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
Wiz, I wouldn't have thought you the type to let Box Office cloud your judgement. Are you telling me that because it made 1bn it is flawless, or do we have to go into the validity of Transformers again? I'm not suggesting I'd have stepped up and shot the entirety of SF and it become an award winning money train. What I am suggesting is that IMO the chase sequence could have been better, I didn't think they always used the best shots available to them. I would have done it differently, and IMO better. It's pretty naive of you two to assume that no one here has any idea what they're taking about. There are many directors and aspiring directors who make films and watch films day in day out, they all have solid reasons to critique the work of others. I'm pretty sure I'm one of many who stepped out of SF thinking in this way. I thought SF was great btw, as I have to keep reiterating.
With Tomorrow Never Dies (Those days ranked as my 3th favorite Bond movie) first view i have also bit mixed feelings. TMND i thaught it whas to dark and i whas 17 years old, it be my second Bond movie in the cinema, searching/starter Bondfan and mis the point of the movie. I only have seen Skyfall once and wil take a whyle before i wil see it another time.
Skyfall is good action movie and liked it more then Casino Royale, but it be dificult with my first and only view at the moment to re-like things if there there don't use it for a whyle. Daniel Craig half return to the cold guy he whas at the time of Casino Royale also, half because there is nobody to share his moment this time.
The entertainment/fun is gone since Daniel Craig started, but atleastwith QOS bring some fun. Have seen it 4 times. Skyfall there spoil to much and from what we see mabey not be enough to see the movie grow/always like.
Other Bond movies are high on my list because i have seen it more then 10 times. DAD i have seen 5-6 times in 10 years.
Rank Skyfall 17/23 on the moment. Quantum Of Solace introduce something new, for franchise and for me and this not realy fit with my earlier entertainment/fun and teacher i have with the Bond movies. I at Quantum Of Solace between TSWLM and LTK and Skyfall between Yolt and Dr No. Dr No, DAD, GF, MR, CR and TB are the only movies who i consider less then Skyfall. Don't think it is fair to give Skyfall a higher rank then the other Bond movies.
Things i don't like from Skyfall:
1. The digital. First i blame the DOP, but discover the movie mabey look to good on cinema screen.
2. Plot hole: The disc stroy where it go about first is gone when we meet Silva.
3. The return of Eve (As Moneypenny)/Missing a Bondgirl.
4. The conclusion of M death. I whish Bond comes to late and then she died in his arms, not extented it first/ Kincade should be found dead too or the person who first tryde to save her/Silvia mabey should have escaped.
5. Enjoying death: Return to London. First of all we don't know where he is from the movie, because of some making off footage and the forums we know he is in Greece. Don't like it he watch tv/CNN.
While DAD was a can of root beer.
A perfect analogy Sir.
Ha, ha. Now that's just disgusting!
Gentlemen, gentlemen...
I can understand both parties' points of view. There have been times watching a very well made film where I'm surprised at some...lacklustre element. But then having worked on films I'm well aware that 99.9% of the time you're getting the best possible series of shots that you can get in real world circumstances. Very few directors or productions have the budget to do endless takes to make sure that everything is perfect. In fact, the bigger the budget the film has the more likely that you can't dawdle when making it. The most common thing that I overhear on film or TV shoots is "F*ck! Okay, that'll have to do!"
I think that RC7 certainly would have *intended* to shoot the sequence "better" but whether or not that could have been achieved in the real world is another matter entirely.
RC7, can you post links to Youtube clips of films or sequences that you've directed so we can check out your style? Or give us the names of TV show episodes or films that you've worked on (if they aren't on Youtube due to copyright reasons)? I'm curious to see these now, especially if you've directed a similar style of sequence.
I may have it elevate it above Goldfinger in my personal rankings as the best Bond ever.
What's weird is that I haven't yet seen it with a good bottle of wine and I love both SF and wine! I have to find more time for the little pleasures in life...
Watched it for about the 6th or 7th time the other week and the implausibility and lack of logic about Silvas plan and escape grates on me so much that when I finish watching I want to drop it down in the rankings to somewhere in the middle.
The trouble is apart from the enormous plot holes everything else is pretty much perfect and if I start putting it head to head with most other films from the series it beats them and climbs back up to somewhere in the top 5.
But is all this a case of SF being mutton dressed as lamb? I mean if you take an OP or a TWINE and layer on superb actors in every role (although Berkoff, Jourdan, Marceau and Carlyle are all excellent so perhaps that should be 'superbly directed actors'? Or 'a superb actor as Bond'?), more polished dialogue and people at the top of their game working in every department do they not improve to the point that they are better than SF?
