Time to compare guys. 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall' have very similar ratings now on Rotten Tomatoes now. It is quite hard to say IMO that 'Casino Royale' is better than 'Skyfall'. Let's see the situation as of Monday December 4th 2012:
CASINO ROYALE:
Tomatometer:
95% out of 100%
7.8 out of 10.0 ----> Average rating
220
> Reviews counted
208
> Rated Fresh
012
> Rated Rotten
Audience:
87% liked it
3.9 out of 5.0 ----> Average rating
602,204
> Number of user ratings counted
SKYFALL
Tomatometer:
92% out of 100%
8.2 out of 10.0 ----> Average rating
276
> Reviews counted
253
> Rated Fresh
023
> Rated Rotten
Audience:
88% liked it
4.2 out of 5.0 ----> Average rating
115,437
> Number of user ratings counted
Also interesting are the ratings on Metacritic as of December 4th 2012. Really makes it harder to say which of these two is better no?:
CASINO ROYALE
Metascore:
81 out of 100, based on 38 critics
37 ----> Positive reviews
01 ----> Mixed reviews
00 ----> Negative reviews
User Score:
7.9, based on 656 ratings
551 ----> Positive
025 ----> Mixed
080 ----> Negative
SKYFALL
Metascore:
81 out of 100, based on 43 critics
36 ----> Positive reviews
07 ----> Mixed reviews
00 ----> Negative reviews
User Score:
7.6, based on 629 ratings
517 ----> Positive
042 ----> Mixed
070 ----> Negative
And lastly, the ratings on IMDB:
CASINO ROYALE
7.9 out of 10.0 from 272,760 users
SKYFALL:
8.1 out of 10.0 from 148,288 users
Conclusion: It is damnnn hard to say IMO which of these excellent (!!) Bond films is better :O !!
Comments
Do you need ratings to determine this? Surely you know in your own mind which you think is better?
No. I think it's not that black and white as you portray here. I think 'Skyfall' and 'Casino Royale' are equally good....just in different ways. Certain aspects in SF are slightly better than in CR. And the other way around.
Moreover, as the boxoffice topic is quite popular for us Bond geeks......this topic doesn't mind either ;-).
Not when you look at things objectively, which no one on here seems to care to do.
Sorry, what am I portraying as black and white? I was suggesting that all the numbers don't mean a thing in the world. You could have 100% of 100,000 people saying something was better than something else but if you don't think it is then it doesn't really matter.
I and a few others have dissected SF objectively from the perspective of film critique. That never takes into consideration ratings and figures though. It concerns the dynamics of film, not random people clicking a button. I'm sure there are many likes on Facebook that don't give an accurate reflection of what they were intended to.
I guess once the general public has the idea that something is the pinnacle, they can't let go of it.
I'll argue that Skyfall is the superior film, I looked through RT in the lead up and post-release, most of the negative reviews were absolute BS. A bit like what happened with TDKR where it was so hotly anticipated and initially well received that some critics felt it would raise their profile to give it a negative review.
So you say 'SF' is better than 'CR'? I just can not choose....to be honest..
I think this is a pretty naive assumption. Perhaps it might be that some people don't feel it reaches the same level as Begins or TDK, or in SF's case, CR. It takes a lot to not be drawn in by the hype so I commend someone who has the knackers to lay down a reasonable argument for why they didn't feel a film lived up to expectations under pressure from an angry mob of fanboys. I'm not talking trolls, I'm talking critics who can determine and explain exactly why they didn't like it.
Personally, I found TDKR particularly enjoyable, my girlfriend (who watched it for the first time on Blu-Ray the other evening) claimed she was disappointed and preferred the previous two. Now, she hasn't bothered to do a complete critique but her overwhelming feeling is that it is simply not as good. A good critic could probably explain to her why that is and if she could be bothered to watch it again she'd be able to determine why that is, objectively.
Oh and curiously, she didn't think SF was as good as CR.
Me too actually, I was kind of rooting for him. She reckoned that the whole hacker thing was at odds with who he really seemed to be. That said, she thought Bardem turned in a great performance.
I don't think it was anything to do with personality, more character traits. She said he came across as a sort of Dandy who claimed he'd stripped the 'superfluous' things from his life. She said that in her mind these kind of people are the type to read books, not hack borderline unhackable government departments.
One of my problems with it as well. For some reason I have a visceral hatred of plotlines that include hacking. It just screems lazy screenwriting to me, unless it's explored in a genuinely interesting way, which it patently isn't in SF. As you GF says, it's an old paper over the cracks trick that you expect in churn-'em out TV series.
Individual tastes vary of course, but as a viewer, I don't need to know more than hacking is being done. Watching someone behind a keyboard plugging away isn't something I could take for too long.
