A place for disappointed skyfall viewers

13468924

Comments

  • The audience when I saw it laughed at pretty much everything that was supposed to get laughed at. I'm in America too. With that being said, they also laughed at Silva during serious moments like I mentioned in my long rant above. I think many of us feel that the movie didn't take itself that serious and that's what we mean by it was lighter. I think that is what we mean anyway.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    006jeremy wrote:
    The audience when I saw it laughed at pretty much everything that was supposed to get laughed at. I'm in America too. With that being said, they also laughed at Silva during serious moments like I mentioned in my long rant above. I think many of us feel that the movie didn't take itself that serious and that's what we mean by it was lighter. I think that is what we mean anyway.

    That's how I felt at times, mainly with the Macau casino fight scene. It just seemed like Craig was taking it as a joke, and I never felt that he was in any serious danger.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Zekidk wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    So lighten up, gentlemen, after all it is only a movie meant to entertain people and give them 145 minutes of fun...

    I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

    I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.

    Skyfall was the most lighthearted of all the Craig films yet, and obviously meant to be more fun.
    Yeah, it was quite "funny and lightheated" for some I guess, that Bond hits rock bottom, and that the main Bond girl plus his boss dies.

    I'm not calling Skyfall Pee Wee's Playhouse, I am just saying that the funny moments added up are far more lighthearted and cheeky than we have seen in the past where not as many quips were said.
    SF had more funny lighthearted moments than in any of the 22 other Bond films? You really have to come up with some examples here, since I didn't laugh once.

    I'm so glad that you brought that up @Zekidk. I've been reading a lot about the humor of Skyfall on here, but none of it really worked, at least for the audiences I've been with. I've seen it four times so far in Imax with packed crowds and none of the jokes worked with them and there were hardly any laughs at all, which I found disappointing. There were times that I wanted to laugh, but I had to hold it back because the audience was just silent.

    When I asked one of my friends I brought to the movie what he thought of Skyfall, the first thing he said was that you could tell they tried to be funny but it just didn't work and that all those lines were so cheesy. These are all American audiences by the way, so maybe the humor works better for European audiences. I really don't have an explaination.

    Really? It all worked with the audience I watched it with! I thought the humour was great, not too much, not too cheasy.
  • Zekidk wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    So lighten up, gentlemen, after all it is only a movie meant to entertain people and give them 145 minutes of fun...

    I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

    I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.

    Skyfall was the most lighthearted of all the Craig films yet, and obviously meant to be more fun.
    Yeah, it was quite "funny and lightheated" for some I guess, that Bond hits rock bottom, and that the main Bond girl plus his boss dies.

    I'm not calling Skyfall Pee Wee's Playhouse, I am just saying that the funny moments added up are far more lighthearted and cheeky than we have seen in the past where not as many quips were said.
    SF had more funny lighthearted moments than in any of the 22 other Bond films? You really have to come up with some examples here, since I didn't laugh once.

    I'm so glad that you brought that up @Zekidk. I've been reading a lot about the humor of Skyfall on here, but none of it really worked, at least for the audiences I've been with. I've seen it four times so far in Imax with packed crowds and none of the jokes worked with them and there were hardly any laughs at all, which I found disappointing. There were times that I wanted to laugh, but I had to hold it back because the audience was just silent.

    When I asked one of my friends I brought to the movie what he thought of Skyfall, the first thing he said was that you could tell they tried to be funny but it just didn't work and that all those lines were so cheesy. These are all American audiences by the way, so maybe the humor works better for European audiences. I really don't have an explaination.

    Not many laughs at the showing i went to in the UK my friend
  • Posts: 11,425
    Zekidk wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    So lighten up, gentlemen, after all it is only a movie meant to entertain people and give them 145 minutes of fun...

    I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

    I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.

    Skyfall was the most lighthearted of all the Craig films yet, and obviously meant to be more fun.
    Yeah, it was quite "funny and lightheated" for some I guess, that Bond hits rock bottom, and that the main Bond girl plus his boss dies.

    I'm not calling Skyfall Pee Wee's Playhouse, I am just saying that the funny moments added up are far more lighthearted and cheeky than we have seen in the past where not as many quips were said.
    SF had more funny lighthearted moments than in any of the 22 other Bond films? You really have to come up with some examples here, since I didn't laugh once.

    I'm so glad that you brought that up @Zekidk. I've been reading a lot about the humor of Skyfall on here, but none of it really worked, at least for the audiences I've been with. I've seen it four times so far in Imax with packed crowds and none of the jokes worked with them and there were hardly any laughs at all, which I found disappointing. There were times that I wanted to laugh, but I had to hold it back because the audience was just silent.

