isn't attracted to men thinks that any man who is isn't gay. For now that's fine, but the day may come when you "men too manly (or whatever) to be gay" will be rounded up just like the rest of us gay men.

by Anonymousreply 14411/13/2012

r144, you are entitled to your opinion, but you can't control these large number of men who eschew the "gay" label. Moreover, a large percentage of them are in fact bisexual, not gay.

by Anonymousreply 14511/13/2012

LOL whatever you want to call yourself R145, or them for that matter. Desire to smoke a pole, hetero man says you are gay.

by Anonymousreply 14611/13/2012

[quote] As for the people who claimed the scene was there merely to get a negative reaction out the audience, the problem lies with the bigots who were watching it with you, not the film itself.

It's the fault of the movie if the filmmakers knew the gay content would illicit a homophobic reaction, and the filmmakers were pandering to it. And it is predictable that Bond movies, which are retrograde straight male fantasies, would attract an audience that would be easily baited by homophobia.

by Anonymousreply 14711/13/2012

Is Silva "bad" or "evil," because he is gay, or is he simply a bad guy who happens to be gay?

Yes, it would be nice if 007 or an action-hero saved the world and sailed off into the sunset with a handsome guy. I doubt if that will happen in my lifetime on the silver screen.

And straights should get over the "Yuck" factor when they encounter homoerotic moments on the screen.

Nonetheless, I'm not all that bothered by a gay villain who is smart, resourceful, and captures the World's most famous spy.

by Anonymousreply 14811/13/2012

[quote]It's the fault of the movie if the filmmakers knew the gay content would illicit a homophobic reaction, and the filmmakers were pandering to it. And it is predictable that Bond movies, which are retrograde straight male fantasies, would attract an audience that would be easily baited by homophobia.

Except you are blatantly wrong. They could have had James Bond have a homophobic reaction and play into that mentality. Instead they purposely subverted and had Bond not even seem to care while Silva was feeling him up and then quip about it not being his first time.

The fact you are so defensive about your sexuality and can't help but see homophobia even in a scene that purposely subverted homophobia is rather sad.

by Anonymousreply 14911/13/2012

R141 / R142 - why don't you manage your own sexuality? Neither Ben Whishaw nor anyone else needs to do anything to please you. You sound like such a fucking dickhead anyway.

It is pretty well known that Whishaw is gay. He's British. We do things differently. You seem to have a real problem engaging with other cultures.

by Anonymousreply 15111/13/2012

But as we've already established several times R147, the film does not illicit that response from all people in all cultures. Also, maybe there were just some really immature people at the screening you attended. You should dial it way down, toots, I haven't seen this kind of militancy since the mid '80s. It was rational then, not so much now.

by Anonymousreply 15211/13/2012

R151 I am R142 not R141. I am also a Brit. I also said we will take ourselves in circles which is what is happening as there is no answer just our opinions. No need to be just so aggressive about it darling.

by Anonymousreply 15311/13/2012

Saw Skyfall today. I agree the homoerotic flirtation in the first Craig/Bardem scene didn't really add much to the story. I wouldn't have said it was homophobic exactly but that character could have been written twenty years ago. See, you know he's evil ...because he's bisexual! If someone wanted to call it pandering or stereotypic, I'm all ears.

Also worth pointing out that 1/2 this board thinks bisexuals are evil too, yes?

by Anonymousreply 15411/13/2012

The most offensive thing about Skyfall is that it's 20 minutes too long.

Maybe the editor fell asleep too.

by Anonymousreply 15511/13/2012

I completely agree with r151 : no one wants to read the fluttery ditherings and twitterings of some faggot actor in print - better they shut up about it.

by Anonymousreply 15611/13/2012

We know Silva is evil because he does evil things. Who he fucks or wants to fuck doesn't matter.

He caressed Bond's chest as a psychological tactic. Duh. Nothing earth shatteringly difficult to see. When Bond gave him a nonreaction, Silva backed off and didn't go there again.

It's actually refreshing that Bond took the whole thing in stride and that he implied that he wouldn't find the homosex to be a big deal. Whether Bond was honest that it 'wouldn't be the first time' doesn't matter since the point is that Bond is beyond homophobia.

Bond is also as mommy fixated as Silva. That probably fits the trope of all men having unresolved mommy issues.

by Anonymousreply 15711/13/2012

I like what R157 said...though the caress did convey a little desire? It's just a character.

by Anonymousreply 15811/13/2012

Actually, I don't think Silva is necessarily gay. He tries to flirt and fondle a tied to a chair Bond as a mean of intimidation. When a man does the same to a woman in a movie, we don't say the movie has heterophobe bias.

