SKYFALL: FANS' REACTIONS - GUARANTEED SPOILERS

1151618202199

Comments

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 2,598
    I thought the balance in terms of humour was almost right in SF but not quite. Slightly heavy handed in parts like in the casino. CR got it correct. In terms of the nature of the humour though in the latter film, I wasn' happy with all of it either but there has never been a perfect Bond film...as I see 'perfect'. ;)
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,119
    Bounine wrote:
    I thought the balance in terms of humour was almost right in SF but not quite. Slightly heavy handed in parts like in the casino. CR got it correct. In terms of the nature of the humour though in the latter film, I wasn' happy with all of it either but there has never been a perfect Bond film...as I see 'perfect'. ;)

    I think the big difference between Craig's one-liners and the one from Brosnan are quite obvious. Craig's ones actually work. If it is the sexual innuendo between Bond and 'Q' or Bond and Silva, it created laughter in cinema. The one-liners were always part of a greater, memorable scene. Same with 'Casino Royale'''s torture scene.

    The Brosnan one-liners are just famous for making Bond look suave in a fake, forced way. The way Brosnan talks...and comes out of the blue with a one-liner was camp and never really part of a memorable scene. Moreover, Brosnan's entire body language came over as fake, like he was saying "Look palls, I am Bond, so I don't need to fully prove myself OK?".

    Having said that....for me Craig feels much more like today's Connery. And even better. We are truly living in some glorious Bond days that many of us have not really witnessed before. Given the fact that many fans here were not old enough to truly recall the early Connery-years.

    For me as a Bond fan......I feel sheer horniness these days. DoubleONothing knows what I'm talking about ;-).



  • edited November 2012 Posts: 2,598
    Yes, Craig is very good with the one liners. As much as I love Craig as Bond, he's not quite as suave as Connery though.

    The only other real issue with SF for me (I certainly like most of the film) is that the plot is a little thin and it felt a little too tightly paced in parts like at the beginning when Bond is suffering from a bit of depression and boredom as in the books (the "enjoying death" scenes which I love but are too short) and the sex scenes. Not that I lust after sex scenes in Bond but if the love scene between Bond and Severine had have been a little longer with some dialogue then we would have known more about Severine and cared more when she was killed. In terms of the pacing, most of it was spot on though. It also seemed in parts that the writers and director were just crossing off all the Bond ingredient boxes like in the Brosnan era albeit more successfully. We don't have to have every Bond ingredient in a 007 movie. We didn't prior to the Brosnan era.
  • Bounine wrote:
    Yes, Craig is very good with the one liners. As much as I love Craig as Bond, he's not quite as suave as Connery though.

    The only other real issue with SF for me (I certainly like most of the film) is that the plot is a little thin and it felt a little too tightly paced in parts like at the beginning when Bond is suffering from a bit of depression and boredom as in the books (the "enjoying death" scenes which I love but are too short) and the sex scenes. Not that I lust after sex scenes in Bond but if the love scene between Bond and Severine had have been a little longer with some dialogue then we would have known more about Severine and cared more when she was killed. In terms of the pacing, most of it was spot on though. It also seemed in parts that the writers and director were just crossing off all the Bond ingredient boxes like in the Brosnan era albeit more successfully. We don't have to have every Bond ingredient in a 007 movie. We didn't prior to the Brosnan era.

    Villain's plots have always been simple and plain in Bond films: Villain has a scheme - Bond comes to MI6 - Bond gets a mission to counteract Villains scheme - Bond travels the globe - Bond kisses Bond girls - One final climax to kill the villain and its scheme.

    That's. Basically. It.

    Concerning re-introducing typical Bond elements. Gosh, I thought it was especially done in a nuanced, dosed way! The way Bond got a beautiful new Walther PPK with one tiny radio transmitter reminded ME of the From Russia With Love moment when Bond gets the attache case from Q.

