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
The point is that he was always Bond, just flawed. Now he can move on. His past has literally been buried. I never missed Moneypenny & Q in CR & QOS; the stories didn't had a place for them anyway.
And he got promoted before the actual events of CR, but I'm sure you remember that.
It was during the Bond/Patrice fight in Shanghai building when the feeling occurred to me, and I thought to myself,'this is one of the weirdest/imaginative/innovative Bond films I have ever seen!'. And it's true, it is a weird Bond film. But is it Bond? We've seen 007 past his peak and against the odds in previous eras, but he's always been quintessentially Bondian. Anyone who's read all the Fleming novels and seen the Connery/Lazenby films will know what I mean, hopefully. Here, Craig goes further than he ever has in convincing me he is James Bond, 007, and not some elseworlds liberal interpretationincarnation. But there is still something amiss which I can't define properly. But yes, this film is utterly bizarre in a way, takes risks, and the innovation of the thing is clearly all on the screen. For me it lost it's way slightly when Bond returned to London after he captured Silva, but pulled back for the finale which was brilliance.
The Good;
PTS- The opening shot was awesome, and the PTS thrilling and just, just the right side of economical. The fat was trimmed, in other words, which is one of the best aspects of Craig era PTS's.
Titles- I really enjoyed the title sequence. It was macabre and thoroughly original. When I first heard Adele's Bond tune weeks ago I thought it was one of the worst Bond songs in existence. Bland. I still feel that way, but thought it worked well with the titles.
Performances- Craig was at last completely relaxed in the role and it is at last his own. He dominated the film, his delivery perfect and effortless, and I empathised with him. Enjoyed his portrayal of an aging Bond. Dench showed what a brilliant actress she is, Fiennes too, while Bardem is a fantastic actor and even if one doesn't believe his character, he will always be spell-binding. Marlhoe.....should have been given more screentime.
Sequences- Shanghai offices/Casino/Island was probably the best sequence of the film for me. I loved the MI6 stuff aswell, but the Asian stuff was pure Bond. Skyfall lodge was also such a fitting end.
Script- The tightest Bond script in recent history. Everything was on point, I laughed at the wink wink bits, and it dovetailed between humour and seriousness almost perfectly. It was refreshing for the stories action to be relatively simple, catapulted by personel revenge rather than convoluted dominate the world type affair.
This time it's personal- The last two Bond films, CR and QoS have been trying to get into a more personal, psychological aspect of Bond. Skyfall was the first time I felt Craig's Bond's human story. Bringing M into the reckoning emotionally was a masterstroke, and finishing the story at Bond's parents graveyard, essentially, was poignant.
New M- Fiennes will make a great M. Now we can move on from the Oedipus complex Bond and Dench's M spending too much time complaining. Fiennes M and Bond will have a deep respect for eachother after Skyfall, and should M need to be in the field(hopefully not too much, M needs to stay in the office), he'll be more suited to it, being ex-SS.
Aging Bond- Perfect, will be interested to see if they follow this line in his 4th and 5th film.
Cinematography- Wonderful.
The bad:
The score- I'm no Arnold fan, but SF's score was pretty atrocious. It was so non-descript, yet at the same time never complimented any scene. Must be better for 2014. The film took risks, was innovative, yet not the score? That said, the pop songs on the Island and the Chopper arrival at Skyfall were genius.
Characters- Too many i'm afraid. It's hard to see who would have dropped down the pecking order to be honest, but it meant that Bardem and Marlhoe especially were criminally underused. This meant that Silva's backstory/motive had to crammed in and explained in his second bout of screen time, as opposed to slowly drawn out and shown, rather than literally explained. Silva was simply underwritten and rushed, and for such an actor as Bardem, that is a shame. Still his revenge motive was slightly less cliche than world domination. Severine!! I liked the way she was popped off, but my god she needed much more time on screen so we could actually feel her death, and Bond's reaction to it. Or atleast make the audience acutely aware that Bond was using her, bribing her with freedom in order to get to Silva.
