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
Even in chaos - M was nearly killed, they're trying to get out of London and to Skyfall as fast as possible - they should have thought for one moment to get better gear or be slightly more prepared for what they were about to endure. That was a long car ride, I know they didn't spend it in pure silence.
It's purely a vehicle to kill off a key character actress in the series whom everyone has the utmost respect for and it's a rather weak one at that. If the whole of the British Intelligence agency (including Bond) can't lay a trap for Silva then they are not fit for purpose and totally incompetent. It wouldn't be beyond Q's guile surely to lay that fake trail of M to Scotland for Silva as bait, then ship her out to Gibraltar or similar heavily armoured Brit Garrison etc under deep cover until they have his head on a stick! He would after all be the World's most wanted at Bin Laden levels after killing agents and attempting to kill a government minister and heads of agencies...
In SF, the acting and the action are fine, it's just the writing isn't.even when you say 'it's only really fictional entertainment'. I expect better within this deeply loved franchise.
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
692,407
> Number of user ratings counted
SKYFALL
Tomatometer:
92% out of 100%
8.2 out of 10.0 ----> Average rating
294
> Reviews counted
271
> Rated Fresh
023
> Rated Rotten
Audience:
85% liked it
4.1 out of 5.0 ----> Average rating
323,229
> 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 726 ratings
617 ----> 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:
7.6, based on 1155 ratings
956 ----> Positive
084 ----> Mixed
115 ----> Negative
And lastly, the ratings on IMDB:
CASINO ROYALE
7.9 out of 10.0 from 311,636 users
SKYFALL:
7.8 out of 10.0 from 329,392 users
SF is a good movie but it pales in comparison on all fronts.
That's your opinion off course :-). But how is it possible then that I don't see that opinion reflected in the ratings from IMDB, Metacritic, Moviefone and RottenTomatoes? I'm curious if there's an explanation for this.
My personal opinion is this: Both SF and CR are of similar quality. That is that both films were skillfully crafted by an excellent crew, both were thoughtfully directed by top notch directors and both films were oozing the 1960's Terence Young/Ian Fleming-esque British class and sophistication. Not to mention the fact that both SF and CR are among the best with the way older classics FRWL, TB and OHMSS.
So...my ranking as of today would be:
Top quality films!!!:
01 --> 9.5/10 --> 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service'
02 --> 9.3/10 --> 'From Russia With Love'
03 --> 9.0/10 --> 'Skyfall'
04 --> 8.7/10 --> 'Casino Royale'
05 --> 8.3/10 --> 'Thunderball'
06 --> 8.0/10 --> 'For Your Eyes Only'
Good films!:
07 --> 7.6/10 --> 'Doctor No'
08 --> 7.5/10 --> 'Octopussy'
09 --> 7.4/10 --> 'The Living Daylights'
10 --> 7.1/10 --> 'Licence To Kill'
11 --> 7.0/10 --> 'Goldfinger'
Average films:
12 --> 6.7/10 --> 'The World Is Not Enough'
13 --> 6.4/10 --> 'Quantum Of Solace'
14 --> 6.2/10 --> 'The Man With The Golden Gun'
15 --> 6.0/10 --> 'Never Say Never Again' (non-EON)
16 --> 6.0/10 --> 'Live And Let Die'
Fun stuff for Bond nerds, but as a standalone film bad and sometimes even groce!:
17 --> 5.6/10 --> 'The Spy Who Loved Me'
18 --> 5.3/10 --> 'Diamonds Are Forever'
19 --> 5.0/10 --> 'Moonraker'
20 --> 4.8/10 --> 'Tomorrow Never Dies'
21 --> 4.5/10 --> 'You Only Live Twice'
22 --> 4.2/10 --> 'GoldenEye'
23 --> 3.4/10 --> 'A View To A Kill'
24 --> 2.8/10 --> 'Die Another Day'
25 --> 1.0/10 --> 'Casino Royale' (non-EON)
I can't disagree with anything you say above as both films are truly great and raise the bar considerably for Bond. This thread questions if one is better than the other (which isn't really the question that springs to mind or really needs to be asked!),
Each have strengths that can be subjectively given as better than the other though, and or me, the plot/writing is the biggest flaw in SF where CR doesn't suffer so much (I felt the Venetian building sinking was silly) - for me, it's the writing that's the fundamental difference in the two films.
On the other hand, I think 'Skyfall' has more, better researched, multi-layered themes interwoven in the story. The actual poem citings by 'M', the porcelain bulldog, Bardem being the Manning/Assange of our times, the cinematography, the difficult task of visiting Bond's past as an orphan for the very first time, mother-son relationships, espionage on the whole in today's cyber society full of social media.
Do not forget: 'Casino Royale' had a certain build-in advantage over 'Skyfall', as the first one was based on a novel, thus making the actual screenplay writing a bit more easier. From all the 'original screenplay' Bond films, I think 'Skyfall' is the best now. From all 'adapted screenplay' Bond films, I think 'Casino Royale' is among one of the best.
I do agree with you though, that 'Casino Royale' had the slightly better story and plot. Allthough that one was quite simple in essence too. Fleming's novel 'Casino Royale' was one of the shortest and IMO it sometimes felt like reading a short story.
This view is obviously not shared by the critics, the fans, and even the posters on MI6. Personally, I consider them to be very evenly matched films.
