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
His mission was cut short because M had him shot. The circumstances had changed. By and large, M is the one who failed, and she knew it.
You call it Home Alone. I call it Straw Dogs (which @007HallY already noted) . Or maybe Assault on Precinct 13.
M was willing to die. But no, her death was not a win for Silva. Once he discovers she is seriously wounded, he is ticked off (watch the scene). Now, killing her was going to be out of mercy. That's not how he wanted it. Go back to what his need was: to do it himself. This is why he told his henchman that he wanted her alive. If Silva simply wanted her dead, he could have accomplished that with the explosion at headquarters. But that's the rub. He didn't want to do it that way. Make no mistake: Silva failed.
The McGuffin is brilliant. That was Silva's doing. You think he needed to steal the actual physical hard drive? No. He could have hacked into the MI6 mainframe and retrieved it. But instead, he wanted to show MI6 how all that "Physical stuff" was so dull. So he sent them on a wild goose chase for something he likely already had. Oh, that Silva: so cleaver. Yet undone by his own hubris.
But he does. See, the stolen hard drive was what led her to being publicly shamed. On HER turf, all that physical stuff. Then he has to continue toying with her by sending the cryptic messages. He wasn't going to kill her until he'd managed to manipulate everything else.
Well, damn. I guess we'll just add Severine to the long list of women Bond allowed to be killed due to his inaction, bad decisions, or carelessness. And that list includes his wife. ;)
Are all these equivalences part of a child sex ring?
If there's a scene in which Skyfall reveals it hasn't thought it through, it's the shower scene.
Maybe Straw Dogs is a better comparison, but only considering the sexual controversy it exhibited. Home Alone is better considering the bespoke weapons on use, though.
I've seen a fair few blame M and Moneypenny for the Turkey failure. We'll let 007 off with that one. He impossibly survives a giant fall having been shot with a high-powered rifle, so he's got enough on.
He really did, but then his plan was so utterly stupid and convoluted (his escape plan is contingent on him being stopped at a certain point so he can cause an explosion, ensuring a conveniently empty train is passing at that precise moment - genius!) it was bound to fail.
it's the same with the McGuffin. Stolen from the Mission Impossible films, a list of compiled agents embedded in worldwide terror cells was either created by:
a) MI6 itself - which would never happen. You wouldn't even be able to compile such data in real life. M's being sacked is a good indication MI6 did create it, which is utterly stupid and completely out of character for Dench.
b) Silva, or someone, has hacked in and is now threatening. However, even if this is nonsense could be true, the data is 'out there' insofar it cannot ever be sufficiently deleted. Recovering a hard copy is a useful albeit ultimately irrelevant manoeuvre, the non-physical entity would still reign supreme.
Those agents, unless removed pronto (difficult), will never not be in serious danger. Every single security protocol for undercover agencies (across countries) would need to be altered. Sure, this is a major reason why M is clipped and is alluded to, but, just as Skyfall prompts a serious implication to its character's actions, we later see Q blithely allow the villains access to the MI6 mainframe again, leading to more fatalities and prompting further questions as to Silva's, and the character's overall, competence.
Look, I still think Skyfall is a decent film. It's slick, builds well and looks good, but is it top-tier Bond?
Nope.
Respectfully disagree.
Loving the conversation. Some proper minds on here. Fair play.
I like that description of Silva’s mindset and it makes so much sense. It’s one of the reasons I like SF - it’s a film you can get something new out of every time you watch it.
See, I go the opposite way. Every time I watch it I find a new criticism!
Mind you, none of the mistakes it (or I think it) makes are fatal. Aye, the plot maybe thin and it falls apart quick but that doesn't destroy the film.
Maybe not make it Top Bond but still a worthy entry.