CASINO ROYALE:
Tomatometer:
95% out of 100%
7.8 out of 10.0 ----> Average rating
220
> Reviews counted
208
> Rated Fresh
012
> Rated Rotten
Audience:
87% liked it
3.9 out of 5.0 ----> Average rating
602,204
> Number of user ratings counted
SKYFALL
Tomatometer:
92% out of 100%
8.2 out of 10.0 ----> Average rating
288
> Reviews counted
265
> Rated Fresh
023
> Rated Rotten
Audience:
88% liked it
4.2 out of 5.0 ----> Average rating
123,594
> Number of user ratings counted
Also interesting are the ratings on Metacritic as of December 4th 2012. Really makes it harder to say which of these two is better no?:
CASINO ROYALE
Metascore:
81 out of 100, based on 38 critics
37 ----> Positive reviews
01 ----> Mixed reviews
00 ----> Negative reviews
User Score:
7.9, based on 682 ratings
573 ----> Positive
027 ----> Mixed
082 ----> Negative
SKYFALL
Metascore:
81 out of 100, based on 43 critics
36 ----> Positive reviews
07 ----> Mixed reviews
00 ----> Negative reviews
User Score:
7.5, based on 939 ratings
767 ----> Positive
074 ----> Mixed
098 ----> Negative
And lastly, the ratings on IMDB:
CASINO ROYALE
7.9 out of 10.0 from 286,538 users
SKYFALL:
7.9 out of 10.0 from 237,451 users
Conclusion: It still is damnnn hard to say IMO which of these excellent (!!) Bond films is better :O !!
So in conclusion, this is a VERY good thing
That's where I am at too.
This is easy enough, in that Royale simply is a better release than Skyfall, in fact they're both better than QOS, but Craig's 2006 debut is his best so far, although there is still yet more to come from the actor. Someone said these are the best days for Bond since Connery, and I can see where you're coming from, but Sean wasn't seen in some truly absurd situations or sequences such as the Waterfall nonsense and shot off a moving train for example. Add to that the free running sequence in Madagascar. Craig is a very good Bond and the best without doubt since Dalton, but sometimes it all gets a bit ridiculous or far fetched, and maybe that's a pity, with such a serious Bond as Craig himself. You could kind of accept it with a humor-esque Bond such as a present day Roger Moore type actor, but the silly and absurd sequences and action bits just don't go well with Craig's Bond I'm afraid. May be in the minority but that's how I view it. Both releases, despite all the superlatives, aren't in fact an end to end enthrallment or non-stop thrill ride, as they do shallow out here and there and the viewer can lose interest during some of the more mundane moments, but for the most part, both are great releases, and The World Is Not Enough aside, are probably the best James Bond adventures seen since the 1980s with Dalton. But Casino Royale is the better all round release here
Same here. Two extremely evenly matched dyads. And all four films are well within my top ten.
However well it's all appears slickly dressed up with a portrayal of Bond having deep angst about revisiting his buried troubled past and the whole reboot concept, in Skyfall he was hopeless really in everything he attempted after the midpoint of the film. In the process of failing in his mission to protect M, with the old hierlooms of the Bond stately pile and the DB5 being trashed for effect, there's not even a mention in the plot of that vital list of undercover agents names that may or may not still be in jeopardy which is what the whole film kicked off all edgy and tense about in the first place. If Silva was half the clever mastermind it seems he's set out to be, wouldn't he have the names disclosure unraveling automatically without his direct intervention whilst he was out busy killing off M anyhow no matter how clever Q thinks he is?
Under logical scrutiny, rattling all the way up North in a geriatric antique on the assumption there would be some kind of decent opportunity for a good old pistols at dawn showdown on Bond's terms is frankly ludicrous. Silva wasn't too worried about blowing sh!t up or shooting anyone in his way at the Ministerial hearing earlier so he's hardly likely to be stopped that easily by Bond with M in tow, even if the gun cabinets had still been full!? For it to descend into the homemade Home Alone antics seems so amateur - where's the Bond of the previous 20 odd films usually out busy saving the whole of the world and mankind as we know it?
I don't expect such radically extreme RM levels like TSWLM or MR but still Casino Royale is by far the more balanced and watertight of the two films with similar levels of characterisation and action. OK, for me CR's only real flaw was Bond's end recuperation, which just seems too dragged out and unnecessary.
Don't get me wrong, I like SF, I'm just saying it's not the 10 out of 10 best ever, critically lauded Bond film we've ever seen.
Whatever is said about GL - OHMSS is the most rounded compelling of them all anyway!
So, it could be seen that later on, they somehow find a backup of the list - or none at all, and Silva just didn't decide/think to create one - or that the list was just part of Silva's plan: he didn't care about leaking the names, it was just another way for him to draw M out and get him closer to his master plan: killing her. He could continue to leak five names every week until someone finally found him and got him to M.
I agree with you, though: I really do like SF, but it just isn't the best film for me. CR takes the cake in Craig's list of films thus far.
My real problem is Bond's ineptitude in his foresight to plan something as 'important' as M's safety and to guard her properly from the clear threat Silva posed. Yes, Bond ultimately expertly lobbed the knife that dispatched Silva but he was asking for all the sh!t the previous half hour brought him and M.
In the cinema, I was certain the chink of the knife was the trigger being pulled on herself by M into an empty chamber which brought up the rather interesting idea about M's thinking as she knew she was dying and deciding to end it with Silva. Re-watching it actually took a bit off the end set piece for me actually.