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

1568101117

Comments

  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    Directing Bond films and directing films in general are not the same thing. Exhibit A: Marc Forster vs Martin Campbell. Forster's non-Bond credentials are great, but Campbell undoubtedly outclassed him on Bond films.
  • Posts: 4,619
    RC7 wrote: »
    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.
    It's an opinion like saying "North by Northwest" is a better movie than "Plan 9 from Outer Space".
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    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.
    It's an opinion like saying "North by Northwest" is a better movie than "Plan 9 from Outer Space".

    No, it's not.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    RC7 wrote: »
    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.

    I have always viewed LALD very highly, but for me it lives in that area between top tier and just another bond outing. It definately has some of the requisite invention and ingenuity of a classic. The crocodile sequence for instance is utterly bondian. I think the villian, while acted well, is a little jumbled. The best bond villains have very simple motivations and characterisations. Think Goldfinger, scaramanga. Also, I think there is one chase to many. They seem to happen not to advance the plot but to prevent the pace from slowing. I would have liked a more diverse range of action, but I think the producers realised that Moore wasn't the most physical actor.

    That being said, I think Moore gives his best performance here, BEFORE he figured out his own interpretation of the character. I just love Baron Samedi, a real fleming strangeness and yet makes sense in the context of the story. He doesn't inhabit the story so much as haunt it. The plot itself is so low-key that it feels like a throwback to the pregoldfinger days. People remember LALD as the one with all the voodoo and mysticism but really its just about drugs. It has one of the most realistic evil plans of the lot. Its definitely my favourite Moore film.
  • Posts: 4,619
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    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.
    It's an opinion like saying "North by Northwest" is a better movie than "Plan 9 from Outer Space".

    No, it's not.
    I'm not here to preach. You either see the bigger picture or you don't. A lot of Bond fans can't see the wood for the trees. The ones who can will know what I'm talking about.
  • Posts: 232
    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.

    I'd pull Campbell from the mix there (some good stuff in GE, but I still find CR to be infuriatingly ill-conceived and executed, not just on casting but pretty much everything), but certainly Young above all others, and also Hunt.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    trevanian wrote: »
    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.

    I'd pull Campbell from the mix there (some good stuff in GE, but I still find CR to be infuriatingly ill-conceived and executed, not just on casting but pretty much everything), but certainly Young above all others, and also Hunt.

    I agree, CR is prob the most overrated of the series. I really like the middle act, but the ending is botched completely for me. It's easy to find people that are offended by this view, especially whose bent on critical uniformity
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote: »
    To be honest, saying this as someone who is sat on the fence when it comes to Skyfall, comments like that are what I think irritates the Skyfall detractors.
    Skyfall does have its flaws, it's not even the best movie of 2012, but comparing it to movies like DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, MR, OP, AVTAK, LTK ,TND, TWINE and DAD is exactly like comparing a three Michelin starred restaurant to a run-down fast food establishment. Some may say that the fast food establishment is the better one, but they are clearly in the wrong. What they should say is this: "yes, i do realise that the three Michelin starred restaurant is superior in just about every respect, but I still prefer to eat in this McDonald's".

    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.

    Brilliant come back @RC7. Spot on.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    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.
    It's an opinion like saying "North by Northwest" is a better movie than "Plan 9 from Outer Space".

    No, it's not.
    I'm not here to preach.

    You're doing a mighty fine job of it.
    Getafix wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    To be honest, saying this as someone who is sat on the fence when it comes to Skyfall, comments like that are what I think irritates the Skyfall detractors.
    Skyfall does have its flaws, it's not even the best movie of 2012, but comparing it to movies like DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, MR, OP, AVTAK, LTK ,TND, TWINE and DAD is exactly like comparing a three Michelin starred restaurant to a run-down fast food establishment. Some may say that the fast food establishment is the better one, but they are clearly in the wrong. What they should say is this: "yes, i do realise that the three Michelin starred restaurant is superior in just about every respect, but I still prefer to eat in this McDonald's".

    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.

    Brilliant come back @RC7. Spot on.

