SKYFALL: FANS' REACTIONS - GUARANTEED SPOILERS

1222325272899

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Germanlady wrote:
    I think, the problem, if we wanna call it that is, that some here IMO treat this film like an academic thesis. They go into it, taking a film, that's meant to be entertainment very serious and search for explanations, where none are really necessary. It doesn't NEED to explain every bit.

    Some people naturally do this, I think you can view a film in whichever way you like. You can't tell someone to chill out and enjoy a film if they get their kicks in a different way. I think the main issue for some people in SF is a lot of unresolved issues which hamper 'their' personal viewing experience. I don't see anything wrong with that.
  • Germanlady wrote:
    I think, the problem, if we wanna call it that is, that some here IMO treat this film like an academic thesis. They go into it, taking a film, that's meant to be entertainment very serious and search for explanations, where none are really necessary. It doesn't NEED to explain every bit. Blockbuster films like this never do and they all have their plotholes. So, I believe, that starting to pick it apart is, what bothers people. They seem to forget, that this is supposed to be leisure fun, not your working place. And its the nature of the negative, that it rarely raises fun and pleasure and is hence less popular, never mind how much of a right a poster has to state his negative opinion. Many have enough negative experiences in their daily life and this makes them go after those, who confront them with it here, too.
    Its not about right and wrong, its about dynamics and this is how it works usually. So - as much as everyody has the right to voice an opinion, you should not be too puzzled, that you have to deal with "Don't try to spoil my fun".

    I have had friendly banter with others in my time on this forum it never went out of control like this though
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,257
    Okay folks, enough about the ethics of debate now. From here on we'll handle things through PM's. Let's invite our American friends to openly state their impressions of SF.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    I echo Dimi, we seriously won't hesitate to close this if we think it necessary, then open a properly monitored review thread, because I see very little 'reviewing' going on here
  • DarthDimi wrote:
    To summarize: this movie sucked and is nowhere near the quality of casino royale.

    To summarize: you judge a Bond film solely on its internal logic which you labour hard to attack by putting minute details under a magnifying glass and spin them around so that you can 'prove' that the writers were clueless when they were working on the film. You grab arguments here and there which could render virtually every Bond film into garbage. Why don't they explain this or that, or why does this or that character not make another choice? If that is the set of rules we are henceforth going to bring to a film discussion, hardly any film will come out unscathed. The same arguments could be used to 'prove' that any of the Hitchcocks, Kubricks, Spielbergs, ... is a failure. We really don't need to be told everything in a film - our mind can fill in the blanks if it wants to. And as for extraordinary characters making extraordinary or even illogical choices, I'd say that's a good thing. It helps to fight predictability and boredom.

    Take your last comment for example. Why not this? Why not that? Because you didn't write the film and because the filmmakers decided to do something that hadn't been done before. Your point is terribly belaboured and invalid. Silva's intentions focus around revenge, pure and simple. Had he been rigging banks, you'd complain this was like GE (much like in your first comment you complain about the similarities to M:I). Had he been willing to take over countries, you would have complained about similarities to DAD and a load of other Bond films. Now, for the first time, a man is passionate about revenge and he uses every talent in his body to get it. What's so senseless about that? For once, FOR ONCE, we get a baddie whose intentions are easy to understand, uncomplicated and perfectly human and not nearly as superficial as many of his predecessors. Another Drax, Stromberg or Graves simply wouldn't fit this era.

    And as for your opening comments, they are very contradictory. You want to understand a ton of things about what that list is doing here and there, yet on the other hand you claim there's too big a resemblance to M:I. You want them to be more original yet you want to learn more about it. By making it a McGuffin with which to get the story kicked off, they avoid further resemblance to M:I. And please, after nearly a century of filmmaking, what hasn't been done before? You seem to praise CR. Wow, you're sure about that? I mean, the African boy running through the rain surely seems quite like one of those boys in Black Hawk Down. Oh and as for the casino, a dozen Bond films have played scenes in casinos too. Hardly original wouldn't you say? Why don't they explain more about the secrets Bond's first and second kill collaborated in selling and how M figured it out? You see? I could take your arguments and lay silly claims about CR being a terrible film - which by the way I know it isn't.

    Also, plot is one thing but there's so much more about a Bond film to be considered before taking out the trash. I guess when one is planning to bash a film, one will desperately seek stuff, no matter how inconsequential, to drive the point home.

    I totally agree with Dressed To Kill, but some people want to overlook yawning plot holes while others don't. I mean, on that basis who can complain about California Girls in AVTAK - just deal with it! The space scenes in MR - just deal with it! Of course, many of the past Bond films such as DAF and LALD are humorous romps so you don't need to apply the same logic as you would to SF; SF pitches itself as a gritty affair, with a gritty actor, all grim and determined. But it just doesn't hold up, in the detail or the bigger picture. But some of the stuff we are invited to overlook; I mean it's not like DTK is complaining we don't ever see Bond take a toilet break, or take his taxi to the airport.

