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
Feel free to disprove it.
There were bit's I loved, bit's I liked & bits I thought were all wrong, so my review would be patchy, overall OK, but certainly not the masterpiece some mainstream critics were lording.
With regards to criticisms of Silva's death, it was very similar to Largo's death at the end of Thunderball. Bond takes on his henchmen, Largo is about to strike, he gets a spear to the back. I really didn't see a problem with it, I actually quite liked it. As other people have said, a prolonged fight would've ruined the emotion of M's death. And as we saw from Silva missing Kincade on purpose, he was only there for M. He didn't want to fight Bond, Bond did what he had to do.
With regards to criticisms of the storyline, I understand that there was a lot of cut material. So maybe time constraints are the source of your problems, and you would've been complaining had there been a 2 hour 40 minute Bond film.
People criticising Craig's performance are the same ones who criticised him before the film for being too 'brutal', too 'physical'. And when he's less physical, less brutal, they still complain. Seems to me that it's Craig you don't like, regardless of how he plays the character. I posted this in my short fan review of Skyfall, but I thought Craig really captured the sophistication and brutality of Bond, the contradiction that I think is at the core of the character. He was very Fleming-esque and if people don't like that then I don't understand how they really love Bond.
I have no response to criticisms of Moneypenny's ethnicity. She's a very beautiful woman and anyone who has even raised the criticism should be ashamed.
Too bad they did not chose such a direction with CR whose ending, the bloody sinking house, is still as bad as the OTT ending of DAD. DAD had the excuse that it fitted the style of the movie.
When you catch him you place him in a
computer controlled prision cell ? wow thats believable scenario in a 21st century era...no not really...Sam Mendes IMO did not have much control while directing, theres just no way he would ever direct such thrash on his own say...American Beauty was such an awesome movie, I was expecting Skyfail to incorporate dark elements and such from Mendes with his usual style of directing. EON must have really bullied Mendes around. I was expecting a CR/FRWL 2.0 . instead I got a watered down cliched action movie that is no different from any other modern day casual action film...and whats with all the Jokes and quips from Bond in skyfail? if i want comedy ill watch Seinfeld, Bond is a licensed hitman, not a joke telling superhero of london, which is what we got in skyfail. oh and bond using his fathers gun was one of the stupidest things ever to incorporate on Daniel Craig's bond...and that outfit Daniel Craig had on at the end of skyfail was so out of place, he looked like he was about to go hunt some deer ....oh and the whole helicopter flying with music blasting was so corny and childish ..god casino royale makes skyfail look like dog shi*
It's got some language, just a heads up.
Peter Morgan was originally commissioned
to write a script, but left the project when
MGM filed for bankruptcy and production of
the film stalled; despite his departure,
Morgan later stated that the final script was
based on his original idea, retaining what
he described as the film's "big hook".
Director Mendes adamantly denied this,
saying, "Absolutely not. Definitively not.
That's a lie. I don't want to make a big story
about it, that's just not true ... I read that
treatment of Peter's and nothing remains.
He wrote the treatment, but they binned it
when I arrived. That credit grabbing is not
fair on the writers. The final script was
written by Bond screenwriting regulars Neal
Purvis and Robert Wade, as well as John
Logan. Logan recounted being
brought into the project by his long-time
friend Sam Mendes, describing the process
between Mendes and the writers as "very
collaborative", and that writing Skyfall was
one of the best experiences he had had in
writing a film
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyfall
Wow, what a disappointment of Morgan's departure, I wonder what his treatment for the film was ? and will Morgan's treatment ever be leaked or brought to light ? I really am interested to see what his direction of the film was considering if Mendes is telling the truth .
if Morgan would have stayed on board maybe skyfail wouldn't have turned out so sloppfully.
check this article out
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/10-things-we-learned-from-the-skyfall-press-conference-20121108
One Major Plot Twist Was The Only Thing
Retained From Peter Morgan's Script
Somewhat infamously, before veteran
Bond scribes Neal Purvis and Robert Wade
(and, later, Tony-winning playwright John
Logan) intricately crafted "Skyfall," Peter
Morgan, the vaulted writer of "The Queen"
and "Frost/Nixon," wrote a draft of the
screenplay. (He later quit during the film's
prolonged, bankruptcy-induced downtime
after clashing with Mendes; early reports
that Purvis and Wade would incorporate
elements from his draft proved untrue.)
However, the death of M, played by Judi
Dench, remained intact from Morgan's
early work on the project. "It was the one
thing that was in the Peter Morgan
treatment that I thought worked," Mendes
said, somewhat bluntly. "I thought,
generally, that the treatment wasn't an
entirely successful document. But it was
there." Not that the two sequences came
were executed in the same way. Mendes
explained: "It was done very differently
but it was the one thing I inherited before
I came on. The way it happened in the
treatment was very different but the idea
was very present."
I wonder what morgans idea of killing M was like? it had to be better than the prolonged treatment mendes came up with. It almost felt like ,"Ok we know shes going to dir mr.mendes,stop making het death feel like a marathon race and just die". god skyfails ending was a joke
That is quite a smear on the character of the producers of this Bond movie as well as Sam Mendes. If you have any evidence to substantiate the claim that EON Productions "really bullied Mendes" I suggest you present it, or otherwise I advise that you should retract your allegations and apologize.
