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
days. Sadly so I think.
Boy, do I miss the classical chauvinistic archetype alpha male always on top of his game.
A characteristically well written and enjoyable review.
I find it hard to believe that that shaving scene with Bond and Eve was not followed by more than just a good night kiss! The way Harris looks in that scene he would not be the Bond we know and love if nothing happened. But at least they left us guessing.
I am sure Mendes would never have wanted to suggest that they do actually get it on - he has too much respect for the history. It's just difficult to see where that scene goes next, if not into the bedroom... I suppose that would be my main issue with Harris in the role - you can't quite believe that Bond wouldn't bed her. That aside, I am happy to have Moneypenny back for Bond 24 and also loved to see classic M office back at the end.
Some points;
-I really enjoyed Bond's character arc, and Craig plays the role superbly.
-Talking of Craig, as you said, he's a lot less physical in Skyfall. In Casino Royale he was
immense, this time he's more like the Bond we know. Which is what Craig has wanted; he looks like he's just gotten out of the army in CR, in SF he's much more lean. Bond is relying on his wits.
-I'm not the biggest Adele fan, but, combined with Kleinman's amazing graphics, I got goosebumps.
-Silva is quite simply fantastic. Camp, unerring and quite, quite mad.
-I didn't mind not having a Bond girl, this time round, providing it doesn't become a habit.
-The final scenes made me proud to be a Bond fan.
-The old and the new motif worked well.
-The cinematography is stunning.
-Fleming's spirit haunted Skfall; Silva's introduction, Skyfall Lodge etc.
The only things wrong is the CGI, and that is nit-picking in the extreme!
steals a list of secret agents from a computer
in a hotel room. First, this has already been
done with Mission Impossible – start with
something a little more original. Second, why
was this information on a laptop in Turkey? At
least Mission Impossible had this info stored
in an embassy
After Bond gets picked up in the SUV and they
take off after the bad guy (Patrice), they end
up in a gunfight where Patrice takes out this
gun with a double barrel supply of bullets. He
obviously can’t carry that in his jacket which is
the point of a handgun for this. Why wouldn’t
he just use automatic assault rifle? Also, how
many bullets were fired during this scene –
and now one gets hit? What is this, GI Joe (the
cartoon)? You are a spy and an assassin and
neither of you can shoot your target?
Next. So Patrice apparently uses depleted
uranium bullets. These are supposed to be
used because uranium is a denser material so
it can pierce through more materials such as
metal but they don’t go through the metal of
the Caterpillar when Bond is in it? Also, MI6 is
able to find out how this guy is as apparently
only three “bad guys” in the world use
depleted uranium bullets. Only three guys in
the world use this type of bullet? Do they not
know that government agencies could track
them this way? Smooth moves Patrice!
Next. Bond is fighting Patrice on the train
(with a gun shot to his shoulder) and then gets
shot off the train. First, where did he get shot
the second time? I saw where he was shot the
first time (shoulder) but where was the second
bullet wound? Also, he gets hit twice, falls off
a train with enough height to kill someone,
and still survives? Bourne rip off. Later, we
find out that there were still bullet fragments
inside his body – he just left them in there?
What was the point of that?
Next. the evil villain who we haven’t met yet
blows up MI6 by turning on the gas. Really?
You can access gas to a secured government
facility by internet? So a haggard Bond comes
back to MI6 and goes after Patrice in
Shanghai. First, we see Patrice just walk into a
building and shoot the security guard – why
was the front door not locked? No cameras he
was worried about? No one else in the
building at all to worry about walking in or out
(cleaning crew, someone working late) who
would call the cops while he is stuck in the
building? We follow him upstairs to find out he
is about to assassinate some guy in another
high rise building. At first, I thought “oh, the
guy who is about to get shot has bodyguards
so the villain needs an assassin to take him
out.” Nope, those bodyguards work for the
villain so that means there are 4 people in
that room and 3 are with the villain but they
need to pay an assassin 4 million euros to take
him out? One of the three could’t have brought
a gun with them or knife and just saved the 4
million? Anyway, Bond lets Patrice kill the guy
before doing anything. I understand Bond is
supposed to be ruthless but that just sounds
stupid. You let your enemy kill his enemy – why wouldn’t you save him to see what value he would be, I mean he is the enemy of your
enemy and all.
