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
Very weird. My first thought was that she'd flunked her scenes on set and Mendes had basically cut her out of the movie. The huge fuss about her casting suggested she was going to be a major character.
If I'm generous you could see her as a Jill or Tilly Masterson, but I don't quite believe that that's all Mendes had in mind for her. The casino scene builds everything quite nicely, but her subsequent actions and sudden disappearance just don't make a lot of sense IMO.
Her death and Bond's response is also odd. I think even Kermode flags it as a wrong note.
The thought that she'd flunked her scenes never occurred to me, I found her acting (at least, what made it to the screen) to be excellent. Her character and her performance was one of my favourite parts of the film.
Very true.
I think most people I've spoken to generally feel she was underused.
I thought her scene in the casino was genuinely brilliant. It was the first point in the movie where I thought wow, this is Mendes doing what Mendes does best. There was real electricity between Craig and Marlohe. It's a damn shame she was killed off.
I still haven't heard a better explanation than that (for what ever reason) she was largely cut from the movie. Her casino scene is decent and I just think if you build up a character like that you don't just toss them aside 5 minutes later. May be I'm old fashioned in how I expect a story to be told, but for me it just feels very awkward. If Mendes felt he wanted more explosions at Skyfall Lodge over more Severine my suspicion is that her other scenes weren't actually that good. This might not have been her fault - could have been dodgy script or whatever - but something went wrong there. Even the supposedly sultry shower scene hit the cutting room floor.
Absolutely. I'd have sacrificed Naomie Harris to have even a little bit more Berenice. She's a more interesting character and clearly a great actress. It felt like Naomie was shoe-horned in just for the MP pay-off.
Have to say I completely agree. The Severine character was potentially really interesting and (even though I know M was the 'real' Bond girl in SF), it would have been nice to see her connect Bond and Silva more closely. As it is, there is no real dynamic between Bond and Silva after the island. It's all about Silva and M. I know it's deliberate and that Mendes has said that he always saw this as a film about M more than Bond, but I just would have preferred to see a bit more personal animosity between Bond and Silva. As it was, I was actually rooting for the villain by the end.
I can only hope that Bond ends up shagging the Bond-girl at the end of Bond 24, like he used to back in the days before his women were all offed!
I'm not holding my breath.
I think everyone pretty much agrees on this. And it illustrates the best reason to love this movie, an incredible cast of characters brilliantly played by all the actors concerned. The film is pure entertainment, often Bondian, and paced so well that one scarcely notices it's as long as it is.
To me, this far outweighs the negatives. Most of these plot or script issues can be explained with a little alternative thought, and after that there are very few reasons not to enjoy the effort. That's why I enjoy SF, am mostly satisfied with it as a whole, and quite sure it is a top 10 effort at the very least.
You're right. I have to admit that the plot holes alone cannot explain why I don't like SF. When it comes down to it I was bored. As others have pointed out, you will generally forgive plot holes if you're carried along by the movie and I was watching the clock. I think there's an element of not being entirely enamoured of DC's Bond in there as well. I think I'm slightly tired of his emotional issues and inability to enjoy himself.
Appreciate the effort @NicNac, but it's not easy. I'm not at all embarrassed for liking the film but I don't feel at all encouraged to come back.
Too true. I admire the Bourne trilogy. Much as I enjoy the frenetic action of the Greengrass films I think I actually prefer the slightly slower and more measured pace of the first one. Bourne was a game changer for Bond and initially I was happy that EON felt the need to respond - ditching Brosnan, casting a proper actor and adopting a more serious tone were all good things in my book. But I feel the shadow of Bourne still lingers and has actually become detrimental to Bond. I thought CR and QoS had taken the origins of Bond as far as they needed to go really. I think the best I can say about SF is that it sets up the next one quite nicely. But I said that about QoS as well...
But seriously, CD, on your GF review you mention finding the music a tad jarring. Try to get hold of an analogue copy (ie video), as I think Barry's music on this one suffers in digital. It sort of grates, where it should be sassy and all about how it feels.
Personally, I agree with Zekidk totally, but it feels like arguing with the Republican Tea Party, throw in facts and rational thinking and it only aggravates them further. Personally I like Moonraker, and don't mind the absurd silly scenes because it charms me. (Actually, astonishingly, I think scene by scene MR has far less plotholes than SF has, or QoS). But I can't deny that it's a matter of taste, nor would I want other Bonds to be like that. I can't deny that the gondola scene is very silly, but I was nine at the time and that's how I feel about it. When others say the hate it, I can totally see why, but there's nothing so recipricol about SF lovers. It's just, 'Deal with it!'
