SKYFALL: FANS' REACTIONS - GUARANTEED SPOILERS

145791099

Comments

  • Posts: 306
    What that means I have no idea.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Went this morning, cinema pretty full at 10.30! Someone even came in a tux!

    I thought it was a great movie but I think CR/QoS are better BOND movies...

    Good:
    - PTS.. best since TWINE. Completely thrilling...dovetails beautifully into..
    - the title sequence. Another winner and the song fits perfectly
    - Q - almost stole the show for me...
    - Deakins' lens - the whole movie..looked gorgeous
    - the approach to Silva's island
    - the retro-tech..radio gag...the makeshift Mi6 offices
    - M, Mallory, Tanner (Rory always good)
    - the 'unfit' Bond..Craig on great form, visible in much stunt-work too

    Not so Good
    - the villain. I know a lot of people are waxing lyrical but I just didn't buy him. A bit too much improv allowed by the director too, I think. Came off like a disgruntled hairdresser to me! His best moments were the escape/police outfit bit and when he revealed himself in the Mi6 cell..
    - the score. Never been a fan of Newman..think his stuff is pretty dreary and forgettable. Same here. And this movie needed a bit of musical zest at times. Stick the CR score on your CD player and feel the difference...
    - quite sombre mood but a lot of the dialogue scenes seemed strangely stilted..can't quite put my finger on why
    - gun-barrel, obviously
    - Berenice..blink and you miss her, although she's not the real Bond girl this time out...

    Overall, loved the movie but not buzzing. Will see again in IMAX a few days time. My opinion always shifts on Bond (was down on QoS at first, now one of my favourites)...to give some idea this is currently my 3rd fave Dan but better than all of Pierce for example....

    More later

    I agree with a lot of what you say. It certainly looks good but that for me does not redeem the film overall. Like you, this definitely ranks below CR and QoS for me. But I am also shocked to find myself possibly ranking it below some of the Brosnan films... sure that will pass.

    As usual for me, when a film is massively hyped I always expect too much, but I am not usually this disappointed. I guess that's because it's Bond and I desperately want it to be good.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    LeChiffre wrote:
    Bounine wrote:
    Well, I enjoyed the film but I'm not sure as to whether it lived up to the hype. The one liners just don't belong in the Craig era and while I do think DC is a very talented actor, he can't deliver them with the flair of Connery and Moore. .

    The scene with the reptile in the casino was very Flemingsque but could have been more suspenseful and certainly could have done without Bond making the cheesy quip at the end after pulling himself back onto the bridge.

    I was also hoping Bond would have gone into more detail about his childhood but at the same time I was wondering how they would do it as M was undoubtedly aware of Bond's history.

    I'll have to see this a couple of more times but I think Casino Royale is the better film. Campbell made the right decision keeping the one liners out. With Mendes, it just seemed in some parts that he was just ticking all the boxes. Also, why does the DB5 have guns and an ejector seat? Are we supposed to believe that Demetrious had all this fitted into his car before Bond won it off him in CR? Why would Q do all this when he said that exploding pens are not what they do anymore? Unnecessary. Silly.

    I thought that Bardem’s character might have been a little too light hearted and comical for my liking but thankfully I was proved wrong. He did a wonderful job. One of the best villains in the series.

    I love who became the new M at the end but the character who turned out to be Moneypenny was a bad move in my opinion.

    I was hoping the scenes at the beginning when Bond is "enjoying death" would be a little more panned out. Sadly, they were cut too tightly.

    Why did the DB5 have machine guns? Are we supposed to believe that Demetrious had these installed before Bond won it off him in CR? Q said that they don’t go in for exploding pens anymore so why would he install guns and an ejector seat? I don't buy it. This stuff was unnecessary.

    I was hoping that they would go into more detail about Bond’s background history too.

    Currently, I rate the film 7 out of 10. CR is better. Campbell had the right idea - leave out the one liners as they just don’t belong in the Craig era. It seemed like Mendes was just ticking off all the boxes not unlike in the Brosnan era. I’m not even sure where I would rate this film at the moment. Maybe in the top 10. I did like how there was more character development in this film. It was part action, part thriller, part drama instead of all just action like in the majority of the post Dalton films.

    For Bond 24 and beyond, I'm going to avoid these photo threads because otherwise I will accidently read all this speculation. It was no surprise what happened at the end of the film for me.