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited November 2012 Posts: 3,497
    Edit: nevermind.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 512
    Probably not, a lot of posts here.

    Oh hang on, the bit I just quoted? Yeah, er, I read that.

    The hysteria directed at anyone on this site who doesn't think SF is beyond criticism is a bit scary.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Probably not, a lot of posts here.

    Oh hang on, the bit I just quoted? Yeah, er, I read that.

    The hysteria directed at anyone on this site who doesn't think SF is beyond criticism is a bit scary.

    Most of the people who don't like SF or have some problems with it are very soft spoken.

    It has nothing to do with "scariness". Both mods have clearly said that this was for REVIEWS, no matter good or bad.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,257
    Ah well, everyone can post there thoughts so long as they don't resort to fighting. I think @NapoleonPlural should have his saying. :-)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    There is no reason why we can't all address this film calmly and with open minds. I say we all just chill for a second, and go to YouTube for some life advice.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 284
    JamesCraig wrote:
    Probably not, a lot of posts here.

    Oh hang on, the bit I just quoted? Yeah, er, I read that.

    The hysteria directed at anyone on this site who doesn't think SF is beyond criticism is a bit scary.

    Most of the people who don't like SF or have some problems with it are very soft spoken.

    It has nothing to do with "scariness". Both mods have clearly said that this was for REVIEWS, no matter good or bad.

    Or some voices are too loud

    Mod edit: a PM was just sent to your inbox by the mod team.
  • Posts: 3,327
    craigrules wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    Probably not, a lot of posts here.

    Oh hang on, the bit I just quoted? Yeah, er, I read that.

    The hysteria directed at anyone on this site who doesn't think SF is beyond criticism is a bit scary.

    Most of the people who don't like SF or have some problems with it are very soft spoken.

    It has nothing to do with "scariness". Both mods have clearly said that this was for REVIEWS, no matter good or bad.

    Or some voices are too loud

    Here we go again....... :-w
  • Artemis81Artemis81 In Christmas Land
    edited November 2012 Posts: 543
    Ok, so I went to see the movie on Friday, but didn't have a chance to post my thoughts until today.

    First of all, I thought this was the best IMAX experience I've ever had a watching a movie. I saw TDKR over the summer in IMAX, but when I left the theater then, I didn't get the same feeling as I had gotten from Skyfall. With that being said, I thought Skyfall was great! I swear my heart was pounding during the opening sequence even though I knew what to expect, I was still excited about it. Now, I had tried to avoid listening to Adele's song all month, and I heard it once by accident, but hearing it here was great especially with the title sequence. I thought was grim compared to past title sequences, but it was really good. I also got the feeling the it was summarizing the movie. The cast was great especially those people had mentioned (Craig, Dench, Bardem). I could really see shades of Connery in Craig's performance, and still play it the way he had in his last two movies. Dialogue was great - it was captivating, it was funny. The actions scenes were a blast and in IMAX, they just looked and sounded so much better. I thought the Newman score was great, no problems with that. Although I thought some times it sounded like Batman in a few scenes, I don't know if that just me. It was just a great film overall. My only gripes were that the girls weren't shown more, and I'm not sure if I liked how Silva was taken down, but these things don't hinder my enjoyment of this movie.

    Favorite moment: When the DB5 was revealed, the audience gasped. It was such a great reaction.

    On a side note: One thing that did bother me that wasn't related to the movie was that afterwards, some people were talking about that news of "Craig not wanting to be Bond or doing more", "wanting to step down". I was just so annoyed by that, that people are taking that news so seriously.
  • Artemis81 wrote:
    I'm not sure if I liked how Silva was taken down, but these things don't hinder my enjoyment of this movie.

    I'm glad you brought this up, because I forgot to mention it in my review.

    I actually loved the way Silva met his end. It tied into the whole "sometimes the old ways are better" theme from throughout the movie. Also, Bardem added a bit of humor into his Silva's death, with the looks and growls of frustration as he died.

    Along with the "last rat standing" line, it was a superb ending to Silva, IMO.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Artemis81 wrote:
    I'm not sure if I liked how Silva was taken down, but these things don't hinder my enjoyment of this movie.

    I'm glad you brought this up, because I forgot to mention it in my review.

    I actually loved the way Silva met his end. It tied into the whole "sometimes the old ways are better" theme from throughout the movie. Also, Bardem added a bit of humor into his Silva's death, with the looks and growls of frustration as he died.

    Along with the "last rat standing" line, it was a superb ending to Silva, IMO.

    I agree with you @MrArlingtonBeach. I also loved seeing Bond throw a knife again, it's been a long time.
  • Haven't gotten around to seeing it a 2nd time yet, but I've had time to think back on it some.