Yes I too would like to see this evidence.
I don't recall a scene of Babs and Mike bulling Sam Mendes... :-?
Mr. DRESSED_TO_KILL, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Dressed to Kill, do you have any evidence that Sam Mendes was bullied by the Bond producers? Yes or No?
A jester would know.
So there is no comedy precedent in Bond?
Why?? I mean, what is your logic under that argument??
I dare you to tell that to Francis Ford Coppola!
He doesn't have evidence. He just wants to tell the whole world how much he hates Skyfall on every thread.
PT sequence was lame. Nothing new, nothing extraordinary. I know, I know, Bond got shot. The business with the tractor on the train was beyond stupid. And the longshots of Bond and Patrice fighting on the train just looked like two stuntmen trying to keep their balance. As much as I dislike QOS I actually prefer that PTS.
The conversation with Berenice in the casino was terrific and when she said "When I leave, they are going to kill you" I got very exicted, thinking a great fight was about to ensue. But the komodo dragon scene was slow-moving, awkward, and just plain disappointing.
Another disappointing scene came during the shooting contest. I thought to myself, Wow, Bond is in quite a sticky situation here. But then he just easily shot everyone and then the helicopters arrived. Booooorrrrriiinngggg!!!!
The ending in Scotland was pretty good, actually, but I thought it went on too long, and I still don't relaly understand why Bond thought the best move to protect M was to take her to a lonely, isolated spot armed with nothing but a few old rifles and Albert Finney.
This is not a BAD Bond film, but it is undeserving of the praise it is receiving.
Thank you Murdock. I appreciate you pressing Dressed to Kill on this matter. It seems to me that Dressed to Kill has crossed the line from critique of the film, which, of course, is fine whether good or bad, to the invention of facts which amount to a slur on the characters of the Bond producers and Sam Mendes.
Dressed to Kill has made a very serious allegation that "EON must have really bullied Mendes around." In his over-eagerness to make his case that the movie is "garbage" he has made this allegation without a shred of evidence. He should now substantiate the smear or withdraw the comment and apologize.
Wll you send me a private message relaying the same message, I'm a Craig fan and I like SF.
Then, stay by your message box for my response.
I'm an adoring Craig fan but not keen on SF
Well with SF, I did not go out and smoke at all which is because the story was so gripping. I also thought the slow parts that some refer to were a return to the pacing style of the early Bond films. Dialogue was well written and fascinating.
SF was psychologically really interesting. In fact that for me was the highlight. I like how the film was allowed to breath and not rushed to get to an action scene for the sake of action.
The character of Bond was shown in different shadings. You see him looking rough and you see him rebuild himself. Just like in LTK where Bond gets all emotional over Felix in the beginning and then later on regains his focus and goes into his reserves to bring down the villain. I don't like seeing a one note James Bond who looks the same throughout no matter what happens. That I find intolerable in 2012.
SF was more than just another "What you expect Bond movie." I found it more interesting than CR, which is a super fine entry too. But SF has greater scope in my estimation and did not use the past of the series as a crutch.
Sam Mendes did not make the mistake of trying to please all fans and added something new rather than borrowed disguised as new.
LOL! Well played, clerk. =D>
The critics who hate SF are doing so because they have a preference for the superman Bond who just needs a change of clothes after a beating and shows no scarring from his experiences. Personally, they should watch Austin Powers instead. It ticks all those boxes perfectly.
You can say that you think LTK is the worst, but you have to back it up. Just like I cannot just say Nic Nac in TMWTGG is tall because I say so.
It is interesting that you dislike both SF and LTK. Whilst to me, they are the most interesting films of the last 23 years. Both seriously are not comfort Zone Bond. Both show Bond as a damaged goods character who is bitter but gets on with it.
Both films have glamour but it is not there central theme. Both are true rewatch value if you want to get a good study into the character and his literary roots.
I like campy Bond but only when you have writers like Maibaum and Mankiewicz who handle the wit with true sophistication and not watered down naffness pretending to be sophisticated.
Seems to be a commonality, I agree -- and if that is the way one feels, I can definitely understand why Daniel Craig's take on the character would not be appealing to them.
Having suffered from where too much style focus leads the franchise, I welcome with open arms the direction of SF. I actually think it was a braver move than CR. And CR was radical but SF is a superior approach to film making.
I can now see clearly why Craig says this is better than CR and QOS. Craig is not the actor who would say that for the sake of promotion. I was astounded at how different this new film really was and it hits a new ceiling for where the character of Bond can go in future.
I was actually scared of seeing SF thinking they may have watered down Craig's serious approach and try to add Brosnanisms into his portrayal. I was so pleased that Craig went further and did the opposite of expectation. He still is as cold as ice without using the appeasement of warmth for the sake of it.
It's an approach I enjoy very much -- and I don't seem to be alone in that. I have people stopping me at work because they know I like all things Bond, and they want to take quite a bit of time to discuss that movie. Seems Skyfall is getting a good reception from enthusiasts and non-enthusiasts alike.