It’s worth saying Bond movies often have things like logical fallacies or plots which don’t hold up on close inspection - ‘mistakes’ I guess we’re calling them in this context (hell, these are issues with many of Fleming’s books too). Personally I think SF is one of the stronger Bond works in these areas, and it holds up in this sense, but ultimately it’s about how much the viewer enjoys the film. And as is the case with all films it’s subjective. I do think there’s a reason SF is generally highly regarded though.
Also worth saying we as fans often have very specific ideas of what we want from a Bond film which might clash with what we get. It doesn’t mean the film’s bad, ill thought out, or ‘wrong’ in any way, but it means some of us (and I’ve been guilty of this) are more likely to reflect and try to come up with reasons - however debatable - why the film is somehow ‘faulty’ or objectively of subpar quality.
I think skyfall is regarded highly due to its image. It looks gorgeous but also has a plot which merges the 'modern Bond' ethos to audience expectation of 'what a Bond movie should be'.
However, this plot is more superficial than appearances allow. Too much, so, but not enough to discredit the whole picture.
This...
SF sucks because it calls attention to itself constantly, where other Bond movies do so less. I only watch the moment they get the DB5 and on in Scotland, where it's a new fun story for Bond. Hate the earlier film. Creatively bankrupt and stolen ideas. I've come to consider the Deakins cinematography and all that to be the beginning of the end for the Bond I care about. Eon began wanting names and Oscars, not satisfying fans.
It's funny because what I don't like is the whole Scotland thing. It doesn't make much sense and is, in fact, a different movie
Well, as others have said if that spectacle and those general ideas have resulted in a film many people seem to enjoy, then it’s done its job.
I mean, I’m not sure what exactly you mean by the plot being more ‘superficial than appearances allow’ in this case either.
Worth saying pretty much all Bond movies call attention to themselves in some way! As they should do - they’re escapist blockbusters with spectacle. And most seem to use ideas from other films, again in some form (I’d say this description perfectly fits MR for example).
And as I said in another thread, there’s simply no way any filmmaker can satisfy all Bond fans when creating a new film. Many of us have very fixed ideas of what we want from them. Even amongst ourselves these opinions are contradictory, and at the end of the day EON were making films for general audiences - fans and more casual viewers alike. I don’t see any indication they cashed out and simply hired big names to make a film on auto pilot. Regardless of what we think of the finished film it seems to me they wanted to make the best Bond film they could. And it certainly paid off!
I'll add fuel to the fire by admitting that Newman's music has grown on me. I think it works well in the film. It adds a bleakness to most of the film and a sensual warmth to a few scenes in between.
I still consider SF my least favourite Craig, but that doesn't mean I consider it a bad film, far from it, in fact. I rewatched SF last Summer and found myself really impressed by Craig's third. Honestly, I'm beginning to understand the hype, which I couldn't for twelve years.
I suppose this gets into a case of plot vs story. Most Bond films have plots which don’t always make perfect sense when scrutinised. But they can have exciting and impactful stories. That’s more or less the case with SF I think (although its plotting is generally good from what I can see).
Yeah I feel that. I’ve done it myself in the past with other Bond films and things I don’t like about them (ie. overthinking the ‘faults’ to the point it becomes less about my reaction to the film but an intellectual exercise in proving why these issues are… well, issues). Sometimes it’s best to take a step back and try to rewatch some of these films with fresh eyes. That’s made me enjoy certain Bond films more than I used to. Hell, it’s lead to me reevaluating some of them to the point they’re my favourites now.
Throughout the history of the franchise I have always enjoyed the music that accompanies Bond arriving at a new location , tracks like "Into Miami". I absolutely love
"Brave New World" from SF.
As a whole, the score has definitely grown on me.
I think it's a great score, it feels rich and luxurious where it needs to, and yes, wonderfully bleak at times too. I think it's a really good updating of the concept of Bond music: to me it feels like it's totally part of Bond's world with that rich, expansive luxury feel but doesn't feel it has to do it how Barry did: it's the work of someone who really knows instrumentation. Like the rest of the film, it just feels like a proper premium product, which is how I want Bond to feel. They should be silly adventure stories draped in the most high quality fabric and dipped in gold, that's what Bond is, right back to the books.