I didn't enjoy Eve at all, but understood why she was given screentime. Her transition to Moneypenny was predictable, forced and completely unwarranted, however. Moneypenny should have just been there at the end when Bond walked in the office and then introduced herself. Either way, Severine needed much more coverage and story.
Overall it was a great Bond film, but had some slight pacing issues in the second third. However, Mendes has created a truly innovative and original Bond movie. Not sure I need to see it a 2nd time, i'm not desperate too, but still this could be up there in and around the top 5 for sure.
I wondered too, but am presuming it would have been either way too complicated/dangerous to have loads of stunt crew inside, or otherwise just politically incorrect and insensitive to show hundreds of civilians dying on the London underground after 2005.
I felt the same. I wasn't anticipating disappointment however, but neither did I anticipate greatness. What I got was a surprise at how creative Mendes and co were. Yet at the same time, I wasn't blown away, and therefore am in no rush to watch again. That said, I remember being blown away by TDKR two months ago, and then upon a second viewing saw how silly it was. Perhaps Skyfall will become great for me.
Because there was no space for them in either film, especially QoS. However, if it means we get Wishaw's Q now, i'm glad they never bothered in the previous two films. Wishaw is going to be a great mainstay in the series.
I just read about that. But that could be a convenient get around for the reasons i gave above.
Audience Reactions -
Very good I must say; the audience I was with laughed, cried, etc. in all the right places. There was even a round of applause at the end.
Grade - A+
Direction – Very good. I think Mendes got just the balance just right, between action, romance, violence, sophistication, style, humour, tension and intrigue. Pace is good throughout, and he lets the characters breath.
Grade – A
Editing – Baird does a very good job. Baird and Mendes reminded me of the dynamic that Terence Young and Peter Hunt used to have.
Grade – A+
Cinematography – Stunning.
Grade – A+
Set Design – Good. I'll have to see Skyfall again to judge; I was so caught up the plot/cinematography to notice!
So, provisionally –
Grade – B
Music – Nothing special, it fitted the film well, and again I'll have to see Skyfall again, so
Grade – B-
Cast – Bardem, Dench, Finnes, Whishaw, Kinnear and Finney all excellent. Marlohe didn't have enough screen-time, and Harris was good, but not excellent.
Grade – A
Bond – He has a character arc this time! I thought Craig was superb in Skyfall; a multifaceted Bond performance.
Grade – A+
Overall I was very impressed. I may have to see it again in the cinema, in a couple of weeks time....
Skyfall has a very interesting plot, and equally-interesting characters. It has some brilliant acting, an intriguing villain, and great character chemistry between Bond and M.
The new Q is very likeable too. He doesn't try to compete with classical Q, he forms his own take on the role, and pulls it off very effectively. I would like to see more of this Q!
Seeing wounded Bond peaked my interest the most overall as it became saddening seeing the 007 we all know-and-love destroyed in the beginning og the film. He drinks, he grows strong stuble, he lacks his gentle-manness, and he "loses a stone", resulting in a Bond we haven't really seen, and you begin to feel for him throughout.
Bond's past is focused on too, and was a nice touch into the Bond series.
The way that the film questions MI6's 00 operatives in today's world is an interesting point that it tackles well too. They bring up how they're facing a new form of terrorism, and ask how 00s are needed in a world they cannot understand like they used to.
I also liked how they brought pure "British accents" into the characters. It made the film feel much more classical and British when compared to other modern-era Bond films. A good move on my mind!
As regulary pointed out, Skyfall has fantastic cinematography. There are many great examples of this throughout the film. The silhoette fight sequence in the Shanghai building was beautiful and creative, and stands out strong amongst fight sequences in my opinion.
M's death was absolutely tragic! I felt like crying at times. I had grown to love Judi Dench's take on M more than any of the other Ms, and to see her evolve into a Mother-type figure before slowly dieing in Bond's arms was truly heart-braking...
And i absolutely love how they've set up bond for the traditional route again. The return of Moneypenny and her desk, a male M and his room and door, and Q has put me up for the next Bond in hope that it'll show modern Bond in the traditional setting a bit closer.