I suppose the point I'm rather ramblingly making is that SF could well be a case of style over substance as if you just transpose the casts and crew of most mid ranking Bonds with SF's cast and crew dont we end up with the same results? A film heralded as one of the best in the series?
I would certainly say that TSWLM, FYEO, OP, GE, TWINE and possibly even DAD (on paper at least) have more coherent plots than SF (DN-TB and OHMSS go without saying as they borrow so heavily from Fleming).
I'm not saying its quite a case of the emperors new clothes but the shoddy plot is currently stopping me elevating it above the big three - FRWL, OHMSS and CR - and I'm certainly still debating whether its better than the rest of my top 5 - TLD (borderline) or OP (probably - but not quite as entertaining).
The thing they seem to have overlooked with SF is no matter how many Oscar winning actors and directors you throw into the mix a film is only ever as good as its story and when you strip away all the nice little touches and scenes SFs core story is weak and poorly thought out IMO.
Great post Wizard I find myself agreeing with you on this point 100%
Or it could just be that you mentioned OP a couple of times. ;)
Though I myself find the lack of plot after Silva is captured hard to swallow. It gets worse with multiple viewings as well. The action for this part of the film is well crafted, and I love the banter between Bond and Q. But it's all just to implausible at the same time. The crashing tube train, the release from the cell, knowing for certain Mi6 would descend into this bunker. It's really the only weakness in the film, and I feel if they'd just spent a little longer on this area, then SF would surely rank higher.
I enjoy it hugely, but the capture of Silva and his escape are the weak point of the film.
I need to deliberate on this further.
Interesting-I'm leaning the same way. When I first saw it I thought it was the best ever but I also deep down KNEW a large part of why I was thinking that was because of the feeling and atmosphere of being at the world premiere. As soon as the next day I had started thinking more logically and less emotionally and simply had it as an amazing film definitely in my top 5 but also definitely not (in my opinion obviously) as good as Casino Royale.
It has remained in my top 5 since and probably still is but I feel only just.
I second all that. SF's nicely gift-wrapped; it comes in a shining package. And that's good; it's half the film's joy. But it does expect us to give them some conceits and that means I should put my mind to rest occasionally. In a film that does, however, aim for some cerebral efforts on our behalf, it's difficult to sometimes go with it and then sometimes to just let go. I guess I don't worry about it too much though. I overall love and praise SF. But of all praising comments I've heard from people outside this community, few concerned the story, most concerned the package.
Wasn't there a mysterious Machine Gun and Ejectorseat packed DB5 from another Time Continuum? Just thought i ask ...
I agree with your points, Wizard. I'd also add that, in addition to Silva and his plan, Moneypenny and especially her motivations for retirement are also poorly developed. The script is almost certainly the weak link.
But the acting and direction are so good...SF is a conundrum.
I'm still waiting for DC to star in a Bond film...really don't want to waste his talent on arty farty Bond intrrpretations.
When you first watch it you think "wow that was brilliant!", give it 9 or 10 out of 10, etc. But then when you start to think about things in the movie and rewatch it, it all falls apart a bit.
You start noticing plot holes and you realise that the brilliant acting, cinematography, etc, is masking some pretty poor writing. Yes Bardem is an absolutely fantastic actor but Silva's plan and escape is more than a bit contrived and ridiculous. Yes it's a great, powerful moment when Batman gets out of that massive hole in the ground but how did he get back to Gotham in the next scene?
I think it is, like @Wizard said, style over substance.
How could Han Solo attached the Falcon to the Imperial Destroyer without making them to notice it?
Perhaps the most relevant questin is, does it matters?
Wasn't he smuggled onto the boat?
Well that depends. When the question is "how did Batman, with no money even in his bank account, manage to get to America from Africa and then into a city where the only way of entering is across ice which they send people out onto to die, all within less than a month?", or "if Silva's evil plan was just him shooting M at the courthouse why did he force MI6 to move HQ, get captured and then plot an elaborate escape involving derailing a tube?" then yes, imo it does matter.
Hitchcock called them refrigerator problems. Man pays his money, goes to the cinema, watches a thriller and has a fantastic time, chats about how good the movie was with his girlfriend on the walk home. That night he goes to the refrigerator for a beer and thinks, "hang on a minute..."
(Hitch didn't have a problem with them, incidentally)
With Skyfall, nothing bothered me. Other than disappointment about Severine's screen time being so short; that was it.