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
That's funny, I feel ennobled from the Nolan films, no matter how dour the ending, because the people make their choices out of their own sense of character.
By comparison, SKYFALL was just a grind with a 'to do' list of boxes being ticked off, without regard for how any of it fit together.
:)>-
I'm a sucker for realistic acting & portrayals, and I think it delivered on that front. Sure, Silva was a little hammy, but then that was just his character. I also like some focus on the aesthetic and found SF a throwback to the Bonds of old in that respect. I think the last Bond that impressed me this much visually was MR.
I certainly did not find it depressing.....well maybe Adele's title song could have been a little more upbeat ("This is the end....hold your breath etc. etc.). As I've mentioned elsewhere, I was somewhat overjoyed at the end with Dench's character's demise, so maybe I missed the sorrow that others may have felt about this loss of an enduring franchise character.
The plot holes are there, for sure. The incompetence of MI6 (including our hero) is also there. That flashlight bit is just hilarious and terribly lazy too. Silva's implied clairvoyance and prescience is frightening, almost to the extent that I expected him to knowingly duck the knife aimed at him from behind by Bond.
On the whole though I found it pretty decent. I'm not raving that it's the 2nd coming or anything, and I don't care how much money it made (that was just good marketing and timing).
If they can capture even a little of the acting quality & visual style that was brought to SF in SP, bring a score to rival the brilliant MI5, and not laden it with too many useless tropes, I'll be one happy camper come November.
One thing we have In common then regarding our views of Skyfall - Dench's demise was the highlight of the film for me. About four movies too late (they should have killed her off after that disaster TWINE), but better late than never.
Funny though. One of the things I really disliked about SF was that I actually felt that the characterisation was all Over the place. There is no consistency in any of the characters behaviour or motivations. One minute M's ordering some rookie to take a pot shot at her top agent, and the next she desperate to have him back. One minute she's admitting her failings and the next she's denying she has any at all. What is Moneypenny for? Is Q just a total idiot? Is Silva a genius or an incompetent fool? What on earth is Rory Kinnear's purpose in life, let alone in a Bond movie.
And Severine. Is she luring Bond into a trap or genuinely thinks taking him to Silva is a good move? Good character though. Probably he best in the film.
It's just all over the place.
I love OP!
Agreed on Dench.
Also agree that incompetence is rampant throughout SF, by many of the characters, but I thought they all acted their parts as incompetents very well imho (well.....perhaps with the exception of Harris, but I'll reserve damning judgement until I see her work in SP).
Regarding M, I just think she was desperate throughout this film and hence the incoherent behaviour from her. She'd lost the disc and she knew her butt was on the line. Her pride made her act irrationally and stupidly, but she realizes it when Bond came back out of loyalty to Queen and Country and so she relies on him to get the job done from then on. She sort of acknowledges her mistakes at the end ("At least I did one thing right" or words to that effect).
Keep in mind also that Mendes had to reintroduce Q, MP & a new M all with a suitable backstory (in the case of MP & Mallory) & give context to the Quartermaster all within the running time of this film. I think he did a great job without going overboard. He can now properly position these characters in SP without having to go through introductions.
Now that I think about it, the bit that annoyed me a little was the overfocus on the MI6 team and the similarity to Chloe from 24/Benji from MI. While that kind of characterization is probably more in synch for a contemporary MI6 Quartermaster than Llewelyn, I did find it a little derivative. I'm being picky though.
My take on Severine is that she is at the limits of what she wants to endure. Bringing Bond to Silva isn't seen as a guarantee of salvation for her either. She's probably aware of the risk of bringing him to the island because of her standing with Silva. It either means death for Silva or death for her, which is not something that she looks like she fears. What she fears most is the situation she has come to accept as her way of being.
Also, I have to say Bond's toast to her three bodyguards in Macau Casino after learning they will jump him when he leaves with the musical cue is pure joy for me. A real treasure in the film.
Good point. She did not appear to care, but just couldn't go on with the status quo it seemed. I liked Severine a lot. She was a very interesting character played mysteriously and very well by the sultry Marlohe.
It's true that she set the context for Silva's character....in fact without her fearful commentary on him in the casino, Silva himself would have appeared less intimidating to us, because I didn't find him all that dangerous, despite the crazy hair & fake teeth.