    I still really, really like this film. It'll likely end up around 5-7 for me in terms of the whole series. As much as I'd like to see Mendes return, I'd still like to see Campbell come back for a 3rd. I know he has said he won't, but after watching CR and GE after I first viewed SF, I still feel like he "gets" Bond more than any director we've seen in a long, long time.


    The Good:
    - Silva was IMO the best part of the movie. I would've loved to see more banter between him and Bond.

    - The banter between Bond and Moneypenny/Q was also very well done and felt like the type of dialog we've had in the past between the characters.

    - I was glad to see a bit more humor, but IMO CR had a decent amount as well. QoS had a few too, but the issue with that film was the shorter run time cut down on the chances of more of these coming up.

    - I also loved the nods to past films, the komodo dragon, signature PPK, the office at the end, and even the DB5. I know some don't get why in this new Bond universe why the DB5 had all the GF modifications, but honestly who really cares? It's a Bond film, there's absolutely no sense of continuity. The DB5 was put in there for the fans, and who can honestly say they didn't crack a smile when Bond flipped the top off the ejector seat, or when the DB5 started mowing down Silva's men with the machine guns?

    - I also loved seeing more of the relationship between Dench's M and Craig's Bond. I'll be happy to get back to a more traditional Bond movie in terms of villain motivation in Bond 24 (Quantum return perhaps?), but it worked really well for the 50th anniversary and put a big stamp on the end of Dench's time with the series.

    - Deakins/Mendes/etc. Those who constructed this film did an absolutely amazing job.

    The Negatives:
    - Sure there were a few things that didn't exactly fit like why M didn't try to get out of parliament when Silva escaped, how exactly he knew his cell would be linked to the same network as the tunnels underneath MI6, why Kincade decided to use the lantern when he knew he was trying to help M escape, etc., but this is a Bond film and is an escapist film. Even though I still feel CR was the better overall movie, it had a lot of these instances as well.

    - I didn't hate Newman's score, but it wasn't as memorable as Arnold's scores. I for one really enjoyed his scores for CR and QoS and wish we'd seen more of that. The Bond them was used well though.

    - The CGI/green screen behind Craig in the PTS bike chase was the only thing that took me out of the movie for a little bit.

    - Would've like to have spent more time in the Macau casino or Silva's island. I know it would've made an already long movie even longer, but these were 2 locations I would've really liked to see far more of. The location jumping didn't bother me, but there wasn't one real, central location for the film like Montenegro was in CR.

    - Would've liked to see more of Severine. I liked the way she was done away with, added a lot to Silva's insanity, but she was a character I really enjoyed and thought could've gone from good to great Bond girl with more screen time.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 12,837
    The hysteria directed at anyone on this site who doesn't think SF is beyond criticism is a bit scary.

    I had a go at DRESSED_TO_KILL because he was bashing it for things almost every Bond film has and because he was making stupid comments (smoke some weed and you'll all see the truth!)

    I have no problem with say, Getafix, because he gave fair reasons and didn't call the film "retarded"
    Sandy wrote:
    I agree with you @MrArlingtonBeach. I also loved seeing Bond throw a knife again, it's been a long time.

    I know he's meant to be a good knife thrower in the books but has he ever thrown one in the films? I'm thinking he might have in OP because of the circus but I honestly can't remember.
  • Posts: 1,817
    The hysteria directed at anyone on this site who doesn't think SF is beyond criticism is a bit scary.

    I had a go at DRESSED_TO_KILL because he was bashing it for things almost every Bond film has and because he was making stupid comments (smoke some weed and you'll all see the truth!)

    I have no problem with say, Getafix, because he gave fair reasons and didn't call the film "retarded"
    Sandy wrote:
    I agree with you @MrArlingtonBeach. I also loved seeing Bond throw a knife again, it's been a long time.

    I know he's meant to be a good knife thrower in the books but has he ever thrown one in the films? I'm thinking he might have in OP because of the circus but I honestly can't remember.

    Also in OHMSS at Draco's.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,257
    He got to one of the twins in the cabin in the woods, throwing his knife back. And indeed, as @0013 points out, there's the moment in OHMSS. He had a knife at the Wavekrest but harpooned Clive instead.
  • DarthDimi wrote:
    He got to one of the twins in the cabin in the woods, throwing his knife back. And indeed, as @0013 points out, there's the moment in OHMSS. He had a knife at the Wavekrest but harpooned Clive instead.

    would scalpels in DAF count
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,257
    Yeah, those too. Good lord I had forgotten about the DAF PTS. ;-)

    He knifes a guard in DN; again, no throwing.
  • Posts: 11,189
    What about in MR when Bond is riding in the Venice canals?
  • Over hyped. Decent enough film, long long way from being the best. Craig is a great Bond but Mendes hasn't created a great Bond film. Action is average, story is good, baddie under-used, lots of slow ploddy self-indulgent scenes.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited November 2012 Posts: 3,497
    3blindmice wrote:
    Over hyped. Decent enough film, long long way from being the best. Craig is a great Bond but Mendes hasn't created a great Bond film. Action is average, story is good, baddie under-used, lots of slow ploddy self-indulgent scenes.

