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
Actually you have a point there. Why did Silva plan to get captured and everything if he just wanted to shoot up the place?
With all his skills he probably could've found out about it and just travelled to London and shot M then. That way when Bond goes to China, oops, nobody home, so there would be much less chance of him being able to stop Silva at the enquiry.
You're lucky how your wives agree completely with you. My fiance doesn't like Dalton.
I agree with it all, though a couple of things, the idea was that Q would lead a trail for Silva to pursue Bond and M, but not enough for MI6 operatives to help them. The idea being that the other operatives would only allow Silva the chance to kill them, whereas Bond and M would be a match for them on their own... Or something.
We are meant to admire Mallory, the big unexpected revelation (I'm being sarcy) that he's not such a bad guy after all, he throws M a bone during the hearing. But I'm miffed because Helen McCory is a bit of a name actress, she was Blair's wife in The Queen and for this short role they could have picked anyone really, she was hardly in it.
Agree about talking down to Eve, hey, it's not for everyone. Tell me how she could have been more incompetent than M or Bond! Not much.
Not sure if the whole Tennyson thing isn't to show how daft M is - almost a Colonel Blimp figure, quoting poetry while her subordinates are too cowed to inform her that a threat is imminent. Ironically, it's M who is actually the Sharon Shoesmith character here, when it's meant to be the strident, prissy MP.
Anyway, let's get back to the show.....
*Sits back, munching on popcorn, waiting for the next negative plot hole comment to pop up from Zekidk and Getafix*
Seems the postive reviewers come away with a positive impression of the film, whereas others see the devil in the detail.
Excellent review. So many points it's difficult to know where to start.
I found you're point about feminism highly entertaining. I am one of those fans who rather likes a bit of retro gender politics in my Bond movies, but you are completely spot on in pointing out that all the women in this film are portrayed as total muppets. M is a b*tch and totally incompetent to boot; Moneypenny can't shoot straight; Severine is a sexual victim and a pawn in a game played by powerful men, while Clare Dower is a miserable old trout. You've got every sexist cliche you could possibly want in there. It took my wife to point all that out to me and I have to admit it didn't actually bother me while watching the film, but you are completely correct. Even Honey Rider was a more positive female character than this lot.
But any way, as you point out, the film basically just falls between two stools and suffers from a lowsy plot from P+W.
I really disliked this bit. It was so unwieldy and contrived.
Personally I'd have had Tanner on the roof handing over M's Bulldog or simply a contemplative moment from Bond with no dialogue leading into...
A close-up of a name plate reading 'Miss E. Moneypenny', panning up to Harris...
Eve: 'James'
Bond: 'Eve'
Eve: 'He'll see you now'.
(If necessary 'M' could have handed over the dog in his office. I just feel like the Moneypenny reveal should have been better)
EDIT: Basically, Bond working with Eve in Istanbul but not knowing her name is BS.
Even Honey Rider was a more positive female character than this lot.
You're right. And the ironic thing is that she hardly did a thing, except be the damsel in distress in "DR. NO".
I like your idea there, @RC7.
Thanks.
I thought you were leaving Germanlady?
Anyway there's no reason why we can't have positive and negative discussion. Why does it have to be one or the other?
Actually if all he wanted to do was kill M why even bother taking the list, getting himself captured, etc? Why not use his skills to hack the CCTV or something, find out when she's in her office and just blow it up then?
I suppose he might not have done that because he wanted to kill her himself in the courtroom while her career was falling apart but then my first point still stands.
Before @Germanlady and the rest jump in I'm not bashing the film, this doesn't ruin it for me, I still really liked it, but I think @Zedidk makes a good point here.
Well he has the line about wanting to look 'M' in the eye. Being captured allowed him to talk face to face without it being a hostile situation. There's also the notion that he wanted to humiliate her by stealing the NATO list - this in turn leads to the inquiry.