    When I asked one of my friends I brought to the movie what he thought of Skyfall, the first thing he said was that you could tell they tried to be funny but it just didn't work and that all those lines were so cheesy. These are all American audiences by the way, so maybe the humor works better for European audiences. I really don't have an explaination.

    I've been one of those callimg for a bit more lighthearted tone so I have to say that I welcome the attempt at least to inject a bit of humour. However, while I did chuckle along in a couple of scenes, I don't think there was anything to stand up to the cutting dry wit of the Maibaum scripts. And like your audience, the one that I was in didn't laugh once throughout, not even at Silva. The audience were in fact completely subdued throughout, in a packed cinema.

    Have to say that an audience can have a big influence on how you experience a film and if the vibe is flat the film is I suppose going to seem a bit flat. However, I am the kind of person who laughs out loud if I find something funny and that wasn't hapening with SF.

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    006jeremy wrote:
    I just wanted to say that this is my first post on the MI6. My father got me into Bond and I've been a fan ever since for the most part (well except for some of the later Brosnan films). The following is something I posted to a video review that praised this movie. I'm posting a rewrite here with some additions because this is a better place to post my disappointment with this film. I understand that this is just my opinion and everyone is entitled to there own.

    First I want to point out that I thought Quantum of Solace was a good movie even though it relied a little too heavily on action. I liked the plot in QoS too. Quantum was a realistic criminal organization that was uncovered by Bond through the James Bond fashion. He had a lot of brute force, but he was still stylish. There was also much symbolism in QoS if you look for it. My final point on QoS was that it tied together everything from Casino Royale perfectly. Apart from all of the constant, I would say at times warranted, action it was a good sequel in my opinion.

    I believe as others do that Skyfall suffers from lazy writing. Perhapse it isn't the plot I found unappealling, but rather it was the dialog and the way scenes are carried out. I found these aspects of the movie to be really bad and uninspired. There were occational times that I like what was being said, but most often not. Apart from some of the dialog with M, I didn't find any of the conversations in each scene that memorable. The whole movie felt like they kind of had to throw stuff in to fill it. In Casino Royale every scene had interesting dialog and it was believable. From a psychological standpoint Casino Royale is the best Bond film ever made, and I feel that Solace and Skyfall kept a trace of that. However, Casino Royale was made much more like a traditional film from many decades ago. Scenes were simple, but had many subtle complexities found in the characters. Although we are debating fiction, in CR everything can be easily explained as far as plotholes are concerned. In Skyfall there were too many times when I thought "that was just too convienent" to have happened. I agree with the OP on how the perfectly placed bomb in the subway sequence was too convienent. It may be nitpicking, but I think there was a standard I prefer set in CR. To each his own, okay, but like someone said ^ we should rather be getting "spy-thrillers" and not "action-movies" with explosions to build suspense. In Skyfall I feel also everything that was complained about In QoS was amplified here. The character development wasn't very good and they placed action in to fill space. Bardem's villian was a bit of a let down for me. Not sure if that was his fault or just the direction they wanted him to go in. In serious scenes the audience in the theater was laughing at him. I didn't laugh because I was just a little upset.

    I understand that some reviewers point to the dourness of the last two Craig films. I rather liked that about them actually. Casino Royale made me feel like I know what the life is like of a real MI6 agent (well a really stylish and intelligent one) is like. I didn't feel that way as much in QoS but the villian Greene and the Quantum organization was still believable. This film did feel a little more lighthearted than the last two contrary to some of the events that take place. In a way that isn't a bad thing, but it kind of felt taken to a level where it felt fake. I wish the drama was presented better I guess. I was annoyed at the abandoning of the noc list in the story too. Perhapse it wasn't the most important part of the plot but they shouldn't have just ditched it like that. They could have done more with the story in terms of presenting the significance undercover agents. That is an important message that wasn't fully realized here I think.

    There are somethings that I did love in Skyfall though. In my assessment Craig is still the best Bond and he is dashing and stylish, yet believable. I loved the backstory we now have for James. I liked the climatic showdown in Scotland (but could have had more memorable scenes). I agree that the cinematography was exceptionally well done. I love how the ending set up for future Bonds (hopefully to make them more like Casino Royale or espionage focused). I really want to see Skyfall again. QoS is better each time I watch it and maybe I will feel the same for Skyfall. Overall, it was an mediocre Bond film for me, but it wasn't Casino Royale.

