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 imagine the same thing happened with CR. Some people are simply contrarians. Others can't be happy unless they're finding fault, even where it doesn't exist.
The composition of posters changes over time. Many of those praising SF when it appeared, probably don't post as much now, while many newer posters never praised SF to begin with.
Bottom line, I love it in the theater and I still love it know. The quality is above many other outings and it's the best performance by Craig. And on the whole I rank it higher than 19 Bond films!
SF certainly has flaws. I never claimed it was perfect, not even right after its release. But most Bond films have flaws and I can easily overlook those because they are compensated by many good things. Such is the case with SF as well.
My impression of SF, post 10 or so viewings, has remained more or less the same. I consider it a great Bond film, trailing slightly behind CR but being a vast improvement over QOS.
You said it better than I did. Agree totally.
Farfetched plots can grow on me, but when I go "What?" too many times in a movie I just can't see it as being 'great'.
1. M tells her to take the shot. WHAT?
2. Someone who is not a professional sniper is taking a precision shot like that. WHAT?
3. Bond survives the fall. I'll let that pass.
4. Bond drops out of sight. WHAT? Why? Hurt feewings?
5. No search can find Bond. WHAT? We can find Bin Laden but not a drunk dude that plays scorpion games in PUBLIC?
6. no, I could go on and on, and no one's even gonna read past 10.
Basically, play it straight & give me actual reasons & motivations, or give me a bit of the cheeky tongue to make the gaps in logic more palatable.
Now back to the Mythbusters James Bond specials...
But you can find was many or more unanswered questions in the other Bond movies.
In QoS Bond survives a fall when the parachute is opened at terminal velocity from aprrox. 50ft above the ground. WHAT?
M travels from London to Bolivia in no time at all it would seem. WHAT?
An assassin from QUANTUM finds Greene in the middle of a desert. WHAT?
The first 30 minutes of the film. WHAT? WHAT? WHAT?
We can all trawl through all 23 films to pick out flaws and plots holes so I don't know why you've singled out SF for criticism.
And it was amazing how he could enter the appartment of the head of MI6 just after an attack on her office. It is amazing that M did not get killed within the 1st hour so dreadfull was her security for the whole movie. It is bloody surprising that the villain took plus 2 hours to finaly kill her. ;)
To be honest finding Bin Laden took close to a decade, Bond was not missing that long. They had some time left.
;)
The thing is that even Bond himself made the same "what?" when he confronts M and she explains her decision: "it was the possibility of losing you against the certainty of losing other agents". It was a rationalized decision and the power of the film lies in the fact that even if M ruled against Bond, he takes out his pride and tries to save her. The things he does for England...
So Silva's plot being a little out there and the action not being to you liking, for those reasons alone it's third? You're harsh.
I can't understand why you dislike it so much, @Perdogg. I rank it second best to OHMSS.
Indeed it is, but each to their own and all that...
I really like that one although I don't think Skyfall was better. Funnily enough I think SF is basically a Craig era version of TWINE, lots of similarities there.
Of course it is not a perfect film, there are no perfect films. At first I didn't like the title sequence at all, now I can appreciate it a bit more but still don't love it. I still think the CGI during the PTS chase is a bit sketchy and my major concern with the plot is something I pointed out in my review at the time but nobody else seems to notice: the cyanide capsule would never do that to Silva's face. But it wouldn't be a Bond film with some script inconsistencies (I think it should be mandatory :D).
So, I repeat, it's a top 3 entry for me, tied with OHMSS in number 2. It's such a complex, multi-layered and complete film, just wonderful.
I love SF and do not think the plot is far fetched (heck it is relatively small scale even), however at some point near the end the timing is very convenient for Silva.
Back to the OP, in spite of its flaws (because it has flaws), it is one of the strongest Bond movie of the last twenty years. I find CR better, however I think SF comes second. It is also maybe the most Flemingesque movie not directly adapted from a novel of Fleming.
Heh heh. None of those even cause me to bat an eye. Compared to the fantastical excess of the vast majority of Bond plots, those manufactured niggles are utterly inconsequential. When I see criticisms such as this, I'm apt to think the critic is searching desperately for reasons to dislike or hate the film in question.
;)
Pray tell, which two do you dislike, @chrisisall?
There's other reasons, I'm just with family for the weekend so I got a little time to post some comments on the threads, hence a quick reply. We've spoken on it before, and just because it's third doesn't mean I don't like it, because I find all three of Craig's Bond films to be absolutely fantastic.