    Thank you.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited July 2015 Posts: 40,976
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    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.
    It's an opinion like saying "North by Northwest" is a better movie than "Plan 9 from Outer Space".

    No, it's not.
    I'm not here to preach.

    You're doing a mighty fine job of it.

    Seems to me that that is exactly what's going on.

  • Posts: 498
    , and most importantly, they just "get" Bond.

    I whole heartedly agree with this
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited July 2015 Posts: 4,585
    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?

    @Sark @RC7 Have you ever seen Blue Velvet? Indeed, themes (and subtext) are often a substitute for plot.

    Now, SF is far from being a David Lynch film, but the plot of SF is perfectly fine within the scope of the Bond universe. What is different is the added thematic layers of paradigm shifts, old vs new, feelings of being obsolete, knowing where you have been to understand where you are going. These deeply personal (and psychological) themes have never been explored in a Bond film before. They resonated too, as Bond's BO numbers were fueled by older audiences, like me, who could "identify" with Bond, on a personal level, for the very first time.


  • edited July 2015 Posts: 4,619
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Seems to me that that is exactly what's going on.
    There is nothing wrong with not liking a specific film, and even if there was, I couldn't care less whether people I have never met like a movie or not. By the way, there are some well-regarded films I do not like, but not liking these films doesn't stop me from recognizing why they are considered great.

    Also, most people here judge Bond films based on what they envisioned as "the perfect Bond formula". The closer a Bond film to their "perfect Bond formula" is, the more they will like it. I do not care about any of that. I see the bigger picture.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 11,425
    trevanian wrote: »
    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.

    I'd pull Campbell from the mix there (some good stuff in GE, but I still find CR to be infuriatingly ill-conceived and executed, not just on casting but pretty much everything), but certainly Young above all others, and also Hunt.

    I agree, CR is prob the most overrated of the series. I really like the middle act, but the ending is botched completely for me. It's easy to find people that are offended by this view, especially whose bent on critical uniformity

    I don't mind the end of CR but am not a fan of the Miami airport sequence - that's the bit that could have been cut IMHO.

    CR is a good Bond movie. Not a personal favourite but I rate it.

    Funny though that for me it's as if GE and CR were made by completely different people.

    I also wouldn't say Campbell gets Bond from my perspective. I've always felt GE is a very weak movie. CR is not a traditional Bond film but that's one of the things that makes it so fresh.

    GE tried to be a classic Roger movie but failed (IMO). CR is a reboot and reimagination and works very well.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @PanchitoPistoles, but if there's nothing wrong with liking a specific film, why is it that if you don't like SF as much as most of the other Bond films, then you don't know much about cinema? Seems like an unrealistic and unfair assessment to me. Like I've said, GE is my favorite and I'll defend it until I die, but if someone doesn't like it, then they don't like it. I don't undermine or belittle people for not enjoying it, or enjoying the Brosnan era, or enjoying any other Bond film that I deem as one of my favorites.
  • 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
    @Creasy47 He seems to judge the films on the basis on how well-made they are. That's perfectly fine, but it's important not to forget that SF or GE or whatever are part of a franchise, thus most people will judge the films on what they expect from these films - gadgets, humour, action, locations and whatnot. It's like ranking the Rambo films as which one is better made. No one does, they just rank it by amount of badass kills and epicness of Stallone. Sure Bond films are more artistic than Rambo films, but IMO Bond films should never be judged in the same way as you judge Saving Private Ryan versus The Godfather. They were, are and will never in the same league. Bond films are entertainment blockbusters, they don't aim to win Oscar's or what have you. They aim to respect the legacy of Fleming and the film franchise that came from it. No matter how high the filmmaking values a Bond film can aim, winning Oscar's is not the main motivation to make a Bond film, IMO.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited July 2015 Posts: 4,585
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @PanchitoPistoles, but if there's nothing wrong with liking a specific film, why is it that if you don't like SF as much as most of the other Bond films, then you don't know much about cinema? Seems like an unrealistic and unfair assessment to me. Like I've said, GE is my favorite and I'll defend it until I die, but if someone doesn't like it, then they don't like it. I don't undermine or belittle people for not enjoying it, or enjoying the Brosnan era, or enjoying any other Bond film that I deem as one of my favorites.