    @006jeremy, a nicely measured review. I too agree that the film often looked great. However, like you imply, great cinematography does not a great Bond movie make. SF really does feel like a case of the emperors new clothes - underneath which is a weak plot and some poorly developed characters. I think that for me is the biggest disappointment. After all Mendes talk of really wanting a character driven story, this is a much much weaker story than CR and, like you say, a far less coherent piece of filmmaking than QoS even.


    One of the unexpected consequences of SF is that its actually given me an even greater appreciation for CR and QoS. I thought the only way was up in the DC era but this has shown how tricky it actually is to make a decent Bond film. Although I'm majorly disappointed with SF as a film, I do respect the obvious effort that's gone into it. However, it rather confirms my theory that Bond does not actually need Oscar winning directors - the greatest films in the series are IMO those knocked out by the professional hack directors who were more grounded in the nuts and bolts of moviemaking. I seriously feel that Mendes thinks all these plot holes don't really matter and that you just ignore them because it's a Bond film, but all that comes across is a certain laziness and slopiness in script and direction. The best films of the classic era are much tauter in their direction - little is wasted in terms of plot development and there is a pacing to them that SF lacks. For all its faults, this is one of the reasons I rate QoS and feel that Forster understood Bond better than pretty much any director since Glen. The QoS story is actually pretty simple (if not a classic) and the film has a momentum that just carries you along, with some memorable scenes and some actually half decent dialogue along the way. I did actually feel after watching QoS that Bond had been on a personal journey. In SF Bond actually felt peripheral to the story - like someone said, this is an M movie, which appearances by 007.

    Frankly, the more I think about it, the more the third act just seems utterly absurd. Bond taking M to some remote difficult to defend house and getting her killed. I mean, after this catastrophic failure on his part are we expecting that he'll walk back to MI6 with his head held high and everyone high-fiving him? 'Well done James, the b**** had it coming!' Not only is M utterly incompetent in this film, but so is Bond. I mean what happens in SF is actually M loses the names of all NATO agents, has her best agent shot, Q allows someone to effortlessly hack the entire MI6 system and then Bond manages to get his boss killed. Congratulations due all round really. I know they were trying to shake things up a bit with SF, but for me this really undermines the whole concept of Bond, M and MI6. It's not just that Britain is fighting against the fading of empire - it implies that Britain is actually totally useless at everything. The most beautiful image in the entire film is a 50 year old car - it's almost as if they want to underline the fact that Britain is so far past its prime that we can't even provide Bond with a decent modern car any more. I guess that's the post- Jimmy Saville austerity Britain that we live in. Hardly left me with the feel good factor though.
  • Posts: 1,052
    One of the unexpected consequences of SF is that its actually given me an even greater appreciation for CR and QoS

    Something stranger has happened to me and I know Getafix won't be too impressed with this, but I have found myself appreciating the Brosnan films a bit more, and I don't think SF is any better than TWINE, both films best action scene is the PTS.
  • One of the unexpected consequences of SF is that its actually given me an even greater appreciation for CR and QoS

    Something stranger has happened to me and I know Getafix won't be too impressed with this, but I have found myself appreciating the Brosnan films a bit more, and I don't think SF is any better than TWINE, both films best action scene is the PTS.

    I watched all the Brosnan films shortly after SF and one thing hit me they all look like they had a far bigger budget SF just does not look like a 200m movie.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    That is very funny. Believe it or not, I am feeling exactly the same. To say that I am not a big fan of the Brozz is an understatement, but SF is the biggest disappointment for me since GE. For the first time since then I feel we've taken a big step backwards (for different reasons, but the disappointment is the same). And yes, SF has made me appreciate the Brozza films a little bit more. It just underlines that it's not easy to make a good Bond movie.
  • Posts: 11,425
    craigrules wrote:
    One of the unexpected consequences of SF is that its actually given me an even greater appreciation for CR and QoS

    Something stranger has happened to me and I know Getafix won't be too impressed with this, but I have found myself appreciating the Brosnan films a bit more, and I don't think SF is any better than TWINE, both films best action scene is the PTS.

    I watched all the Brosnan films shortly after SF and one thing hit me they all look like they had a far bigger budget SF just does not look like a 200m movie.

