killjoy - anyone else disappointed with Skyfall?

JamesCraig

Anyway, we have other sections to voice opinions about Skyfall.

I fear this will get out of hand, and I already provided a link.

seroxx

@craigrules
You didn't watch the Film carefully. After a bloodbath in PM's hearings, train diversion and Silva's escape M is bothered of too many people dying because of her and agrees Bond that he can use her as a bait to get Silva (hijacked car conversation) BUT there are only 2 OF THEM (Bond and M) to avoid more people dying. She tries to manage herself trough a miserable situation she brought herself in and she pays with a highest price. And yes, she was a cold hearted, but that's her job. That't why I left the cinema in melancholy.

JamesCraig

Don't bother craigrules. :-?

RogueAgent

The only disappointment for me was Severine was not used enough sadly. Other than that i thoroughly enjoyed Skyfall, and look forward to seeing it again soon!

Getafix

seroxx wrote:

@craigrules
You didn't watch the Film catefully. Aftrer a bloodbath in PM's hearings, train diversion and Silva's escape M is bothered of too many people dying because of her and tells Bond that he can use as a bait to get Silva (hijacked car conversation) BUT there are only 2 OF THEM (Bond and M) to avoid more people dying. She tries to manage herself trough a miserable situation she brought herself in and she pays with a highest price. And yes, she was a cold hearted, but that's her job. That't why I left the cinema in melancholy.

That's an interesting take. That M sacrifices herself to save more agents from dying. I didn't pick that up in the film but it gives her a little bit more credibility. If they wanted us to see it that way they could have been a bit more explicit.

Sandy

Getafix wrote:

seroxx wrote:

@craigrules
You didn't watch the Film catefully. Aftrer a bloodbath in PM's hearings, train diversion and Silva's escape M is bothered of too many people dying because of her and tells Bond that he can use as a bait to get Silva (hijacked car conversation) BUT there are only 2 OF THEM (Bond and M) to avoid more people dying. She tries to manage herself trough a miserable situation she brought herself in and she pays with a highest price. And yes, she was a cold hearted, but that's her job. That't why I left the cinema in melancholy.

That's an interesting take. That M sacrifices herself to save more agents from dying. I didn't pick that up in the film but it gives her a little bit more credibility. If they wanted us to see it that way they could have been a bit more explicit.

I agree with @seroxx on this and it was quite explicit to me.

Germanlady

"Too many people dying because of me"
"Its just us now"

Not explicit?

Getafix - why are you not sure, that a review belongs in the review thread?

Is that title not explicit enough for you either? :-?

JamesCraig

He must be joking.

imranbecks

Getafix wrote:

identigraph wrote:

Personally, I had my own expectations in my mind, I never actually take any notice of the reviews as I know critics tend to follow the crowd etc.

I am not for one minute suggesting it was rubbish, it was ok, there were some decent scenes, I enjoyed the "latest thing from Q Branch, it's called a radio" line and there were some nice nods to the past. But the most telling thing for me was that it didn't really hold my attention and I found myself fidgeting, I heard quite a few groans on the way out of the cinema.

I will of course watch it again as it may well grow on me!

I agree with what you said. I sat down determined to enjoy it and yet after half any hour was looking at my watch. The constant cutting back to London and MI6 didn't help. Even when Bond is chasing Silva through the underground he's constantly talking to Q. I know this reflects the 'reality' of today but for me it really detracts from your identifying with Bond.

The irony is that although they insist on earpieces etc and supposed authenticity right at the start, by the end he is alone with an old woman and groundsman in a remote Scottish glen and has no ability to call in support or back up. This is despite Q having actually lead Silva to the location via some trail of breadcrumbs. Somehow 3 British helicopters manage to show up on a remote Chinese island but when Bond's in the UK he can't even call the local police, let alone get the SAS in take out Silva. I know I'm nit-picking, but the inconsistency and stupidity of it (despite is supposedly being 'serious') just bugs me. If the film had carried me along I wouldn't have minded, but as Bond rushed from room to room in the final scenes with the house burning around him, all I could think was - 'you total idiot - you took M, in order to save her, to some remote house with virtually no weapons and no back-up and therefore to her inevitable death'.

Not that I was sorry to see Dench die. At last!

And what a rubbish end to Silva. He deserved a lot better. One minute Bond is grappling some guy 20 metres below the surface of a frozen loch. The next second he's miraculously made it back to the surface, somehow clambered out of the freezing water onto the disintegrating ice and then he's there just in time to throw a knife in the villain's back... one of the most anticlimactic ends to a villain in the series. Silva/Bardem really deserved better as his performance was probably the best in the film.

Well said. What you said kinda made me realize the flaws in the movie. It was a mistake to bring M to the Skyfall lodge as a trap for Silva and his men. Bond could've have at least gone there on his own and make Silva think that M was with him. Q could've done the rest seeing as he did a trail of breadcrumbs for Silva to follow. Q could maybe easily make it look as though M was with Bond when in fact he wasn't hence leading a trap for Silva. And it never occurred to me about the back up from SAS or some sort of counter assault team on the outside of the lodge hiding from plain view. To sum it up, I think Bond's plan to protect M was screwed up seeing as M died in the end no matter what. Sad to admit, but there were just too many men against Bond at the lodge and Bond lacked the firepower and to have M, an aging lady in the midst of all that was a big mistake.

