It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
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.
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 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.
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.
Pierce Brosnan's Bonds were full of action sequences, but they were barely memorable as far as general audience is concerned.
Well, you made your point :-).
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.
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.
The fact that you agree with a Guardian reviewer ends this discussion for me.
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.
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.
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.
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."
Anyway as Bond fans and having all read the books, we'll never learn anything new about Bond's psyche.
Savil Row ? What's the point ? Brosnan wore Brioni.
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.
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.