    On top of that.....the humour was never overdone, given the circumstances Bond was in.
  • Oh yeah should we take "edited"negative comments seriously! No. Probably Bond should masturbate in Michelle Obama's bed in Bond 24 and call it On Her Majesty's Illegitimate Son's Wife's "Edited" Secretive Service! You'll love it too! Inappropriate language intended.
  • Posts: 3,333
    The way Bond got a beautiful new Walther PPK with one tiny radio transmitter reminded ME of the From Russia With Love moment when Bond gets the attache case from Q.
    The only thing that didn't sit too well with me there was that it was conducted in the National Gallery. Couldn't they have found a less public place for Bond to meet and get his gun from the new Quartermaster?
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    bondsum wrote:
    The way Bond got a beautiful new Walther PPK with one tiny radio transmitter reminded ME of the From Russia With Love moment when Bond gets the attache case from Q.
    The only thing that didn't sit too well with me there was that it was conducted in the National Gallery. Couldn't they have found a less public place for Bond to meet and get his gun from the new Quartermaster?

    The public isn't supposed to know who they are.
  • My review after seeing it for the first time, and in IMAX last night. (I posted this in another thread...but just realized that there was a specific "fan review thread" and that I in fact lobbed my review in with the professionals...so my apologies on the wrong placement folks).

    I had been programed, as a young boy, to pay homage at the alter of Sean Connery when it came to the topic of James Bond. I mean, who could argue the fact that the original was the best? The very best. From the moment Connery said those immortals words "The name's Bond, James Bond" in Dr.No, it set the bar and echoed forward through 22 more movies, 5 more actors, and just as many decades. But to cut this preeamble short, I'll just say that my Bond fan DNA has been rearranged....and Daniel Craig reigns supreme.

    'Skyfall', in short, is a triumph. It is by far the best film in the series. Daniel Craig finds sure footing in a role, and a time that was meant for him to don the tuxedo. All of the pieces came together in an extraordinary piece of cinema. I say this as not only a Bond fan, but as a fan of movies.

    'Skyfall' boasts the most distinguish cast ever assembled in a Bond picture....and under the sure and brilliant direction of Sam Mendes...holy Hell do they shine. First off, Dame Judi Dench's 'M' has never been so active in a Bond movie...and the depth of character we are given, along with the relationship between her and James Bond is both fitting and rich. It's this sort of character study and texture that I believe makes 'Skyfall' the monster of a film it is. It delivers in creating, adding to, and perfectly feeding the mythology and lore of Bond's story to the audience in a way that has never been done before, if only hinting at in 'Casino Royale'.

    Ralph Fiennes is fantastic as Mallory...and I'll leave you to see the film to understand why I am so happy with his inclusion in this cast.

    Both Bond girls are spot on and deliver the typical shades of modern Bond girls....one is stunningly enigmatic, the other is action oriented and flirtatious. The lack of innovation here shouldn't be viewed as a fault...because...you can mix it up as much as you want....but there needs to be the ingridients we all love and recognize in the Bond formula.

    Ben Wishaw is exactly the right man for the role of 'Q'. It's a new age, and he very much represents the new generation, which is a vital part of the story and it's battle of 'the old ways' and 'the new ways'. I am loving how Winshaw portrays him...and I cannot wait to see more back and forth between him and Bond in the years to come.

    Now, Javier Bardem....oh man. He will go down as one of the all-time greats for Bond villains. Right up there with Auric Goldfinger, Rosa Klebb, Red Grant, Dr. No....Bardem has done something amazing with this role...and he is one of the main reasons this movie is so astonishingly superb. He plays the role of 'Silva' with a quirky, flamboyant and disturbing menace that overshadows the blandness of more recent Bond baddies...and more impressively...secures himself a spot in the hall of the greats. Jaws would be proud...and very afraid.