So in a homage to old Bond films, 007 finds a
clue in a poker chip which Patrice was
supposed to cash if for the job. Alright, a little
cheesy but alright (they wouldn’t have done
that in Casino Royale). Hell, why didn’t they
just wire him the money? Anyway, Bond fights
three guys in a casino with a briefcase full of
money that he throws around like it is empty (I
am thinking 4 million euros weighs quite a
bit). Bond has a gun on him and he knows
these guys want to kill him but he doesn’t pull
it out and shoot or just say “hey, i have a gun,
get out of my way or I am going to shoot you.”
Also, since when do these types of lizards eat
people?
Next, he goes on a boat to hook up with the
typical Bond girl full well knowing that the
guys on the boat probably work for the main
villain. They just let him on board the boat?
And he gets to sleep with the villain’s girl? Did
she really not know she was going to die for
doing this? What, she just could’t resist Bond
so she sleeps with him right below all the
villain’s bodyguards? Why did they let him on
board and not immediately cuff him?
Next, the Bond girl dies (well that was quick).
Suddenly, Bond is able to take out 5 guys at
the same time even though he was unarmed
and they all had guns. Amazing since he
couldn’t take out Patrice at the beginning of
the film even while he had a gun.
About that island. How did the villain (Silva)
get an entire island? Fear of a chemical leak
that evacuates an entire island and the world
press nor any country investigates? Amazing!
So this former MI6 spy is also a genius
computer hacker? If he is not the hacker, who
is? They can just hack into the MI6 whenever
they want? A little stretched.
Everyone is back at the new MI6 headquarters
and the new Q plugs their computer system
into Silva’s laptop which suddenly hijacks their
computer system. WHAT? This is the smartest
computer guy at MI6 and he didn’t think this
could happen? Really? Anyway, M is in a
hearing with top government officials when a
train (with apparently no passengers) plunges
through a tunnel. When that happened and it
would most likely be viewed as a terrorist
attack, they kept on with the proceedings in
the courtroom? Wouldn’t they stop the
proceedings to deal with something like this?
Then Silva and his henchmen just walk in the
courtroom by only shooting one security guard
at the entrance? One guard is it? And once
inside, no one can kill the Silva with all the
shots fired?
So Silva miraculously gets away and Bond
thinks the best solution is to go “off the grid”
instead of using all British intelligence to track
this guy down? He is in the UK where cameras
are everywhere and the they decide to go
AWOL with M as bait. 2nd, they don’t stop to
get any weapons along the way? While some
may like the old Aston Martin as a homage to
the best, I thought is was too cheesy and absurd. When there is nothing new for a franchise, it inevitably starts to feed on itself with references to what was already done. This is only the 3rd movie in this re-imagined Bond –no need to start referencing the past yet.
Skyfall? Seriously? Bond is apparently a rich
orphan? Stop stealing from Batman! He is an
orphan that did not come from money – that is
why he has a chip on his shoulder (as
diagnosed by the Bond girl in Casino Royale on
the train). This is a rip off of Harrison Ford’s
Witness (and not done as well). So I don’t
know why Silva didn’t attack at night under the
cover of darkness, but whatever. Also, turning
light bulbs into bombs? Was that M or
MacGyver? What exactly caused that big
explosion when the helicopter flew into the
house? Don’t think even a full fuel tank could
have caused that.
Next. M and the caretaker escape to the
church. Not really a bright idea to use a
flashlight so that the bad guys can track you.
Bond of course follows running in the open
across a frozen pond, not a bright idea to run
across in the open but whatever. So once he
was caught and Silva’s henchman is right next
to him with a gun, why did he not have his gun
not directly pointed at Bond? Was he hoping to
ricochet a bullet off the ice at him? Wow,
didn’t see that coming. Wait, I saw this in
Cliffhanger
When Silva reaches the church why were M
and the caretaker not ready for anyone to
come after them? Why would they assume no
one saw them walking over to the church? I
mean they did have their flashlight on.
