Why criticism on "Skyfall" never truly gained ground (but flourishes in small fan circles)

17810121317

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote: »
    Sometimes you get a 'must see' event movie that everyone just goes along to because that's what everyone is doing. Doesn't make it a great movie necessarily - e.g. Titanic, Avatar etc.

    Add Jurassic World to that list.
  • edited August 2015 Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Sometimes you get a 'must see' event movie that everyone just goes along to because that's what everyone is doing. Doesn't make it a great movie necessarily - e.g. Titanic, Avatar etc.

    Add Jurassic World to that list.

    Yup. I read a good review of it in the Guardian. Went to see it because of the review and thought it was garbage.

    So many Hollywood films are poor at the moment. I'm sick of the recycled superhero drivel and sequels and remakes. We hardly get any decent original stories these days. I was talking about it the other day and thinking how actually although it's often slated, the 80s was really a great time for original one off Hollywood movies. There's a lot of good popcorn from that era.
  • Posts: 498
    @Suivez_ce_parachute, @Getafix

    Take a look at the reviews on Imdb
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1074638/reviews?ref_=tt_urv
    its far from a 'small circle' and more people agree with the bad reviews than don't ,

    take the first negative review for instance '1398 out of 2117' agree with this , that's a whooping 66%
    and the same goes with all the remaining reviews
  • edited August 2015 Posts: 11,425
    I'm aware of the huge number of negative comments. That doesn't seem to be reflected in the score it gets though.

    I do think people are more motivated to post negative comments though than when they see a movie and dont like it. I think a lot people (although obviously a minority) went to see SF becUse of the hype and were actuAlly shocked by how bad it is.

    It's the disconnect between the hype and the reality that created a lot of vocal critics of the film. If there hadn't been all this "best Bond ever" nonsense I don't think as many people would have felt conned and angry.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote: »
    We hardly get any decent original stories these days. I was talking about it the other day and thinking how actually although it's often slated, the 80s was really a great time for original one off Hollywood movies. There's a lot of good popcorn from that era.

    Couldn't agree more. I was taking about the same thing the other day. The industry is in a sorry state creatively. Like, why on earth are they remaking Point Break? And what's the point in making a Bladerunner sequel? Why not use the same budget attempting to make something as original and seminal as Bladerunner was and still is. It's completely depressing. Too many powerful industry figures just don't care enough and are never, ever, willing to put their balls on the line. They can only see guaranteed $$$.
  • Posts: 11,425
    The Chinese market is a big factor as well. They are lapping up the big generic action and superhero films. Hollywood is blanding everything down to appeal (or rather not offend) to the most number of markets.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,967
    @RC7, because Hollywood is allergic to anything original, hence the constant sequels, prequels, reboots, remakes, etc. that we continually receive.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @RC7, because Hollywood is allergic to anything original, hence the constant sequels, prequels, reboots, remakes, etc. that
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,583
    Getafix wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    So does criticism flourish in small circles (this community is a small circle but SF regularly ranks in peoples top 5), or does a very small minority of critics keep pushing their negative opinions forward and we think there are more of them than there actually is??

    I think the "Skyfall is boring/overrated/etc.." attitude is actually met more outside the fan circle than in "small fan circles". Just Google "Skyfall boring" for instance. The "small fan circles" words are from Gustav_Graves, who can't spend a week without writing in some thread that "some" Bond fans are simple-minded, so I don't think it is meant to be taken as a thoughtful analysis :)

    i think you're right. If you look at a lot of generic movie boards the comments on SF are very mixed. There are a lot of negative comments.

    I think SF was really well marketed and clearly lots of people loved. But a lot of other people went along because of the hype and were disappointed.

    It would be silly to suggest it is anything other than a huge critical and commercial success, but that doesnt mean everyone who went to see it thought it was amazing.

    Sometimes you get a 'must see' event movie that everyone just goes along to because that's what everyone is doing. Doesn't make it a great movie necessarily - e.g. Titanic, Avatar etc.

    As someone who didn't like it as much, did you think the film was "too slick" and/or pretentious?
  • edited August 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Not too slick. If only!

    I guess I thought it was pretentious yes, and a little bit patronising to its audience - I didn't like the middle brow references to Turner, Tennyson etc. It was try hardy, without actually being genuinely clever. There are 'dumb' superhero movies out there that do the big thematic stuff much better (and I'm not thinking Nolan's Batman, which I find equally ponderous and dull). I think few have done witty, clever, high concept popcorn better than Sam Rami's original Spider-Man with Toby McGuire.