Yeah that's a good way of putting it. Yes, Silva's plan is hard to work out how he made it work, but when I'm so engaged and excited and stirred emotionally, I don't really care. It works as much as it has to: I know why everyone is doing what they're doing, and that's more important than exactly how they're doing it.
For me it's more of a complete film, in terms of being a coherent a piece of work, than CR is. Much though I love CR and rate it as one of the very best, it's a bit, I dunno, scrappier around the edges; it doesn't flow as well or look or sound as nice, it has a few scenes which kind of jaggedly poke out of the narrative and if SF doesn't make sense then CR leaves the viewer with even more questions(!).
But both SF and CR are way up the top of my list of my favourite Bond films, I think they're both examples of the very best.
It does seem Skyfall's biggest champions are willing to sacrifice coherence for spectacle. Goldfinger over FRWL style.
There is a certain self-righteous smugness permeating the picture, yes.
Goldfinger's great. I don't feel like that's a particularly controversial opinion on a Bond forum! :D
Spectacle is an odd word though; SF is great but I wouldn't call it one of the more spectacular Bonds. There's almost no action in it from the PTS until the climax.
But if you're looking for films with no spectacle at all and fantastic plots which sacrifice nothing for the sake of total coherence, I'm not sure Bond films are what you should be watching. You won't find that in FRWL, for example, with its gypsy fights, helicopter showdowns and random boat chases: where Bond steals a secret code machine in such a way that the enemy know it's missing, therefore making it immediately useless.
I think FRWL is great, it just has its limitations and imperfections, as they all do.
I don't know what that means. It's good and well-made, I don't find that smug.
I think it depends on exactly what the scrutiny is. I think sometimes we have a tendency to focus on plot ‘faults’ without understanding how they fit into the wider story/viewing experience. And ultimately critiquing any movie ideally involves the person doing so to understand what the film is trying to achieve on its own terms.
GF is great, until they go to Kentucky. The rest is plot contrivances and conveniences. Goldfinger revealing his scheme to people he'll kill anyway, the execution of the Fort Knox plot, Pussy being, well, Mr Solo being crushed, the aeroplane sequence. Hardly the laser interrogation scene.
As for SF, there is plenty of smugness immanent, best displayed by Craig's walk across the inquiry room whilst shooting for cover.
Smugness in Bond needs to go punished. CR did it, so did TB and MR. Even Goldfinger.
Skyfall never does.
In the context of the film Bond making it to the inquiry and fending off Silva (effectively thwarting his much desired assassination of M) is him recovering from what he’s been through. Very much a ‘Bond is back’ moment. It’s also a big beat in the film where Mallory proves himself by saving M and seeing Bond handle the situation (Bond accurately shooting the extinguisher is a great callback to him flubbing his marksmanship tests. Love the wink he gives to Mallory as well - very Bondian moment). Those are the key details when considering that scene in the context of story. It’s why it’s emotionally impactful, or at least is designed to be.
This is what I mean by us overthinking. It completely loses sight of the film and what it’s trying to do.
Yeah it's the same problem with FYEO (as it's an inversion of the same plot!)- if the ATAC is compromised then change the system. The whole point of getting hold of the enigma machine in the war was that the Nazis didn't know! If someone steals your front door key you change the lock.
But yeah; it doesn't matter: it's still a good film.
All classic scenes; Goldfinger is a great film.
No idea what you mean I'm afraid. James Bond is a swaggery character; that's why even his theme tune is in a swing beat.
I love that scene, when we start to see the new MI6 family working as a team, and the lovely bit of Bond theme when Bond finally arrives to save the day: I'm cheering at this point. Yes, maybe the enquiry set isn't accurate or something, but I'm watching the story.