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
I wish I could enjoy it as much. The issues are just too bad for me to ignore in DAD. I do enjoy some of it (really all the way through the sword duel, it's good enough), but pretty much the invisible car onwards it's just not very good for me. Actually, the PTS through Bond's chat with M is pretty good stuff. Otherwise though, only the sword duel is remarkable IMO. I don't think it will escape the low section of my ranking anytime soon, unless we are headed for a bad era with whoever plays Bond next (if Craig leaves soon).
It's really a pity! It started off with a bang for sure. If the quality remained the same as the first 15 or so minutes, it could have been very good.
I watched QoS yesterday evening. This is by far the Bond film I have watched the least often. I think it was the fourth time I have seen the film now. The problem is that while there are only few extremely annoying elements in the film there is hardly anything that I look forward to. Like TND this film has always reminded me of a casual American action movie and honestly I don't find the action to be so very great in both of these films. Maybe one problem is that Bond does not really seem to struggle to win in a fight or a chase (you know that he always wins each fight and chase scene), the second problem is that I don't care about the other characters who are involved in the action sequences like Slate or Mitchell or the other pilot. These are all just random characters who take part in these sequences to be killed by Bond. The third problem is that some of the scenes are also badly edited and hard to follow.
Speaking of the characters I find most of them to be very boring, especially the villains. At the same time they are very stereotype: The general, the CIA guy, Greene, Elvis, the chief of the police. All of them are so extremely dislikable and obviously bad. The way Forster tried to emphasise their dislikability (Elvis being thrown down the stairs, the general trying to rape this random employee in the hotel, Greene and his slimy and arrogant behaviour) just does not work for me. Don't get me wrong. I don't need to like a particualr villain but I should at least respect him as a smart and strong antagonist. However, in the end I just feel nothing when Greene is left in the dessert to die. I mean this is supposed to be the main villain in this film. And you always have the feeling that Bond is miles above him.
I must admit that I warmed to Daniel Craig's performance a little bid in this film. I also quiet liked the overall plot. It is certainly a more down to earth plot which is also not totally unrealistic. At the same time, however, they should have made it less stereotype but more intriguing (again the line between good and bad could be thiner). There are many clichees in this film (the bad CIA, the bad Bolivian general, the bad capitalists who controll the water of the poor). It is just too obvious that some characters are good and others are bad. For a more serious film it could have been much more suspensefull and less predictable by implementing at least a few plot twists or by introducing a few interesting characters which you cannot judge by the first moment you see them on the screen.
“Think on your sins”
“Skyfall” starts off with the message that it wants to tell us something meaningful. Bond films are mostly escapist adventures, though some of them occasionally went against the archetypical formula to tackle some interesting themes.
“On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” was the first to have him actually fall in love and make 007 more of a vulnerable human being, “Licence to Kill” had James going rogue after the traumatising events happened to his best pal Felix Leiter and “Casino Royale” gave us a full-scale reboot with Bond becoming Bond during the course of his first assignment.
Those films are among the better entries too, just because of their different nature. That different approach only works however when they are surrounded by less radical variations on the traditional archetype. You can only impress with variety when you have a template to vary upon. Ever since "Casino Royale" Bond has been constantly confronted with personal issues that the novelty of such an approach has started to wear off.
Now “Skyfall” is definitely a good film. It is quite undeniable that the Bond producers have spared no costs to get enough A-listers into the cast. Daniel Craig obviously returns for a third time and Judi Dench is back again as well. With Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes and Javier Bardem “Skyfall” inserts even more talent to get the job done. It shows, Harris is charming and witty, Fiennes is his usual well-spoken self and Bardem is all-out psychotic.
Furthermore, this film has Roger Deakins doing the cinematography. It might be a bit of a stretch, but for an equally gifted cinematographer in a Bond film we have to go back to the seventies. This film does look incredible. The Shanghai skyscraper scene in particular is a feast for the eyes. Though equally breath-taking is the Aston Martin DB5 driving through Scottish landscapes.
Unfortunately “Skyfall” has some problems that many tend to overlook. Far away from the stylish and sophisticated secret agent from earlier films, Daniel Craig here is more thuggish and brutish than ever before. The essence of the character is somewhat lost if we catch him drinking Heineken and playing bar games with scorpions. Sure Ian Fleming’s creation could be disillusioned, but he would never lose his taste for the finer things in life.
The film is full of plot holes as well. Especially Silva’s escape is subject to questionable writing. There have been other films in the series with similar problems, none of those pretended to be anything more than escapist entertainment however. Even the ones mentioned before never looked as if they were waving at the audience: “Look how meaningful we are”.