    I felt I was watching someone who thinks they're really clever but is actually a bit annoying and tedious - a bit like the movie equivalent of Stephen Fry. I think Christopher Hitchins described Stephen Fry as a stupid person's idea of a clever person (turns out Hugh Laurie is really actually clever and talented one)! I feel the same way about SF - a dumb person's idea of a clever movie. Fair enough if people just enjoy it as entertainment (although I don't see how), but please don't try and tell me it's high art art or the pinnacle of movie making - it's annoying and frankly an insult to the Bond series to suggest this is the best Bond movie ever made. I know that's a patronising thing to say in itself, but is just how I feel about it.

    I just feel SF is neither one thing nor the other - not a suspenseful action thriller, nor particularly profound or interesting - essentially half baked. And just not very entertaining either - on any level. I also felt it thought it was too clever by half, and missed the central core of a strong, coherent narrative. A dumb film masquerading as a clever one. You can see all the moving parts - it's a really lumbering, clunky piece of filmmaking.

    I prefer the clever films that pretend to be dumb.

    Sad thing is that I can see what Mendes is trying to do in places, and approve of a lot of it. I just don't think he's done a very good job in executing
    it. The plot creaks. The characterisation is all over the place. The thematic stuff is laid on way too thick. And he simply can't do action to save his life. It all adds up to a tasteless blancmange or a soufflé that failed to rise. Just really disappointing.
  • Posts: 7,653
    They should take a lesson from the MI series that does everything very well in which the 007 series used to excel instead we get a shyteload of navel staring with sensitive 007 who gets somebody he cares about killed each movie and then is cool about it. Having seen MI5 my expectations of SP are low and will probably be even lower after having seen UNCLE.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,583
    Getafix wrote: »
    Not too slick. If only!

    I guess I thought it was pretentious yes, and a little bit patronising to its audience - I didn't like the middle brow references to Turner, Tennyson etc. It was try hardy, without actually being genuinely clever. There are 'dumb' superhero movies out there that do the big thematic stuff much better (and I'm not thinking Nolan's Batman, which I find equally ponderous and dull). I think few have done witty, clever, high concept popcorn better than Sam Rami's original Spider-Man with Toby McGuire.

    I felt I was watching someone who thinks they're really clever but is actually a bit annoying and tedious - a bit like the movie equivalent of Stephen Fry. I think Christopher Hitchins described Stephen Fry as a stupid person's idea of a clever person (turns out Hugh Laurie is really actually clever and talented one)! I feel the same way about SF - a dumb person's idea of a clever movie. Fair enough if people just enjoy it as entertainment (although I don't see how), but please don't try and tell me it's high art art or the pinnacle of movie making - it's annoying and frankly an insult to the Bond series to suggest this is the best Bond movie ever made.

    I just feel SF is neither one thing nor the other - not a suspenseful action thriller, nor particularly profound or interesting - essentially half baked. And just not very entertaining either - on any level. I also felt it thought it was too clever by half, and missed the central core of a strong, coherent narrative. A dumb film masquerading as a clever one. You can see all the moving parts - it's a really lumbering, clunky piece of filmmaking.

    I prefer the clever films that pretend to be dumb.

    That's fair.

    For me, I think the fact that it was trying to be clever at all was, in fact, clever. I'll have to go back and analyze the previous 22 films a little more, but I found the references refreshing (for a Bond film) because this isn't a franchise known for its intellectual depth. But that doesn't mean it isn't there, somewhere. So because it's an "action" film, the heavy-handed themes didn't bother me a bit.
  • edited August 2015 Posts: 11,425
    I'm not personally a huge fan of the MI movies. I find them a bit unsatisfying. But I'm not a big Cruise fan either. Haven't seen the new one. Will probably catch it on a plane.

    Looking forward to Man from Uncle. When he's on form I think Ritchie is a very entertaining director.
  • edited August 2015 Posts: 11,425
    TripAces wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Not too slick. If only!

    I guess I thought it was pretentious yes, and a little bit patronising to its audience - I didn't like the middle brow references to Turner, Tennyson etc. It was try hardy, without actually being genuinely clever. There are 'dumb' superhero movies out there that do the big thematic stuff much better (and I'm not thinking Nolan's Batman, which I find equally ponderous and dull). I think few have done witty, clever, high concept popcorn better than Sam Rami's original Spider-Man with Toby McGuire.

    I felt I was watching someone who thinks they're really clever but is actually a bit annoying and tedious - a bit like the movie equivalent of Stephen Fry. I think Christopher Hitchins described Stephen Fry as a stupid person's idea of a clever person (turns out Hugh Laurie is really actually clever and talented one)! I feel the same way about SF - a dumb person's idea of a clever movie. Fair enough if people just enjoy it as entertainment (although I don't see how), but please don't try and tell me it's high art art or the pinnacle of movie making - it's annoying and frankly an insult to the Bond series to suggest this is the best Bond movie ever made.

