Skyfall: 1 year later

LicencedToKilt69007

One year later, all I can say it's a great Bond film. It has highlights and disappointments of course but on the average, it contains everything a Bond film needs and still innovates on its own way. 10th on my ranking ; it should stay there for a while.

chrisisall

RC7 wrote:

Mendes created something rich across the board. It feels like a weighty film, where QOS feels paper thin.

Whoah there pardner, that's one of my favourite Bonds you're slagging there!
:))

bondbat007

One year later (or almost one year here in the US) and my opinion has not changed. Slightly below Casino Royale in the Craig era but not by much. It's very rewatchable and still a great Bond film in almost every aspect. Honestly the one thing that has changed for me is I like Newman's score a bit more. Not sure why, it just grew on me. Still not outstanding though.

RC7

chrisisall wrote:

RC7 wrote:

Mendes created something rich across the board. It feels like a weighty film, where QOS feels paper thin.

Whoah there pardner, that's one of my favourite Bonds you're slagging there!
:))

Tell me, which lunatic asylum did they get you out of? ;)

I like QoS, it's just nowhere near the movie it could have been. I've heard a lot of very thorough arguments for why it's an underappreciated gem, but I don't buy any of them. I think CR and SF offer much more as stories, as character studies, as spectacles, you name it. Not that I begrudge you your right to love it. I love AVTAK.

minorMajor9th

RC7 wrote:

Mendes made a film which is in essence a romanticist piece, rather than a classicist piece, and it shows. It values heart over mind, and feeling over rationalisation. Mendes delivers this aspect tremendously well. Where Forster supplied what I would consider a cold film, generally bereft of feeling and reverence, Mendes constructs something that you feel is loved - I feel he cared in a way Forster didn’t. Forster delivered a beautiful looking film, but one that felt superficial - only Craig added any emotional depth to the piece - where I feel Mendes created something rich across the board. It feels like a weighty film, where QOS feels paper thin.

One of the most insightful and articulate posts I've yet to read here on Skyfall. Well done mate.

identigraph

I was hugely disappointed when I watched it on the big screen and having watched it a few times since and it still never really grabs me, after Silva's lively intro, he just becomes a run of the mill psycho and the action scenes are pretty dull, it has some nice moments here and there but is nothing more than a mid table entry.

JBFan626

I enjoyed reading through this thread: a lot of interesting reads, particularly from 0Brady and RC7. I too appreciate a lot of the subtext and symbolism in the film. I read from another member, the crititque of certain stylistic scenes adding nothing to the plot: the Shanghai hotel fight being the example. I have to disagree. That particular scene is a purely visual scene used to enhance the story-telling. The theme of dark and light pervades throughout the film: Bond emerging from the shadows in the opening shot, Silva in a similar shot walking away from the burning Skyfall estate, M and Kincade running through the darkness with flashlight in hand. The broader theme here is contrast: old vs. new, technology vs. basic human ingenuity. The hotel scene is a striking image of ultra-modern neon lighting surrounding two shadows in old time method of hand to hand combat. It reflects Bond and all his representations of the old guard, a relic in the modern world, still active in the shadows getting the job done. Bond is more effective than ever if he act under the radard in this way.

Skyfall uses it's imagery in an abstract way. The Ken Adams sets and beatiful exotic locales of Bond films past tended to be more literal in their portrayal of the one big sweeping escapist experience. The hallowed out volcano was awesome in it's scale and grandeur, the Fort Knox gold set was visually alluring, Dr. No's holding chamber was menacing. While purely on an aesthetic level, the sets in SF still don't compare of the imagination of Ken Adams, the SF sets are still impressive for working in the themes of the story.

So to address the original question, one year in, the initial excitement of seeing the film after 4 years of lingering anticipation has indeed warn off a bit, but I find myself enjoying the film even more as I continue to find new interpretations of the themes presented.

Bounine

TheBondFan wrote:

Now that Skyfall has been out for 1 year, how have your opinions on it changed since your first viewing?

Can't believe it's been one year. That's amazing. Time is just disappearing before my eyes.

My opinions haven't changed. It's a good film (although not up there with CR) but my dislikes are some of the cheesy dialogue and most of the corny casino scene. Dialogue I dislike:

"not like this, not like him"
"the circle of life"
"latest thing from Q branch, it's called a radio"
"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.