    Part of it is a pre-supposition by some of us that there were Bond fans going into that film wanting to dislike it. They already didn't like DC, certainly didn't like Mendes directing it, didn't like Newman scoring it, didn't like Adele doing the theme, etc. They went into the theater looking for flaws. It's like how Obama was the "worst U.S. President ever" before he'd even been sworn in.

    Now, that is probably NOT true of those critical of SF on these boards; but since this is a medium that makes nuance and personal connections very difficult, some posters might bring that "well, they hated it before even seeing it" baggage into the forum. LOL

    For me, it's tough to swallow the "plot holes" arguments, because this is, after all, a James Bond film. For me, the best criticism of SF is its lack of international intrigue; Silva's plan to "out" operatives is, at first, an international crisis and very stirring. But it devolves into personal vendetta. This didn 't bother me too much, but I can see how it bother others.

  • Posts: 11,425
    @Creasy47 He seems to judge the films on the basis on how well-made they are. That's perfectly fine, but it's important not to forget that SF or GE or whatever are part of a franchise, thus most people will judge the films on what they expect from these films - gadgets, humour, action, locations and whatnot. It's like ranking the Rambo films as which one is better made. No one does, they just rank it by amount of badass kills and epicness of Stallone. Sure Bond films are more artistic than Rambo films, but IMO Bond films should never be judged in the same way as you judge Saving Private Ryan versus The Godfather. They were, are and will never in the same league. Bond films are entertainment blockbusters, they don't aim to win Oscar's or what have you. They aim to respect the legacy of Fleming and the film franchise that came from it. No matter how high the filmmaking values a Bond film can aim, winning Oscar's is not the main motivation to make a Bond film, IMO.

    I am all for Bond films having excellent production values, but great cinematography and a feast of interesting themes don't make it a good Bond film, or even a good film full stop.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 2,015
    TripAces wrote: »
    What is different is the added thematic layers of paradigm shifts, old vs new, feelings of being obsolete, knowing where you have been to understand where you are going.

    A layer ? IMO The "old vs new" theme in Skyfall is more a bump, a bubble in the layers, I mean something that's so blatantly put in your face (it's said several times by the characters !) that it somehow makes you feel like you're treated like an idiot.

    I'm okay with some food for thought message hidden under the sugar (like well for instance, the little message about the danger of mass surveillance in Captain America : The Winter Soldier, it was only a few minutes here and there, no patronizing). But here it seems Mendes wanted to be sure the audience understood there was something underneath the eye candy. Hardly subtle.

  • edited July 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Skyfall bludgeons the audience over the head with its tedious themes. The Fighting Temeraire and the Tennyson read over the bl**dy film are like being slapped round the face by an A-level English Lit student.

    I mean, is it possible to actually be more clunky and less subtle?
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    Getafix wrote: »
    Skyfall bludgeons the audience over the head with its tedious themes. The Fighting Temeraire and the Tennyson read over the bl**dy film are like being slapped round the face by an A-level English Lit student.

    I mean, is it possible to actually be more clunky and less subtle?

    And those are valid criticisms.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 11,425
    I hate the Tennyson bit. One of the worst bits of filmmaking I've ever seen. I think it's exacerbated by how annoying I find Dench as M and the absurdity of her attitude infront of the committee. She should be grovelling for forgiveness (she's supposed to be a civil servant) but is instead lecturing the politicians who are (correctly) questioning her competence. It's one of the most infuriating, daft sequences in the entire Bond series. And another example of how poorly written and incoherent the film is. If you actually stop to think about practically any element of the plot or the character motivations or actions, the whole thing just falls apart.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 11,189
    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.