    I just feel SF is neither one thing nor the other - not a suspenseful action thriller, nor particularly profound or interesting - essentially half baked. And just not very entertaining either - on any level. I also felt it thought it was too clever by half, and missed the central core of a strong, coherent narrative. A dumb film masquerading as a clever one. You can see all the moving parts - it's a really lumbering, clunky piece of filmmaking.

    I prefer the clever films that pretend to be dumb.

    That's fair.

    For me, I think the fact that it was trying to be clever at all was, in fact, clever. I'll have to go back and analyze the previous 22 films a little more, but I found the references refreshing (for a Bond film) because this isn't a franchise known for its intellectual depth. But that doesn't mean it isn't there, somewhere. So because it's an "action" film, the heavy-handed themes didn't bother me a bit.

    I don't object to a bit of high concept being slipped in. That's why I said that I approved of a lot of what Mendes was trying to do. I think a Bond film can be all things to all people - both clever, and hugely entertaining. In a way, that's what the best ones have always done anyway. Although when I say clever, I don't mean in terms of themes etc. - I mean witty, knowing, well written and made etc.

    Fundamentally I'm just not entertained by SF. I don't enjoy it on any level - either as pure entertainment or as some interesting new take on Bond and his role as some cultural signifier. I just find it a lumbering bore of a movie, which is a cardinal sin for a Bond movie. It bored me like TWINE did. Just a movie I forced myself to sit through.

    I felt Mendes messed up the basics - story, character, action and suspense. And without those, it doesn't matter how much thematic icing you try and put on the cake. It will still taste sh*t.

    I'm more optimistic about SP though. I don't think Mendes is the kind of director who wants to make the same film twice. And he's not an idiot, although he might have made a not very good movie in SF. I haven't seen anything or heard anything about SP that makes me overly concerned. I'd prefer not to have another exploration of Bond's origins, but I can deal with it if it's done in an entertaining way, and the trailers look really good. And if can't be ruined by Dench (thank God).
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    @Getafix

    It makes sense you were bored by TWINE as well, SF really is a remake of TWINE.

    I said this before, for me SF is like TB.
    Both movies were spectacularly successful and loved at the time, but TB now doesn't show up in Top 10 lists in general and many regard it as too long and kind of dull or hard to sit through.
    By 2030 Skyfall will be seen as just another Bond movie in general.
  • edited August 2015 Posts: 832
    The first review in that link says that Sf is somehow ripping off of batman by having a hearing about mi6. Seriously wtf, that is the dumbest thing I have ever read. These batman comparisons really piss me off, especially when they make absolutely no sense.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    @Getafix, seriously mate you and Skyfall need to get a room.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Shardlake wrote: »
    @Getafix, seriously mate you and Skyfall need to get a room.

    LOL! I think I need to move on.
  • Posts: 232
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    The first review in that link says that Sf is somehow ripping off of batman by having a hearing about mi6. Seriously wtf, that is the dumbest thing I have ever read. These batman comparisons really piss me off, especially when they make absolutely no sense.

    They must have gotten their lines crossed. SKYFALL does the same DARK KNIGHT thing that AVENGERS and STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS did, having the villain let himself get captured deliberately so as to put his 'real' plan in motion. This has gotten to be such a big movie thing that it is practically to the last decade what 'former navy SEAL' was a quarter-century or more back. It lets the movie pretend to be smart, when it is just showing that the screenwriter is playing it safe by doing what Nolan already did well.

    There IS a way to revisit this in a fresh manner that re-spins it effectively, but since I've had that in a script of mine since the early 90s, I'm not gonna advertise it right now.

  • Posts: 315
    I find it interesting for people who say 'I've watched SF 15 times and I can't decide whether I like it or not'. Really?

    How many times do you watch a movie that you do like?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,967
    @Getafix, I think that's my issue with it, as well: I don't know how to take it, and can't seem to enjoy it on any level. If it's trying to be a dark tale, it interjects it with lots of bad humor and comedy in unnecessary scenes that don't cut it for me, but while it's being dark, it's not gritty like CR was. It's not a film I can sit back and have fun with, either, because it's so depressing most of the time - Bond being killed, M dying, the emotion behind the meaning of Skyfall, all of it. Then you have the action scenes, which leave a lot to be desired, as most of them are simply one big stunt and almost nothing else, feel rather been there, done that, or are interlaced with bad CG. I never know how to take a viewing on it, and am always left rather disappointed at the end.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,583
    trevanian wrote: »
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    The first review in that link says that Sf is somehow ripping off of batman by having a hearing about mi6. Seriously wtf, that is the dumbest thing I have ever read. These batman comparisons really piss me off, especially when they make absolutely no sense.