Everything else is good although I'm not much of a fan of Harris as Moneypenny and I don't like the way they revealed who Eve was at the end.

It's too bad that Silva's character wasn't developed more but unfortunately this film is mostly about M. What I fear about future Bond films is that Moneypenny and M and maybe even Q, will have fairly substantial roles and might overshadow Bond to a certain degree. If this is the case then I wish they had have just cast talented but unknown actors in these roles so they only have minor screen time which is the way it should be.

Face

Skyfall holds up.

I think Rafe Fiennes performance has gone up in my estimation and has gone down as one of the best in Bond.

DarthDimi

Bounine wrote:

What I fear about future Bond films is that Moneypenny and M and maybe even Q, will have fairly substantial roles and might overshadow Bond to a certain degree. If this is the case then I wish they had have just cast talented but unknown actors in these roles so they only have minor screen time which is the way it should be.

That is an excellent point. However, we have seen them push M and Q in bigger roles before. My only gripe with LTK is that the abundance of Q conflicts with the film's overall seriousness. As for TWINE, they tried to get M personally involved and give her a McGuyver moment; it failed on all accounts in my book. That said, M was deeply involved in SF too and the far better script, at least IMO, enabled her storyline to convince me this time. I dread the day when MP gets too much screen time. When M's secretary becomes a major character, it's time to put an end to things, I'd say. I will, however, give them this once, SF I mean, because honestly, I hadn't figured "it" out until they spelled it out towards the end of the film. ;-)

Perhaps I should clarify that it's not so much the amount of time they get as it is the gravitas of their scenes that I'm worried about. As long as Fiennes' M doest M stuff, I'm cool with him popping up every now and then. But we don't need M to accompany Bond on his mission every time. They should give us at least a few films with M safely stuffed away in his London offices. Q can provide the gadgets anywhere for all I care but he shouldn't become crucial to the mission as a man directly, only indirectly through the gizmos he supplies. As for MP, I prefer one scene, two at most, in close proximity of M, as she is, ultimately, his secretary. No point having her out in the field again. They got away with it once; I'm not so sure they will a second time.

Perdogg

JBFan626 wrote:

I enjoyed reading through this thread: a lot of interesting reads, particularly from 0Brady and RC7. I too appreciate a lot of the subtext and symbolism in the film. I read from another member, the crititque of certain stylistic scenes adding nothing to the plot: the Shanghai hotel fight being the example. I have to disagree. That particular scene is a purely visual scene used to enhance the story-telling. The theme of dark and light pervades throughout the film: Bond emerging from the shadows in the opening shot, Silva in a similar shot walking away from the burning Skyfall estate, M and Kincade running through the darkness with flashlight in hand. The broader theme here is contrast: old vs. new, technology vs. basic human ingenuity. The hotel scene is a striking image of ultra-modern neon lighting surrounding two shadows in old time method of hand to hand combat. It reflects Bond and all his representations of the old guard, a relic in the modern world, still active in the shadows getting the job done. Bond is more effective than ever if he act under the radard in this way.

Skyfall uses it's imagery in an abstract way. The Ken Adams sets and beatiful exotic locales of Bond films past tended to be more literal in their portrayal of the one big sweeping escapist experience. The hallowed out volcano was awesome in it's scale and grandeur, the Fort Knox gold set was visually alluring, Dr. No's holding chamber was menacing. While purely on an aesthetic level, the sets in SF still don't compare of the imagination of Ken Adams, the SF sets are still impressive for working in the themes of the story.

So to address the original question, one year in, the initial excitement of seeing the film after 4 years of lingering anticipation has indeed warn off a bit, but I find myself enjoying the film even more as I continue to find new interpretations of the themes presented.

The problem with some of the scenes, they reminded people of previous movies. For example I thought the Shanghai fight scene looked like something out of Blade Runner or the Empire Strikes Back. I got the contrast of Shanghai and Scotland. Yes, they were beautiful scenes, but this was a Bond movie not Barry Lyndon.