    You aren't alone. I'd be more or less content with that. The only Connery film that could possibly be above those two (for me) is From Russia With Love. A classic in every sense of the word.
  • RC7RC7
    edited July 2015 Posts: 10,512
    TripAces wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @PanchitoPistoles, but if there's nothing wrong with liking a specific film, why is it that if you don't like SF as much as most of the other Bond films, then you don't know much about cinema? Seems like an unrealistic and unfair assessment to me. Like I've said, GE is my favorite and I'll defend it until I die, but if someone doesn't like it, then they don't like it. I don't undermine or belittle people for not enjoying it, or enjoying the Brosnan era, or enjoying any other Bond film that I deem as one of my favorites.

    Part of it is a pre-supposition by some of us that there were Bond fans going into that film wanting to dislike it. They already didn't like DC, certainly didn't like Mendes directing it, didn't like Newman scoring it, didn't like Adele doing the theme, etc. They went into the theater looking for flaws. It's like how Obama was the "worst U.S. President ever" before he'd even been sworn in.

    Nonsense.

  • Posts: 11,119
    Getafix wrote: »
    I hate the Tennyson bit. One of the worst bits of filmmaking I've ever seen. I think it's exacerbated by how annoying I find Dench as M and the absurdity of her attitude infront of the committee. She should be grovelling for forgiveness (she's supposed to be a civil servant) but is instead lecturing the politicians who are (correctly) questioning her competence. It's one of the most infuriating, daft sequences in the entire Bond series. And another example of how poorly written and incoherent the film is. If you actually stop to think about practically any element of the plot or the character motivations or actions, the whole thing just falls apart.

    More daft than Bond and Holly entering a space-shuttle and "suddenly" finding one hell of a space station that both the NASA and the Russian Space Administration never noticed during its construction??

    I think you're using....well......at least some hyperboles. I mean come on, even I would defend my own actions, even in front of a committee. That's an aspect you tend to forget. Even in our democracy government officials don't go to a public hearing to let themselves walk over completely.

    I fully agree with you that Judi Dench' reign as "M" was over-the-top and unrealistic at times. Just read some of my posts back. But it's at least more realistic than a frikkin' insanely big space station in geostationary orbit. On top of that, "M"s ludicrous reign and its subsequent globetrotting didn't kick off in "Skyfall". It started with "TWINE", and was made worse in "DAD" (North-Korea), "CR" (Bahama's) and "QOS" (Bolivia).

    Having said all that, I think it was a marvellous cinematic experience hearing and seeing "M" citing Tennyson....and actually, at that moment, being completely correct and realistic about the importance of espionage!
  • The criticism about Tennyson is not at all about the fact being in front of a committee is not realistic, it's about the use of the voiceover, reading a poem while the image shows the hero in a mute scene, etc... Hardly subtle. More like French cinema without any budget :)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited July 2015 Posts: 40,976
    So because it's a Bond film, plot holes are A-okay and totally acceptable?

    And if it's not clear, I've really enjoyed the Craig era, LOVED CR and QoS (and I've loved the latter since I first saw it), and most certainly did not go into SF with the intent of hating it or being disappointed.
  • Posts: 11,119
    The criticism about Tennyson is not at all about the fact being in front of a committee is not realistic, it's about the use of the voiceover, reading a poem while the image shows the hero in a mute scene, etc... Hardly subtle. More like French cinema without any budget :)

    Do you ever have....ehm....something positive to say about a Bond film? Especially in your case you only seem to be here for the sake of.........'the bad and the ugly'.
  • Posts: 4,619
    Yes, there isn't anything subtle about the Tennyson scene. Big and bold, it's Mendes doubling down. It is an unusual scene for a Bond film, and it's one of the defining scenes of the franchise.
  • Posts: 498
    The criticism about Tennyson is not at all about the fact being in front of a committee is not realistic, it's about the use of the voiceover, reading a poem while the image shows the hero in a mute scene, etc... Hardly subtle. More like French cinema without any budget :)

    Do you ever have....ehm....something positive to say about a Bond film? Especially in your case you only seem to be here for the sake of.........'the bad and the ugly'.

    Just because you regard a scene to be great its not necessary that others will see eye to eye with that ..
Sign In or Register to comment.