I can't disagree with anything you say above as both films are truly great and raise the bar considerably for Bond. This thread questions if one is better than the other (which isn't really the question that springs to mind or really needs to be asked!),
Each have strengths that can be subjectively given as better than the other though, and or me, the plot/writing is the biggest flaw in SF where CR doesn't suffer so much (I felt the Venetian building sinking was silly) - for me, it's the writing that's the fundamental difference in the two films.
[/quote]
The schlocky dialogue following Bond's torture in CR is far worse than anything in SF, IMO. Similarly, I'm not wild about the dialogue between Vesper and Bond on the train in Montenegro. Strikes me as rather forced and unnatural for the most part. Conversely, the dialogue in SF sparkles throughout.
I will grant that CR may have a slightly better plot, but plot arguably, is not one of the most important elements in Bond films.
Well, of course it's my opinion. I didn't specifically go out of my way to declare anything as fact. To answer your question, the reason you may not see my opinion reflected on review sites is, because I thank the good Lord for giving me a brain that I can use to formulate my own opinions, decisions and tastes and not feel the need to be dependent or seek approval of my opinions by having to rely on the statistics and viewpoints of others. Maybe you should put into practise what @RC7 aptly suggested to you under your original post on the first page.
And it doesn't have to be. OHMSS I believe ranks as your number one Bond movie, am I right? It's not an opinion shared by many fans here and hell, it's largely forgotten by the GP but it doesn't in anyway discredit what and how you feel about the film.
So you really think that's what the topic is about? I mean....I think at times a forum like MI6 is not that different from a review site like RottenTomatoes. On both movie fans express our opinions, write their reviews. Not necessarily because they wanna get some kind of twisted approval from others or because they have a narcistic nature. In my opinions it's because people simple feel the genuine need to write....and because people simply love movies and want them to be good.
I don't object to your opinion; I object to your categorical statement of the opinion. But no biggie.
Yes, I know that the audience had to get a chance to see Bond's home but I don't know why we couldn't just have Bond in a future film at the Skyfall manor having a look around and visiting his parent's grave. It's character movement. It doesn't always have to tie into the plot.
I love the parts of Skyfall where we see Bond depressed and drinking in Turkey (albeit these scenes were too brief) and when he met Silva on that wonderful island. It's a good film and these two scenes were very Flemingsque but Casino Royale is still the better film for me. Overall, it's more of a traditional Flemingsque Bond adventure. SF had too much focus on M and politics.
The way we found out at the end too how Eve was Moneypenny wasn't handled particularly well. I found it unnatural and on the corny side.
"The schlocky dialogue following Bond's torture in CR is far worse than anything in SF, IMO. Similarly, I'm not wild about the dialogue between Vesper and Bond on the train in Montenegro. Strikes me as rather forced and unnatural for the most part. Conversely, the dialogue in SF sparkles throughout."
[/quote]
I agree regarding the dialogue in these scenes in CR. There are some lines (fortunately only a few) in SF though that I think are worse though:
* "not like this, not like him" (hated this)
* "the circle of life"
* "latest thing from Q branch, it's called a radio" (hated this)
* "didn't need the other one either"
* When Bond says: "I do hope that wasn't for me" it wasn't delivered wonderfully but the dialogue itself isn't too bad but then Silva says: "no, but this is". That dialogue is pretty lame.
* "good luck with that" (just recently added. I definitely don't like this line)
I wonder if now that Logan is writing and P & W are out that we might finally get a Bond film with humour that is without the cheese. Probably wishful thinking, but we'll see in two years time...
Yes, it's good that we can do this. Too bad about what happened with QOS. She's the middle of three sisters who some families supposedly overlook. It would have been nice to have three consecutive Craig films that are very praise worthy.
I watched SF again the other night and another line I don't like in this film (not that there are many) is when Bond says "good luck with that" in the pit in reference to his signature gun. It just wasn't necessary and it's not even funny. I actually prefer the unnecessary "circle of life" line coming after "put it all on red" then "good luck with that".
As much as I like SF, CR is the better film I think. The latter film was let down a bit by the sinking building scene though. An unnecessary action scene like all the ones that litter the horrible Brosnan era. I did like how Vesper died though but they should have set it up another way.
I think Bond should have said something like this: "You know......only I can handle guns". Or: "You know, insurance companies are really helpful these days....."
But I see it as a necessity, to actually turn the Bond villain into a much more psychotic, dangerous villain. How on Earth could Silva then surprise so many with those dangerous deadly attacks on MI6, the Metro-tube and Westminster?? Le Chiffre however, allthough he's sinister, he lacks for me the grand, psychotic traits. Yes, he's good at torturing, but he does it because there's a lot of pressure on him. He is not much more than an instrument of QUANTUM.
But on other moments, I quite love the heartfelt romance between Vesper and Bond. Vesper is the most complicated Bond girl since Tracy died. And SF has by no means such a complex woman.
So, SF and CR are truly equally good for me: Both are intelligently written, multi-layered, Fleming-esque, at times complex, espionage thrillers. Both are much much more than the average Jack Reacher, Expandables or Mission Impossible-blockbusters.
I admire both Skyfall and Casino Royale.
clearly
I am still making up my mind. ;)
The action was better, the directing was better, the musical score was much better, the locations were more glamorous and although it's the cheapest of the Craig Bond movies production wise, it looks the mist expensive or at least the people involved knew where and how to spend the money.