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
Okay, I'm being a bit OTT myself, but I really find the context and way in which M addresses the committee really annoying. The whole sequence sucks. You're right that she shouldn't roll over actually, but there should be contrition. One of my main criticisms of the film from the start is how/why is M so totally incompetent all the way through and yet she behaves like nothing's wrong. And like you mention @GustavGraves, it's part of a pattern with Dench's M that she's this interfering, incompetent, mummy with trust issues.
Why does she order the shot at the start (her best agent is actively engaging the enemy - surely leave him to it rather than ask your rooky agent to take a pot shot? ) . That's after her saying to Bond at the end of QoS that she needs him back. Right from the beginning her actions are just absurd and all over the place. I wouldn't mind if she was depicted as clearly past it, but you're supposed to empathise with her - feel she's a patriot doing her job, when actually she's just a right pain in the a**.
Oh and I hate the way Silva is deterred from killing M in the committee room by a few fire extinguishers. He has this elaborate plan and then the moment the Fire extinguishers go off he's out of there - 'ooh, no the fire extinguishers!'
I could go on and on. It's such a badly written and conceived load of nonsense.
I beg to differ. It's clunky and not very well done.
Bond running out of the tube station and amongst the chaos outside is probably one of my favourite shots in the series.
For the defenders: what do you think of the criticism that just about everyone at MI6 is incompetent in SF? Eve shooting Bond and not taking a second shot (its not a damn muzzleloader!), Bond being out of shape, Q plugging an infected computer into the MI6 network (a computer belonging to someone who already hacked them before!!) Etc.
No, but I'm sure the Bond villain will be the highlight of this film and, so far, of all three Craig films. Acting is also what sets this films apart from other Bond films.
Well we've been called idiots, people not being able to understand the big picture, people going to the theaters having already decided we would hate Skyfall, we learnt that we're fan of a franchise that waited for more than 50 years before producing something close to a good movie, etc, etc.. and we're the negative ones ?
I find that most of the Bond movies hit the magic genre button far more than Skyfall, that shows you how more positive I am about the Bond franchise, compared to some :) And as far as going meta goes about Bond, I actually find the Adi Shankar project more interesting than the Mendes one, and well I really mean it !
Hence why I like AVTAK, but I get told off for that.
1. I didn't have a problem with Eve not taking the second shot. She was horrified that she shot Bond, making her momentarily stunned, and the opportunity to fire off the second shot was quickly gone. This didn't go unnoticed. She was removed from fieldwork.
2. Bond is out of shape for a reason...I think you mean: MI6 sending him out oin assignment despite him not passing tests? I think M used instinct here over test results. Again: this speaks to one of the themes of the film. At what point to you go with your gut over what a computer tells you?
3. Q is inexperienced and a bit arrogant. He doesn't think his own safety protocols could possibly get overrun. It'll be interesting to see how much he may change in SP.
I have also heard a lot of criticism regarding Bond taking M, only for her to get killed. That move was more or less sanctioned by Mallory. Again: it speaks to the theme of trusting one's instinct over playing by the book. I liked Bond's cajones here.
One of the best defences of SF I have read!
I have no problem with anyone liking SF, I just found the absurdly OTT reviews and praise annoying. For me it is a film riddled with flaws, all of which were evident on first viewing and all of which took me out of the film.
Many Bond films have flaws and I am one of those who can usually overlook them, but With SF for some reason I couldn't. May be, rather than being head and shoulders above all the other films, SF is not so different from a lot of them - flawed but very popular amongst a large number of people.
Yes but you're not on a quest to prove to others that your partner is better than the others girls on just about every detail you can think of :) Come on, just look at the title of this thread, it's clearly hinted by some you have to be a bit weird not to like Skyfall it seems !
And despite the claim only "small fan circles" do not see the masterpiece in Skyfall, I think IMO now that for the general audience, now that the buzz is a bit over, Casino Royale is back as the "best Craig Bond movie".
Casino Royale was never gone. At least in my surroundings even after Skyfall hit the theaters, the general consensus was that Skyfall is great, but not as great as CR.
