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

12346

Comments

  • Posts: 11,425
    JamesCraig wrote:
    It is resolved.

    How is it used in the plot other than as a purely incidental fact?

    What is the resolution other than we can assume Bond carries on as usual?

    Why was it made a part of the story at all?

    It seems that the premise offers all kind or potential that simply is not explored.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 12,837
    @Getafix I pretty much completely disagree with you on SF, I loved it, but you made a good point about M. She did come across as a bitch in lots of scenes and she doesn't see very good at her job.

    I did feel sad when she died but that was because I felt sorry for Bond, not because she was dead. If Bond didn't give a crap I probably wouldn't have either.

    I was rooting for Silva at some parts, especially during the bit where he's captured and we find out why he's evil. Bardem was a great villian who was really evil, best since Sanchez, but I did feel bad for him. I felt sort of the same with Le Chiffre in CR, he was a decent villian but I felt sorry for him because at the end of the day he didn't want to be doing this, he was driven to it. Same with Silva really.

  • Posts: 6,601
    The trauma was shown - parents dead, when he was young, him hiding for two days in that "whatever you call it". Him going into thaT orphans house...quite traumatic for A CHILD; i ASSUME:
    "When he came out, he was not a child anymore"

    So, you want a psycho study? i am sure, you would be the first to complain about taking it too far. i think, this is an uphill battle, you can't win.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited November 2012 Posts: 3,497
    If they had gone deeper, you wouldn't have liked it either, Getafix.

    And M was not a bitch for me in SF...

  • Posts: 1,052
    Personally, I don't really care about Bond's childhood etc, it's not a major issue for me but for me the film just lacked excitement, which is what I want to feel when I leave the cinema after watching Bond.

    Also it doesn't matter to me if the film is gritty or light hearted there is just a certain escene to a great Bond film that no other films can match, I just didn't get it from this particulary entry, which I really wanted to love.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 12,837
    To be fair there were some scene with M where she showed guilt for all the dying, but overall she seemed a it cold hearted and bitchy to me. Like I said, I did end up feeling bad for Silva.

    But I preferred Dench in this one to CR/QOS. There's less stupid trust issues, and more comedy with her and Bond which I liked.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Personally, I don't really care about Bond's childhood etc, it's not a major issue for me but for me the film just lacked excitement, which is what I want to feel when I leave the cinema after watching Bond.

    Also it doesn't matter to me if the film is gritty or light hearted there is just a certain escene to a great Bond film that no other films can match, I just didn't get it from this particulary entry, which I really wanted to love.

    I think you've summarised in essence the problem. None of the plot would matter much if the film simply carried you along on the ride. But it didn't.

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    To be fair there were some scene with M where she showed guilt for all the dying, but overall she seemed a it cold hearted and bitchy to me. Like I said, I did end up feeling bad for Silva.

    But I preferred Dench in this one to CR/QOS. There's less stupid trust issues, and more comedy with her and Bond which I liked.

    I always preferred Dench in Craig's films.
  • Posts: 11,425
    To be fair there were some scene with M where she showed guilt for all the dying, but overall she seemed a it cold hearted and bitchy to me. Like I said, I did end up feeling bad for Silva.

    But I preferred Dench in this one to CR/QOS. There's less stupid trust issues, and more comedy with her and Bond which I liked.

    I'm so glad Dench is gone. best thing about the film. I like the look of Fiennes as M as well. Promising. I loved the fact they brought back the old office and padded door at the end. I'd like to see Cambell return for the next film with a decent script.
  • JamesCraig wrote:
    To be fair there were some scene with M where she showed guilt for all the dying, but overall she seemed a it cold hearted and bitchy to me. Like I said, I did end up feeling bad for Silva.

    But I preferred Dench in this one to CR/QOS. There's less stupid trust issues, and more comedy with her and Bond which I liked.

    I always preferred Dench in Craig's films.

    I prefer her in Brosnans films (Goldeneye especially), but I liked her in SF. Wasn't big on her in CR, hated her in QOS.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Getafix wrote:
    To be fair there were some scene with M where she showed guilt for all the dying, but overall she seemed a it cold hearted and bitchy to me. Like I said, I did end up feeling bad for Silva.

    But I preferred Dench in this one to CR/QOS. There's less stupid trust issues, and more comedy with her and Bond which I liked.

    I'm so glad Dench is gone. best thing about the film. I like the look of Fiennes as M as well. Promising. I loved the fact they brought back the old office and padded door at the end. I'd like to see Cambell return for the next film with a decent script.