    I loved SF although as you say not quite as good as Casino Royale but no other film could be IMO. I also will be avoiding all speculation in the run up to Bond 24 as I came across way too many spoilers and fan speculation that took away some of the mystery. Lesson learnt for next time! Still, a very enjoyable viewing experience nonetheless and Bardem gace an acting masterclass in screen villainy.

    Bounine, agree with most of your comments. And you are both totally right about following the making of the film too closely - I suppose it's bound to fall a bit flat if you essentially know the whole story in advance. The massive hype doesn't help either.

    I did feel at the end that there is a lot to be optimisitc about. We already know Purvis and Wade are gone. Although I don't rate the story here, Logan's dialogue is at least not embarasingly awful. I'm hoping that given a clean sheet he can up his game for the next two films. Also, the last five minutes were the best part for me. Dench dies, which I was very happy about, but then Silva also blows up the DB5 (that's two things to thank him for!) and then (I couldn't quite believe this) they actually bring back M's old office with the padded door. I've been ridiculed on this site for calling for some of the old sets to be revived and I frankly thought that it would never happen and we'd be stuck with bland corporate MI6 office interiors for ever. So glad to see that old office back. And the way they ended with M giving Bond his next assignment ... so much to look forward to.

    And yet, why didn't SF START like this? why did we have to have a reboot of the reboot? I actually preferred DC's performance in CR and QoS. After SF I still feel like I'm waiting for his definitive performance. I like DC but this film has actually only raised doubts for me. My better half was not impressed by his performance at all. Her first comment after leaving the cinema was 'that's got to be his last Bond then'. She couldn't believe he'd signed on for another 2....

    Poor guy. I hope they let him wear some properly fitted suits for the next one. Tom Ford made a mess of the outfits here. His hulk like physique is straining at the seams through most of the action sequences, and that light grey with his colouring was a bad choice IMO. Savile Row next time, please.
  • I guess, there are certain fans...who are really looking for an average, typical Brosnan-like Bond flick again. One that is less intelligent as a movie. One that hits ALL the right, predictable Bond-buttons at the same time. One that shuts of your brains, and is only raping your eyes. Ughhh.....well....you can't satisfy all of them. Fact is, 'Skyfall' is rated highly by most people :-).
  • Getafix wrote:
    LeChiffre wrote:
    Bounine wrote:
    Well, I enjoyed the film but I'm not sure as to whether it lived up to the hype. The one liners just don't belong in the Craig era and while I do think DC is a very talented actor, he can't deliver them with the flair of Connery and Moore. .

    The scene with the reptile in the casino was very Flemingsque but could have been more suspenseful and certainly could have done without Bond making the cheesy quip at the end after pulling himself back onto the bridge.

    I was also hoping Bond would have gone into more detail about his childhood but at the same time I was wondering how they would do it as M was undoubtedly aware of Bond's history.

    I'll have to see this a couple of more times but I think Casino Royale is the better film. Campbell made the right decision keeping the one liners out. With Mendes, it just seemed in some parts that he was just ticking all the boxes. Also, why does the DB5 have guns and an ejector seat? Are we supposed to believe that Demetrious had all this fitted into his car before Bond won it off him in CR? Why would Q do all this when he said that exploding pens are not what they do anymore? Unnecessary. Silly.

    I thought that Bardem’s character might have been a little too light hearted and comical for my liking but thankfully I was proved wrong. He did a wonderful job. One of the best villains in the series.

    I love who became the new M at the end but the character who turned out to be Moneypenny was a bad move in my opinion.

    I was hoping the scenes at the beginning when Bond is "enjoying death" would be a little more panned out. Sadly, they were cut too tightly.

    Why did the DB5 have machine guns? Are we supposed to believe that Demetrious had these installed before Bond won it off him in CR? Q said that they don’t go in for exploding pens anymore so why would he install guns and an ejector seat? I don't buy it. This stuff was unnecessary.

    I was hoping that they would go into more detail about Bond’s background history too.

    Currently, I rate the film 7 out of 10. CR is better. Campbell had the right idea - leave out the one liners as they just don’t belong in the Craig era. It seemed like Mendes was just ticking off all the boxes not unlike in the Brosnan era. I’m not even sure where I would rate this film at the moment. Maybe in the top 10. I did like how there was more character development in this film. It was part action, part thriller, part drama instead of all just action like in the majority of the post Dalton films.

