SKYFALL: FANS' REACTIONS - GUARANTEED SPOILERS

1454648505199

Comments

  • Zekidk wrote:
    And correct, I "didn't get" why Silva went through all this trouble just so he could walk in from the street at the enquiry guns blazing, but as you said "people do all kinds of crazy stuff", so let's just leave it at that.

    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.
    Getafix wrote:

    Funny, my wife said it was the worst Bond film since the Brosnan era. And she's bloody clever.

    It's funny, my wife is very clever too (she's a Doctor) and she hates Brozza as Bond, and thinks SF and CR are the two best Bond films in the franchise.

    I guess our wives won't get on...... ;)

    You're lucky how your wives agree completely with you. My fiance doesn't like Dalton.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 512
    'The Getafix and Zekidk -and DRush76 - Show'

    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.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Zekidk wrote:
    DRush76 wrote:
    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.
    Here comes yet another!
    Hopefully he won't repeat himself. One post and that's enough for most people on reviewing SF.

    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*
  • I think the positive people are repeating themselves just as much as the negative viewers.
  • To be fair, there are many neg reviews on the imdb saying the same stuff, though also to be fair, of course the positive ones outnumber them.

    Seems the postive reviewers come away with a positive impression of the film, whereas others see the devil in the detail.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Zekidk wrote:
    DRush76 wrote:
    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.
    Here comes yet another!
    Hopefully he won't repeat himself. One post and that's enough for most people on reviewing SF.

    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*
    I wonder if there will be a celebrity guest?
  • Posts: 11,425
    DRush76 wrote:
    When I finally walked out of that movie theater, as the end credits for "SKYFALL" rolled, the first thought that came to my mind was that the movie was a piece of crap. I was very disappointed by "SKYFALL". The more I thought about the plot and characterizations featured in "SKYFALL", I finally realized that my feelings about the movie had not changed. I still believe it was a piece of crap and one of the worst James Bond movies I have ever seen.

    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.

    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.
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2012 Posts: 10,512
    DRush76 wrote:
    I felt really insulted after that last scene between Bond and Moneypenny.

    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.

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 533


    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".
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    RC7 wrote:
    DRush76 wrote:
    I felt really insulted after that last scene between Bond and Moneypenny.

    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)



    I like your idea there, @RC7.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote:
    DRush76 wrote:
    I felt really insulted after that last scene between Bond and Moneypenny.

    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)



    I like your idea there, @RC7.

    Thanks.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    Zekidk wrote:
    DRush76 wrote:
    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.
    Here comes yet another!
    Hopefully he won't repeat himself.
    Like Germanlady who felt the need to quote the same paragraph three times, without even commenting on it? Or you, who spent almost every post complaining that people repeat themselves? ;-) I agree... enough of that!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Germanlady wrote:
    And one more time for the slow brains...
    NicNac wrote:
    At the risk of offending the anti-SF people I would like to think that we have now concluded this business about plot holes. Maybe save it for another day. It's noticeable that a big porton of the people who love the film have deserted the thread, and others besides, almost as if they should be embarrassed for liking the film. If they are like me they probably feel a little bit beaten into submission.

    As a result I would love to see them encouraged to come back and discuss aspects of the film they love, just to restore some order.

    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?
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    Zekidk wrote:
    And correct, I "didn't get" why Silva went through all this trouble just so he could walk in from the street at the enquiry guns blazing, but as you said "people do all kinds of crazy stuff", so let's just leave it at that.

    Actually you have a point there. Why did Silva plan to get captured and everything if he just wanted to shoot up the place?.
    No one seemed to have answered this question yet. Sandy wrote that I just "didn't get it". Guess I still don't. But I guess SirHenryLeeChaChing offered some sort of plausible explanation:
    I don't have a logical reason for how he knew where M was going to be when the rest of his plan went down. But it did seem to me that wherever she was, this was the time he had chosen to kill her, amidst all the chaos he had caused.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 12,837
    If anything that's a bad plan not a genius masterplan because getting himself captured lets them know he's in London. If he knew the enquiry was happening, why not just head over there and lie low until the enquiry? Bond wouldn't have found anything in China and MI6 wouldn't know he was on the loose in London. He could've just strolled in and shot her, job done.