In the end, Silva wants M to kill them both.
Some Bond villains are driven by money or
world domination but this guy is driven by his
mommy issues? Seriously? Silva is apparently
the best hacker the world has ever seen and
instead of rigging banks to transfer money
into his accounts or taking over countries, his
main plan is to get back at mum?
To summarize: this movie sucked and is nowhere near the quality of casino royale.
No worries my good man, I think most of us colonists are still digesting SF. I'm sneaking out to see it again tonight. My first viewing was for pure enjoyment. I'll be a little more analytical tonight.
I think while the SF fans on here will dispute some of your points, you amply demomstrate many of the yawning plot holes in the film. It's not that I expect a Bond plot to make total sense, but there is a limit to the unexplained actions that I can tolerate in any film. We are obviously in a tiny minority on the site at the moment, but for me my enjoyment of the film was reduced because nobody's behaviour seemed to make the slightest bit of sense. This is not about stretching plausiblity, as all Bond films do, it's about having characters do things that simply make no sense whatsoever. As you point out, why does Severine, who has just been lecturing Bond on the meaning of fear, invite Bond on board and proceed to shag him, knowing that Silva's guards will find out and that she will probably die. May be she just finds Bond too damn irresistible...? Possible I suppose, although the brief casino encounter does not make it immediately obvious that she is ready to sacrificie herself just so Bond can reach the island. Why not just tell Bond where Silva is hanging out and let him make his own way there? Or may she just decides Silva isn't so scary after all. Either way, you get the sense Marlohe's scenes were heavily cut or edited and something seems to be missing here. Bond's callousness towards Severine, who he has earlier identified as a victim of child prostitution either marks a welcome return to the mysogyny of the 1960s movies or a disturbing new dimension to Bond's character - I'll let you take your pick. Either way, even Connery's Bond would have shown some disquiet over the death of an essentially innocent victim of his actions. Dalton's Bond was a veritable kitten compared to this man. As others have pointed out, is this Bond one that we can still emote with and sympathise with? To me he may be more realistic and 'Flemingesque' but he is also incrasingly difficult to like or look forward to spending two and a half hours with every couple of years.
To summarize: you judge a Bond film solely on its internal logic which you labour hard to attack by putting minute details under a magnifying glass and spin them around so that you can 'prove' that the writers were clueless when they were working on the film. You grab arguments here and there which could render virtually every Bond film into garbage. Why don't they explain this or that, or why does this or that character not make another choice? If that is the set of rules we are henceforth going to bring to a film discussion, hardly any film will come out unscathed. The same arguments could be used to 'prove' that any of the Hitchcocks, Kubricks, Spielbergs, ... is a failure. We really don't need to be told everything in a film - our mind can fill in the blanks if it wants to. And as for extraordinary characters making extraordinary or even illogical choices, I'd say that's a good thing. It helps to fight predictability and boredom.
Take your last comment for example. Why not this? Why not that? Because you didn't write the film and because the filmmakers decided to do something that hadn't been done before. Your point is terribly belaboured and invalid. Silva's intentions focus around revenge, pure and simple. Had he been rigging banks, you'd complain this was like GE (much like in your first comment you complain about the similarities to M:I). Had he been willing to take over countries, you would have complained about similarities to DAD and a load of other Bond films. Now, for the first time, a man is passionate about revenge and he uses every talent in his body to get it. What's so senseless about that? For once, FOR ONCE, we get a baddie whose intentions are easy to understand, uncomplicated and perfectly human and not nearly as superficial as many of his predecessors. Another Drax, Stromberg or Graves simply wouldn't fit this era.