    May be it's because I followed the making too closely, but it feels very studio bound. We know that Craig never got beyond Pinewood and Turkey. It's not a big deal, but the film IMO lacks the scale that it wants to project. It feels slightly cramped and claustrophobic. Doubtless that is partly because so much of it is set underground in tunnels and priest holes, and is full of images of drowning/sinking.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,276
    Getafix wrote:
    That is very funny. Believe it or not, I am feeling exactly the same. .
    +1
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    One of the unexpected consequences of SF is that its actually given me an even greater appreciation for CR and QoS

    Something stranger has happened to me and I know Getafix won't be too impressed with this, but I have found myself appreciating the Brosnan films a bit more, and I don't think SF is any better than TWINE, both films best action scene is the PTS.
    No reason why you shouldn't enjoy Brosnan's Bond films, but TWINE better than SF? I need to lie down ;-)
  • Posts: 11,189
    NicNac wrote:
    One of the unexpected consequences of SF is that its actually given me an even greater appreciation for CR and QoS

    Something stranger has happened to me and I know Getafix won't be too impressed with this, but I have found myself appreciating the Brosnan films a bit more, and I don't think SF is any better than TWINE, both films best action scene is the PTS.
    No reason why you shouldn't enjoy Brosnan's Bond films, but TWINE better than SF? I need to lie down ;-)

    I don't mind TWINE but SF is leaps and bounds ahead of it direction-wise, cinematography-wise and acting wise.

    I'm an avid GE defender but even I admit SF is better.
  • Posts: 1,052
    GE is a much better Bond film in my humble opinion.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 6,601
    Its funny, that all those, who I identified before as bashing the recent films, continue to do so, wich leads to the conclusion, that never mind what, they stick to their opinion. re identigraph. Which in a way, takes away from the reviews honsty. I prefer - even a negative review .- from those, who haven't been vocal as being dislikers of the new deirection.
    ...and no, Getafix, you don't need to answer to this. Someone else will be capable of that.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Germanlady wrote:
    Its funny, that all those, who I identified before as bashing the recent films, continue to do so, wich leads to the conclusion, that never mind what, they stick to their opinion. re identigraph. Which in a way, takes away from the reviews honsty. I prefer - even a negative review .- from those, who haven't been vocal as being dislikers of the new deirection.
    ...and no, Getafix, you don't need to answer to this. Someone else will be capable of that.

    Why do you read comments in here? The thread title is 'For those disappointed' - you clearly weren't disappointed and thus will only get wound up.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Just pointing out, how some people are just prejudiced.

    But you are right, of course.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Germanlady wrote:
    Just pointing out, how some people are just prejudiced.

    There are two sides to everything though, right? There were people on this forum announcing that Skyfall was going to be the best Bond ever, weeks even months before release. These are the kind of people who were going to love it no matter what. For every 'hater' there is an equal and opposite 'lover'.
  • Well maybe it's Freudian again. Bond gets "mummy' killed, then gets to appreciate 'Dad' ie Mallory a lot more.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 6,601
    RC7 wrote:
    Germanlady wrote:
    Just pointing out, how some people are just prejudiced.

    There are two sides to everything though, right? There were people on this forum announcing that Skyfall was going to be the best Bond ever, weeks even months before release. These are the kind of people who were going to love it no matter what. For every 'hater' there is an equal and opposite 'lover'.

    But liking is always more fun then disliking, no? Thakfully there are more lover here and elsewhere.

    But yeah, to be fair, you have a point. Even though, I would think, that a 80% to 20% liking can't be down to just people, who decided to love it beforehand.

    But its all yours. I won't stick my big, fat nose in here again and I tend to stay true to my word. Have fun...:)


  • Posts: 11,425
    Has she gone? Is it safe again?
  • Posts: 1,310
    I like how earlier in this forum, we were judging how good Skyfall was based on the amount of laughs it got from the theater audience. Surely, there are other reasons why one would dislike it?

    I'm not going to get into this particular point that much, but Skyfall is my favorite Bond film ever and that's that (for now). It doesn't have to be your favorite and you shouldn't even have to like it (though how anyone can label Skyfall as one of the weaker Bond films is purely beyond me). There are a couple things of pure insanity that have been said in this discussion however, that I think needs a bit of answering. I'm not trying to be rude, but let's just go for the sake of debate here.

    Firstly: Skyfall a less coherent piece of filmmaking than Quantum of Solace? I can't wrap my head around that one. QOS's structure was such a garbled mess that by film's end, nearly every character's actions made no sense. You wanna talk plot holes and things that defy all sense of logic? Talk about how Tanner knew Bond shot Haines's bodyguard a threw him off a roof. Talk about why M inexplicably sent out Fields (a woman who freaking "worked in an office") to arrest JAMES BOND. Talk about why the Perla de las Dunas is a hotel powered by C4 explosives (or why they were even there in the first place). Talk about the dreadful editing which made even the simplest actions a task for the mind. Quantum of Solace was a failure in big budget filmmaking, and it was painfully obvious that the whole movie was a first draft. If you want an example of quickly cashing in, Quantum of Solace would be a good place to start.

