› ›

Is SKYFALL the best Bond film ever? *POTENTIAL SPOILERS*

12467

Comments

  • battleshipgreygtbattleshipgreygt
    Posts: 1,220
    As great as the classics like Goldfinger are, I don't really let nostalgia affect my perception of a film. Personally, I find Skyfall to be of a quality that is superior to anything I've seen so far and although it is still fresh in my mind, I'd be shocked if it didn't cement itself as my #1. I''ll be doing a full review once I've gotten a chance to see it again and think on it for a bit.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    Just to add my thoughts on whether it's the best Bond film ever, I'd say "no" it's not up there with OHMSS, FRWL or GF... I just don't see those classics ever being bettered. Skyfall is a great movie with some very Bondian moments, much like DAF had, though one could argue whether the whole was equal to the sum of its parts in both of these cases. There's a lot to enjoy in SF but to elevate this above the true greats is probably taking things a tad too far and smacks of the latest toy must be better than the old one just because it's new. Enjoy SF, enjoy Craig in the role of Bond and be grateful that he has banished the awful taste that Brosnan left behind, but let's keep our feet on the ground, folks.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    jetsetwilly wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    I thought it was better than CR, not sure if I think it's better than GE. I did spot a few cool references.

    My only problems with the film were the gunbarrel, the CGI in some scenes and I felt like Silva and (especially) Severine were under used.

    Other than that it was brilliant. I'm not sure where to put it on my list though.
    Skyfall and GE should not even be compared in the same sentence. Yes Skyfall may be better than CR, but that's as far as it goes.

    GE is shockingly awful, along with all the other 3 Brozza Bond flicks. It really is that bad, and I'm truly amazed it gets the undeserved hype that it gets. It has to be one of the most overrated films of all time.

    I'm amazed anyone can like that mess of a movie. It ranks as one of the worst, only marginally better than DAD and AVTAK, but arguably not even as good as TND or TWINE. Definitely a low point in the franchise.

    I despise seeing Brozza as Bond, and in GE he is at his weakest in terms of performance and appearance - a weedy, thin, feminine GQ model who wouldn't know how to throw a punch if his life depended on it.




    Whether you think GE is overrated or not (I love it - always have done, always will), it's MILES ahead of Brozza's other flicks - even if it's not Brozza's best performance.

    At least its director actually returned a few years down the line to outdo himself and make one of the truely great entries in the series (something none of Brozza's other directors managed) - so he must have done something right first time for them to bring him back 11 years later. CR paved the way for the success of the Craig era. A lot of CR's brilliance can be attributed to Campbell - and the way he stages certain scenes - as well as Dan.

    No GE = No Casino Royale (in it's current form) = No Skyfall

    That's my new equation and I'm sticking to it ;)

    I'm not saying that GE is better than those films (it's not) but it's success does play a significant part in what we have now.
  • battleshipgreygtbattleshipgreygt
    Posts: 1,220
    bondsum wrote:
    Just to add my thoughts on whether it's the best Bond film ever, I'd say "no" it's not up there with OHMSS, FRWL or GF... I just don't see those classics ever being bettered. Skyfall is a great movie with some very Bondian moments, much like DAF had, though one could argue whether the whole was equal to the sum of its parts in both of these cases. There's a lot to enjoy in SF but to elevate this above the true greats is probably taking things a tad too far and smacks of the latest toy must be better than the old one just because it's new. Enjoy SF, enjoy Craig in the role of Bond and be grateful that he has banished the awful taste that Brosnan left behind, but let's keep our feet on the ground, folks.
    Not necessarily, the latest toy may be better than the old one because it's....better. As I've said as good as those classics are, I don't see them as being untouchable.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I'd say SF isn't as good as Connery's first three films or OHMSS but certainly better than TB, YOLT and DAF.

    I like all three of these movies (maybe not so much DAF - too goofy for my taste and lacking in actual tension) but they have their fare share of weaknesses.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,106
    Zekidk wrote:
    Best Bond movie ever? That depends on how you define "good"!

    For me - I like Bond movies that feature glamour, lots of great action set pieces, exotic locations and a Bond that can hit the mark.

    Foggy Scotland, grey England and a Bond unfit for duty was a different experience, but a great prequel for Bond 24.

    Fleming had Bond unfit for duty in FRWL and to a lesser extend TMWTGG. In TB ttoo, to a degree.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Ludovico wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    Best Bond movie ever? That depends on how you define "good"!

    For me - I like Bond movies that feature glamour, lots of great action set pieces, exotic locations and a Bond that can hit the mark.

    Foggy Scotland, grey England and a Bond unfit for duty was a different experience, but a great prequel for Bond 24.

