[quote=“John Welles, post:473, topic:544”]My answer is pretty much what Phil said: any plot detail gives away quite a lot (most plot points are major in this film and have an effect). Anyhow, I went into Skyfall only having seen two trailers (one of them a teaser at that), so I had very little idea of what to expect (I stayed away from IMDb because it’s a haven of people talking about spoilers and not labeling them as such).
(Minor Spoilers Ahead)
In fact, one of the more bizarre criticisms I’ve read on the internet (which is full of strange, strange opinions), is that it isn’t very Bondian as it has too few action scenes, as if action has some type of positive corelation to how good a movie is.[/quote]
I know that IMspoilerDB effect.
I’ve had discussions in Belgium with a group of critics who somehow got the idea that the narrative is unimportant, a sort of bourgois-Hollywood-irrelevance (yes, they are neomarxist and anti-Hollywood), so they put as many spoilers in their reviews as possible, ruining many people’s pleasure.
So I don’t want to see spoilers in reviews, but in general I like to read, in a few words, what the film is about, and what kind of film it is, how it ‘feels’
The action: I don’t think that in general action has some kind of positive corrolation to how good a movie is, but in the case of a Bond the question if the entry has enough (good) action scenes, might be of interest. People expect (large and spectacular) action sequences in Bonds, so if they’re not there, it might turn some fans off. People expect action scenes in western too. One of my favorite westerns is Monte Walsh, a film with relatively few action moments. I’ve always mentioned this when I recommended it to western fans.