    There is no such thing, if you didn't like this one. Of course, none of the involved KNOW, what a good script for a Bond film is. Babs really needs to consult you first next time.

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    maxcraig wrote:
    Getafix wrote:

    What happens in SF? Bond stupidly decides to take on the villain in a remote location with no weapons and no back up that happens to be his childhood home (so what - what actual significance does this have to the story whatsoever? - think about it). M dies (hoorah). The end. I'm sorry, but if you buy this film as some kind of innovative spin on Bond I think you've been conned. The basic premise has potential but the film then goes on to tell us ABSOLUTELY nothing about Bond that we did not know already. And it spends an awful long time, ponderously and pretentiously telling us that absolute nothing. I'm afraid this has confirmed all my worst fears about Mendes as director - that he'd try and inject hidden depths to a series that is not frankly about hidden depths - and that the result would be an incoherent jarring mess.

    Once again you are speaking as a Bond fan who knows everything about the character because you read the books, and the movies and the documentaries....But for general audience and new audience of younger generations it's some new aspects to the character. All they (probably) know is Bond surfing in Iceland.
    My point is, as Bond fans we must not be selfish, we must think of others because without their interest in Bond, Skyfall is probably not making $287 million in 10 days.

    He hasn't. That's the thing. He hasn't even touched the books (and the first cinematic reference to Bond being an orphan was in GE).

    And...? Would reading the books have given me a greater appreciation of the incoherent plot of SF?

    It would give you more of a basis to be on here.

    So you've created a new rule that you have to have read the books to post on here? You haven't got a response to a single point I've made, so you retreat behind Fleming.

    Tell me, what in Fleming tells you that this is a classic Bond movie? Seeing that he wasn't a big fan of the almost univerally recognised classic films made during his lifetime any way, I'd be delighted to hear your answer.

    I've pointed out that they took the story beyond a mere reference to Bond being an orphan and I corrected you regarding the first film that made an acknowlegement of this fact.

    I can't argue with some of your points about the lapses in logic, convoluted story of SF but I flatout disagree about the action not being exciting. I thought it was exciting and - unlike QoS - well put together.

    What tells me in Fleming that this is a classic Bond movie. Well for one the picturesque settings. Fleming always spent a lot of time describing the various settings in great detail. Richard Deakins offers some of the best cinematography in the series and I can imagine Fleming having a field day describing the dark mysty moors of Scotland or the glitsy lights of Shanghai.

    Another is the exotic women. Especially Severine. True she got killed fairly early but I can imagine Fleming taking great delight in describing her beauty and the way she grips her cigarette.

    Third is the fact that Bond - early on in his adventure - is not fit for duty. His aim is off key yet M still sends him on an assignment. This happened in the YOLT novel when M still sends Bond on a mission despite the fact that the grief over his dead wife made him a security risk. That premise was in Skyfall. M still had faith in Bond despite him not being in the best shape.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 12,837
    The action was great but what suprised me is how they had a big gap without any. From the PTS to the underground chase there wasn't any stand out action scenes. But the film never felt boring.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited November 2012 Posts: 3,497
    Bond makes love to Paris Hilton, obviously at a Hilton hotel. He leaves here while she takes a shower. He then learns from M that a very evil fellow wants to take over the world by poisoning the tea supply.

    He then takes his Aston Martin and drives to an invisible hideout somewhere on a tropical beach, but not before the bangs a chick who actually works for the villain (and who's name is Tanya Kissmequick).

    You get access to the secret hideout by dialing a certain number on your Ipad.

    The villain, who's also a woman and who Bond also bangs (of course) and is played by Megan Fox, poisons his Wodka Martini, but not enough, as Bond is very strong. He makes a quip before going after her.

    She hides in a huge underground cave with lots of poisoned tea. He burns it down using a hidden flamethrower (part of his PPK) and kills her by shooting a dart of her own poison.

    He saves M in time who's about to drink his tea. The end.
  • One thing CR did do better: the fight scenes. They felt much more brutal in CR.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I think the score does not help Skyfall. I was getting a very flat vibe from the trailers that had me worried and then this pervaded the film
  • Posts: 3,327
    Getafix wrote:

    I think you've summarised in essence the problem. None of the plot would matter much if the film simply carried you along on the ride. But it didn't.
    If you take a look at the overwhelming positive reviews on RT and elsewhere, I think you will find you didn't get carried along for the ride, but everyone else did. May I suggest you try another franchise, as Bond isn't for you anymore.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I think SF has it's weaknesses but is still a thoroughly enjoyable film. Well acted and definitely well shot. I've seen 6 Bond films in the cinema now (all since TND in 1997) and SF was the only one in which I genuinely came out buzzing.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    JamesCraig wrote:
    How far can you go?