    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.
  • Posts: 3,274
    If anything that's a bad plan not a genius masterplan because getting himself captured lets them know he's in London. If he knew the enquiry was happening, why not just head over there and lie low until the enquiry? Bond wouldn't have found anything in China and MI6 wouldn't know he was on the loose in London. He could've just strolled in and shot her, job done.

    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?
    It happened because Silva realized he was in a James Bond movie and therefore decided to carry out his plan in the most ridiculous way, instead of the easiest ;-)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    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?

    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.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Zekidk wrote:
    If anything that's a bad plan not a genius masterplan because getting himself captured lets them know he's in London. If he knew the enquiry was happening, why not just head over there and lie low until the enquiry? Bond wouldn't have found anything in China and MI6 wouldn't know he was on the loose in London. He could've just strolled in and shot her, job done.

    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?
    It happened because Silva realized he was in a James Bond movie and therefore decided to carry out his plan in the most ridiculous way, instead of the easiest ;-)

    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.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    edited November 2012 Posts: 15,129
    I went to see Skyfall for a second time tonight. I enjoyed as much, if not more the second time around.
    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.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    Benny wrote:
    Now I appreciate that this film is not to everyones taste, nor is Craig a suitable Bond to some.
    vs
    Benny wrote:
    but if you like Bond, then you're probably going to love Skyfall.
    This confuses me. Are you suggesting that if you don't like SF, you probaby don't like Bond?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Zekidk wrote:
    Benny wrote:
    Now I appreciate that this film is not to everyones taste, nor is Craig a suitable Bond to some.
    vs
    Benny wrote:
    but if you like Bond, then you're probably going to love Skyfall.
    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.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Zekidk wrote:
    Benny wrote:
    Now I appreciate that this film is not to everyones taste, nor is Craig a suitable Bond to some.
    vs
    Benny wrote:
    but if you like Bond, then you're probably going to love Skyfall.
    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.
  • Posts: 1,497
    Haven't had much time to actively participate in this conversation, but I must say I have really enjoyed the critical discussion! I didn't really notice the plot holes on first viewing, like many here, and just enjoyed the whole experience. But I've seen some really good points thus far. Speaking as a Bond fan, I don't have to necessarily love the film because it's Bond. On the contrary, as a fan, I find it interesting to be able to critically examine any flaws, plotholes, etc. Most non-Bond fans wouldn't go to such lengths.

    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.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,161
    Zekidk wrote:
    Benny wrote:
    Now I appreciate that this film is not to everyones taste, nor is Craig a suitable Bond to some.
    vs
    Benny wrote:
    but if you like Bond, then you're probably going to love Skyfall.
    This confuses me. Are you suggesting that if you don't like SF, you probaby don't like Bond?

    @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.
  • Posts: 11,425
    JBFan626 wrote:
    Haven't had much time to actively participate in this conversation, but I must say I have really enjoyed the critical discussion! I didn't really notice the plot holes on first viewing, like many here, and just enjoyed the whole experience. But I've seen some really good points thus far. Speaking as a Bond fan, I don't have to necessarily love the film because it's Bond. On the contrary, as a fan, I find it interesting to be able to critically examine any flaws, plotholes, etc. Most non-Bond fans wouldn't go to such lengths.

    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.

    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.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    This isn't directed at anyone, but I thought I'd inject some humor into this thread.
    484293_235397926591136_40702816_n.jpg
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    DarthDimi wrote:
    @Benny 's first statement includes a minority. His second statement includes a majority. And he's quite correct.
    I didn't suggest he was wrong.
    Getafix wrote:
    Unlike the Brosnan films, which suffered from a lack of ambition, SF actually overreaches. A heroic failure, but failure all the same, IMO.
    I actually believe that they stuffed so many things into the original script, and later found out that it was impossible to include everything, unless making a 3hr epic. Hence the "cutting room floor"-thread.

    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...
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,161
    Careful with comedy, @Murdock. I once suggested Justin Bieber for Bond as a comedy thing and I woke up with the head of a horse in my bed. :)]
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Careful with comedy, @Murdock. I once suggested Justin Bieber for Bond as a comedy thing and I woke up with the head of a horse in my bed. :)]

    Hmmmm Justin Bieber huh?
    tumblr_lgfrb3YQkI1qfut6go1_500.jpg
    I could see it now. =))
Sign In or Register to comment.