This film does that all the time. Themes that are adressed here aren't even that unique. The relevance of 007 in a modern world, for instance, has been tackled by "GoldenEye" seventeen years earlier and with considerable less pretension.
Anyway, Skyfall” still is a good movie, but a masterpiece it is not. We have a well-acted and well-shot Bond film that likes to act like the ultimate “thinking man’s Bond”. Films such as “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” and “Casino Royale” worked so well because they realised that despite their atypical nature, they were still escapist adventures.
“Skyfall” wants to emphasize, rather unsubtly, that it is different by turning Bond in an Everyman and explaining to the audience how smart it is (read: tries to be). Lesson number one: if you want to come over as a smart piece of cinema, do take care of your plot holes. Think on your sins.
I have similar feelings about Skyfall. Sometimes I think this film was produced during the writers' strike regarding the many plot holes and inconsistencies of this film.
Visually and with regard to the cast this film is really good. I also like the rather calm atmosphere and think that the action is actually much better than in QoS. The locations are also used quiet effectively.
However, I never understood why Bond out of the sudden was such an experienced and tired agent. Him becoming Bond was one of the main elements of the first two films. So I was quiet confused that out of the sudden his retirement was discussed in Skyfall. I think it would have been better if they left the Bond related issues out of the film and focused more on the relationship between M and Silva and in particular spend more time to evaluate Silva's actual plan which is completely underused in the film.
I'd mostly agree with your review. Pretty much my feelings about the film.
I do enjoy the scenes where Bond is playing bar games though as it seems as if the character has sunk so low he is slumming it.
The 'it was all part of my plan to get caught' idea regarding Silva is the film's biggest flaw. The writers just can't pull it off without creating plot holes and too many coincidental moments that just don't add up.
And having Q plug Silva's laptop straight into the MI6 mainframe is just really lazy writing to further an already rapidly disintegrating plot.
Like you say, still a very good Bond film with some excellent moments. The lazy writing lets it down though. Craig's Bond deserved better.
The word "underwhelms" still comes to mind when watching it!
Why I love the 80's
- The storylines
- Great action sequences and stuntwork
- Bond performance. Not classy or cool like the 60's but the films have more of an emphasis on Bond the character unlike say the Gilbert films
That's why I can overlook the negatives of the decade
@ GoldenGun , excellent points on SKYFALL. I felt the urge to pop in Pierce's 3rd outing.
Tried to watch TWINE a few weeks ago, but just wasn't in the mood after the PTS. This time, however, I quite enjoyed it.
I remember it being my favorite Brosnan film in 1999, although aware of it's shortcomings. The action sequences still seemed tacked on.
The film to me actually feels like an adaptation of a John Gardner style Bond novel. I doubt Fleming's Bond would have been gullible enough to fall for Elektra the way 007 does here. Brosnan brings Bond's empathy for Elektra in a sort of sensitive 90s guy way until he realizes she's the true villain and gets back to business. The Connery Bond would have seen through her bull***t from the get go, still slept with, and probably still shot her at the end. I'm picturing him handling it more along the lines of his relationship with Miss Taro.
Still, in spite of this, TWINE features many moments of Brosnan coolness: the bank scene, his driving to meet Elektra, the casino, sneaking around the mansion at night ( I absolutely LOVE scenes like this- and Pierce looks great in the dinner jacket sans tie), and the moments with Christmas outside the pipeline. In addition, Brosnan just looks Bondian all throughout this film. His suits are timeless a'la Connery, and he lost his Remington Steele locks for a more Bond style cut.
I like Robert Carlyle, but Renard does seem like a missed opportunity. He's more of a weasel more than a real threat to Bond. Sophie, is more like a spoiled brat than a true villain. In fact, I believe Fiona had what it takes to carry a Bond film as a main villain compared to Elektra. Then again- Fiona isn't what they were going for.
Kudos to David Arnold with another solid score. I must have listened to the soundtrack CD a thousand times when it came out. Also Garbage's theme is my fave of the Brosnan era..............next to Surrender.
Been awhile since I actually watched TWINE all the way through, and this time it took me back to that era. The theatres were packed with not an empty seat in the house.
I remember shortly before it was released, the announcement that Brosnan's 4th outing wouldn't come out until 2002. Back then 3 years seemed like a long wait. I remember a friend asking me when the next film was coming out and I said 2002- his reply: "WOW, that's a ways away". Two years was pretty much expected by everyone back then, especially after Brosnan had successfully brought the series back on track after the hiatus.
So in a sense, TWINE marked the end of the reliable 2 year gap. I'll say, though, unlike some of the later Craig outings, TWINE doesn't try to prove that Bond is still relevant. GE had successfully done that, and TWINE carries that confidence. It just tries to add a bit more dramatic tension to some of the characters, particularly M, while still maintaining classic elements fans love about the series.