When James Bond answers :"What makes you believe it's my first time?" (or something like that), Silva is not smitten by the prospect that this agent could be attracted by men. Right away he unties him. There is no fun to be had for a bully if the "victim" is not scared.

The reply shows James Bond always has the last word and is badass.

If you stop and think about it: In this celebrated macho franchise, suddenly the hero is a badass by not caring if people think he might be gay (whether or not he really is). That's cool. That's not a gay James Bond yet, but it's a nice step.

So, no, not homophobic in my eyes.

by Anonymousreply 15911/13/2012

MARY'S!!!!

by Anonymousreply 16011/13/2012

Bi men are real deal with it!!!!

by Anonymousreply 16111/13/2012

OY - this thread is so tedious. It was a sexy scene and great movie. Enjoy it for what it is and stop nitpicking the hell out of it. Ugh! MARY! is right.

by Anonymousreply 16211/14/2012

If anything, Silva is bisexual, not gay.

by Anonymousreply 16311/14/2012

Sir Roger Moore adores Skyfall and says his gay friends love the Bond films.

by Anonymousreply 16411/14/2012

The more people have seen it, the more people have said they either don't think Silva was actually gay, or that he was bisexual but just toying with Bond.

by Anonymousreply 16511/21/2012

Omg, R147 and R152, it's 'elicit'. Illicit is something that's illegal or morally disapproved of, like an affair.

Man, that says something about this thread that no one had corrected them yet.

And the movie isn't remotely homophobic. The whole complaint is just silly and OP sounds like a self-loather. For my part, I found Bardem's performance to be the most enjoyable part of the film. It was unfortunate that it took forever to get to him.

by Anonymousreply 16611/21/2012

I find it hard to understand all this love for Judi Dench. She doesn't float MY boat.

by Anonymousreply 16711/21/2012

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Casino Royale, didn't the villain tie Daniel Craig to a chair and beat his balls? And isn't there a Bond movie where the villain ties Bond up and has a laser inching towards his cock? I hardly think this is first gay villian in Bond history whether explicit or implied.

by Anonymousreply 16811/21/2012

I was expecting to find that scene objectionable but I didn't. Silva's playing with James was synester, of course, but I didn't see it as motivated by eros at all. James's response is intriguing and successfully nullifies the suggestion that only mostrous men relate sexually to other men, either as human beings or in conniving spies, however horny.

I actually found Bond's jocular comment after - spoiler alert - Silva kills Severine - "a waste of good scotch" - much more troubling from the lens of sexual politics because it so coldly minimizes Severine's death, especially after she had taken such a huge risk to help both herself and Bond.

I can see why some find Bardem's character queeny, but I'm not sure I entirely agree. Bardem made Silva unique; although I don't find his performance entirely successful; he seemed afraid of being too enjoyable hammy at the same time he hammed it up. The character also appears to be so physically incapacitated as to be almost incapable of any sexuality, threatening or otherwise. His physical destitution that robs him of any motive other than vengefulness.

Dench was excellent and the movie was consistently entertaining (Mendes is a much better action director than Chris Nolan). Speaking of Dench, one recent movie I found far more troubling for its portrayal of a manipulative and stereotypical gay-identifiable character was Notes From A Scandal.

by Anonymousreply 16911/23/2012

Synester?

Oh dear.

by Anonymousreply 17011/23/2012

Just saw it. Really liked it (didn't expect to).

The "chair" scene was well-done. Hardly "homophobic," if anything, pro-gay as evidenced by Bond's reply.

Bardem was very good in this.

Naomi Harris is a goddess.

Loves me some Judi. Hope she can continue an active career.

by Anonymousreply 17111/23/2012

[quote]I actually found Bond's jocular comment after - spoiler alert - Silva kills Severine - "a waste of good scotch" - much more troubling from the lens of sexual politics because it so coldly minimizes Severine's death, especially after she had taken such a huge risk to help both herself and Bond.

Bitch, please. What would you have preferred, that Bond break down in tears like a little bitch and let him see that Silva *has* hurt him? Don't be preposterous.

by Anonymousreply 17211/23/2012

not enough pussy in this movie

by Anonymousreply 17311/24/2012

Great movie. Loved the swishy vilian. So real.

by Anonymousreply 17411/24/2012

So just because a villain is gay makes it homophobic? I saw the movie and didn't see any homophobia.

by Anonymousreply 17511/24/2012

James' casual response to Silva's "seduction" prevented the scene from being remotely homophobic. If he would've said something like, "Paging Dr. Faggot!" that'd be an entirely different story...