Nowadays when I talk about Bond with my soccer-colleagues, work-colleagues or friends Skyfall never comes up as one of the best, but CR does.
I expect SP to be the best Bond in decades....
Agree with both of yoU. I think SF is one of those moments when the stars align and a mega hit emerges, a bit like Thunderball. But when the dust settles is either film the best by their respective Bonds? I don't think so.
And that is a perfectly legit criticism. However, I will correct you on one thing: ALL Bond films have flaws.
SF worked for me because of the film's themes, its cinematography and set design, the acting (getting Bardem as a villain was a major coup!), some great scenes (Q and Bond in the museum, Bond and Moneypenny in Macau, Bond and Severine in the casino), Newman's score (worked brilliantly with many of the shots in the film--the Shanghai overhead, Bond's view of Severine from the window, the boat ride to the casino, the approach to the island, the drive through the Scottish countryside, Bond looking out over London at the end).
I'll give you this. The final act of SF was ho-hum. When I watch it now, I skip through the final "battle" at Skyfall. It doesn't hold my interest. Nevertheless, the first 3/4 of SF are as good as it gets. I like Bond films not necessarily for the "action" but because of the character himself. I think we all agree on this: he is so friggin' cool! At many times, SF was Bond at his very coolest. I thought DC was great in this film. And the atmosphere of SF (the world of it) fit DC's Bond perfectly.
I love QOS, too!
Agreed on Thunderball. A lot of great, classic moments, but the pacing is a bit off at times.
Indeed.
Most of the "plot holes" in SF can best be explained away by this single quote.
I think that was more about timing. Silva may have slowed down a bit intentionally so that Bond would catch up.
What makes you think that was the only boobytrap he had? He may have had at least a dozen planted. The point is, Silva's ability to "point and click" is what causes the fear; to the point that everyone thinks everything is being controlled, even when it isn't.
I love Fleming. I also love the Connery/Young Bond and how Dalton seemed to capture something from the books. So I probably should be precisely this audience you describe, and yet SKYFALL is for me just about completely unwatchable. What you consider deep psychological themes comes off to me like a sharp teenager reading his first LeCarre and deciding to 'improve' on it. In terms of emotional complexity, sad as it is to say, Admiral Kirk's midlife crisis in the second TREK movie has got more going on than this thing.
I've read at least as much glowing criticism of CR and SF as I've written desparagingly of same, and I'm no closer to understanding -- not even a glimmer -- what really grabbed you folks about it. QUANTUM at least has a few quiet moments that evoke something like Fleming, just a little, but in these others, there is not a single time that I found myself nodding my head, or getting onboard with ANYTHING happening. And that can't all JUST be because I don't want or accept Craig in the role. If it were, I wouldn't have been able to watch QUANTUM at least a dozen times by now.
Everyone's going to have their own take.
If all of the fans on these boards thought alike, we'd be a cult and not a community. ;-)
@trevanian, I feel the same. I was willing myself to like SF. For the first hour or so I found it tolerable, but once they leave Silva's Island it turns into a total (underground) train wreck. As a whole, I find it one of the least watchable Bond movies. I also find QoS actually the best of the three Craig films, at least in terms of watchability. I don't dislike CR as much as you, but it certainly doesn't blow me away - not really a huge fan of Cambell's directing.
It's annoying, because I like the intent behind a lot of SF, but just find the end product really poorly delivered. Like you I find the 'complexity' really undercooked. It's like Mendes just trowled on some undergraduate 'theme sauce' and a bit of psychological insight gleaned from 'TV Now', and thinks he can pull the wool over everyone's eyes that this is a superior form of movie making. I know a good Bond movie when I see one, and I also enjoy good art house, or even clever, knowing pop crossover between the two, and SF ain't any of them.
and it worked.
True I guess. Really feel like its a case of the Emperors New Clothes
There are plenty people around that were rather disappointed after seeing Skyfall. Everybody I know found it to be good of course and one of the better Bond movies but nowhere near the Top popular movies like Goldfinger, FRWL, TSWLM or CR.
Anyway, that's what I can say about my surroundings (work, soccer-club, friends, family).
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.