    For Bond 24 and beyond, I'm going to avoid these photo threads because otherwise I will accidently read all this speculation. It was no surprise what happened at the end of the film for me.

    I loved SF although as you say not quite as good as Casino Royale but no other film could be IMO. I also will be avoiding all speculation in the run up to Bond 24 as I came across way too many spoilers and fan speculation that took away some of the mystery. Lesson learnt for next time! Still, a very enjoyable viewing experience nonetheless and Bardem gace an acting masterclass in screen villainy.

    Bounine, agree with most of your comments. And you are both totally right about following the making of the film too closely - I suppose it's bound to fall a bit flat if you essentially know the whole story in advance. The massive hype doesn't help either.

    I did feel at the end that there is a lot to be optimisitc about. We already know Purvis and Wade are gone. Although I don't rate the story here, Logan's dialogue is at least not embarasingly awful. I'm hoping that given a clean sheet he can up his game for the next two films. Also, the last five minutes were the best part for me. Dench dies, which I was very happy about, but then Silva also blows up the DB5 (that's two things to thank him for!) and then (I couldn't quite believe this) they actually bring back M's old office with the padded door. I've been ridiculed on this site for calling for some of the old sets to be revived and I frankly thought that it would never happen and we'd be stuck with bland corporate MI6 office interiors for ever. So glad to see that old office back. And the way they ended with M giving Bond his next assignment ... so much to look forward to.

    And yet, why didn't SF START like this? why did we have to have a reboot of the reboot? I actually preferred DC's performance in CR and QoS. After SF I still feel like I'm waiting for his definitive performance. Poor guy. I hope they let him wear some properly fitted suits for the next one. Tom Ford made a mess of the outfits here. Savile Row next time, please.

    I don't really see it as a reboot of a reboot and I don't understand how they could have started Skyfall with a new Mi6 building and staff. As for the 'definitive performance', I think this was it. Craig isn't going to morph into Connery, Brosnan, Moore or even Dalton. He's always going to be a little brooding, emotional, brutish... that's just his take on the character. The way I see it his Bond's arc is more or less complete at the end of QoS. By the beginning of Skyfall he is older, wiser, and more experienced. I don't think we'll see the cut and dry standard "M sits behind the desk, Bond gets his mission, kills the bad guy, makes a few puns, and gets the girl at the end" type Bond movie. For a significant amount of fans and movie goers that's just not really interesting enough to keep things going. We've had many many films of that nature within the last 50 years and in order to stay relevant they need to continue to probe the character. There's a reason the producers set off in this direction and I don't think they'll be abandoning it anytime soon.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    I guess, there are certain fans...who are really looking for an average, typical Brosnan-like Bond flick again. One that is less intelligent as a movie. One that hits ALL the right, predictable Bond-buttons at the same time. One that shuts of your brains, and is only raping your eyes. Ughhh.....well....you can't satisfy all of them. Fact is, 'Skyfall' is rated highly by most people :-).

    If you're refering to me, then you're obviously not aware of my views on the Brosnan era...

    Still, if you think this film is intelligent, then you're welcome to it. I'll grant you that it has pretentions to being taken seriously, but the problem with that is that your basic premise and story arc has to then make sense. Whichever way you look at SF the story is complete and utter nonsense. It doesn't even sustain its own internal logic, which is the very least you expect from a Bond film.

    Any way, as much as I enjoy a good story, being intellectually challenged is not, IMO, the purpose of a Bond film. Being entertaining is, and I found SF a flabby, incoherent, bore.

  • The thing is i love Craig's Bond i wanted to love SF it just did not work for me and to be called a troll is the thing that made me act like one.
  • Posts: 229
    A good movie doesn't need a big action scenes every 10 minutes, but just two memorable ones. Take Mission Impossible, only two action scenes, one at the end, and one in the middle full of suspense.
    Pierce Brosnan's Bonds were full of action sequences, but they were barely memorable as far as general audience is concerned.
  • Getafix wrote:
    I guess, there are certain fans...who are really looking for an average, typical Brosnan-like Bond flick again. One that is less intelligent as a movie. One that hits ALL the right, predictable Bond-buttons at the same time. One that shuts of your brains, and is only raping your eyes. Ughhh.....well....you can't satisfy all of them. Fact is, 'Skyfall' is rated highly by most people :-).