    They must have gotten their lines crossed. SKYFALL does the same DARK KNIGHT thing that AVENGERS and STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS did, having the villain let himself get captured deliberately so as to put his 'real' plan in motion. This has gotten to be such a big movie thing that it is practically to the last decade what 'former navy SEAL' was a quarter-century or more back. It lets the movie pretend to be smart, when it is just showing that the screenwriter is playing it safe by doing what Nolan already did well.

    There IS a way to revisit this in a fresh manner that re-spins it effectively, but since I've had that in a script of mine since the early 90s, I'm not gonna advertise it right now.

    That idea didn't start with Nolan. David Fincher's Seven used that device a good thirteen years prior.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Both movies were spectacularly successful and loved at the time, but TB now doesn't show up in Top 10 lists in general and many regard it as too long and kind of dull or hard to sit through.
    @BondJasonBond006

    Actually, interestingly TB is about 50/50 slightly in favour of it. TB is in the top 10 this frequently:
    MI6C - 96/160 = 60%
    CBn = 35/66 = 53%
    AJB = 29/62 = 47%
    Random sources = 66/122 = 54%

    Very polarising.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    And for Skyfall, we have on MI6Community:
    - average rank of 8.5
    - median 6
    - 66.9% in the top 7 (49% top 5)
    - 6.8% bottom 5
    - 11.8% bottom 10
  • Posts: 15,111
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @RC7, because Hollywood is allergic to anything original, hence the constant sequels, prequels, reboots, remakes, etc. that we continually receive.

    Two words: brand recognition.

    But is is not always all bad. It also means Hollywood adapts books because they already have a readership, they sometimes also finally make a novel adaptation that is faithful to the original (still waiting for the proper Dracula though) and sometimes also bring new readership and public to a book, a series or a franchise.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @RC7, because Hollywood is allergic to anything original, hence the constant sequels, prequels, reboots, remakes, etc. that we continually receive.

    Two words: brand recognition.

    But is is not always all bad. It also means Hollywood adapts books because they already have a readership, they sometimes also finally make a novel adaptation that is faithful to the original (still waiting for the proper Dracula though) and sometimes also bring new readership and public to a book, a series or a franchise.

    There are pros, but they're ultimately outweighed by the cons.
  • edited August 2015 Posts: 15,111
    But what is the alternative?

    And I am thinking about it, but we have an opposite situation in TV: more and more new series are being created.
  • Posts: 232
    TripAces wrote: »
    trevanian wrote: »
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    The first review in that link says that Sf is somehow ripping off of batman by having a hearing about mi6. Seriously wtf, that is the dumbest thing I have ever read. These batman comparisons really piss me off, especially when they make absolutely no sense.

    They must have gotten their lines crossed. SKYFALL does the same DARK KNIGHT thing that AVENGERS and STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS did, having the villain let himself get captured deliberately so as to put his 'real' plan in motion. This has gotten to be such a big movie thing that it is practically to the last decade what 'former navy SEAL' was a quarter-century or more back. It lets the movie pretend to be smart, when it is just showing that the screenwriter is playing it safe by doing what Nolan already did well.

    There IS a way to revisit this in a fresh manner that re-spins it effectively, but since I've had that in a script of mine since the early 90s, I'm not gonna advertise it right now.

    That idea didn't start with Nolan. David Fincher's Seven used that device a good thirteen years prior.

    Se7en is my favorite movie of the 90s ... but that post is about the BATMAN/SKYFALL connection and the trend of aping that which was RECENTLY massively successful.

    Also, structurally the device work differently, as with Fincher we're talking act 3, so this is the culmination of what went before, whereas with all these others, this is an escalating thing driving act 2. That's an important aspect, the 2nd level of sell as matters escalate (If LTK didn't have this, when Bond realizes how his failed hit on Sanchez has possibly wrecked DEA and Hong Kong narcotics ops, it would be very much a lesser film), but it isn't the resolution of the thing, which is what makes Se7en so special, that they do this and make it work.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited August 2015 Posts: 40,967
    We are in a golden age of television, but now we're getting countless shows based on old movies that absolutely nobody asked for. I'm fairly certain that more shows are canceled than those that are greenlit and run until a series finale.

    Same with Hollywood: a rare, original gem comes along, but most of the time, it's a rehash of some old property.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Fargo - renewed
    From Dusk Til Dawn - renewed
    Hannibal - renewed
    Constantine - cancelled
    Bates Motel - renewed
    Scream - renewed
    Transporter - renewed
    Sleepy Hollow - renewed

    just to name a view TV Shows that are based on movies.

    I really wound't want to go without them!!

    I rather have remakes than bad original ones.
Sign In or Register to comment.