That's true. I certainly found it more up beat than TDKR though, and liked that film a lot. In fact, I think SF contrasted well with TDKR from the same year, which was quite a bit more dark. I've sort of accepted this sort of slightly downbeat mood from a DC Bond film however. They've all sort of been that way to a degree.
The way I see it is that James Bond is the fantasy no one really wants. When you escape the dark nature of the occupation without showing the consequences, the product is just a shallow facade. Skyfall is primarily gloomy, but it isn't without it's lighter, signature moments that are commonly recognized as being Bond characteristics. The DB5 notwithstanding, there are not as many forced and disingenuous moments as other films because it doesn't really care if it's changing the way people perceive it. That works for better or worse among the audience. Among my friends who are casual fans, while opinion is generally favorable, these debates still occur. The nature of the film is kind of intentionally imperfect, and the subsequent discussions we and millions of others have had is part of what makes Skyfall interesting and a great success for the franchise.
Another one of my problems with the movie - the focus on internal MI6 issues. All a bit kitchen sink drama.
Fair enough. You've convinced me about Severine. I know it didn't serve the plot, but I still think its a shame she dies so early. The film was really getting going up to the point they leave Silva's Island and then it falls apart for me.
IMO Silva is too ridiculous in SF. He is a clown and his hair and appearance is a laugh.
Silva should have been done as a real dangerous adversary to Bond.
He didn't have to, though, he chose to. The previous films functioned absolutely fine without both Q and MP, I don't see why they had to completely revamp MI6 in one film. To me it's overkill. I'd have left MP out, or had the producers been adamant, I'd have cast a lesser known actor who Bond meets for the first time right at the very end, before heading into M's office. The Bond - MP arc isn't satisfying for me. It's there to facilitate other narrative strands. You can rework a character, but the MP angle is overwrought in my eyes, built purely for the inevitable 'reveal'.
In CR the first dialogue between Bond and Vesper:
Vesper: I'm the money.
Bond: Every penny of it.
Back then and up to SF I always believed that Vesper actually is Moneypenny because of that dialogue. It made perfect sense to me. Vesper was with MI6 and it was a reboot so I though, ok they made Moneypenny into a Bond girl, why not, great.
One of the reasons I was quite upset when learning that the "real" Moneypenny would be in Skyfall.
Did I totally misinterpret that scene in CR or is there something to it?
Yes, you're misinterpreting. She's from the treasury and thus responsible, indirectly, for providing the money and then watching over how Bond manages it during the game. Therefore she is 'the money'.
It makes SF just ANOTHER Craig origins movie as well. The third in a row.
So that dialogue was merely a coincidence sounding like Money - Penny ?
I suspect SP will be an origins movie as well. More bumf about Bond's childhood and an Oberhauser/Blofeld origin.
Oh well. Has any body at EON asked whether four origins movies are strictly necessary?
So odd how they go about things. I think there is a real risk that the Craig era ends up being seen as these extended intro to something that never quite arrived.
Still, SP'a trailer suggests that it will be a lot better than SF as a standalone movie. I know you can't trust a trailer but I just get that sense.
I agree. It's this afterthought of continuity that is peculiar. From what I've seen and read it appears they're trying to retcon the previous three films to make these four films a cohesive whole. Whether that is indeed what they're doing and whether it works, we'll see. It seems a little arse about face, when it doesn't really need to be.
Having said that, I like that SP appears to be wrapping up a few loose ends from QoS. I'm sort of hoping that it will create a trilogy that doesn't require me to watch SF!
The line from MP in the trailer is hilarious - Bond is "just getting started". Ten years later!
Fair points. I was never a fan of the way they reintroduced MP either, as I've written about on here before. I always assumed that her somewhat unnecessarily contrived backstory was an instruction from the producers to give the character a little more heft, especially in a day and age where most characters in major films have backstories, but then again I agree it's not necessary and appeared a little insincere and fabricated, like they don't trust their own history.
Personally, I think Nolan nicely restrained himself with Alfred and in particular, with Lucius Fox. Morgan Freeman's character did not have a pompous backstory and was still very effective. Then again, Naomi Harris is no Morgan Freeman.
It's weird what you can read into things. The compromised girl at the end of QUANTUM was, I thought at the time, destined to become Moneypenny as a nod to Lois Maxwell's canadian ancestry -- actress did SO much with just a word of dialog and her expression, I was really blown away. Hardly seems like the same girl the times I've channelsurfed past CASTLE.