    Please do elaborate.

    A slightly longer review of mine:

    You folks have to realize that Casino Royale was in my all time movie top ten from 2006 'til about two weeks ago.

    I never expected "them" to top it, I did have high hopes that they were going to get away as far as possible from QOS' problems (editing, bad title sequence, forgettable villain, bad theme song), and boy, did they succeed...

    The PTS alone is worth seeing this film, it, actually the whole film, has some beautiful cinematography (for which SF deserves an oscar nom) and ends straight into the title sequence, which works perfectly with the title song. The knives & skulls indicate a compelling, maybe bloody, tale of revenge, almost looks like a horror film! The titles are much more classical than QOS, nice LALD reference btw.

    Bond enjoys his death, and gets back to work after an attack on MI6 which has great CGI btw. He needs to get back in the game, and M makes sure he does, she lies for him lol. Garreh Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) M's boss, wants the current M (Judi Dench) to resign, but she stays. For now.

    We get some very nice scenes at the Macau casino and the obvious CGI komodo dragons. Even if you don't pay attention, you see it, unfortunately. But meeting the hot Sévérine (Bérénice Marlohe) and her Beretta makes you forget that quickly.

    Of we go to Raoul Silva's (Javier Bardem) island, the long shots are Hashima Island in Japan. 70 minutes in the film, we finally meet him, and his introduction is classic Fleming, as are his looks. The rats story is haunting, and the lil' gay touches, especially when Bond makes a "what makes you think this is my first time" remark are very funny.

    Silva gets captured, Sévérine dead, and Silva escapes, on purpose. The whole shootout in London and the train crashing sequence are just brilliantly done, I especially like that you see Bond's soon to be boss in "action".

    Anyway, to cut a long story short, we have the best ending to a Bondfilm ever, and with the destruction of Skyfall lodge we bury Bond's past. He kills Silva with a knife, but alas, M's gone from the injuries she received during the lodge fight.

    We see the new M, Mallory, and Bond in the classic office, together with another familiar character returning (we already got Q, played by Ben Whishaw, who's younger than Bond, a bit nerdy but has already some great banter with 007, luckily he's not a Desmond copy) and look forward with pleasure to seeing all of them again.

    Gripes? Yes, some CGI was weak (including the Shangai sequence, there's one shot in particular that looked so much better in the trailers), the secret agent list is too quickly forgotten & Sévérine is a bit wasted?


    Other than that: Here's to another 50 years...
  • Posts: 1,497
    Where's @DaltonCraig007? I was hoping he was here to celebrate the return of the leather panelled door's,bookshelf and paper dossier of M's classic office. <:-P
  • Sadly he seems to have disappeared :(

    He was one of the most entertaining people on here so that's a shame.
  • Posts: 11,189
    @JBFan626. Do you feel the film was over-hyped at all?
  • Posts: 1,497
    BAIN123 wrote:
    @JBFan626. Do you feel the film was over-hyped at all?

    It's a Bond film so it will be hyped on a high scale no matter what. I'm not sure how a film can be over-hyped. By this do you mean the payoff wasn't as good as the hype?
  • Posts: 11,189
    JBFan626 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    @JBFan626. Do you feel the film was over-hyped at all?

    It's a Bond film so it will be hyped on a high scale no matter what. I'm not sure how a film can be over-hyped. By this do you mean the payoff wasn't as good as the hype?

    There are a few people on here that feel the film doesn't deserve the level of praise its received. I suppose I'm asking if you are one of them?
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 1,497
    BAIN123 wrote:
    JBFan626 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    @JBFan626. Do you feel the film was over-hyped at all?

    It's a Bond film so it will be hyped on a high scale no matter what. I'm not sure how a film can be over-hyped. By this do you mean the payoff wasn't as good as the hype?

    There are a few people on here that feel the film doesn't deserve the level of praise its received. I suppose I'm asking if you are one of them?

    I've been a way for a bit, trying to avoid spoilers, so I haven't heard too many of those criticisms just yet - though I did read one funny take on how the ending is like Home Alone. I got a laugh out of that.

    Me? No way, I thoroughly enjoyed it! If anything, it exceeded my expectations. I posted my review yesterday a few pages back, but nobody responded :( ... I'm only kidding. The silence must mean everyone is in consensus with my opinion! ;-)
Sign In or Register to comment.