But, unfortunately, with my first viewing, there came a few unwanted disapointments for me:
The biggest is "issue" i had with this film was how, to me, the last third of the film, apart from the ending, did not feel at all like a "Bond film". I couldn't "feel" it, and it was distracting for me. It felt more like a BRILLIANT action / defence film, but not a BRILLIANT Bond film in that final act... It felt more like a film seperated from the Bond series.
Thomas Newman was not at all up to David Arnold's usual standards in Skyfall.
The gun barrel was at the end, again. I wish they'd have had this at the beginning, it would have helped make it feel more classical.
The Opening Title Sequence was fairly weak and dull...
There was a lack of a 'fight' between Bond and Silva to me in the last parts, and felt like they should have had a bit more going on before Silva's death.
They destroyed the Aston martin DB5! Although it was a good way of making us feel angry, and have the film become a bit more personal for us Bond fans, it was heart-braking. (Not really a bad point, but still...) Although that brings up another point: Casino Royale rebooted the series, so technically, the Aston Martin and its gagets had no real relevance...
They killed off the interesting Bond girl too quickly. This helped make the film feel 'less' of a Bond film as it loses the traditional Bond girl assistance (Although some call m a "bond girl", I see her more of a mother-type).
Overall - I absolutely loved this film! It has the classic Bond feel for the majority of it, and adds quite a bit of new touches into the Bond film, as well as showing that you can make a Bond film outside of the usual Bond formula!
As a film, it is better than the other Bond films, in my opinion. But rated as a Bond film, Casino Royale is still my favourite, and feels much closer to a Bond film than Skyfall.
Rating: 8.5 / 10
I am going to rewatch Skyfall tomorrow.
there was a "not in service" sign
http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb140/schoenfussroehrling/DC3/notinservice.jpg
The third act pretty much plays out as us being caught with our pants down and ends exemplifying why we need the old war horse. He is still standing because he knows the basics still works and shouldn’t be underestimated as a force to be reckoned with. He remains number one RAT despite all he has had to endure and remains the bas(ard)tion you need to get past.
Daniel Kleinman is at his best with 'Skyfall'
In all honesty, main titles for a James Bond-film are not just a bunch of beautifully designed visuals. On the contrary. They are a movie on itself. They should give you thrills and shivers and prepare you for what still has to come. The last time I had that feeling in cinema was during the premiere of 'GoldenEye' in 1995. 'Licence To Kill' (1989) was my first Bond flick in cinema, but I thought Maurice Binder was not at his best with his last project. Moreover, I still find Gladys Knight's title theme rather dreadful, taking away suspense. By: Gert Waterink (alias: Gustav_Graves)
No, it was a breath of fresh air when Daniel Kleinman came onboard, following the -very difficult to follow- footsteps of his predecessors Robert Brownjohn and Maurice Binder. But he did so flawlessly. His designs for 'GoldenEye' merge perfectly with Tina Turner's hypnotizing Bond theme. The entire results feels like a 'total package'. Moreover, Daniel managed to blend in Binder's classic approach -the use of real girls- with his own strongholds, his use of CGI animations. CGI isn't always bad. They lend themself perfectly for main title designs, IF you do it sparingly and sophistically off course.
http://img.007unleashed.com/albums/userpics/10001/getitles12.jpg
Like David Arnold, he never fully managed to get the thrilling well-known Bond feeling back in his following designs for 'Tomorrow Never Dies', 'The World Is Not Enough' and 'Die Another Day'. They either suffered from too busy visuals, accompanied with eerie, sometimes too fast moving elements. Also, Daniel Kleinman wasn't that lucky with the songs he got on his plate. And let's face it, it's not only Kleinman's design, but the entire presentation, music included, that needs to work.