And as for your opening comments, they are very contradictory. You want to understand a ton of things about what that list is doing here and there, yet on the other hand you claim there's too big a resemblance to M:I. You want them to be more original yet you want to learn more about it. By making it a McGuffin with which to get the story kicked off, they avoid further resemblance to M:I. And please, after nearly a century of filmmaking, what hasn't been done before? You seem to praise CR. Wow, you're sure about that? I mean, the African boy running through the rain surely seems quite like one of those boys in Black Hawk Down. Oh and as for the casino, a dozen Bond films have played scenes in casinos too. Hardly original wouldn't you say? Why don't they explain more about the secrets Bond's first and second kill collaborated in selling and how M figured it out? You see? I could take your arguments and lay silly claims about CR being a terrible film - which by the way I know it isn't.
Also, plot is one thing but there's so much more about a Bond film to be considered before taking out the trash. I guess when one is planning to bash a film, one will desperately seek stuff, no matter how inconsequential, to drive the point home.
@DRESSED_TO_KILL Got owned. Nice one @Dimi :)
THIS!!! also very true...we can do this with every film, if we so wish. Its easy actually. Give me a 100% reviewed masterpiece and I can rip it to pieces.
I also thought it was absurd when Silva was blasting music from his helicopter on the way to bonds house. I felt like that scene was made for little kids, how cheesy and out of place that scene was. I'm really disappointed in Daniel Craig and EON for butchering skyfall. The whole movie was just a cliched action movie with a dumb downed plot to appease the mass culture of dumb downed people who can no longer follow a intricate well written story. Casino Royale was great because it relied on story and good writing. It didn't need silly villains or over the top action. I almost walked out of skyfall after I saw Bond hiding in the aston Martin using the machine guns to take out the usual cliched henchman. Seriously that was such a retarded scene, whoever thought of that scene has no artistic value or originality in then at all. Skyfall was just a big money maker for Barbara Brocolli. Ian Fleming intended Bond to be a realistic man, a hitman at its purest root who has a license to kill , not a super hero . I feel like EON is making bond into a super hero. Its a disgrace to see how poorly written Skyfall was. Casino Royale was realistic and showed how bond was vulnerable but a killer at the same time. I can go on and on but it amazes me how many people are praising skyfall.
What you think is cheesy and for kids I'd call a great moment that shows how delibarately OTT Silva is.
Don't call things retarded, it makes you sound like a 13 year old. The DB5 firing machine guns like it did in the 60s isn't meant to have "artistic value" it's meant to be fun.
@DRESSED_TO_KILL You said you wanted depressng Bond films while everyone working on SF said it was going to have humour, Bond with a capital B, etc. You were bound to be disappointed, and you really should've expected them to include gadgets and all this stuff.
It's on the DR. NO commentary, during Moneypenny's first scene. There's no mention of Fleming, though: she says that she, Connery & Terence Young came up with the backstory. Here's a transcript if you don't have the disc handy: http://www.authorsden.com/categories/article_top.asp?catid=44&id=67337. (The only correction I'd make to that transcript is that Lois says "When he was a teaboy," not "trainee").
There is a big difference between stretching the bounds of plausibility (as all Bond films do) and having plot holes that distract from your enjoyment of the film. I get the sense that the SF fans here are so keen to see this film as an instant classic that they are not applying some basic standards. Were this anything other than a Bond film the critics would have been tearing it to shreds by now. The SF plot is a mash up of GE and TWINE and really smacks of Purvis and Wade. I really struggle to find the supposed intelligence and mystery in it that people are describing. The mystery is that Mendes and DC were not able to demand something better after 3 year gestation period.
I can see what they were trying to do and it is all done with the best possible intentions, but it is just a very poorly plotted and executed story.
if I want to see a "fun" movie I'll go see Kung fu panda or maybe rent Mrs.Doubtfire. I dont want to see fun in a james bond movie. Bond is meant to be a field agent, a killer and a loner. Not a "fun" person who quips or makes a cheesy joke every 15 minutes . Were obviously two different kind of Bond fans. Im a Fleming bond fan, not the cinema bond fan.
