It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Count me in here.
Don't get me wrong, I think she's a marvellous actress. And she will be greatly missed. Audiences loved her.
But she administered one major big flaw to MI6: Destruction. During her reign as "M" MI6 got insanely battered and bruised, it got compromised several times. In TWINE and SF. Both times terrorist attacks were executed. Many people died because of her, like SHE OPENLY ADMITS. "M" should have stepped down. In a normal democracy, government officials, and that's what "M" is, she is in astrument of the PM, step DOWN! Period. Like "M"s successor Mallory said.
Then there's the whole bloody finance thing. Travel costs must have risen through the ceiling during her reign as "M". And don't get me wrong, but it's taxpayer's money if you decide to become a rogue head of MI6, by travelling to....ehm.....Bolivia, Russia (QOS), Bahama's (CR), North-Korea (DAD) and Turkey (TWINE, she basically staged her own kidnapping!).
Pure from a narrative perspective, from a plain, solid realistic view.......I am glad Judi Dench' "M"s gone. Welcome the bickering from the new "M", Ralph Fiennes, in a more simple, cheaper, Bernard Lee-esque office. It was about time!
That's what annoys me, 'the promise of the first two movies'. As far as I am concerned a film has to offer a lot more than a promise of future goods. It's like lifting the expectation off one film and piling it onto the next. EON did this twice in a row.
Hehehehe, MIND YOU, I have always been very very critical about Judi Dench and her portrayal as "M" ;-).
It's this notion of putting Skyfall on a pedestal (rather pompous, if I may say so) and claiming it to be the best thing since sliced bread that annoys a lot of fans. For the record, I think Skyfall is a pretty light affair that is OTT, especially considering the tone that was setup with Casino Royale and what I thought would carry on through the Craig era. Therefore, Skyfall is pretty jarring in that respect. Curiously, even if you take the films you stated out of the equation, that still does not leave you with a majority. And with LALD and LTK, I think you're pushing it.
I do agree with some here that they tried to "cover up" Skyfall's shortcomings, that have now been well documented, with "thematic layers".
It's a film that tried to appeal the masses, and the critics, and they bought it. But this does not reserve the right for Skyfall to be held in a regard that it is the absolutely best thing to come from the Bond franchise, even objectively speaking, because I feel that it somewhat disregards the rest of its 50 year long history. A lot of the Bond films do the OTT aspect much better.
It's Craig's Thunderball, not Goldfinger in my opinion.
;)
100 percent agree with this.
Not really a solid analogy is it? Michelin Star restaurants and fast food joints compete for different demographics, so the idea of superiority is moot. If I want a greasy kebab the Michelin star restaurant will not suffice, but I wouldn't expect it to.
But if you're keen on running with it I'd describe SF as a restaurant that is desperate for a Michelin star, but in it's struggle to impress fails to keep things simple; forgetting to let the ingredients speak for themselves. Primarily style over substance, a few dishes from 'back in the day', (I'm thinking DB5 a l'orange) and a select few genuinely tasty Hors d'oeuvre.
And those other Bond films, like DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, MR, OP, AVTAK, LTK ,TND, TWINE and DAD? Could you give a poetically sound description of those too ;-)? Love to read your comment.
I'll get back to you when I've written up my 'Michelin Bond' reviews.
SF is the most deeply thematic of the Bonds. It may have been laid on a little thick, but it is the one Bond film in which the subtext was the important part. The plot was secondary, and there is a long history of literature and film in which themes take precedent over plots.
Now imagine how you get treated by some Skyfall defenders if you are Brosnan fan!
I am fan of the Brosnan era, I had to endure a lot of bashing when criticising Skyfall (not on this site).
I am so glad that on this site people are obviously able to have real discussion. It's very nice to be here.
Then, there's the fact that Silva somehow knew they would 'war foot it' and go underground for the new MI6 - and with that, his entire overly implausible and ridiculous, straight from 'The Dark Knight' capture and escape plan. Might not be a plot hole, but Bond's attempt to save M during the finale is a joke: they won't bring anyone else to assist because M doesn't want anyone else dying for her, but he won't take any gadgets or guns or firearms or anything to prepare. Instead, he takes her to his childhood home, riding on the remote possibility that the gun room still exists. They don't want to call in a drone or air support or even some carefully hidden snipers who could be entirely out of harm's way? Just seems totally contrived, just to set up that Home Alone-esque finale.
I can beat that. I have been told that I can't be a Bond fan, just because I don't like the Craig era, on any level. Which I thought was funny, actually, considering the backlash that Craig's casting was met with (which I wasn't part of), yet I get that kind of reaction.
And Skyfall being likened to a 3 star Michelin restaurant... no. It's more like a McDonalds without the big 'M' outside, and it doesn't sell any burgers, yet it keeps telling me it's a McDonalds.
You may have a point there, interesting analysis.
As for Dench I can tell you how I feel about it (if I am representative to speak for many is another question...lol )
I liked Dench immediately in Goldeneye and have been a fan of her M and her as an actress ever since. "National Treasure"? For me, yes, that could be said.
I absolutely am aghast that the producers and/or writer's wanted to kill her off. And if they had to do it she should have had a meaningful death, possibly "saving the world" or something like that, or save Q or Moneypenny.
But what did we get: M acted throughout Skyfall like an imbecile and practically invited Silva to get her. THIS I will never forgive, and I consider myself a very tolerant person.
Other than that I have very few quarrels with the Bond franchise, nothing on that level anyway.
@Creasy47 You may not like those plot development you mentioned, but those aren't plot holes.
Absolutely agree. "Skyfall" is also a very good document about current-day espionage in our geopolitical environment. The Julian Assange-esque villain Silva and the way he 'plays' with top secret espionage information is entirely believable. And even more scary if you use examples like last year's SonyLeaks.....or cyber warfare on the whole. The theme is centered on "M"s speech as well. Just analize it and be stunned how.....how unique lines like these in the Bond franchise:
Now, earlier in my post I have been very critical of the realism surrounding Judi Dench's character. And that criticism still stands. But the above lines uttered by Judi Dench are art. And they perfectly explain why now in "SPECTRE" we will see the return of such an a-political crime syndicate. An invention made by Ian Fleming, that still works in today's geopolitical environment.
All of the above is what makes "Skyfall" set apart from all other Bond films, "OHMSS" and "Casino Royale" included. Thematically it's the richest Bond film to date. I'm bloody damn certain: Ian Fleming must have felt so proud of this particular Bond entry. And we still have to see if "SPECTRE" can match that.
Espionage, thus Bond films, have never been so relevant as during this Craig era.
Now what do you call a vast majority?? out of 23 movies or 24 if NSNA counts?
I don't see how Skyfall can be placed higher than No 9 in any list?
Where do you put it and more importantly, which Connery movies are not better than Skyfall? (except DAF of course)
I didn't like the film. Others did. We can argue our sides of it until the end of time but nothing will change.
I've been a Bond fan since 1977 and I prefer CR & SF over all the Connery's now tell me I can't place it that high.