    Fleming had Bond unfit for duty in FRWL and to a lesser extend TMWTGG. In TB ttoo, to a degree.

    In Dr No he was recovering from his brush with death at the end of the FRWL book too.

    You also forgot to mention YOLT where Bond was probably at his lowest point. He'd actually messed up previous missions and, according to M, was becoming a security risk. The idea was that the particularly challenging mission at the 'Castle of Death' would knock him back into shape.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I personally think some people have a hard time accepting abd crediting the newer movies to be better simply because we're not living in the golden age of Bond anymore and we never ever will again. Obviously we all have our own opinions and people's tastes differ but I'm giving credit and appreciation from a very objective standpoint where it's due and I would say the likes of SF and CR are very much up there with the likes of FRWL, OHMSS and TB as being the top 5 best in the series for me. Better film's are simply better films and I too am not going to be blinded by nostalgia or any other type of self-deception that stops me from being truthful to my own opinion, irrespective of when the movies were made.
  • BondBond
    edited November 2012 Posts: 503
    Huge improvement over the last, but not entirely sure whether it's an improvement over CR (if so, just barely). Not better than the 3 best Connery films or OHMSS.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,247
    The Best? well, as humans always love to make up lists and put everyone in order we can attempt to look at some of the qualifications. For me, the main point is the acting of the Bond- actor. This time Daniel Craig. I think he plays the role better then anyone up until now, even better then Sean Connery. He is helped by the story. I like Bond's struggle, which makes him very much Flemingesque. Finally there's a Bond who actually has to try very hard to keep on track. DC's ability to show us Bond's problems, as well as making wisecracks and winks at the right moment, makes him the ultimate Bond for me.
    Th villain(s). Bardem is extremely good. He is menacing and scary. Also, it does take some time before we find out it's him Bond has to go after. This builds up tention. Is he the best villain then? No, for me, not. I prefer Grant, Dr.No and of course Fiona Volpe. And maybe Adolfo Celi's Largo. Still, that's not a bad score!

    The supporting roles. Well, I really liked Eve and she's set up perfectly throughout the film. Her and Craig seem to have exactly the right chemistry. Dench as M shines! Not the best M ever, but very, very close and learning so much about her position and the way she makes decisions is very interesting too. Ralph Fienes is a very cool character as well, and I'm extremely happy with him at the end.

    Even when it comes to the Bond-girl Severine, who's underused but played extremely well, there are just a few i can think of that I like more, and they're all from decades ago. She certainly looks the part! I never understood the hype around Eva Green, but if there's one starting for her i'm inclined to step on that bandwagon.

    The filming, editing etc. are all done very nicely, with the right pace. Is it the best? I don't know, CR's filming was outstanding as well, as with several other films. But it is close to the top.

    All in all, is it the best? No, i don't think so, but it has many qualities which will make it a classic I think. Many people will rank it very, very high indeed.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    battleshipgreygt wrote:
    bondsum wrote:
    Just to add my thoughts on whether it's the best Bond film ever, I'd say "no" it's not up there with OHMSS, FRWL or GF... I just don't see those classics ever being bettered. Skyfall is a great movie with some very Bondian moments, much like DAF had, though one could argue whether the whole was equal to the sum of its parts in both of these cases. There's a lot to enjoy in SF but to elevate this above the true greats is probably taking things a tad too far and smacks of the latest toy must be better than the old one just because it's new. Enjoy SF, enjoy Craig in the role of Bond and be grateful that he has banished the awful taste that Brosnan left behind, but let's keep our feet on the ground, folks.
    Not necessarily, the latest toy may be better than the old one because it's....better. As I've said as good as those classics are, I don't see them as being untouchable.
    I see where you're coming from, @battleshipgreygt. But for me, those 3 examples are quintessentially the perfect Bond picture. They are the yardstick in which every other Bond film has been and will be judged in the future. I'm not one to get carried away or swept along on the euphoria of critical goodwill, as I didn't when I first saw CR at the original press screenings. I think SF is a very good film and up there with the best Bonds in 30-odd years, but it certainly isn't threatening the Top 3 or maybe 4. Of course, it's purely subjective and I'm sure those that find it superior to anything that's gone before will not be dissuaded. For the record I think it's a very good Bond film but I'm content to leave it at that and not be drawn into hyperbole.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    edited November 2012 Posts: 3,327
    bondsum wrote:
    battleshipgreygt wrote:
    bondsum wrote:
    Just to add my thoughts on whether it's the best Bond film ever, I'd say "no" it's not up there with OHMSS, FRWL or GF... I just don't see those classics ever being bettered. Skyfall is a great movie with some very Bondian moments, much like DAF had, though one could argue whether the whole was equal to the sum of its parts in both of these cases. There's a lot to enjoy in SF but to elevate this above the true greats is probably taking things a tad too far and smacks of the latest toy must be better than the old one just because it's new. Enjoy SF, enjoy Craig in the role of Bond and be grateful that he has banished the awful taste that Brosnan left behind, but let's keep our feet on the ground, folks.
    Not necessarily, the latest toy may be better than the old one because it's....better. As I've said as good as those classics are, I don't see them as being untouchable.
    I see where you're coming from, @battleshipgreygt. But for me, those 3 examples are quintessentially the perfect Bond picture. They are the yardstick in which every other Bond film has been and will be judged in the future. I'm not one to get carried away or swept along on the euphoria of critical goodwill, as I didn't when I first saw CR at the original press screenings. I think SF is a very good film and up there with the best Bonds in 30-odd years, but it certainly isn't threatening the Top 3 or maybe 4. Of course, it's purely subjective and I'm sure those that find it superior to anything that's gone before will not be dissuaded. For the record I think it's a very good Bond film but I'm content to leave it at that and not be drawn into hyperbole.