Oh wait...people on DL love The Hangover.

by Anonymousreply 17611/24/2012

a lot of gay men are diaBLOICAL

by Anonymousreply 17711/24/2012

Seeing this tomorrow. What should I watch out for?

by Anonymousreply 17811/28/2012

Its interminable length r178.

by Anonymousreply 17911/28/2012

bump

by Anonymousreply 18012/04/2012

Number one movie again.

by Anonymousreply 18112/10/2012

00Q, baby,

by Anonymousreply 18212/10/2012

Skyfall is an incredible movie. Javier Bardem steals the show.

by Anonymousreply 18312/18/2012

Perhaps they are, but I loved their song "You are the woman."

by Anonymousreply 18412/18/2012

Is Craig gonna continue with the franchise?

by Anonymousreply 18512/20/2012

I don't see it as homophobic at all. The villain is depicted as bi-sexual, but extremely disturbed regardless. I think 007s reaction to his advances is in line with what I would expect and his reply telling him don't be so sure it would be his first time was funny and if anything homo-friendly.

by Anonymousreply 18612/20/2012

Just saw it. Want my money back! Truly dreadful and BORING.

The first rule of fiction is that there needs to be an internal logic. There is no logic: stuff just happens. Villain just presses a button and explosion goes off in the middle of a chase allowing a train to crash in. We're supposed to believe he set it up years before.

The whole end of the move is predicated on the idea that the head of MI5 and Bond would hole up in a manor with a gamekeeper with one rifle to capture an international villain who has caused a score of deaths and blown up a central London building. But of course!

I could only presume the script was penned by the same hacks who churn out the Doctor Who "lets make it up as we go along" rubbish.

by Anonymousreply 18712/24/2012

A ham-fisted gay (or is he?) villain, a fraudulent exaltation of torture in the catching of Bin Laden (or is it?), an examination of the passage of the 13th Amendment with no mention of Frederick Douglass and the only black characters servants, a love story about a hunky child abusing boxer and his amputee whale trainer fuck buddy,....

Perhaps we are in a post-p.c. universe at the movies.

by Anonymousreply 18812/24/2012

Which is the one about the boxer and the whale trainer?

by Anonymousreply 18912/24/2012

So is "The Lion King". The villain is clearly a spiteful, vindictive queen in that movie.

by Anonymousreply 19012/24/2012

It was just OK. More or less a very thin plot with lots of gunplay and explosions strung out along the two hour plus running time. Some pop psychology thrown in an lame attempt to add depth. Dench manages as well as could be expected. Severine/Berenice Marlohe is quite beautiful.

The first 10-15 minutes are the best part. R187's comments are spot on.

Oh, and I think it's done close to one billion in box office, so apparently these concerns aren't bothering audiences. It's not boring, but it's not very good.

by Anonymousreply 19112/24/2012

I did not find the movie to be homophobic at all. I was actually kind of turned on when Bardem was rubbing Craig's legs. I was thinking, "lucky fucking bastard." I also thought "Skyfall" was one of the best movies of 2012.

by Anonymousreply 19312/27/2012

Bond didnt get the laugh when he said What makes you think it's my first time?

Silva gets the laugh when he jumps back in mock surprise and says Oh! Mr. Bond!

by Anonymousreply 19412/27/2012

I would have loved seeing Daniel Craig's legs up on Bardem's shoulders while he's being drilled to the edge of his life. mmmm, mmmm, mmmm.

by Anonymousreply 19512/27/2012

Skyfall was awesome. My friends did not think the villain dude was gay. They just thought he was playing with Bond. They felt he was into chicks

by Anonymousreply 19612/28/2012

Finally watched this. No way is it homophobic. Silva is bisexual. It's made clear that he'd kept the French woman as a sex slave for years.

by Anonymousreply 19707/19/2014

[all posts by tedious, racist idiot removed.]

by Anonymousreply 19807/19/2014

Bardem wasn't awesome, he delivered one absolutely marvelous monologue and was terrible for the rest of the film.

Still, the monologue about the rats on the island really was awesome, it's probably why he wanted a role he didn't really know what to do with.

by Anonymousreply 19907/20/2014
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.