    If you're refering to me, then you're obviously not aware of my views on the Brosnan era...

    Still, if you think this film is intelligent, then you're welcome to it. I'll grant you that it has pretentions to being taken seriously, but the problem with that is that your basic premise and story arc has to then make sense. Whichever way you look at SF the story is complete and utter nonsense. It doesn't even sustain its own internal logic, which is the very least you expect from a Bond film.

    Any way, as much as I enjoy a good story, being intellectually challenged is not, IMO, the purpose of a Bond film. Being entertaining is, and I found SF a flabby, incoherent, bore.

    Well, you made your point :-).
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited November 2012 Posts: 3,497
    Getafix wrote:
    I guess, there are certain fans...who are really looking for an average, typical Brosnan-like Bond flick again. One that is less intelligent as a movie. One that hits ALL the right, predictable Bond-buttons at the same time. One that shuts of your brains, and is only raping your eyes. Ughhh.....well....you can't satisfy all of them. Fact is, 'Skyfall' is rated highly by most people :-).

    If you're refering to me, then you're obviously not aware of my views on the Brosnan era...

    Still, if you think this film is intelligent, then you're welcome to it. I'll grant you that it has pretentions to being taken seriously, but the problem with that is that your basic premise and story arc has to then make sense. Whichever way you look at SF the story is complete and utter nonsense. It doesn't even sustain its own internal logic, which is the very least you expect from a Bond film.

    Any way, as much as I enjoy a good story, being intellectually challenged is not, IMO, the purpose of a Bond film. Being entertaining is, and I found SF a flabby, incoherent, bore.

    The story is nonsense? I didn't know that all the other Bondmovies have logical stories. Moore & Brosnan's movies mostly didn't make the slightest bit of sense at all, and I'm betting those are the ones you prefer.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote:
    LeChiffre wrote:
    Bounine wrote:
    Well, I enjoyed the film but I'm not sure as to whether it lived up to the hype. The one liners just don't belong in the Craig era and while I do think DC is a very talented actor, he can't deliver them with the flair of Connery and Moore. .

    The scene with the reptile in the casino was very Flemingsque but could have been more suspenseful and certainly could have done without Bond making the cheesy quip at the end after pulling himself back onto the bridge.

    I was also hoping Bond would have gone into more detail about his childhood but at the same time I was wondering how they would do it as M was undoubtedly aware of Bond's history.

    I'll have to see this a couple of more times but I think Casino Royale is the better film. Campbell made the right decision keeping the one liners out. With Mendes, it just seemed in some parts that he was just ticking all the boxes. Also, why does the DB5 have guns and an ejector seat? Are we supposed to believe that Demetrious had all this fitted into his car before Bond won it off him in CR? Why would Q do all this when he said that exploding pens are not what they do anymore? Unnecessary. Silly.

    I thought that Bardem’s character might have been a little too light hearted and comical for my liking but thankfully I was proved wrong. He did a wonderful job. One of the best villains in the series.

    I love who became the new M at the end but the character who turned out to be Moneypenny was a bad move in my opinion.

    I was hoping the scenes at the beginning when Bond is "enjoying death" would be a little more panned out. Sadly, they were cut too tightly.

    Why did the DB5 have machine guns? Are we supposed to believe that Demetrious had these installed before Bond won it off him in CR? Q said that they don’t go in for exploding pens anymore so why would he install guns and an ejector seat? I don't buy it. This stuff was unnecessary.

    I was hoping that they would go into more detail about Bond’s background history too.

    Currently, I rate the film 7 out of 10. CR is better. Campbell had the right idea - leave out the one liners as they just don’t belong in the Craig era. It seemed like Mendes was just ticking off all the boxes not unlike in the Brosnan era. I’m not even sure where I would rate this film at the moment. Maybe in the top 10. I did like how there was more character development in this film. It was part action, part thriller, part drama instead of all just action like in the majority of the post Dalton films.

    For Bond 24 and beyond, I'm going to avoid these photo threads because otherwise I will accidently read all this speculation. It was no surprise what happened at the end of the film for me.

