Home › Bond Movies › Skyfall
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Skyfall - anyone missing OTT Bond?
First post, so be kind!
Let's be clear, I think DC is up there with the best, and CR is the best film of the franchise.
I enjoyed Skyfall, but after 3 films of realism, I am kind of hoping Bond 24 is more formulaic. As hinted at the end of each of DCs films.
He earns his stripes at the end of CR and M says "come back we need you", then in QoS bond says "I never left", now at the end if Skyfall we have him saying "with have work to do". I'm now thinking I hope they just get on with it in the next one. It's been the longest character development in film history. No bad thing but maybe we now understand DCs approach to the role, and we can have a straightforward adventure in the next one.
Overall I thought Skyfall was brave in the way it played with the formula and had a small ending, similar to FYEO in scale, and I'm looking forward to seeing it again on Tuesday.
Let's be clear, I think DC is up there with the best, and CR is the best film of the franchise.
I enjoyed Skyfall, but after 3 films of realism, I am kind of hoping Bond 24 is more formulaic. As hinted at the end of each of DCs films.
He earns his stripes at the end of CR and M says "come back we need you", then in QoS bond says "I never left", now at the end if Skyfall we have him saying "with have work to do". I'm now thinking I hope they just get on with it in the next one. It's been the longest character development in film history. No bad thing but maybe we now understand DCs approach to the role, and we can have a straightforward adventure in the next one.
Overall I thought Skyfall was brave in the way it played with the formula and had a small ending, similar to FYEO in scale, and I'm looking forward to seeing it again on Tuesday.
^ 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
Bloody Austin Powers put paid to Blofeld type villains anyway - at least in Babs' mind.
You've got your oneliners, aston martins, Q, Miss Moneypenny, Ms office, and gadgets back - so what are you complaining about?
Exactly. I don't really understand what people are expecting. One of the reasons a lot of people didn't like QoS was that it was "too serious". SF - despite it's more dramatic plotline - succeeded in bringing some levity back.
I have a feeling I know someone else on here who still won't be satisfied. Maybe he could "find his fix" elsewhere ;)
Obviously if you want those old things you can go back and watch the old films, just think that after 3 films maybe the gritty bond is in itself becoming slightly formulaic.
I think SF will improve with repeat viewings though. All Bond films do. That's not to say I thought it was bad.
The great thing about Bond is there is usually a film for any mood. CR in my opinion is the greatest 'film' in the franchise. Goldfinger is the best 'Bond Film'. Moonraker is my favourite when it's raining and I'm hungover on a Sunday. Ohmss is great when I fancy a change.
I enjoyed SF and the nods to the character, I guess I'm starting the topic as a question of "where do they go from here", rather than either saying SF is a let down, or let's bring back the hollow volcano - never really liked YOLT anyway!
Now THAT would have been fun :D
Christ there are a thousand different directions where they can go..
So long as there is espionage in the world so long as there is crime there are stories.
They haven't tied themselves down to yet another villain with a death spewing satellite yet. And with the new UNIT/MI6 team of Moneypenny, Q, and Mallory they have a good team to build on.
Agree with the comment about Brosnans films and action. The nadir being the snow chase in TWINE.
...and the thing is I didn't hate Brosnan's films (except DAD), but they did feel like a checklist of formula moments. We all like the formula - that's why we are here - but that's why I like a bit of experimentation: I don't want to watch film after film of exactly the same formula just trying to outdo the spectacle of the previous effort. I cannot hate a Bond film that does a terrific job, but he doesn't order a Vodka Martini for example. In that case, the series just becomes comfort food.
Above all, the kind of steady filming is what is so refreshing. You can clearly see and follow everything on screen! It's the best and most beautiful way to make a Bondflick.
Thats beautifully summed up Muddyw, couldn't agree more wholeheartedly, especially on the cinematography of SF.
If you took the words "bond,james bond" out of the Brozzzzznan films it would be like any "made for tv" smash/bang/ dodgy villian/token girl movie imho.......yes i'm coming out on this forum now, i cant stand the man or any of his bond films.
To contribute more positively to this thread....I think DC summed it up well in an interview a few weeks ago when he said something like "austin powers f***** the whole thing up for Eon and we now have a warning klaxon for when we are going too near to that style". No more meglomaniacs in hollowed out caves im afraid.
I'm confident B24 will take us somewhere we dont expect and will surprise us....
Skyfall
A review by James Murphy
Mi6 Data File:
Director: Sam Mendes
Production Company /Studio: Sony /MGM/EON
Running Time: 2 hours 25 minutes
Certificate: 12A /PG-13
Stars: Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Judi Dench, Ralph Fiennes
Genre: Action /Adventure/Spy Thriller
Now on General Release
Plot /Story:
James Bond is on assignment in Istanbul, but it all goes wrong. A computer hard drive is missing and it contains the locations and identities of all our deep cover agents tracking terror groups worldwide. Bond is missing, presumed dead. And then Mi6 comes under attack from a skilled terrorist, determined to see the organisation and its leadership suffer a deadly defeat. Only one man can help: 007, reporting for duty. But is he up to the challenge?
Main Review:
This is a very difficult film to review objectively. I would go so far as saying that it is my ‘toughest assignment yet’ (permit the 007 analogy, in context). Skyfall’ has won universal praise and it is the fiftieth anniversary of a beloved, British franchise. We all want this film to do well. That is the film’s greatest strength and its one weakness: it must exist both as original thriller and as wider tribute to the Bond mythology. And so, we get an examination of what makes the character 'tick', redfining his apeal by peeling back layers and reliving the past, whilst renewing things to move forward.