    Show a scene from his youth with his parents? Then, there would've been complaints that it was not needed, too melodramatic, and etc.

    Sorry Getafix, I can't take you seriously.

    Exactly! Hell, even with what we got with SF, you had people criticizing the movie for bordering over into sentimentality-ville and personally, I think Mendes did a great job taking us as far as he did without lingering and wallowing in it. That scene where Kincade says to M about how Bond hid in the priest's hole when he was a boy, was over and done with rather quickly, as to not make the mistake of wallowing in such melodramatic sentiment. Honestly, Mendes and every one involved did a fine job and obviously NO movie is perfect but SF is an amazing movie first and foremost and is a top tier Bond film.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    The action was great but what suprised me is how they had a big gap without any. From the PTS to the underground chase there wasn't any stand out action scenes. But the film never felt boring.

    Kind of like FRWL. The action was spaced out and only occurred when it needed to, as opposed to having it for the sake of having it. This is called, professional film making as opposed to the amateurs camouflaging an inadequate screenplay with explosions and spraying bullets.

    As for M being a bitch, technically, someone in her position would have to be. It's the nature of the job. This isn't about personal feelings, it's about getting the job done at any cost. Her decisions aren't always going to be looked at favorably but for the sake and interest of the mission, one's got to do what they've got to do.
  • Posts: 6,601
    doubleoego wrote:

    As for M being a bitch, technically, someone in her position would have to be. It's the nature of the job. This isn't about personal feelings, it's about getting the job done at any cost. Her decisions aren't always going to be looked at favorably but for the sake and interest of the mission, one's got to do what they've got to do.

    Its not for the sentimental...yo have to be tough to do that job and this is, how they showed her. She has to look at the bigger picture - but, of course, will make mistakes along the line. Silva probably was not such a mistake, but a victim to his own doing,.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited November 2012 Posts: 3,497
    I find it hard to believe that M had the same relationship with Silva as she had with Bond.

    I think he was literally a rogue agent, who had embarrassed her more than enough. Hence, he obviously knew about their relationship and so in that light I also see it as him wanting revenge on Bond.

    Because no matter how annoyed she was when he shot that "terrorist" and broke into her house, no matter how hard she regretted promoting him, she really needed him. And he felt like she was his mother figure.
  • Posts: 6,601
    To put it simply - he was jealous IMO, because it was obvious in the end, that another orphan loved her as a mother figure. Love being betrayed is one of the worst feelings a human can have and once love turns into hate, there is no limit - but in the end, normally those old, true feelings resurface, like they did here as well.

    He was greedy and M had to set him up for it. This reflection is lost on him, so hate can just creep in...
  • Posts: 11,425
    [/quote]

    Kind of like FRWL. The action was spaced out and only occurred when it needed to, as opposed to having it for the sake of having it. This is called, professional film making as opposed to the amateurs camouflaging an inadequate screenplay with explosions and spraying bullets.

    As for M being a bitch, technically, someone in her position would have to be. It's the nature of the job. This isn't about personal feelings, it's about getting the job done at any cost. Her decisions aren't always going to be looked at favorably but for the sake and interest of the mission, one's got to do what they've got to do.
    [/quote]

    Yes, but is it necessary to be utterly incompetent as well?

    And why doesn't she TRUST Bond
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited November 2012 Posts: 3,497
    Agreed, Germanlady.

    And you might find this strange, but...

    I felt ZERO sympathy for Silva. For some reason I sometimes root for villains (Hopkin's Hannibal Lecter, Ledger's Joker - why did you have to leave us so soon?), but not "like this. Not like him."

  • Why did you root for Legders joker, who was just evil, but not Silva, who at least had a reason/excuse?
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Good question...
  • Posts: 6,601
    There were moments, when I felt for him, I must say. He was quite human a few times, due to the good acting it came through.

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Bardem is a fine actor.

    As much as I didn't like NCFO (and I do admire the Coens), he was brilliant in it.
  • Posts: 1,052
    JamesCraig wrote:
    Bardem is a fine actor.

    As much as I didn't like NCFO (and I do admire the Coens), he was brilliant in it.

    my feelings excatly, long ponderous film but cracking performance from Bardem!
Sign In or Register to comment.