    I loved SF although as you say not quite as good as Casino Royale but no other film could be IMO. I also will be avoiding all speculation in the run up to Bond 24 as I came across way too many spoilers and fan speculation that took away some of the mystery. Lesson learnt for next time! Still, a very enjoyable viewing experience nonetheless and Bardem gace an acting masterclass in screen villainy.

    Bounine, agree with most of your comments. And you are both totally right about following the making of the film too closely - I suppose it's bound to fall a bit flat if you essentially know the whole story in advance. The massive hype doesn't help either.

    I did feel at the end that there is a lot to be optimisitc about. We already know Purvis and Wade are gone. Although I don't rate the story here, Logan's dialogue is at least not embarasingly awful. I'm hoping that given a clean sheet he can up his game for the next two films. Also, the last five minutes were the best part for me. Dench dies, which I was very happy about, but then Silva also blows up the DB5 (that's two things to thank him for!) and then (I couldn't quite believe this) they actually bring back M's old office with the padded door. I've been ridiculed on this site for calling for some of the old sets to be revived and I frankly thought that it would never happen and we'd be stuck with bland corporate MI6 office interiors for ever. So glad to see that old office back. And the way they ended with M giving Bond his next assignment ... so much to look forward to.

    And yet, why didn't SF START like this? why did we have to have a reboot of the reboot? I actually preferred DC's performance in CR and QoS. After SF I still feel like I'm waiting for his definitive performance. Poor guy. I hope they let him wear some properly fitted suits for the next one. Tom Ford made a mess of the outfits here. Savile Row next time, please.

    I don't really see it as a reboot of a reboot and I don't understand how they could have started Skyfall with a new Mi6 building and staff. As for the 'definitive performance', I think this was it. Craig isn't going to morph into Connery, Brosnan, Moore or even Dalton. He's always going to be a little brooding, emotional, brutish... that's just his take on the character. The way I see it his Bond's arc is more or less complete at the end of QoS. By the beginning of Skyfall he is older, wiser, and more experienced. I don't think we'll see the cut and dry standard "M sits behind the desk, Bond gets his mission, kills the bad guy, makes a few puns, and gets the girl at the end" type Bond movie. For a significant amount of fans and movie goers that's just not really interesting enough to keep things going. We've had many many films of that nature within the last 50 years and in order to stay relevant they need to continue to probe the character. There's a reason the producers set off in this direction and I don't think they'll be abandoning it anytime soon.

    You make a fair point. I do however feel that there is a place and an appetite for a standard 'mission' movie. This was afterall the template for most of the classic Bomds and I don't actually see any reason why you cannot still have a decent story and (if that's your bag) some psychological probing within the traditiomal perameters. Any way, I'm not actually calling for a tick box approach. Two of my favourite entries, FRWL and OHMSS are definitely outside the usual formula, but SF does not come close to them IMO.

    However, this thing about Bond's inner self is where I have a problem with SF. Despite promising much, I'd say we learn precisely diddly about the character that we didn't know already. May be I'm missing something but what does SF actually reveal about Bond's inner psyche? Nothing, I'd say. This is why I call the film up as pretentious - it promises much but delivers little. So Bond lived in a hiedous old house in the Highlands. May be that's why he enjoys the odd fling...?

    This film is not only dull, but it doesn't even deliver on what it sets out to deliver. Bond has always been a blank canvas that men and women project their fantasies and desires onto. Here they tempt us with the suggestion that we're going to learn something about his inner self and the end result is that he appears a rather sad, empty and pointless person. Xan Brooks reivew in the Guardian is making a whole lot of sense to me after seeing the film.
  • SF is often rehash, rehash pretending to be tribute more so than DAD.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    How is he sad, empty & pointless at the end? Why can't Bond show emotions? You did see OHMSS, right?

    The fact that you agree with a Guardian reviewer ends this discussion for me.
  • Posts: 11,425
    JamesCraig wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    I guess, there are certain fans...who are really looking for an average, typical Brosnan-like Bond flick again. One that is less intelligent as a movie. One that hits ALL the right, predictable Bond-buttons at the same time. One that shuts of your brains, and is only raping your eyes. Ughhh.....well....you can't satisfy all of them. Fact is, 'Skyfall' is rated highly by most people :-).

    If you're refering to me, then you're obviously not aware of my views on the Brosnan era...