The nearest comparison is in Inglorious B******* which starts off with a brilliantly written gripping scene (oh for a scene like that in a Bond film with Craig) but for the finale resorts to silly comedy with a trio of Yanks trying to pass themselves off as Italian. Didn't get that change of tone at all. Still, because of the film's overall ambition, and the scenes that do come off, I can forgive that.
With the exception of Harris I completely agree. I think this is why I felt a little frustrated because Marlohe and Bardem were IMO awesome. I just can't help feeling that you can't get too much of a good thing in Bond and I really wish we'd had more of these two. My problem with Marlohe was screen time and my problem with Bardem was the dialogue. His opening scene is pretty much impeccable and I thought 'Great, we're in for a ride here'. Which to some extents was true but there were no more great moments of dialogue really. I thought there would be more exchanges between him and Bond as the film progressed, part of me wished there had been some kind of scene where he taunts Bond through his ear piece. Now, I know a counter to this was the fact that his focus was on 'M' but this is a Bond movie when all said and done. As I've had to say numerous times to defend myself against the thought Police, I can take it for what it is and enjoy it, so these are just issues that existed for me that I think are worth discussing.
Ditto going to Haiti, murders some bloke but doesn't even check his apartment for clues. Is mistaken for some other guy, sure, likely. She think he's an assassin, and then makes a beeline, unarmed, to the very guy trying to have her killed! Like you do!
Just pointing out, these plotholes require a mental adjustment that I simply cannot go along with, and it's been like this for a fair few Bond movies now. The excuse with QoS was that the script wasn't finished, SF was meant to be bespoke, crafted, finished.
Totally agree with you. With hindsight I've identified the death of Severine as the point at which the film goes awry for me. Up until then everything is built up nicely and like you say the dialogue with Severine and Silva is great. I thoroughly enjoyed Silva's entrance and speech - I anticipated it being the first of many meaty scenes with Bond. You really get the sense that this film is going to go places and then it's as if they completely ran out of ideas. In my recollection the second half of the film is all chases, machine guns and explosions. That's probably being unfair, but none of the scenes or dialogue stood out for me in the second half.
Ah. I haven't seen the new one. The titles get very confusing after while...
SF looks good but so do a lot of films. It's a shame so much of it is studio bound as I find Gassner a very uninspired production designer - I always feel I've seen his sets before, but done better elsewhere. I can't say I particularly liked any of the sets in SF, although they did a job.
You see, that would be a fantastic thing imo, to bring back the likes of Adam for just one set in a new movie. Or would but the dampners on some guy's Oscar chances? Just as, were he alive, have Barry back for just one sumptuous track, to avoid the hassle of having them doing an entire score.
There are certain aspects of "SKYFALL" that I found admirable. And before I delve into the reasons behind my dislike of the film, I might as point out these admirable traits. Unlike 2008's "QUANTUM OF SOLACE", "SKYFALL" was not marred by an uneven pacing. Directed Sam Mendes did an excellent job of giving the movie a steady pace that did not leave me breathless or groggy. I also have to give kudos to cinematographer Roger Deakins for his sharp, yet beautiful photography of the different locations featured in the film - especially for Istanbul, London and Scotland. And most of the action sequences in the movie - especially Raoul Silva's attack upon M at a public inquiry and the chase scene through London's Underground system - struck me as very exciting and well shot, thanks to Mendes' direction, along with Stuart and Kate Baird's editing.
Looking back on "SKYFALL", I noticed that it featured some first-rate acting, by a superb cast. Daniel Craig returned for a third time to portray 007. And as usual, he was in top form, capturing the British agent's self doubts after being shot in Istanbul. After seventeen years, Judi Dench portrayed "M" for the last time in a plot in which her character plays a major role in the story. Many have been speculating about an Academy Award for her excellent performance. The only reason I am not jumping on this bandwagon is that Dench has been knocking it out of the ballpark as "M", ever since she first assumed the role in 1995's "GOLDENEYE". Javier Bardeem seemed to have been inspired by Heath Ledger's Oscar winning performance as the Joker in his portrayal of Raoul Silva, a former MI-6 agent who seeks revenge against "M". In his way, the actor's performance was just as colorful. However, I do not think I will ever consider him to be one of my favorite Bond villains. I found his performance a little too showy and not very original for my tastes.