    The score by Thomas Newman is cool, clean, crisp and exciting. A music cue of particular brilliance is found two thirds of the way in during a back and forth of Jamed Bond running to the rescue, and M reciting Tennyson. Chills during that scene, and in fact chills abound throughout the film because of the stunning...and I mean stunning cinematography of Roger Deakins. ....I am calling it right here...Roger Deakins will at the very least be nominated come awards season for his work on 'Skyfall'...at the very least. The images he gives us are beautiful....and if your jaw doesn't drop during a sillohetted fight scene in Shanghai...then check your pulse....because he is a master...it is a travesty Deakins has never seen Oscar gold before...and I think this movie will be the one that sees him through to many accolades. This will be one of the works he is remembered for.

    Sam Mendes, thank you for directing this film. I think you have made your best film to date. ...and that's with an impressive filmography including 'Road To Perdition' and 'American Beauty'.

    'Skyfall'....wow. After waiting for four years since 'Quantum of Solace'...with uncertainty of there ever being another adventure with 007 again (MGM bankrupcy troubles)....you have delievered. The best way to put it is... You know when you have been waiting for a movie for a long time, and you finally see it....and it ends up fulfilling everything you had hoped for and even more? That is what 'Skyfall' just did for me. I am happy...just completely happy and satisfied. Not only is this movie the perfect way to celebrate the 50th year of a movie franchise that transforms me into a 13 year old boy with a grin on his face everytime I sit down to watch an entry...but this is what cinema is all about. This is escapism and movie magic at it's purest and most sublime...this is 'Skyfall'...and this is James Bond.


    Well, those are my immediate thoughts after returning from the theater last night. We are lucky this year guys...this is a special one.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    No problem @BriggonSnow, I enjoyed your thorough review. That first paragraph applies completely to me (except I'm a girl).
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,333
    JamesCraig wrote:
    bondsum wrote:
    The way Bond got a beautiful new Walther PPK with one tiny radio transmitter reminded ME of the From Russia With Love moment when Bond gets the attache case from Q.
    The only thing that didn't sit too well with me there was that it was conducted in the National Gallery. Couldn't they have found a less public place for Bond to meet and get his gun from the new Quartermaster?

    The public isn't supposed to know who they are.
    Eh? That's immaterial, @JamesCraig. Q could have easily given Bond his new firearm in the privacy of M's office rather than arranging a clandestine meeting in a very public place. Besides, the NG has security gates and guards to stop people bringing in weapons or explosives so I couldn't think of a more conspicuous place to get his armoury delivered than the one they actually chose.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    But, you do realize this is work of fiction, right?

    And for all we know, Q & Bond have passes that they can show to those guards that they work for MI6.

    I just don't understand how you can complain about such little details.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 22
    Sandy wrote:
    No problem @BriggonSnow, I enjoyed your thorough review. That first paragraph applies completely to me (except I'm a girl).

    Thanks so much @Sandy . He's just that good. I mean, every time/era has had the right Bond. But I think Daniel Craig transcends all of that now. 'Casino Royale' was a monumental achievement in its own right...but 'Skyfall' has cemented Craig at the head of the table. :)
  • Posts: 3,333
    Of course I understand that it's a work of fiction, @JamesCraig, and that's a rather evasive answer to my question. And what you propose whereby the guards either work for MI6 or give them a pass is far more absurd than my valid point of why not just hand Bond his weaponry in the safety and privacy of their office, rather than the cat 'n' mouse shenanigans of meeting in a public place. We know that Q works at the new MI6 building so why couldn't he have just wandered in and handed it to 007 there? It just seemed like an unnecessary change of location for the sake of having a different background.
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2012 Posts: 10,512
    bondsum wrote:
    Of course I understand that it's a work of fiction, @JamesCraig, and that's a rather evasive answer to my question.

    He's got his knickers in a twist about people having issues. In his mind I think he was envisaging some kind of Bondian Utopian Jonestown, where we all came on here, agreed Skyfall was the best thing ever and then committed mass suicide. Life isn't worth living anymore. Bond cannot get better than this.
  • Well, I agree but the reason was to get away from the usual Q branch tradition, a bit of symbolism regarding Turner's Fighting Temaire painting, and a bit of a surprise if you didn't know about the new Q (unlikely).
  • Posts: 6,601
    How often has Bond sacrificed logic for locations or other goodis, the films are all about. I really think, starting to pick on that is.. .desperate.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    RC7 wrote:
    bondsum wrote:
    Of course I understand that it's a work of fiction, @JamesCraig, and that's a rather evasive answer to my question.