Perilagu_Khan

So many movies have been made that every scene in any new movie will remind somebody of some scene from a previous one. Unless the ripoff is quite clear I don't see this as a reason to get fussed. Unless, of course, you're just looking for an excuse to do so.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

Perilagu_Khan wrote:

So many movies have been made that every scene in any new movie will remind somebody of some scene from a previous one. Unless the ripoff is quite clear I don't see this as a reason to get fussed. Unless, of course, you're just looking for an excuse to do so.

I agree. I mean, with directors like Mendes who are like those of old who really get involved in all aspects of the film from the script to camerawork, editing and more, you will see some of his filmmaking influences shine through. Looking at how he, Deakins and Newman handled the shots and music that plays when Bond is driving to Skyfall, you can see his clear homage to The Shining and Kubrick in general. Directors at the calibre of Mendes will no doubt have those kinds of idols whose influence is visible in their work, and like Mendes some pay tribute to that. However, there are times where viewers can pick out a particular scene from a film that reminds them of another director or movie in their style, which may not be the director's intention. Because there are so many filmmaking styles and films out there, it is no wonder how those moments happen.

As to @Perdogg's post, I never once think about Empire Strikes Back when I watch Skyfall, and am puzzled at what you connect between the two. Regardless, the Bond films have both in the past and the present times shown that they can be as well shot in regards to camera-techniques and visual motifs as that of Kubrick's work, or any other director worth their salt. Some of the greatest shots I have seen in recent times are from the Bond films, and I mean that honestly. Many people think that the Bond films are mere action romps with little to no artistic sophistication, but even in the franchise's early days with talents like Young and Hunt on board, the Bond series showcased a brilliant mastery of the camera by its filmmakers that created not only eye-popping shots, but also frames of great tension, suspense, and though-provoking sentiment.

chrisisall

Thinking of SF as a Kubrick-like movie works for me very well, now that I think of it... :)>-

0013

Bounine wrote:

Dialogue I dislike:

"not like this, not like him"
"the circle of life"
"latest thing from Q branch, it's called a radio"
"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.

Although those are not the best lines in the movie, the only one on which I share your dislike is "didn't need the other one either". Perhaps is the worst of the whole movie, along with "VW Beetles". Perhaps Harris wasn't as bad as some people think but her lines were not the finest.

pachazo

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

Looking at how he, Deakins and Newman handled the shots and music that plays when Bond is driving to Skyfall, you can see his clear homage to The Shining and Kubrick in general.

That's interesting. I never noticed that before.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

As to @Perdogg's post, I never once think about Empire Strikes Back when I watch Skyfall, and am puzzled at what you connect between the two.

I find myself at a loss as well. Then again I feel that way with most of his posts. No offense @Perdogg. Perhaps you could explain what you mean?

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

@pachazo, If you haven't already dived into it, I highly recommend checking out Sam's insightful commentary for the film, where he notes that scene as his tribute to The Shining. I hadn't seen The Shining until a few months ago, and upon seeing Skyfall again I immediately thought of that great opening tracking shot following Jack's car, so I think he was very successful in his homage, helicopter shot and eerie music in all.

After seeing your profile picture of Jack Nicholson in character, this discussion of The Shining and Bond seems quite appropriate.

WillyGalore

I'm guessing that @Perdogg means the connection between SF and Empire is the fight between Bond and Patrice and Luke and Vader. Both played out in silhouette. Personally though, I never made that connection when I watched SF.

minorMajor9th

Perilagu_Khan wrote:

So many movies have been made that every scene in any new movie will remind somebody of some scene from a previous one. Unless the ripoff is quite clear I don't see this as a reason to get fussed. Unless, of course, you're just looking for an excuse to do so.

Exactly. Plus, Mendes is a cinephile. There are a lot of playful references to classic films.

Personally the silhouette fight reminded me more of Bond's fight with Chang in MOONRAKER.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rMXccwmfPbY/URG4k5n0iCI/AAAAAAAAA0I/GDzIM2N2p4I/s1600/moonraker058.jpg

Matt_Helm

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

@pachazo, If you haven't already dived into it, I highly recommend checking out Sam's insightful commentary for the film, where he notes that scene as his tribute to The Shining. I hadn't seen The Shining until a few months ago, and upon seeing Skyfall again I immediately thought of that great opening tracking shot following Jack's car, so I think he was very successful in his homage, helicopter shot and eerie music in all.
.