For 'Casino Royale' Daniel Kleinman started working together with British visual effects company Framestore CFC -which he also used for 'Skyfall'-. The titles for 'Casino Royale' are very much stand-alone titles, as they don't look back on previous Bond films. And that seems logical, as 'Casino Royale' was to become a reboot. Just like Binder's simple dots in his first Bond film 'Dr. No', Kleinman uses simple graphic motifs as well. Playing card motifs in Kleinman's case. It was one of the old 1950's frontcover prints of Fleming's novel that gave Kleinman his inspiration. The entire result looks breathtakingly creative and unique.
http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/4083/417642-3260385485_12_super.jpg
http://img.007unleashed.com/albums/userpics/10001/drnotitles1.jpg
In my opinion, the entire 'main titles ride' suffered a bit from Chris Cornell's theme song. It is certainly not the best of the David Arnold-era theme songs (Garbage's 'The World Is Not Enough' and especially KD Lang's 'Surrender' still work better if you ask me) and one can ask why for the groundbreaking 'Casino Royale' an equally groundbreaking instrumental track wasn't used. Obviously, marketing and commercialism starts influencing the creative process here, but still 'You Know My Name' wasn't as well-thought as Kleinman's fantastic design. Thus, making the overall feeling a bit lacklustre for me.
For 'Quantum Of Solace' MK12 came onboard, but as their design gave me an instant headache I want to move forward to 'Skyfall's main title design. 'Skyfall' is the 50th anniversary Bond film. In its own way this Bond film is as big as the 1960's productions 'Thunderball' and 'Goldfinger'. Does Kleinman succeed in giving us majestic main titles, that brings you one hell of a 4min thrilling, escapist, visual ride? Yes. Definately.
http://www.annyas.com/screenshots/images/1965/james-bond-thunderball-1965-movie-title.jpg
For this anniversary Bond, Kleinman obviously made a well-thought decision. Off course Kleinman did not just literally copy previous Binder-designs, but he did know certain elements had to come back for the sake of recognition. He does so in such a skillful way, that the overall result is an effective coherentness. Colour-wise, he sticks to blood-red, many green's and blacks and whites. Combined with slow-moving CGI-visuals and the use of very Binder-ish standstills of James Bond's body, his eyes and, indeed, a couple of females, and their eyes (This is a big SPOILER, as it shows you the entire main titles from 'Skyfall'. Watch the Moonraker-ish female at 02min04sec here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq8ZeNdT_Mo), this feels much more like the little drama movie I want to be sucked into.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qwkR2_vioYo/T1pMNNjx0KI/AAAAAAAAALY/9kPJuBwEJ7k/s1600/james-bond-live-and-let-die-1973-title-still.jpg
It's not only that. Daniel Kleinman perfectly rolls from the apparent death of agent 007 into his titles. Something that Maurice Binder has done before in 'You Only Live Twice' and re-used even better in his design for 'Live And Let Die'. Obviously, the theme of funerals and death was not new for Bond-creator Ian Fleming.....and Maurice Binder, but Kleinman masterfully gives his own take on the death themeology in his design. And it perfectly blends with the overall theme of the movie: Are secret agents still useful in today's world? Why do these government workers, both soldiers and secret agents, have to die so senselessly?
But I am not finished yet. Adele makes the entire main titles thrill ride complete. Her rather sad title theme (Apparently, it gave Daniel Craig tears when he heard it for the first time) blends wunderfully with the equally sad, dramatic and gripping Kleinman-titles. The whole picture feels much more like Binder's early work on 'Thunderball', 'You Only Live Twice' and 'Live And Let Die', in the sense that Kleinman doesn't overuse certain visuals. Together, Adele biggest hit since 'A View To A Kill' and Daniel Kleinman's title design manage to give me real goosebumps on this one. And that's exactly what we Bond fans really need for her majesty's secret agent's 50th birthday.
Ok...
@craigrules, you're not selling this one to me, buddy.
Either you don't understand one iota about filmmaking or your taste is such that this current Bond era simply stands diametrical to your liking, which would be confusing given your user name.
Personally I find the production values, from the far East over London to Scotland quite simply amazing. Also, I like the fact that they didn't pull ice palaces and that kind of video game stuff out some magic CGI box. Instead, they chose to work with places, buildings and settings that exist, that are real. I have absolutely no objection to that - on the contrary: it's much needed in this day and age of more serious filmmaking. It's been the focus of the Craig films anyway - so far at least.