REVIEW OF THE YEAR!!
Every word spot-on.
Very nice review on The World is not enough.
I love this movie, its my favorite film from Pierce and his best performance as Bond. Its a film which allowed him to show a bitt more his dramatic skills and like you said he was cool and confident the whole time and yes he did look amazing in his suits.
Actually ive realized my only problem with Pierce in his first outing was his hairstyle. The producers should have cut his hair right from the beginning. He looked very Bondisn since Tomorrow never dies.
I've seen people go way overboard with how the Tennyson scene affected them, some even crying. But I can't help but laugh at that. This is the most melodramatic of Craig's films, and that is the most melodramatic moment of Skyfall. It is so heavy handed, this is where the Craig era goes well and truly up it's own arse. This why luvvies should be kept well away from directing Bond. Give me a John Glen type (Guy Ritchie?) over someone like Mendes any day of the week. If I wanted this much drama, I would go and watch a drama. When it comes to Bond, I would rather see inventive action scenes than overcooked drama.
My 1996-2016 20th Anniversary Bondathon
1. Spectre
2. Skyfall
I'm more fascinated by the splendorous visuals, the excellent acting and the marvelous character work. I even like Newman's score. Bardem's OTT Silva is the icing on the cake, and adds some much needed devilish humour to the proceedings.
All the melodrama and waterworks at the end just passes me by. A small distraction.
And the action in Skyfall is also quiet good. I find it to be much better than in QoS or Spectre where I found it either badly directed or totally boring.
Absolutely: PTS, the two fights in Shanghai, the chase though London (subway), home alone climax in Skyfall.
There is not as many action as in QoS or Sp but in these two films the action was either badly edited or uninspired.
I get what you mean about the melodramatic feel but I was immersed when I first saw that scene in the cinema.
Brosnan is one mean badass as James Bond. Just with the PTS of GE, I always know why I love him as Bond - pure, mindless, epic entertainment with Brosnan machine gunning/punching people and blowing a lot of stuff up while cracking cool jokes and looking super cool and suave. Natalya is such a babe, the action is topnotch - Archives shootout, tank chase, Bond vs Alec fight, Arms bazaar, Hamburg break in/break out, car chase, bike chase and the bombastic climax aboard the stealth boat. Boy do I love traveling across the globe and seeing Brosnan do his magic over a period of 2 hours. Brosnan's and Moore's films will never get old for me, I always get a huge kick out of their respective outings as Bond. And before I forget - David Arnold is the man, his soundtracks are extremely fun, bombastic and feature a lot of the Bond theme.
And now I can say they're pretty close companions, were we to count the movies as sequel. They're like Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. Both good in their own right, but I still dig them both. In this case while Skyfall is still a good action-drama-thriller, I got more kick out of Spectre.
Looking at Craig's performance, in another one Bond is burnt out agent , who've lost his edge and in another he's an agent top of his game, smooth operator he was in CR. Still I see the same man behind his actions.
Only gripe I had, is how Craig's already supermanBond stopped bleeding. CraigBond miraculously has mastered the art of not bleeding when Dave Bautista throws you around.
Spectre had more drive to it and scorn me or not, but I still lije how we got one traditional Bond from this era.
Regarding the ending, I can see, no I want to see one more Bond from Craig.
He needs a memory swipe in the next one, so a new actor can take his place in Bond 26.
Or he could just use that ejector seat.
"Nice going , Bond. I heard you ejected Ms. Swann into the thames. Way to end a relationship"
I jest of course.
I was moved by Bouquet's performance this time around. In the past, I had experienced some difficulty connecting with her character. Despite my strong nostalgic bond with with this film, it's refreshing to keep finding new things to appreciate about it! The mountains in Cortina are still breathtaking, Conti's score still (mostly) elevates the film, and let's not forget about one of the greatest Bond allies of all - Luigi. Just kidding. Columbo is still awesome too.
This was an impressive debut for Glen. In my eyes (only?) he never topped it. The climax at St Cyril's still feels somewhat rushed, I'll give you that. It's a little jarring after the great, suspenseful buildup that was the mountain climbing assault. I know some people (including the girlfriend) think that Max giving away the villain's location was a bit much, but damn, I can't help but love that moment too. Childhood be damned, some moments never leave you I suppose.
It's a somewhat polarizing entry, as Bond fans are all over the map with this one. Growing up, my best friend and I used to argue over this one's merits all the time. He found it a total bore, but after tonight's viewing, count me in with those who see it as one of the greats.
I love the Tennyson scene!