    The problem with looking at the old 60's classic are two things -

    1) nostalgia gets in the way, judgement gets clouded very easily, coupled with fond childhood memories when first watching these movies. All this plays a part to how we judge these old films now, so it is difficult to evaluate them coldly, dispassionately, on their own merits.

    2) The old films are now very dated, and not all in a good way. The terrible back projection in FRWL (particularly noticeable in the Venice ending scene on the gondola), or the poor boat chase action sequence, which just looks terrible comparing it to modern standards. The PTS scene in Skyfall is far better as an action sequence than anything seen in the 60s' classics, mainly because techniques have improved dramatically over the past 50 years.

    OHMSS I find to be one of the best movies in the franchise, but it is not without its flaws. The Hilary Bray dubbing over Lazenby I still find shockingly awful, a real low point to the movie. Had this been done now to one of Craig's films, it would be universally panned. Lazenby's acting is very poor in OHMSS when comparing his acting abilities to Craig. There is no comparison whatsoever. The action sequences are also badly edited in many scenes, including the speeded up beach fight. Today, most of this looks quite naff.

    FRWL is also very slow in parts, and plods on far more than Skyfall is criticized for. FRWL's main strength is the build-up between Connery and Shaw on the train, but take that out of the equation and the rest of the film pans out like an average spy thriller, and probably not as exciting or engaging as Skyfall overall.

    GF is an undisputed classic, fairly flawless IMO, and is endlessly rewatchable. But I can see myself feeling this way with Skyfall too once I own it on Blu Ray.

    So as as much as I can understand you not wanting to get carried away with the hyperbole of the new film, likewise the nostlagia you feel for the old 60's films may be equally clouding your judgement too.

    For the record, the 3 60's films you mention sit in my top 5, along with CR and Skyfall...... B-)
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    [/quote] OHMSS I find to be one of the best movies in the franchise, but it is not without its flaws. The Hilary Bray dubbing over Lazenby I still find shockingly awful, a real low point to the movie. Had this been done now to one of Craig's films, it would be universally panned. Lazenby's acting is very poor in OHMSS when comparing his acting abilities to Craig. There is no comparison whatsoever. The action sequences are also badly edited in many scenes, including the speeded up beach fight. Today, most of this looks quite naff.
    [/quote]

    Thank you. I've found this at times too. Some otherwise exciting action scenes are undermined by dodgy back projection/editing.

    Some examples:

    -The bobseleigh fight at the end
    -the chase amongst the car derby with Bond and Tracy (Rigg says "James, how do we get out" twice" and in one her lips don't even move. There's another shot where you can blatantly tell they've flipped the camera round).
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    Just a quick response, @jetsetwilly. I never had a problem with Lazenby's dubbed voice, no more than I did with the accentuated sound effects of the time, which were considered ground-breaking. Besides, it was just a way of showing what an exceptional mimic Bond was. I can see where it might bother some younger viewers that expect a bit more realism in a Bond picture, but for me those features were what made the films unique at the time of their release. Of course production values have changed over the decades with editing and SPFX vastly superior in today's productions, mostly thanks to George Lucas and his team, but that wouldn't stop me still regarding a Hitchcock movie above a modern one. In fact, if we were to stand by that rule then all of Hitchcock's body of work including Vertigo, North By Northwest, Rear Window, Strangers on a Train, et al, must be regarded as shoddy and backward by today's standards!