    He's got his knickers in a twist about people having issues. In his mind I think he was envisaging some kind of Bondian Utopian Jonestown, where we all came on here, agreed Skyfall was the best thing ever and then committed mass suicide. Life isn't worth living anymore. Bond cannot get better than this.

    I beg you pardon?
  • Germanlady wrote:
    How often has Bond sacrificed logic for locations or other goodis, the films are all about. I really think, starting to pick on that is.. .desperate.

    There was a trend to put M's office in daft locations for variety in past films
  • Posts: 7,653
    Craigs Bond does have a tough time. Gets betrayed and robbed from a rather large amount of money in CR, no loving end. In QoB gets his license almost taken away and loses Mathis and finds his former lovers boyfriend still alive. In SF he gets shot on his own boss' orders, then gets served as bait by M and finaly fails to protect M when he sets a trap for Silva. The man must be getting depressed. ;)
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    SaintMark wrote:
    Craigs Bond does have a tough time. Gets betrayed and robbed from a rather large amount of money in CR, no loving end. In QoB gets his license almost taken away and loses Mathis and finds his former lovers boyfriend still alive. In SF he gets shot on his own boss' orders, then gets served as bait by M and finaly fails to protect M when he sets a trap for Silva. The man must be getting depressed. ;)

    Well, let him have his 15 martinis in Bond 24. ;) :>
  • Posts: 7,653
    http://www.howitshouldhaveended.com/videos

    Here is another view, quite hilarious.
  • SaintMark wrote:
    http://www.howitshouldhaveended.com/videos

    Here is another view, quite hilarious.

    I love these.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 6,601
    LOL
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 1,661
    Getafix wrote the following on November 4th:

    "It's another boring angsty po-faced PRE-Bond movie and I've pretty much given up on them giving us a fun, truly exciting popcorn adventure with the cool hero we used to know."

    I agree a billion percent with you!

    No pro-Craig Bond fans ever want to accept the following but it's true...

    When the producers cast Daniel Craig they *killed off the inherent glamour of the James Bond franchise*. Who, hand on heart, would want to be Craig's James Bond? Okay, we accept the films are make believe fun, but growing up I wanted to be like the other Bond actors. Why would I want to be like Craig's James Bond? Is he suave or smooth? Nope. Do the current screenwriters and the producers try to make his storylines glamorous? Nope. As you say it's angst-ridden "save M!" "personal issues" "Bond rogue(ish)" stuff. All the glamour - the fantasy of James Bond's world is dulled by Craig's casting, his approach to the role. I expected this to happen when Craig was cast in 2005. He was never a smooth actor and it's no surprise all his Bond films pump up the angst and the 'issues' because there is no where else to go with his Bond. Can you imagine Craig making a Thunderball or Moonraker Bond film? I sure as heck can't. I think he'd be lost. In a perverse kind of way his Bond is one dimensional as Moore's 'fantasy version' but at least Moore made you think "wow, I'd love to be as charming and smooth as Moore's Bond." As mentioned, why would anyone want to be Craig's Bond?

    People praise Craig as the best actor to play Bond but think of all the hundreds or thousands of actors you've watched in your life without any of the charm and sophistication of Connery or Moore or Brosnan. Doesn't that make them a bit different or special? I think so. And isn't that what Bond - the film version of Bond is? A bit different and special. I don't think Craig makes Bond different or special. Sure, he's a very human James Bond but I think the genius of the film version of James Bond was he wasn't that human, he was charming and confident and cool. And that's been lost or reduced with Craig's Bond films and it's a shame. And it's a shame the huge box office for Skyfall proves hardly anyone wants the old cool James Bond back. I think he's gone forever. I doubt the next James Bond actor will revert back to the old type. He's gone forever.
  • I just saw this today at a midnight showing.
    The Bond We All Know And Love Is BACK!