Naomie Harris was in fine form as MI-6 agent "Eve", who turned out to be the iconic Miss Moneypenny. I really enjoyed Harris' performance, but I have something to say about her transformation from field agent to secretary. Bérénice Marlohe did the best she could with the small role of Sévérine, a former victim of the sex trade who became Silva's representative and mistress. Ben Whishaw was a ball as a young and geeky "Q", who seemed more like a computer hacker, instead of an arms quartermaster. Both Ralph Fiennes and Rory Kinnear gave solid performances as Intelligence and Security Committee Chairman Gareth Mallory and Bill Tanner, "M"'s Chief of Staff. And Albert Finney gave a lively and entertaining performance as Kincade, the gamekeeper of the Skyfall estate that belongs to Bond.
But despite its positive attributes, in the end I found "SKYFALL" very disappointing. And I believe the movie's main problems could be found in the script written by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan. The movie began in Istanbul with Bond and Moneypenny attempting to get their hands on the list of undercover NATO agents that had been stolen from another MI-6 agent. Unfortunately, the movie never explained how a field agent ended up with such a list on his laptop hard drive in the first place. Some fans have dismissed this plot hole, claiming it would have been unnecessary for the script to explain such a situation. I am sorry, but I refuse to dismiss it. For me, it does not make sense that a field agent stationed in Istanbul would have such a list in the first place. Only unusual circumstances could explain this situation . . . and the screenplay refused to do so.
The screenplay also failed to explain why Silva waited so long to go after the NATO agents on the list Patrice stole for him. A certain period of time had passed between the incident in Istanbul and the bombing at MI-6. What took Silva so long to go after those agents? And did "M" or the British government ever bothered to alert NATO that some of their agents were exposed? Judging by the ease Silva killed some of the agents, I gather not. I also found Silva's plans regarding his revenge against "M" rather convoluted. From what I gathered, he wanted to humiliate her before he can kill her. If it was that easy for him to bomb MI-6, why did he have to resort to allowing himself to be captured by Bond, in order to get close enough to kill her? He could have flown to the U.K. and killed before Bond or anyone else was able to guess he was behind the debacles that dogged "M" in the movie. And how did he know she would be appearing before a public inquiry on the very day he busted out of MI-6's new quarters?
I also found Bond's efforts to save "M" very questionable. One, how did Silva managed to track Bond and "M" to the former's Scottish estate so easily? Were Bond and "M" wearing tracking devices? Did Silva use their cell phones? How? And if Bond had expected Silva to track them, why on earth did he not recruit back up to help him? If Silva had men to help attack "M" at the public inquiry, surely Bond must have realized that the former MI-6 agent would have help in Scotland. Instead, Bond relied upon the aging Kincade. I do not know who to charge with incompetence - the Bond character or the writers that created this scenario. Speaking of Skyfall, the sequence there featured two graves with the names of Bond's parents, Andrew and Monique Bond. One might ask "what is wrong with that?" This would have been fine . . . if Purvis, Wade and screenwriter Paul Haggis had not re-written Bond's past in 2006's "CASINO ROYALE". In that particular movie, Tresury agent Vesper Lynd accurately surmised that Bond was a middle-class or working-class orphan, whose education had been financed by a wealthy benefactor. In "SKYFALL", the writers used Bond's literary background. In other words, his father came from the Scottish landed gentry and his mother, from Switzerland. So . . . what happened to the background established in "CASINO ROYALE"? Did EON Productions rebooted the franchise for a second time, during Craig's tenure? If so, I find this very sloppy on the writers' part.
Before "SKYFALL" was released in U.S. movie theaters, I came across a few articles on the Internet, claiming that the movie might be less sexist than the previous Bond films. They cited the expanded role of "M" as an example of this more politically correct portrayal. After seeing "SKYFALL", I realized that this opinion of a more feminist friendly movie is a joke. This movie has set the portrayal of female characters in the Bond franchise back at least forty to fifty years . . . back to characters such as Honey Ryder, Jill and Tilly Masterson, Tiffany Case, Solitaire, Andrea Anders and Mary Goodnight. Here is a look at the four female characters featured in this movie:
*Clair Dowar MP - Helen McCrory portrayed the Member of Parliament who led the inquiry into "M"'s leadership of MI-6. It was bad enough that McCrory portrayed the character as a screeching harpy. But during the inquiry, she was interrupted by Gareth Mallory, who "suggested" in a patronizing manner that she cease her rants and allow "M" to talk. And she did! Why on earth did the screenwriters allowed Mallory to get away with such behavior to a MP? The script should have allowed Dowar to order Mallory to shut his hole and continue her rant, before allowing "M" to speak. But no. . . the all knowning male, Mallory, is allowed to shut her up in a very patronizing manner.