    Still, if you think this film is intelligent, then you're welcome to it. I'll grant you that it has pretentions to being taken seriously, but the problem with that is that your basic premise and story arc has to then make sense. Whichever way you look at SF the story is complete and utter nonsense. It doesn't even sustain its own internal logic, which is the very least you expect from a Bond film.

    Any way, as much as I enjoy a good story, being intellectually challenged is not, IMO, the purpose of a Bond film. Being entertaining is, and I found SF a flabby, incoherent, bore.

    The story is nonsense? I didn't know that all the other Bondmovies have logical stories. Moore & Brosnan's movies mostly didn't make the slightest bit of sense at all, and I'm betting those are the ones you prefer.

    Well, I'm a big fan of Roger, yes. Give me TSWLM, FYEO or OP over this film any day.

    I don't have a problem with daft stories. My issue with SF is that it wants to be taken seriously and yet once you start thinking about the plot is totally incoherent.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 1,220
    Getafix wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    LeChiffre wrote:
    Bounine wrote:
    Well, I enjoyed the film but I'm not sure as to whether it lived up to the hype. The one liners just don't belong in the Craig era and while I do think DC is a very talented actor, he can't deliver them with the flair of Connery and Moore. .

    The scene with the reptile in the casino was very Flemingsque but could have been more suspenseful and certainly could have done without Bond making the cheesy quip at the end after pulling himself back onto the bridge.

    I was also hoping Bond would have gone into more detail about his childhood but at the same time I was wondering how they would do it as M was undoubtedly aware of Bond's history.

    I'll have to see this a couple of more times but I think Casino Royale is the better film. Campbell made the right decision keeping the one liners out. With Mendes, it just seemed in some parts that he was just ticking all the boxes. Also, why does the DB5 have guns and an ejector seat? Are we supposed to believe that Demetrious had all this fitted into his car before Bond won it off him in CR? Why would Q do all this when he said that exploding pens are not what they do anymore? Unnecessary. Silly.

    I thought that Bardem’s character might have been a little too light hearted and comical for my liking but thankfully I was proved wrong. He did a wonderful job. One of the best villains in the series.

    I love who became the new M at the end but the character who turned out to be Moneypenny was a bad move in my opinion.

    I was hoping the scenes at the beginning when Bond is "enjoying death" would be a little more panned out. Sadly, they were cut too tightly.

    Why did the DB5 have machine guns? Are we supposed to believe that Demetrious had these installed before Bond won it off him in CR? Q said that they don’t go in for exploding pens anymore so why would he install guns and an ejector seat? I don't buy it. This stuff was unnecessary.

    I was hoping that they would go into more detail about Bond’s background history too.

    Currently, I rate the film 7 out of 10. CR is better. Campbell had the right idea - leave out the one liners as they just don’t belong in the Craig era. It seemed like Mendes was just ticking off all the boxes not unlike in the Brosnan era. I’m not even sure where I would rate this film at the moment. Maybe in the top 10. I did like how there was more character development in this film. It was part action, part thriller, part drama instead of all just action like in the majority of the post Dalton films.

    For Bond 24 and beyond, I'm going to avoid these photo threads because otherwise I will accidently read all this speculation. It was no surprise what happened at the end of the film for me.

    I loved SF although as you say not quite as good as Casino Royale but no other film could be IMO. I also will be avoiding all speculation in the run up to Bond 24 as I came across way too many spoilers and fan speculation that took away some of the mystery. Lesson learnt for next time! Still, a very enjoyable viewing experience nonetheless and Bardem gace an acting masterclass in screen villainy.

    Bounine, agree with most of your comments. And you are both totally right about following the making of the film too closely - I suppose it's bound to fall a bit flat if you essentially know the whole story in advance. The massive hype doesn't help either.

    I did feel at the end that there is a lot to be optimisitc about. We already know Purvis and Wade are gone. Although I don't rate the story here, Logan's dialogue is at least not embarasingly awful. I'm hoping that given a clean sheet he can up his game for the next two films. Also, the last five minutes were the best part for me. Dench dies, which I was very happy about, but then Silva also blows up the DB5 (that's two things to thank him for!) and then (I couldn't quite believe this) they actually bring back M's old office with the padded door. I've been ridiculed on this site for calling for some of the old sets to be revived and I frankly thought that it would never happen and we'd be stuck with bland corporate MI6 office interiors for ever. So glad to see that old office back. And the way they ended with M giving Bond his next assignment ... so much to look forward to.