    This is the perfect present for the 50th anniversary. After waiting for 4 years, I really expected a good film. Just not this good.

    I loved all the performances, especially by Bardem and Craig. All the one-liners were nice, funny, and clever. The action did not disappoint at all, as some have feared. The cinematography is just brilliant. The CGI is well done. The only problem I had with it was that Berenice did not get enough screen time. Otherwise, this is an amazing Bond film. I will definitely see more showings after today.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 21
    Saw the midnight premiere last night, and after avoiding the site for the past month (for fear of spoilers), I now return with my thoughts:

    Summary: I liked it, but honestly, less than I thought I would.

    It's like two different films -- the first half (up until Silva's capture on the island) is a traditional Bond film, and I *loved* how it was going... but then suddenly the second half is a far more personal film, much lower-key, and more like an extended episode of Spooks (MI-5 for US viewers) than a Bond movie.

    For several reasons, that bugs me.

    1) It wouldn't bug me nearly as much if the first half hadn't been damn near perfect. I wanted more of that.

    2) I realize that this is largely an issue for me because I write for a living, but the structure of this film is an absolute violation of action-adventure film writing and directing (and Bond films in particular). These films should build, build, build towards a HUGE climax. This film builds, builds, builds, and then suddenly gets very small and quiet and personal. And throwing in some explosions and a helicopter crash at the end doesn't really change that. It's just a really odd directorial choice.

    3) I'm getting seriously tired of the "ticking off the checklist" origin set-up. It's 3 films in, and we're still having "ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: DB5, MONEYPENNY, Q & LEATHER-DOOR OLD-BOY-NETWORK M." Fer chrissakes -- it's been 6 years. Can we finally just have a movie where Craig is Bond, and no more 'origin elements' need to be rolled out?

    Don't get me wrong -- I like the film far more than I dislike it (for one thing, it's probably the most beautifully shot Bond film ever, from a cinematographic standpoint... and the direction on the pre-titles sequence alone makes up for the shaky-hand-cam BS of Quantum of Solace).

    But those three things I list above did, really, prevent me from loving it, and made it much harder for me to ignore a slew of other, much smaller, negatives (Newman's score, the obviousness of "we came up a title, now we need to find someway to fit it into the film", the dodgy CG, and the entire theme of Bond being past his prime when Casino Royale told us he'd only just become a 00, etc.)

    Still, though, I expect that it will do massive business in the US, perhaps surpassing all of the other Bonds.

    I hold out hope for the next film to be more of an enjoyable exultation in the traditional Bond formula, through a Craig lens, than the oddly Freudian solemnity that at times weighed this film down.
  • Posts: 1,548
    fanbond123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote the following on November 4th:

    "It's another boring angsty po-faced PRE-Bond movie and I've pretty much given up on them giving us a fun, truly exciting popcorn adventure with the cool hero we used to know."

    I agree a billion percent with you!

    No pro-Craig Bond fans ever want to accept the following but it's true...

    When the producers cast Daniel Craig they *killed off the inherent glamour of the James Bond franchise*. Who, hand on heart, would want to be Craig's James Bond? Okay, we accept the films are make believe fun, but growing up I wanted to be like the other Bond actors. Why would I want to be like Craig's James Bond? Is he suave or smooth? Nope. Do the current screenwriters and the producers try to make his storylines glamorous? Nope. As you say it's angst-ridden "save M!" "personal issues" "Bond rogue(ish)" stuff. All the glamour - the fantasy of James Bond's world is dulled by Craig's casting, his approach to the role. I expected this to happen when Craig was cast in 2005. He was never a smooth actor and it's no surprise all his Bond films pump up the angst and the 'issues' because there is no where else to go with his Bond. Can you imagine Craig making a Thunderball or Moonraker Bond film? I sure as heck can't. I think he'd be lost. In a perverse kind of way his Bond is one dimensional as Moore's 'fantasy version' but at least Moore made you think "wow, I'd love to be as charming and smooth as Moore's Bond." As mentioned, why would anyone want to be Craig's Bond?