No suspense or excitement? Really? This film regularly builds towards powerful intermediate climaxes, beginning with the PTS and moving on from there. SF is one succession of twists and well-staged action sequences. Of course it doesn't only work from one action scene to another. Luckily I'd say. SF understands that an adult audience also cares about intelligent character moments and pauses in the action which allow the film to breathe. It's what CR did well too and what QoS mostly failed to do. I'm glad we get another Bond film that isn't solely aimed at kids with short attention spans or caffeine addicts.
Bland and safe and lifeless? This is where I'm beginning to doubt you've actually seen SF. Are you sure you're not here as the intentional anti-person, hoping to stir things up because you enjoy the provocation? You see, with a description like that I'm starting to worry that you watched a different film by mistake.
Well that's too bad. SF may not be your kind of Bond film (although I do wonder which kind is at this point.) But if God were willing to help the next one, He'd make it Skyfall 2. Audiences love the film. I, as a long-time Bond fan (my fandom extending various decades) am so glad they made this film and thus took away the sour taste left behind by QOS.
Please feel free to counter my points. I love a smart debate. ;-)
Not bothered by the lack of the gun barrel at the beginning. I prefer these more creative openings, where the directors play with with fans expectations.
(In fact I think they intended the climax of the roof-top chase/fight in QoS where Bond dangling on the end of the rope shoots at the camera to be the surprise gun sequence at the beginning of that particular film ... in the same surprise we had with CR ... but they probably felt the pre-title sequence would have gone on too long.)
In fact they could have surprised us with a gun barrel sequence that used Bond falling from the train ... hey ho.
Love the fact that the film is better paced, with more drama and character development. As I say a film for adults and don;t just want non-stop action.
Only dud for me was, Silva blowing up the train tunnel with a conveniently placed explosive.
Loved Javier, but felt there echoes of Silence of the Lambs in the way he "slurped" at the end of the Rats speech, and the high security isolation booth in MI6.
No strong new music themes in the main part of the film that struck me. The Chimera and the music over the coffins being the best. Real gravitas. The Chimera really visceral ... but for the most part generic action movie percussion ... and I've listened to the soundtrack 4 or 5 times now. Detected shade of "Double- O Wall-e", in Newman's use of percussive synths during Bond's fitness synths. (Those of you with Pixar's Wall-e, check out the spaceship sequences).
Kleinman's titles awesome. Not as good as CR though.
Post Script
My wife was good friends with Maurice Binder for many years. Met Terence Young and Barbara B. a few times. I never did, mores the pity ..... She fell asleep during Silva's grand entrance and thought the film was nothing special.
Your screening must have been messed up then for IMO the Shanghai and Macao images are anything but cheap, to name but a few visual highlights. And trust me, Lew Grade TV shows wouldn't ever be able to pull off the night stuff in the third act of SF. Anyone who has some understanding of the technical difficulties of shooting at night will agree that SF is exceptionally well crafter in that sense.
You know I wouldn't even be surprised if that were indeed the case. A friend of mine told me in 2005 he couldn't tell who was who in Revenge Of The Sith, like that's how poor the quality of the film was. When confronting him, he admitted he'd been watching one of those hidden cam recordings of the theatrical release of the film!! If that's what he based his judgement on, he's a bloody fool.
Absoutely. You can't show a train full of innocent people crashing while Bond jumps out of the way and then runs after Silva.
...and she is still your wife? :)
Never said that. My friend was a fool for having his ROTS review based on a poor quality pirated copy of the film.
If you like I can make an appointment for her with Herr Doctor... ;-)
I have some whiskey...
;)
well, we only saw it on Saturday. The papers will only have arrived at the solicitors yesterday.
We're perhaps taking this a tad too seriously, but ... doesn't he say of the DB5 in CR that he used to have one just like that (or words to that affect) ... that is, the DB5 he won in CR was his second ... and his original was still safely in storage ...
... ta da!! plot hole fixed! And relax.
http://www.filmstarts.de/nachrichten/18475728.html
so - its not a back to back Bond filming. Who thought it would be anyway.