Not gonna take away that Skyfall was a good movie though and I wasn't disappointed with it. Its the flaws and plotholes that bothers me.

lewisblake

I personally loved the film - though it wasn't as good as I'd hyped it to be in my mind prospectively. For me the film was overly measured - it didn't quite have menacing scenes that other films have - but this is understandable considering that it was a Bond movie coming after a flop, it was the 50th anniversary film etc So there was alot riding on the film, and alot of pressure on those making it.

however, I'd then liken it to GoldenEye in that, to me, it was reminiscent of how GE attracted a new set of fans, a new audience. I found the marketing was rather like GoldenEye as well. So I've awarded the film 5 stars as it didn't quite live up to my expectations, but the craft used in making the film was exemplary and it ignited everyones love of Bond again.

Germanlady

@Getafix: I agree with almost all your points. Its easy to do a bit of thinking and come to these conclusions. I am sure, the prods and writers are no less intelligent though.

I have long ago given up to look for logic throughout a film, that is supposed to be action intertainment movie PLUS Bond is even half fantasy and was NEVER a victim of too much reason. Its not what Bond films are about. Never were and never will be.

Spoiling your own fun (for those, who have had it) thinking about what makes 100% sense and not is like spitting into the face of the fairy, coming with a present, because she is realistically not there.

Bond films are about making an impact, give escapism and the realistic approac we have now is as far as it goes. I don't wanna know, how many people would be moaning, if they would stick to 100%, what's possible and totally logic.

I and obviously they (the Bond team) would always go for the more exciting moment on screen and s*** logic. I am dead glad, Bond was home alone and not having a 50 men against 50 men shoot out. I always hated that in the movies.

Had there been other, better ways to end it? I dunno. maybe, maybe not. ALL I know is, that I was watching a great entertainmet unfolding before my eyes and that was what I went into the theater for. No less...

If I want to see realistic drama, i go watch Schindlers Liste or else. This is f***ing Bond. he doesn't need to be realistic and logic at ALL times, not even Craig Bond, but what he needs to do is give me a satisfying 2 1/2 hours, forgetting everyting around me. That he did. So - IMO, nobody needs to be disapponted because of this.

Getafix

Totally fair enough. I am just surprised that all those who hated QoS so much have swallowed SF so uncritica

Germanlady wrote:

@Getafix: I agree with almost all your points. Its easy to do a bit of thinking and come to these conclusions. I am sure, the prods and writers are no less intelligent though.

I have long ago given up to look for logic throughout a film, that is supposed to be action intertainment movie PLUS Bond is even half fantasy and was NEVER a victim of too much reason. Its not what Bond films are about. Never were and never will be.

Spoiling your own fun (for those, who have had it) thinking about what makes 100% sense and not is like spitting into the face of the fairy, coming with a present, because she is realistically not there.

Bond films are about making an impact, give escapism and the realistic approac we have now is as far as it goes. I don't wanna know, how many people would be moaning, if they would stick to 100%, what's possible and totally logic.

I and obviously they (the Bond team) would always go for the more exciting moment on screen and s*** logic. I am dead glad, Bond was home alone and not having a 50 men against 50 men shoot out. I always hated that in the movies.

Had there been other, better ways to end it? I dunno. maybe, maybe not. ALL I know is, that I was watching a great entertainmet unfolding before my eyes and that was what I went into the theater for. No less...

If I want to see realistic drama, i go watch Schindlers Liste or else. This is f***ing Bond. he doesn't need to be realistic and logic at ALL times, not even Craig Bond, but what he needs to do is give me a satisfying 2 1/2 hours, forgetting everyting around me. That he did. So - IMO, nobody needs to be disapponted because of this.

Amazingly, I also totally agree with you. It's just I wasn't entertained. I am absolutely not looking for spiritual enlightenment when I go to see a Bond movie. I want to enjoy it 100% without thinking about the daft plot or character development. For me QoS actually achieved that much better than SF. Unlike many people on here I thoroughly enjoyed QoS in the cinema. I didn't think it was a classic but for me it was the best Bond since the Dalton era. SF just didn't do it for me though. I was bored mostly and found myself zoning out of the story because I didn't care what happened to M, MI6 or anyone else, although it did often look stunning.

DarthDimi

JamesCraig already posted a link. This is clearly a duplicate thread and everyone posting here knows it!!! Shame on you for supporting duplicate threads and in doing so working against the mod team's friendly request not to do so.

thelivingroyale

Germanlady wrote:

I am dead glad, Bond was home alone and not having a 50 men against 50 men shoot out. I always hated that in the movies.

So you don't like the battles in the 60s films?

I'd like it if Bond 24 had a big soldiers vs henchmen battle at the villians lair for the finale like they used to have.

Sandy

I enjoyed QoS very much and SF a lot more, right now my ranking of Craig's Bond films is:
1. SK
2. QoS
3. CR

I agree with you @Germanlady, I'm enjoy Bond films for themselves, I think if we think too profoundly about it we go crazy.