    Second: The World Is Not Enough better than Skyfall? I'm not even going to get into that one, but jeez - think about what you're saying there.

    As some of you have already pointed out, this is a place for the 'disappointed Skyfall viewers' so I'm going to spare you from a full fledged defense of Skyfall, but I hope we can all still remain civil in debating.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 12,837
    I think SF is better than TWINE but not by much. Both are in my top 10, SF 6th, TWINE 7th.

    What I was disappointed in with SF were the gadgets. Nothing we haven't seen before. I was also expecting Patrice to be a return to the glory days of memorable henchman but he was just a generic hired assassin and he didn't really make an impact at all.
    RC7 wrote:
    Germanlady wrote:
    Just pointing out, how some people are just prejudiced.

    There are two sides to everything though, right? There were people on this forum announcing that Skyfall was going to be the best Bond ever, weeks even months before release. These are the kind of people who were going to love it no matter what. For every 'hater' there is an equal and opposite 'lover'.

    Spot on.
    Germanlady wrote:
    But liking is always more fun then disliking, no?

    I've heard you say this before, but would you be saying that if we were still in the Dalton era?

    It's easy for you to say "be positive" because you love DC and his films.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited November 2012 Posts: 28,694
    Zekidk wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    So lighten up, gentlemen, after all it is only a movie meant to entertain people and give them 145 minutes of fun...

    I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

    I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.

    Skyfall was the most lighthearted of all the Craig films yet, and obviously meant to be more fun.
    Yeah, it was quite "funny and lightheated" for some I guess, that Bond hits rock bottom, and that the main Bond girl plus his boss dies.

    I'm not calling Skyfall Pee Wee's Playhouse, I am just saying that the funny moments added up are far more lighthearted and cheeky than we have seen in the past where not as many quips were said.
    SF had more funny lighthearted moments than in any of the 22 other Bond films? You really have to come up with some examples here, since I didn't laugh once.
    I mean in Craig's era. I'm just saying I laughed more than in CR and QoS between Silva's theatricality, the bulldog, the ejector seat joke, the health and safety bit, and much much more coming from a smart a@# Bond. ;)
  • I laughed at it but I think if it was in a Moore film, lots of people would call the bit where he jumped onto the tube stupid and too comedic.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I laughed at it but I think if it was in a Moore film, lots of people would call the bit where he jumped onto the tube stupid and too comedic.

    Aww...I liked that bit :( As a Londoner I thought it was funny.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I laughed at it but I think if it was in a Moore film, lots of people would call the bit where he jumped onto the tube stupid and too comedic.

    Aww...I liked that bit :( As a Londoner I thought it was funny.

    I loved that part and so did apparently the rest of the room. It was not too silly and it was well performed.
  • BAIN123 wrote:
    I laughed at it but I think if it was in a Moore film, lots of people would call the bit where he jumped onto the tube stupid and too comedic.

    Aww...I liked that bit :( As a Londoner I thought it was funny.

    I liked it too but Moore gets lots of flack on here for being too comedic and I reckon if that was in a Moore film people on here now would say it was too stupid.
  • Not bad, but who would blame the guard had she left the gurning, wild eyed Lector lookalike on the outside of the train until it reached the next station?
  • @Getafix

    Thanks. Yeah I agree too that this is mostly an M movie. That isn't really a bad thing either. I appreciate trying to do something different. I want each Bond movie to have it's own unquie feel. There are times I think that it does to a degree, although most of the movie also feels cookie-cutter. I know Mendes wanted to honor the 50 years of Bond and that's fine, but instead of rehashing and redressing tired movie mechanics it would have been more appreciated (by me at least) to present Bond references in a more reimagined way. That is what I feel ultimately what CR did. I too was hoping Mendes would focus more on a character driven story. In a general (not sure if that's the right word) way he did, but not enough. Some of the other flaws I believe wouldn't be as much of an issue if he just worked more on character development. I wanted to feel why Bond is the way he is from this story, but that never really happened. This was supposed to be a more personal story than QoS was and not enough time went into to making it that way.

    And even though I can't articulate everything you addressed in the last part of your post as well as you, I certainly can say I do agree. I hate that this film tries to build tension from the utter failure of almost every character (except for the anatgonists). I can see that because fiction mirrors reality that this can work. Although, how it is done here does make MI6 feel incompetent. Not sure how this could have been done better though. Perhapse it was the ridiculousness of Silva that made thier failings stand out so much.

    Thanks for the response.
This discussion has been closed.