    And yet, why didn't SF START like this? why did we have to have a reboot of the reboot? I actually preferred DC's performance in CR and QoS. After SF I still feel like I'm waiting for his definitive performance. Poor guy. I hope they let him wear some properly fitted suits for the next one. Tom Ford made a mess of the outfits here. Savile Row next time, please.

    I don't really see it as a reboot of a reboot and I don't understand how they could have started Skyfall with a new Mi6 building and staff. As for the 'definitive performance', I think this was it. Craig isn't going to morph into Connery, Brosnan, Moore or even Dalton. He's always going to be a little brooding, emotional, brutish... that's just his take on the character. The way I see it his Bond's arc is more or less complete at the end of QoS. By the beginning of Skyfall he is older, wiser, and more experienced. I don't think we'll see the cut and dry standard "M sits behind the desk, Bond gets his mission, kills the bad guy, makes a few puns, and gets the girl at the end" type Bond movie. For a significant amount of fans and movie goers that's just not really interesting enough to keep things going. We've had many many films of that nature within the last 50 years and in order to stay relevant they need to continue to probe the character. There's a reason the producers set off in this direction and I don't think they'll be abandoning it anytime soon.

    You make a fair point. I do however feel that there is a place and an appetite for a standard 'mission' movie. This was afterall the template for most of the classic Bomds and I don't actually see any reason why you cannot still have a decent story and if that's your bag) some psychological probing.

    However, this latter point is where I have a problem with SF. Despite promising much, I'd say we learn precisely diddly about the character that we didn't know already. May be I'm missing something but what does SF actually reveal about Bond's inner psyche? Nothing, I'd say. This is why I call the film up as pretentious - it promises much but delivers little. So Bond lived in a hiedous old house in the Highlands. May be that's why he enjoys the odd fling...?

    This film is not only dull, but it doesn't even deliver on what it sets out to deliver. Bond has always been a blank canvas that men and women project their fantasies and desires onto. Here they tempt us with the suggestion that we're going to learn something about his inner self and the end result is that he appears a rather sad, empty and pointless person. Xan Brooks reivew in the Guardian is making a whole lot of sense to me after seeing the film.

    I'd agree with you that this was Skyfall's biggest issue for me. They intended to go in a certain direction but it seems as though they didn't really fully commit. I suppose that the casual moviegoer would learn more about Bond's psyche, but it doesn't really tell anything most serious Bond fans don't already know. In a sense though, I can understand why they did it that way. I think most of us can agree that a big part of Bond is his mystique, and there's a risk of delving too deep and over-explaining the character to the point where all that mystique disappears. I think the writers got a little gun shy with this and probably could've pushed a bit further. Then again, who knows? Maybe it could've been so they don't steal their own thunder and leave some ground to cover in future installments.

    I don't have an issue with a more formulaic (I hate using that term) CLASSIC Bond while maintaining the new depth the series has found. In order to do that though, I think Skyfall was necessary. There needed to be a bridge in between Quantum and Bond 24 to establish the classic Bond universe.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    FYEO had emotion too. Or should they have cut the scene where he puts flowers on Tracy's grave?

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 229

    I'd agree with you that this was Skyfall's biggest issue for me. They intended to go in a certain direction but it seems as though they didn't really fully commit. I suppose that the casual moviegoer would learn more about Bond's psyche, but it doesn't really tell anything most serious Bond fans don't already know.
    Are you aware that the movie is meant for everyone and not just for Bond fans only right ?
  • maxcraig wrote:
    Getafix wrote:

    I'd agree with you that this was Skyfall's biggest issue for me. They intended to go in a certain direction but it seems as though they didn't really fully commit. I suppose that the casual moviegoer would learn more about Bond's psyche, but it doesn't really tell anything most serious Bond fans don't already know.
    Are you aware that the movie is meant for everyone and not just for Bond fans only right ?
    I am completely aware of that.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited November 2012 Posts: 3,497
    Well I myself am a Bondfan and find something enjoyable (in a "normal" way) in every actor's tenure.

    They didn't really fully commit in SF?

