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

1679111217

Comments

  • edited July 2015 Posts: 11,425
    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!

    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.
    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.

    I beg to differ. It's clunky and not very well done.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 11,189
    It felt pretty epic to me in the cinema, that's all I can say.

    Bond running out of the tube station and amongst the chaos outside is probably one of my favourite shots in the series.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    Im sure in 20 years when people are talking about cool scenes from action movies someone will say 'remember that time M quoted Tennyson in a committee hearing?'

    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.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Sark wrote: »
    Im sure in 20 years when people are talking about cool scenes from action movies someone will say 'remember that time M quoted Tennyson in a committee hearing?'

    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.
  • 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'.

    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 !
  • Posts: 4,617
    Sometimes there is little or not rationality in what we like or love. All of the points made above are perfectly correct from a rational point of view and I know them anyway. M was hopeless, fire extinguishers dont put off proffessional killers, poetry is not acceptable within a commitee hearing, IT experts dont plug seized laptops into their own network etc etc. I cant argue with any of these from a rational and factual perspective. I could add a load more. But I still like it , I really like it. Perhaps, as with a classic car or dare I say it, your partner, you love something despite its imperfections.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    Sometimes there is little or not rationality in what we like or love. All of the points made above are perfectly correct from a rational point of view and I know them anyway. M was hopeless, fire extinguishers dont put off proffessional killers, poetry is not acceptable within a commitee hearing, IT experts dont plug seized laptops into their own network etc etc. I cant argue with any of these from a rational and factual perspective. I could add a load more. But I still like it , I really like it. Perhaps, as with a classic car or dare I say it, your partner, you love something despite its imperfections.

    Hence why I like AVTAK, but I get told off for that.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    Sark wrote: »
    Im sure in 20 years when people are talking about cool scenes from action movies someone will say 'remember that time M quoted Tennyson in a committee hearing?'

    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.

    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.

  • Posts: 11,425
    patb wrote: »
    Sometimes there is little or not rationality in what we like or love. All of the points made above are perfectly correct from a rational point of view and I know them anyway. M was hopeless, fire extinguishers dont put off proffessional killers, poetry is not acceptable within a commitee hearing, IT experts dont plug seized laptops into their own network etc etc. I cant argue with any of these from a rational and factual perspective. I could add a load more. But I still like it , I really like it. Perhaps, as with a classic car or dare I say it, your partner, you love something despite its imperfections.

    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.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 2,015
    patb wrote: »
    Perhaps, as with a classic car or dare I say it, your partner, you love something despite its imperfections.

    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".
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited July 2015 Posts: 9,020
    patb wrote: »
    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.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    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.
    Same here. As a Bond fan, I want to love every film. Whilst I enjoy most every one, some leave me with that "meh" taste in my mouth. CR was exciting, I love QOS with a burning passion, but SF was Mendes finding his way with a questionable P&W script to retire Dench.
    I expect SP to be the best Bond in decades....
  • Posts: 11,425
    patb wrote: »
    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.

    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.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    Getafix wrote: »
    I think SF is one of those moments when the stars align and a mega hit emerges, a bit like Thunderball.
    Exactly.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited August 2015 Posts: 4,585
    SF is right up there with CR. Don't make me choose which one is the better DC film. :)
    Getafix wrote: »
    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.

    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.
  • Posts: 632
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    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.
    Same here. As a Bond fan, I want to love every film. Whilst I enjoy most every one, some leave me with that "meh" taste in my mouth. CR was exciting, I love QOS with a burning passion, but SF was Mendes finding his way with a questionable P&W script to retire Dench.
    I expect SP to be the best Bond in decades....

    I love QOS, too!

    Agreed on Thunderball. A lot of great, classic moments, but the pacing is a bit off at times.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    I keep forgetting about what is perhaps the most important quote in the film, delivered (surprisingly) by Severine: "It's amazing the panic that can be caused by a single computer."

    Indeed.

    Most of the "plot holes" in SF can best be explained away by this single quote.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    I have no idea why yous think that's the case. A computer allowed Sylvia to know exactly where Bond would catch up with him in the underground?
  • eddychaputeddychaput Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 364
    Sark wrote: »
    I have no idea why yous think that's the case. A computer allowed Sylvia to know exactly where Bond would catch up with him in the underground?

    I think that was more about timing. Silva may have slowed down a bit intentionally so that Bond would catch up.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    Sark wrote: »
    I have no idea why yous think that's the case. A computer allowed Sylvia to know exactly where Bond would catch up with him in the underground?

    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.
  • Posts: 11,425
    The story in SF was pretty bad. There was some okay dialogue though. I liked Silva's rat speach.
  • Posts: 232
    TripAces wrote: »
    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.

    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.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    trevanian wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    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.

    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. ;-)
  • edited August 2015 Posts: 11,425
    trevanian wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    @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.



  • Posts: 498
    Getafix wrote: »
    and thinks he can pull the wool over everyone's eyes


    and it worked.

  • Posts: 11,425
    Skyfail wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    and thinks he can pull the wool over everyone's eyes


    and it worked.

    True I guess. Really feel like its a case of the Emperors New Clothes
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    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??
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Skyfall is the emperor's new clothes, just not completely naked but only half-dressed.

    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).
  • edited August 2015 Posts: 2,015
    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 :)

  • edited August 2015 Posts: 11,425
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.