I am astonished how this man really seems to brag with his lack of own imagination. Apart from the Silva/Bond "flirting scene" (which I really enjoyed) and the "Pyjamas Dialog " there's simply not one whit of originality in this movie and he really gets praised for that. Somehow I should admire that, I guess.

pachazo

@0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, I haven't listened to the commentary on SF yet. I love The Shining and am very curious to see what Mendes has to say. Thank you.

@WillyGalore, good call. That must be what he is talking about. I don't see the connection either. It's a rather vague interpretation in my opinion.

Ludovico

@Matt_Helm, Terence Young was inspired by Hitchcock and there's at least one shot in FRWL inspired by Kubrick. He lacks imagination too I suppose.

WillyGalore

And let's face it, filmmakers have taken inspiration (ripped off) other movies since the dawn of cinema. Hell, Tarantino has made a career out of it!

RC7

I enjoyed the 'Vertigo' style cue during Bond's pursuit of Patrice, atop the lift. I thought at the time it reminded me of Herrmann's style, but had no idea it was a conscious decision on Mendes' part. On the subject of 'homages', it happens all the time, but I for one am not a massive fan. In the hands of lesser Directors homages become safety nets.

Perilagu_Khan

Ludovico wrote:

@Matt_Helm, Terence Young was inspired by Hitchcock and there's at least one shot in FRWL inspired by Kubrick. He lacks imagination too I suppose.

If Matt_Helm was helming, he'd soon show us what imagination means!

Matt_Helm

Ludovico wrote:

@Matt_Helm, Terence Young was inspired by Hitchcock and there's at least one shot in FRWL inspired by Kubrick. He lacks imagination too I suppose.

Glad you mention it. The boat chase at the end is a "Hommage" (I call it imitation) as well as far as I know. But FRWL gave us in return an editing that kind of invented the modern action movie and a fight,that in its rawness set standards. They lay base for something that the competition tried to imitate for decades to come, while just about anything in SF is an imitation of current trends. To me that is a sad state of affairs.

Matt_Helm

Perilagu_Khan wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

@Matt_Helm, Terence Young was inspired by Hitchcock and there's at least one shot in FRWL inspired by Kubrick. He lacks imagination too I suppose.

If Matt_Helm was helming, he'd soon show us what imagination means!

Believe it or not,but if they had given me this travesty of a script at breakfast (which is not my best time of the day) and had been coming back for dinner I would have given them back something far superior (which admittedly isn't hard to do).

Creasy47

Matt_Helm wrote:

Perilagu_Khan wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

@Matt_Helm, Terence Young was inspired by Hitchcock and there's at least one shot in FRWL inspired by Kubrick. He lacks imagination too I suppose.

If Matt_Helm was helming, he'd soon show us what imagination means!

Believe it or not,but if they had given me this travesty of a script at breakfast (which is not my best time of the day) and had been coming back for dinner I would have given them back something far superior (which admittedly isn't hard to do).

Would you do me a favor? List everything that you liked about SF, no matter how big or small.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

Creasy47 wrote:

Matt_Helm wrote:

Perilagu_Khan wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

@Matt_Helm, Terence Young was inspired by Hitchcock and there's at least one shot in FRWL inspired by Kubrick. He lacks imagination too I suppose.

If Matt_Helm was helming, he'd soon show us what imagination means!

Believe it or not,but if they had given me this travesty of a script at breakfast (which is not my best time of the day) and had been coming back for dinner I would have given them back something far superior (which admittedly isn't hard to do).

Would you do me a favor? List everything that you liked about SF, no matter how big or small.

And the credits don't count.

Perilagu_Khan

Matt_Helm wrote:

Perilagu_Khan wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

@Matt_Helm, Terence Young was inspired by Hitchcock and there's at least one shot in FRWL inspired by Kubrick. He lacks imagination too I suppose.

If Matt_Helm was helming, he'd soon show us what imagination means!

Believe it or not,but if they had given me this travesty of a script at breakfast (which is not my best time of the day) and had been coming back for dinner I would have given them back something far superior (which admittedly isn't hard to do).

Such a shame that a talent like yourself is languishing behind a username on MI6. The movie-going world is much deprived. But, alas, we here on MI6 are truly blessed. Thank you. Thank you so very much.