    I take your point about nostalgia clouding one's judgement but then that's what gives most movies their magical appeal and without it Star Wars, Ray Harryhausen, Jaws, Indiana Jones, and ET to a lesser extent, would not be held up as anything particularly special.

    As much as I regard Skyfall as a great "modern" Bond picture I still think the hype has overtaken its true merits and gives those that haven't seen it yet (our American cousins) a distorted expectation level that just can't be matched when they experience the film, unless they are the sort of person that has to buy into something as not be seen as being obtuse. In no way am I poking holes in Skyfall as I think it's an exceptional movie with probably as many flaws as you pointed out in OHMSS. It's just I don't quite think it's the full-throttle, Gold Star Bond experience many here think it is. I fully expect Bond 24 to be actually better than this entry and believe everything is now in place for Bond to do what he does best and that is to have a bloody good mission.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,247
    bondsum wrote:

    As much as I regard Skyfall as a great "modern" Bond picture I still think the hype has overtaken its true merits and gives those that haven't seen it yet (our American cousins) a distorted expectation level that just can't be matched when they experience the film, unless they are the sort of person that has to buy into something as not be seen as being obtuse. In no way am I poking holes in Skyfall as I think it's an exceptional movie with probably as many flaws as you pointed out in OHMSS. It's just I don't quite think it's the full-throttle, Gold Star Bond experience many here think it is. I fully expect Bond 24 to be actually better than this entry and believe everything is now in place for Bond to do what he does best and that is to have a bloody good mission.

    I would disagree. Yes, on these forums perhaps, but for regular moviegoers the film delivers. At least in this country (Netherlands) where Skyfall broke the record for any Bondfilm in its opening weekend, and 5th overall, after 3 Harry Potter films and one Lord of the Rings.Film critics give it 4 to 5 stars out of 5. I have no reason to believe the American public would react differently then the UK's or my own country's people.

  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    bondsum wrote:
    It's just I don't quite think it's the full-throttle, Gold Star Bond experience many here think it is. I fully expect Bond 24 to be actually better than this entry and believe everything is now in place for Bond to do what he does best and that is to have a bloody good mission.
    If Skyfall is not full-throttle Gold Star Bond, then what is? Had Skyfall been released in the 1960's (with obviously a shoddier PTS) then I think it would have gone down as one of the all-time classic greats, comparable with the likes of FRWL and GL.

    The passage of time does wonders for films, it elevates them from being great movies to undisputed classics, this is why I think its unfair to judge Skyfall as a film that cannot compete with the 60's films. It doesn't have the luxury of a 40 year time lapse inbetween, along with nostalgia and happy memories.

    If a stranger who knew nothing about Bond, watched for the very first time FRWL, OHMSS, GF and Skyfall, I hazard a guess Skyfall would come out on top. It is actually a far better film in terms of its direction, production qualities, acting calibre and very strong script.

    Sure, the 60's films suffer from inferior production values, but likewise Skyfall suffers from being too new, and doesn't have the luxury of nostalgia. If the hype is reaching fever pitch with Skyfall, it is no more than it deserves. If this will cloud people's expectations going in to the movie, so be it. It's far better being in this position, with almost unanimous praise from critics the world over, than a film being absolutely slated and getting 22% on Rotten Tomatoes, in the hope that no one will be have too much of a high expectation.


  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 984
    Dare I say, don't shoot me now, yes, Skyfall is the best Bond film ever made so far. Its perfection. A masterpiece and a work of art. Sam Mendes is a genius. He is god...hahaha.. Seriously, he is good. Hope he directs the next one and then the next one as well. One thing is for sure, now they are going to have a hard time with Bond 24 to make sure it can live up to Skyfall. Hopefully the next Bond films for the future will maintain the same standard as Skyfall...
  • machboxpodcastmachboxpodcast Banned
    Posts: 4
    I think it is the best modern one by far. GoldenEye was good and so was Casino Royale. But Skyfall is brilliant
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    If you honestly believe what you just wrote, @jetsetwilly, then Skyfall must have now reached an unparalleled zenith for you and there can only be one direction the series can go in, which is no different to how my gauge works with my own earlier examples.
    jetsetwilly wrote:
    The passage of time does wonders for films, it elevates them from being great movies to undisputed classics, this is why I think its unfair to judge Skyfall as a film that cannot compete with the 60's films.
    Indeed it's difficult to compare a Bond made in 2012 with those of the 60's, but in terms of pure entertainment value SF is a great movie, it's just you won't find me fawning over it when I can see things in it that don't quite make it the best Bond movie ever in the whole wide world regardless of age. I think CR still nudges SF as a better Bond movie overall.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    NicNac wrote:
    How do you analyse the 'best Bond film ever'?

