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

145791017

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Are we really to the point of undermining one another because someone doesn't like a film that you love? I've seen countless people trash GE on here, yet I never speak against them and belittle their film knowledge. I pride myself on being a major movie buff, so because it's one of my lesser liked Bond films, I don't know much about cinema? Sound logic right there. That's exactly why I tread carefully and hardly speak up against SF, because it always turns nasty to a degree when I do.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I place it at no. 2 and OHMSS is no. 1 so I can place it where I damn well please.

    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.

    Sure you can, what I meant is in general consensus.

    Do I blame anyone for thinking I'm crazy having Die Another Day in my Top 10? Nope, but I'd never say it is general consensus that DAD is a Top 10 Bond movie.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Are we really to the point of undermining one another because someone doesn't like a film that you love? I've seen countless people trash GE on here, yet I never speak against them and belittle their film knowledge. I pride myself on being a major movie buff, so because it's one of my lesser liked Bond films, I don't know much about cinema? Sound logic right there. That's exactly why I tread carefully and hardly speak up against SF, because it always turns nasty to a degree when I do.

    Have you read....my previous nuanced post then ;-)?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I place it at no. 2 and OHMSS is no. 1 so I can place it where I damn well please.

    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.

    Quite right @Shardlake
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited July 2015 Posts: 17,800
    Shardlake wrote: »
    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.
    tumblr_inline_nj44tkzzEQ1t9y4lk.jpg
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 4,617
    The point about subtext is spot in. It took me time as a movie fan to start appreciating movies for their subtext rather than main plot and its like discovering movies all over again and if you liked them originally, you love them even more.

    "in the end, there has to be a central theme..a central idea and in this movie, more than any other Bond I can think of there is a central idea..which is the idea of their relationship...to this mother character and I can't think of another Bond movie where this has run so strongly, absolutely like a stick of rock so even whilst everything is going on, even whilst your getting all the tourist stuff, even whilst you're getting all the spectacular set pieces, the jokes and all the stuff that everyone likes, at the heart of it is an idea and the idea of it as a kind of "mummy dearest", quite twisted, quite oedipal weird thing going on." M Kermode
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    The point about subtext is spot in. It took me time as a movie fan to start appreciating movies for their subtext rather than main plot and its like discovering movies all over again and if you liked them originally, you love them even more.

    "in the end, there has to be a central theme..a central idea and in this movie, more than any other Bond I can think of there is a central idea..which is the idea of their relationship...to this mother character and I can't think of another Bond movie where this has run so strongly, absolutely like a stick of rock so even whilst everything is going on, even whilst your getting all the tourist stuff, even whilst you're getting all the spectacular set pieces, the jokes and all the stuff that everyone likes, at the heart of it is an idea and the idea of it as a kind of "mummy dearest", quite twisted, quite oedipal weird thing going on." M Kermode

    Subtext isn't there to be appreciated, 'rather' than the plot or story, it's there to enhance it. Subtext without plot leaves you with the Matrix sequels. Visually impressive, but lacking the thrust of the original, which is a superb story.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2015 Posts: 15,718
    IMO, Silva's plan in SF is like Jeremy Irons' plan in Die Hard 3. Irons managed to plant his fake bomb in the school of Samuel L Jackson's nephews while the odds of Jackson and Bruce Willis teaming up together at the start of the mission were astronomical. But while DH3 is loud, bombastic fun, SF takes itself a lot more seriously.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    IMO, Silva's plan in SF is like Jeremy Irons' plan in Die Hard 3. Irons managed to plant his fake bomb in the school of Samuel L Jackson's nephews while the odds of Jackson and Bruce Willis teaming up together at the start of the mission were astronomical. But while DH3 is loud, bombastic fun, SF takes itself a lot more seriously.

    But dat film did not av theeeems!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Some people like lyrics to their songs, and some people couldn't care less and just want a nice sounding track. Some people alternate depending on their mood. Sometimes a tune is so darn good that the lyrics become secondary. Same with films. Creative art is a strange thing sometimes in how it impacts us. To each their own.

    I liked SF but it's lacking in some plot coherence certainly. That didn't spoil it for me because I liked everything else about the film, especially the visuals and the dialogue.

    In this case, to carry the analogy forward, I liked the tune, even though the lyrics might have been lacking in some instances.
  • Posts: 4,617
    James Bond: So this is it. We're both played out.
    M: Well, if you believe that, why did you come back?
    James Bond: Good question.
    M: Because we're under attack. And you know we need you.

    If you go down the Kermode route, Bond came back to help M personally, not "we": by avoiding answering the question, it hints that he himself is either unsure of the answer at that time or uncomfortable in admitting that he came back to help her. And later we learn that it is M that needs help as the vendetta is against her as an individual rather than "we"
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2015 Posts: 15,718
    The Bond franchise is really it's own animal in terms of fanbase. For example I am sure a vast majority of Star Wars fan prefer the original trilogy, or most Die Hard fans prefer the 1988 film, or nearly all Indiana Jones fan would agree the 4th outing is rubbish compared to the original 3. But as for Bond, the fanbase is so diverse that if you say SF, GF, GE or TSWLM is the best Bond film and half the fan base would disagree with you. The only certainty I can see is DAD is shit, yet I wouldn't be surprised if outside the hardcore fans community you can find many people who appreciate that film.

    Just like The Beatles vs Rolling Stones, or Michael Schumacher vs Ayrton Senna, or Roger Federer vs Rafael Nadal, we will never get close to an understanding on which Bond film is universally considered the best.
  • Posts: 4,617
    "The only certainty I can see is DAD is shit,"...as night follows day
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    "The only certainty I can see is DAD is shit,"...as night follows day

    I would insert complete before "sh.." and then I'm in agreement...