    Well... they should've shown him training in some big underground fitness lair with tubes sticking out his body containing some invisible protein liquid made & signed by Q.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    I'm starting to think if I watched the same film as some @Getafix and @craigrules. For me it was the best film I watched this year. Was it perfect? No. Is it my favourite Bond film ever? No, but it entered directly onto my top 3 (or top 4 since it's tied with OHMSS) and it is, in my opinion, an instant classic. Considering so many people loved it I would guess we caught something a few people missed and I'm sorry for that, but then again it's impossible to please every single person.
  • JamesCraig wrote:
    Well I myself am a Bondfan and find something enjoyable (in a "normal" way) in every actor's tenure.

    They didn't really fully commit in SF? They should've shown him training in some big underground fitness lair with tubes sticking out his body with some invisible protein liquid made & signed by Q.

    That's not the aspect I was referring to. I mean Bond's emotional issues regarding his parents, attitudes towards his career, Skyfall, etc. I thought they did a fantastic job of Bond "losing his touch."
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    FRWL is still my number 1, but SF entered the top 5.
  • Posts: 229
    maxcraig wrote:
    Getafix wrote:

    I'd agree with you that this was Skyfall's biggest issue for me. They intended to go in a certain direction but it seems as though they didn't really fully commit. I suppose that the casual moviegoer would learn more about Bond's psyche, but it doesn't really tell anything most serious Bond fans don't already know.
    Are you aware that the movie is meant for everyone and not just for Bond fans only right ?
    I am completely aware of that.
    So why complain about the fact that we learn little about Bond's psyche ?
    Anyway as Bond fans and having all read the books, we'll never learn anything new about Bond's psyche.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    And if they had shown more of Bond's psyche it would've been "totally unnecessary. Bond is supposed to be superspy who gets beaten a while but comes back totally cool & lol".
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 1,220
    maxcraig wrote:
    maxcraig wrote:
    Getafix wrote:

    I'd agree with you that this was Skyfall's biggest issue for me. They intended to go in a certain direction but it seems as though they didn't really fully commit. I suppose that the casual moviegoer would learn more about Bond's psyche, but it doesn't really tell anything most serious Bond fans don't already know.
    Are you aware that the movie is meant for everyone and not just for Bond fans only right ?
    I am completely aware of that.
    So why complain about the fact that we learn little about Bond's psyche ?
    Anyway as Bond fans and having all read the books, we'll never learn anything new about Bond's psyche.
    Because regardless of what stage of fanhood you're in, it would have been interesting to see them go a bit further, but I don't know if you read my entire post, because shortly after I explained that I could see the logic in showing that restraint.
    JamesCraig wrote:
    And if they had shown more of Bond's psyche it would've been "totally unnecessary. Bond is supposed to be superspy who gets beaten a while but comes back totally cool & lol".
    No, I don't think it would've been completely unnecessary.
  • I spent quite some time on my review. Really no reaction, no comment on that at all :-(.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 229
    Getafix wrote:
    Don't have much to say right now, except that the best scene was the final one with M's old office restored at last. At least they got that right. I quite liked Fiennes as well. That bodes well for the future I suppose. But DC, man you are really not growing in my appreciation. Stop running like a Terminator and get yourself a proper Savile Row tailor. Dear oh dear oh dear...
    Quite an argument.lol

    Savil Row ? What's the point ? Brosnan wore Brioni.


  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    JamesCraig wrote:
    FRWL is still my number 1, but SF entered the top 5.

    FRWL is still my number one as well, that one is hard to beat.

    @Gustav_Graves I loved your review and it's obvious you spent a good time writting it. It mirrors mostly my opinion about it (always good to know). It's just that this thread has just been hijacked and graver (pun intended) matters call for attention.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    maxcraig wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Don't have much to say right now, except that the best scene was the final one with M's old office restored at last. At least they got that right. I quite liked Fiennes as well. That bodes well for the future I suppose. But DC, man you are really not growing in my appreciation. Stop running like a Terminator and get yourself a proper Savile Row tailor. Dear oh dear oh dear...
    Quite an argument.lol

    Savil Row ? What's the point ? Brosnan wore Brioni.


    That's exactly the kind of criticism I despise. We are 6 years into DC's tenure as 007. It's very sad that there are still people who attack the man for his looks and/or clothing.

  • Personally, I loved Bond's tailoring in Skyfall. Can't please everybody, and that's okay.
Sign In or Register to comment.