What I saw was a lot of reuse from other movies. There's the fight on top of the train (Octopussy), there's the list of agents (Mission Impossible), there's the flawed "hero" who hits rock bottom and then ressurects to save the day (Batman), there's the cyberattack (Die Hard 4), there's the former disgruntled employee who wants to get back at his boss/country (Goldeneye), there's the fistfight againt a blue background (Moonraker), there's the fight where some creepy animal deals with our hero's foe (Star Wars), there's the Silence of the Lambs cage where the villain is being detained, there's the remotely located house where our hero is holding up against incoming bad guys (Straw Dogs) using homemade traps (Home Alone), there's our hero standing on the rooftop looking over the city he is guarding (Batman again)
Trust me, I don't want to be such a 'jerk' when commenting. ;-) Whenever someone bashes a film, I go through a short mental exercise in which I try to figure out whether they a) seriously mean what they say or b) simply try to swim against the current for isn't that ultimately the cool thing to do? Some folks want to be part of the YES!-hype and stop thinking for themselves. Others, however, long to be part of the anti-hype and often think too hard or in the wrong places. I don't like either of both.
When criticism comes with too many micro-details extrapolated as if they were the work of the Devil, I will labour hard to expose the critic as someone who knew before watching the film that he would be calling BS on the project.
Fans of Apocalypse Now will eat those comments for breakfast.
Over 500 million dollars in under 3 weeks disproves the part where you say 'butchering'.
Cliched? I thought you had problems with the fact that Silva is a baddie unlike any one baddie we've ever seen before. I'm confused.
Can't disagree, although there's more about CR that makes it such an awesome Bond film I'd say.
Yet you complain about the Bond girl dying so fast so you do want them to simply retrace the same stuff we've seen 22 times already? Also, since it worked in GF, why can't it work now? You don't want Bond to go Rambo, you don't want him to use his wits like McGyver and you don't want this? Is there anything Bond can do to satisfy you? Seems to me that however he chooses to take out baddies, you'll just hate it.
A bit naive or hypocritical to claim that film producers shouldn't be in pursuit of our money, wouldn't you agree?
Funny comment. It seems to me that you prefer those other Bond films, where Bond simply hovers over each fight scene like it's nothing. The CR Bond who jumped off cranes and single handedly shoots up an entire embassy isn't exactly modest or even realistic either, is he? By the way, you'd be surprised how unrealistic Fleming's Bond could be. (This isn't me complaining about Fleming, by the way.)
Uh, between you and me, Bond did get shot, he did fail his tests and whatnot. I don't know how much more vulnerable you can make him without downright killing him.
Give me any Bond film that doesn't reuse from other movies. Name one.
Good luck with being depressed when watching a Bond film then.
Anyway, there's more fun in the Flemings than you might think. No slapstick comedy, I agree, but neither is there in SF or any of the other Craigs - fortunately.
You didn't answer my question by the way.
AMEN ! I could not agree more. Thank god theres a few others around here with a brain that isn't dumb downed .
Without wishing to spark a rerun of last week's fist fight on here, you are being slightly patronising.
I think as Bond fans you have to give the guys on here the credit of actually wanting to see a good Bomd movie that they enjoy. I personally didn't wait 6 years after LTK or four years after QoS in the hope that I was going to fimd the next film a total disappointment. Neither am I (self evidently) making myself part of some cool crowd by voicing my criticisms of SF. It is too much to ask that you accept that there are some people on here who genuinely think SF is actually not very good? Not because it doesn't have death spewing lasers or enough cheesy one liners, but because we've seen enough good films in our time to make our own judgement, and because in our view, this is actually one of the worst and least convincingly plotted Bond films in the series?
I'm not trying to kick anything off here. It's just that it would be nice if some mutual respect was shown and criticism wasn't treaded as a sign of mental retardation or trolling.
I think that's a harsh comment. Actually there are many things that I do like about SF, and to some extent I understand why it has gotten great reviews. It's a good movie in itself. Top production value and acting.
I just don't find it to be a very good Bond-movie, that's all. The pacing is awful and to be honest, I found large chunks of it to be plain boring.