The last time this happened, we were greeted with Die Another Day (2002, the 40th anniversary year and the great Pierce Brosnan’s swansong as 007). That film was vilified, just like Licence To Kill’ and Quantum of Solace: brave Bond films, nonetheless loathed by many critics. But I love those entries to the series and I can see strands of their DNA in Skyfall’. So why has Skyfall succeeded, where some of its predecessors tried and failed to please all breeds of viewer and fan? The answer is simple: this one is made with cohesion, confidence and conviction and craftsmanship at every level.
The acting is the main selling point. Daniel Craig continues to convince as an actual veteran of battle as well as the archetypal pulp hero of the Fleming novels. He is world weary, grumpy, ruthless and clinical. But he is also charming, incredibly well spoken and there is every hint that Craig’s Bond is a gentleman in his programming. He does owe a debt to his predecessors (notably Timothy Dalton's depth and Sean Connery's poise) but this is still Craig's role, his distinctive take and his kingdom. Long may he reign!
Dame Judi Dench has never been better as M. She is effectively the ‘Bond Girl’, mentor and arguably the ‘mcguffin’ of the piece. Javier Bardem also gives us value for money as the villain: he is possibly the best in the series’ history. There are nods to other Bond adversaries in the character (Robert Davi's Sanchez, Christopher Lee's Scaramanga and Sean Bean's Travelyan). But this is no composite character,so much as a consumate actor at the peak of his powers. Bardem is the first opponent in a Bond film to actually frighten me, right down to his bad wolf at the door psychological game-play.
Bardem is matched by an equally committed supporting cast, who make great contributions, even in cameo roles (Helen McCrory: we love you, such a shame that you are not playing Bond's lover here). And look out for Ralph Fiennes (himself once mooted as a possible 007): is he a villain or an ally? Wait and see, as you are kept guessing until the final scenes. Sam Mendes is an actor's director and that admirable quality is clear in every scene of the film.
What about plot, locations, gadgets or plain old fashioned escapism? Bond travels the globe, beats up baddies and jumps onto a moving train or two. The opening scenes are a rousing triumph that will make you happy to have visited the cinema (especially if you select the IMAX version). And there is a thrilling chase through London, finally harnessing the city's backdrops in an original and exciting fashion, with familiarity married to freshness in the scenic shots.
But Bond just isn’t having any fun. True, he endures a trauma at the start of the film, but realistically, even the ‘gritty’ Bond of the Fleming novels would simply have moved on far more quickly. This is now the third film in a row where we see Bond get set up as the ultimate agent and have his psyche /past /physique explored, only to save precious little time for him just enjoying his job and life with aplomb. It's not as though we lacked the time to do so: this film is a very long one, when one considers its genre. Where is Bond the connoisseur? Why can't we now watch him ordering dinner or buying a suit etc? It would not compromise the reality, but enhance the film’s social fantasy.
The new Q is also just an annoying boffin.They may as well not have bothered. The joke at the expense of the series’ past backfires. ‘What did you expect: an exploding pen?’ he asks. Well yes, actually. You need not have invisible cars to have fun with gadgets. It is a lazy myth that we cannot have Bond enjoy technology simply because everyone now has a mobile phone.
The denouement is compelling and stunningly photographed (thank you, Roger Deakins). But its tone and motif owe much to Batman, Peckinpah, Inspector Morse, The Bodyguard and just about everything except Bond films! So, instead of simply enjoying the climax, one finds oneself asking ‘why not just send in more Police or the Army?’ and bemoaning the fact that the villain’s master plan is actually a tad dull and domestic.
It is as though we get half the treats and thrills of a Bond film, but also an apology for those and a withholding of the fun for later episodes. Even the Bond theme is cut off, half way through (despite an otherwise excellent score from Thomas Newman). But I discovered those minor quibbles out of love. I am a lifelong fan of this series and have the greatest affection for the family of film-makers that continue to make them for us.
Rarely has a Bond film had such a palpable sense of family onscreen and that befits the reality of its creative union behind the scenes.The director (Sam Mendes) is a gentleman and a visionary director and the Producer (Barbara Broccoli) is a champion of film in all its forms. They both kindly and personally encouraged my passion for film when I was a student at Oxford so it is wonderful to see them collaborate so effectively.
It is interesting that Sony Pictures are rushing through the next Bond film for 2014. One can see their logic. If they can retain the same team then it will be just as good, if not better. Might I suggest using QUANTUM, the villains of the two films preceding Skyfall’? They appeal to ongoing fears of war and terror, allowing Bond to remain on the side of capitalist freedom, whilst credibly policing its recent excesses and monitoring its extremist opponents. Just a thought.
007/10: England expects everyone to see the film and enjoy it, immediately!
Yep me too, got 2 weeks off after this week coming! So will be heading to my local cinema for a repeat performance! :-bd
Thanks. I had no clue either.
If by "over the top", the poster is talking about stunts and gadgets, then I say no thanks. Okay, actually the gadgets didn't bother me; it was the stunts. The one thing about Craig is that the stunts aren't totally outlandish--they're plausible. We don't have him jumping out of airplanes (or towards airplanes) without a parachute or fighting the henchman on top of a moving plane. I prefer the stunts to be realistic.
I guess that makes it better. I just remember thinking on more than one occasion that Moore's Bond ought to be dead--especially in the later movies.