    People praise Craig as the best actor to play Bond but think of all the hundreds or thousands of actors you've watched in your life without any of the charm and sophistication of Connery or Moore or Brosnan. Doesn't that make them a bit different or special? I think so. And isn't that what Bond - the film version of Bond is? A bit different and special. I don't think Craig makes Bond different or special. Sure, he's a very human James Bond but I think the genius of the film version of James Bond was he wasn't that human, he was charming and confident and cool. And that's been lost or reduced with Craig's Bond films and it's a shame. And it's a shame the huge box office for Skyfall proves hardly anyone wants the old cool James Bond back. I think he's gone forever. I doubt the next James Bond actor will revert back to the old type. He's gone forever.

    The only thing you say that makes sense is " the best actor to play Bond". He could quite easily make a Thunderball but thankfully the Moonraker era of the Bond series has long gone (thankfully!).

  • Long time lurker, first time poster. :) I just wanted to say that I loved Skyfall.

    As a long time Bond fan, what it fails to do doesn't take away from what I loved as a whole. I'd definitely see it all over again. Thoroughly enjoyable all the way up through the end even with its flaws.

    Someone mentioned music as a downer, but I liked Adele's opening and there were moments in the soundtrack that almost seemed to want to reach back to the previous films. One thing that went through my mind was in hoping they would actually cut back on some of the environmental music and let certain scenes play out as raw such as when Connery's Bond fought Red Grant on the train in From Russia With Love.

    Personally, I love Craig as Bond and am glad the series is taking a darker and grittier path. That's not to say I don't love the older films -- I do -- but one thing that I also love about the franchise is its ability to adapt whether it's in the Cold War in East Berlin or a play on Howard Hughes with Willard White in Diamonds are Forever. It's not always successful, but the series has always kept me on my toes on surprising me with what to expect in every film. Bottling the high profile hacking stories of the past few years into Bardem's character felt just as timely.

    I do have one question:
    I'm not sure whether or not it was because I was caught up in the moment or that the speakers were just garbage in the theater I was in, but when Bond asked M if she fancied another run at the very end, what exactly did she reply to him?

    For some reason, it sounded to me as if she said "If it's alright with you, I'll just stay here."...but I have a feeling I'm way off. Could anyone clarify?

    Thanks so much in advance.
  • I liked Skyfall, but didn't love it, there's something underlying that I think is the problem with 95% of the Hollywood S**t that's peddled these days. It was not that great a story, it was unoriginal, it was a generic story line that could have been used in a straight to DVD movie, if you want a great Bond then you need to forget the past, totally live in the now, come up with an imaginative, original story that follows the sources ethos IE Fleming like but up to date.

    In reality please, please, please Barbara & Michael get Chris Nolan and give him his head without any interference.
  • DB5DB5
    Posts: 408
    NicNac wrote:
    My opinion in short:

    The good:
    1) Overall great movie. Great script, performances, music, story, ending...
    2) Gorgeous cinematography!
    3) The James Bond Theme is finally back!

    The not so good:
    1) Too little screentime for Bérénice and Javier.
    2) The appearance of the Aston Martin DB5 is just weird since it's a "reboot" timeline.
    3) The gunbarrel should be at the beginning. If it's not broken - don't try to fix it!

    I wouldn't loose sleep over time lines. Otherwise it could get very surreal trying to work out why Dench's M had a white Moneypenny years ago, then after she dies a new black Moneypenny appears.


    It's all good from where I sit. Bond's universe is all wiggly waggly ;-)



    Ok for the last time. The M that Dench plays in the four Brosnan films is a totally different M from the one she plays in the three Craig movies. The M Dench plays in GE is taking over from a previous M that Bond (Brosnan) had worked for as a Double 0 earlier. So that M had a secretary named Moneypenny who happened to be white. The M Dench plays in the three Craig films is M before Bond becomes a Double 0. If you just accept that there are two different M characters who happen to be played by the same actress it all makes sense.



Sign In or Register to comment.