  • edited July 2015 Posts: 2,015
    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.

    For me Skyfall is more like Starbucks. Nice place, but don't think too much about the food :)
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    Pretty funny the notion that if you don't think SF is one if the best Bond films ever you don't know about movies. Since when are themes a substitute for plot?
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 4,619
    Sark wrote: »
    Pretty funny the notion that if you don't think SF is one if the best Bond films ever you don't know about movies. Since when are themes a substitute for plot?
    Forget about the plot for a second and try to look at the big picture. Directing, cinematgraphy, acting, editing, production design, music, etc. Yes, the plot is important, but these are films, not novels.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    Yes, all those things are great or at least good in SF. That's what makes it such a frustrating movie for me.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2015 Posts: 15,718
    Sark wrote: »
    Pretty funny the notion that if you don't think SF is one if the best Bond films ever you don't know about movies. Since when are themes a substitute for plot?
    Forget about the plot for a second and try to look at the big picture. Directing, cinematgraphy, acting, editing, production design, music, etc. Yes, the plot is important, but these are films, not novels.

    Yes, but not always. If everyone ranked the Bond films by their cinematic qualities, nearly everyone would have the same ranking. Saying which Bond film is the best 'Bond film' (and not 'film') is not an exact science.

    You are basically saying that people should rank the Expendables films by their cinematic values, while nearly everyone would rank them by the amount of kills and badassery of the main cast.

    @chrisisall could rank TND higher than SF for example. Why? better gadgets, more humour, more action. Maybe TND is what he expects more from a Bond film. Everyone ranks the films based on different aspects.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    Most Bond films have excellent cinematography (DN, FRWL, TB, YOLT, OHMSS, TMWTGG, TSWLM, MR, FYEO, TND, CR, QOS), acting (for the most part), editing (bar QOS), production design (done so much better in the 60s and early 70s thanks to you know who), music (Barry?)...

    What makes Skyfall so special?
  • Posts: 4,617
    It's in the eye of the beholder, if you watch a movie and don't think its special, little others will say will convince you that it is (like a bottle of wine) you either appreciate its qualities or you don't. I would be interested to hear from any forum members whose opinion on SF has been changed as a direct consequence of reading these threads. I cant think of any comments on this thread that would prevent me from loving SF and I can appreciate the flipside view. (which kinda means we are wasting each others time but in a good way)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    It's in the eye of the beholder

    Precisely. Hence why the idea that you 'have' to accept that SF is superior to the vast majority of Bond films is incorrect.
  • Posts: 4,619
    Most Bond films have excellent cinematography (DN, FRWL, TB, YOLT, OHMSS, TMWTGG, TSWLM, MR, FYEO, TND, CR, QOS), acting (for the most part), editing (bar QOS), production design (done so much better in the 60s and early 70s thanks to you know who), music (Barry?)...

    What makes Skyfall so special?
    What makes Skyfall one of the best movies within the Bond franchise is how well it is put together compared to most Bond films. What makes it special is that it's probably the only Bond film that wasn't directed by a journeyman... and it shows.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    Mendes doesn't hold a candle to Young, Hunt and Campbell. They did more for Bond franchise as a whole, and most importantly, they just "get" Bond.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Mendes doesn't hold a candle to Young, Hunt and Campbell. They did more for Bond franchise as a whole, and most importantly, they just "get" Bond.

    Seconded and bang on 100%.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Mendes doesn't hold a candle to Young, Hunt and Campbell. They did more for Bond franchise as a whole, and most importantly, they just "get" Bond.

    Totally agree. I'd put Hamilton in there too. GF and LALD are top tier for me and utterly iconic.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 2,015
    What makes it special is that it's probably the only Bond film that wasn't directed by a journeyman... and it shows.

    There's "James Bond : In Service Of Nothing" produced by Adi Shankar, that is even more divisive. Here you don't have all the eye candy to make it "nice", it's really a matter of liking the theme or not.

    I'd say Skyfall is full of sugar that makes it easy to like by many (the photography looks like it was designed for a Blu-Ray demo, IMO), but that even in the non-fan crowd, Casino Royale is still judged like the real masterpiece of Craig's tenure, because it tastes so good even though there's not as much sugar and despite the fact that not all the ingredients are first-rate on their own. We'll see if Spectre is perceived as an overdose of sugar or not !

    One cannot help to notice that possibly the only masterpiece of the last 25 years, CR, is the only one based on a story by Fleming... And that SF's biggest criticism IMO is the plot (and some lack of action when you read the general crowd's reaction).
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Mendes doesn't hold a candle to Young, Hunt and Campbell. They did more for Bond franchise as a whole, and most importantly, they just "get" Bond.

    Not defending Mendes work in Skyfall, but I think we should give him another chance, maybe he does it better with Spectre, of course he'll never reach the heights of Martin Campbell who did two of the 5 best Bond movies in my opinion.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 4,619
    Mendes doesn't hold a candle to Young, Hunt and Campbell.
    You don't see the bigger picture. You may like Skyfall less than OHMSS, CR, GE and the Bond films by Young, but that doesn't change the fact that Mendes is by far the greatest director among the four of them, and the only one who is more than a journeyman director.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    You may like Skyfall less than OHMSS and the Bond films by Young, but that doesn't change the fact that Mendes is by far the greatest director among the three of them

    Opinion.
Sign In or Register to comment.