    Is it..

    a) the one that captures Fleming's books the best (in which case I doubt any modern Bond film can do that)

    b) the best film from an artistic perspective (it has a chance I suppose)

    c) the film that captures all the ingrediants of a great Bond film ie guns, gadgets, girls, martinis, villains etc

    d) the one that satisfies hard core Bond fans the most

    e) the one that makes the most at the box office

    Where do we start to discuss what is 'the best Bond film'?

    a) like @NicNac I didn't think any modern film could capture Ian Fleming's world. But...
    Silva's backstory, Bond's indecision as he attempts to shoot the glass off Servine's head, the whole "Bond is out of shape" (FRWL, TB, YOLT), M writing Bond's obituary etc... Makes me feel Skyfall captures the world of Fleming.

    YES

    b) The direction, the cinematography, the script, set design...

    YES

    c) In spades, and in a very innovative way...

    YES

    d) Judging by this place, I'd say, bu and whole, anyway...

    YES

    e) Only time will tell, but it looks encouraging...



  • CoH_GHOST_007CoH_GHOST_007
    Posts: 303
    Well the last third of Skyfall didn't feel like a Bond film to me, although a brilliant film in itself. The music was a let down, apart from ADELE's tune, and was no match for David Arnold's pieces. Craig is definately a superb Bond, and is the only one capable of making me undecided on who my favourite Bond is (Being either Connery or Craig)...
    Aside from the few problems, Sam Mendes did a fantastic job! A job so well that I saw it three times within the space of one week!

    Though I never could consider it better than Casino Royale, especially when seeing it in the light as a "Bond film", to which Casino Royale, to me atleast, is made closer in the form of a Bond film. I also rewatched Goldfinger today, and I have to say that I also prefer that to Skyfall, given that I gave Goldfinger a 10/10, and Skyfall an 8.5, with Casino Royale at a 9/10.

    So, overall, "no", from my point of view, it is not the best Bond film ever. It comes close, but even if it were a better film overall, it isn't much of a Bond film when compared to most in the series.
    Personally, it is currently my third favourite.
  • MuddywMuddyw
    Posts: 198
    I thought the music worked terrific in the movie! It's no John Barry but it's way better sounding than Arnold with his boring technodrums during every actionpiece.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    It is certainly Craigs best so far.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    it's gone straight into my bottom rankers. need time to consider but might even put it below the brozza era. very very disappointed.
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 984
    Muddyw wrote:
    I thought the music worked terrific in the movie! It's no John Barry but it's way better sounding than Arnold with his boring technodrums during every actionpiece.

    Indeed. I especially like the track from the Istanbul scenes... I keep humming and listening to it over and over on iTunes..
  • craigrulescraigrules
    Posts: 284
    Getafix wrote:
    it's gone straight into my bottom rankers. need time to consider but might even put it below the brozza era. very very disappointed.
    Watch out they will call you a troll.
  • battleshipgreygtbattleshipgreygt
    Posts: 1,220
    For me, the reason why I could see Skyfall surpassing GF, FRWL, OHMSS, and CR in my mind is that it manages to hold up not only as a good Bond movie, but a good movie in itself. There are a few others that do this, but not to the same level of quality as Skyfall.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    I'd put SF behind CR and QoS.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    CoH_GHOST_007 wrote:
    Well the last third of Skyfall didn't feel like a Bond film to me, although a brilliant film in itself. The music was a let down, apart from ADELE's tune, and was no match for David Arnold's pieces. Craig is definately a superb Bond, and is the only one capable of making me undecided on who my favourite Bond is (Being either Connery or Craig)...
    Aside from the few problems, Sam Mendes did a fantastic job! A job so well that I saw it three times within the space of one week!

    Though I never could consider it better than Casino Royale, especially when seeing it in the light as a "Bond film", to which Casino Royale, to me atleast, is made closer in the form of a Bond film. I also rewatched Goldfinger today, and I have to say that I also prefer that to Skyfall, given that I gave Goldfinger a 10/10, and Skyfall an 8.5, with Casino Royale at a 9/10.

    So, overall, "no", from my point of view, it is not the best Bond film ever. It comes close, but even if it were a better film overall, it isn't much of a Bond film when compared to most in the series.
    Personally, it is currently my third favourite.

    Well, I agree with that bit.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    battleshipgreygt wrote:
    For me, the reason why I could see Skyfall surpassing GF, FRWL, OHMSS, and CR in my mind is that it manages to hold up not only as a good Bond movie, but a good movie in itself. There are a few others that do this, but not to the same level of quality as Skyfall.

    This
Sign In or Register to comment.