However, that being said it's still convoluted. I don't remember it mentioning whether Silva was on the radar as a terrorist before his actions in the film, I'm pretty sure it didn't. If that is the case then it would have been far simpler for him to execute the plan as he did (stealing the list) then surprise 'M' in her apartment, say what needs to be said and finish her off. You could argue he wanted some form of theatre but again, why the fireworks only to walk into a room in a bid to shoot her?
It seems like there were a few ideas that got tangled along the way.
That's about the best reason I've heard so far. Wish his 'plan' had been a bit more interesting or cleverly constructed though, instead of an incomprehensible mish-mash of events that we're somehow expected to piece together. Their was no ingenuity, devilish beauty or intelligecne to it - just some 'hacking' and then a machine gun attack on M. I hate P+W so much. Thank god they're gone.
Daniel Craig and Javier Bardem are absoultely awesome in this film. Craig nails Bond perfectly for me. I watched it with a group of friends from work, and one of my colleagues wives inisited to me I didn't really know Bond, and she'd seen nearly all of the films.
I told her I'd only been a fan for thirty years and left it at that. Now I appreciate that this film is not to everyones taste, nor is Craig a suitable Bond to some. But having seen the movies, and read the books, he does come very close (in my interpratation) to being James Bond, of both screen and novel...if that makes sense.
You see, I see elements of the screen Bond, especially Connery and Moore. But also, Craig plays Bond as I see him in my mindseye from the Fleming novels...but not totally. More in his attitudes. Toward life, his work, M and women.
I think it's a great mix, and one that should please every fan. Although that's pushing it. My word, how could everyone be happy? Not everyone could be happy to see Bond alive and well after 50 years of screen time. That would be asking to much. And despite all the films having many flaws, it seems a new trend has started to rip the latest instalment apart asap.
Like I said, you're not going to please everyone, but if you like Bond, then you're probably going to love Skyfall.
I'm going to have to do a Bondothon, or re-evaluate my Bond rankings to see where Skyfall sits.
This confuses me. Are you suggesting that if you don't like SF, you probaby don't like Bond?
You would love to think that, wouldn't you? He included "probably" in his statement, which quite obviously states that he is leaving room for exceptions.
It's useless @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7. @Benny I agree you almost everything you said, I also think it is a great mix.
Just one comment, I agree with what has been said about Severine. I feel like her backstory was wasted on the fact that she was killed moments later. I don't think the standard sacrificial Bond girl lamb should have a detailed backstory, because suddenly we are invested in the character. She was set-up to be 'saved' in the end, but she was abruptly cut short.
But overall, I think maybe the issue with the film, is that the writers tried to cram to much into one film: Bond thought to have died, Bond getting rusty, villain backstory, Dench's connection, villain's plan, Bond's backstory, Moneypenny backstory, Mallory set-up. There are some many stories getting told here, that I don't think one gets the full treatment it deserves.
All that said...I did enjoy the experience the film offered. As a BOND film, it was quite enjoyable: some great scenes, excellent acting, well shot, enough balance of danger and humour.
@Benny 's first statement includes a minority. His second statement includes a majority. And he's quite correct. As demonstrated here, (date: 2012-11-30) 49% of our members considers SF the best of Craig's three films, 10% of our members considers SF as good as CR or as good as both other Craig films. Only 2% of our members seems to think SF is the least of Craig's three films.
Discussing the good and the bad is always more interesting!
I'm actually glad so many people enjoyed it, even if I am a little mystified as to why people seem to think it's so good. I think you make a valid point about too much stuff being crammed in and nothing quite being explored to its full extent. It's kind of what I've been saying but from a different perspective - the film is full of good intentions and I totally get what Mendes is trying to do - I just think it fails in the task it sets itself. Unlike the Brosnan films, which suffered from a lack of ambition, SF actually overreaches. A heroic failure, but failure all the same, IMO.
I just think it really shows, and is the reason why some things - like the Shanghai scenes - are left unexplained.
Maybe this will be the first Bond-movie to be released with a director's cut on blu-ray...
Hmmmm Justin Bieber huh?
I could see it now. =))