*Sévérine - Bérénice Marlohe, who portrayed Raoul Silva's mistress, claimed she was inspired by Famke Janssen's portrayal of "GOLDENEYE" villainess Xenia Onatopp. Honestly, I do not see the resemblance. Onatopp was a badass and slightly psychotic former fighter pilot and killer. Marlohe's Sévérine simply struck me as a world weary woman who turned out to be nothing more than a bed warmer for Bond and a long time sex toy and tool for Silva. One, she barely lasted longer than a half hour in the film. Two, Bond had sex with her, despite guessing that she used to be a part of Asia's child sex trade. Even worse, he failed to consider that sex with her would endanger her life. But he screwed her anyway in a rather . . . tasteless scene and Silva ended up shooting her like a dog. In the end, I realized that Sévérine reminded me of all those female Bond sacrificial lambs, whom Bond got to screw before they got bumped off. Marlohe was really wasted in this movie.
*Eve Moneypenny - Poor Naomie Harris. I realize that as the new Miss Moneypenny, she will have a job with the Bond franchise, as long as Craig continues to portray 007. But honestly, the screenwriters really screwed her in this film. Are audiences really supposed to believe that her character was unsuited to be a field agent, after the debacle in Istanbul? After all, she told "M" that she did not have a clean shot, before the latter ordered her to take it. Yet, upon Eve's reunion with Bond in London, he tries to undermine her self-esteem by claiming she was unsuited for such a role. And then . . . what happens? Eve is assigned to assist Bond in Macau and ends up saving his life. Later, she held herself well during Silva's attack against "M" at the public inquiry. Yet, near the end of the film, she informs Bond that he was right and decided to leave the field and become a secretary. A fucking secretary? This is how EON Productions set up Moneypenny for the Craig tenure? Not once did the film ever really indicated that Moneypenny had any difficulty over what happened in Istanbul. I felt really insulted after that last scene between Bond and Moneypenny. In the end, the "PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN" served Harris' talents a lot better than this film.
*"M" - "SKYFALL" was supposed to be Judi Dench's swan song in the role of Head of MI-6, after seventeen years. And this was EON Productions' idea of a send off for Dench? Transforming her character into an incompetent boob? They had her character making mistakes left and right. Even worse, they reduced this "strong woman" into a useless and helpless female, who needed Mallory to come to her defense during MP Dowar's rant against her and Bond to save her from Silva. And yet . . . if she was really that incompetent, how is it that she was the only one who figured out that a former MI-6 was behind their troubles? If the portrayal of "M" was supposed to be an example of a proper female hero, EON Productions can keep it.
There were other aspects of "SKYFALL" that left me feeling disappointed. I am a great admirer of Adele as a singer. But honestly? I have no memories of the movie's theme song performed by her. The song simply went into one ear and out of the other. I also noticed that certain moments in the film showcased Craig posing in a standing position. In other words, he usually stood in one spot - whether at the bow of the boat delivering him to the Macau casino, next to Sévérine at the bow of Silva's yacht, on a hill overlooking his family's estate or on the rooftop overlooking the London skyline - feet apart and well dressed. Before the movie ended, I could not tell whether I was watching a James Bond action film or a photo spread from a "GQ" magazine.
Ah . . . EON Productions. You really disappointed me this time. I had bought all of the claptrap about this being one of the best James Bond movies in years. Looking back, I now realize that Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson had overreacted to some of the negative press over "QUANTUM OF SOLACE", which I actually enjoyed despite its flaws. The fans could not deal with a dark and grim follow-up to "CASINO ROYALE", and the two producers reacted by delivering a movie that could not make up its mind on whether it was a grim espionage tale or a typical Bond fantasy adventure. It tried to be both and failed in the end . . . at least for me.
Great show. I'm loving every second of it. Now, pass me the popcorn.....