Skyfall - anyone missing OTT Bond?

2

Comments

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Matt007 wrote:
    Agree there, I think the final scene in SF is really great. Especially the set being the same offices as Connery and Moores M. I hope they keep that for Bond 24.

    Agree with the comment about Brosnans films and action. The nadir being the snow chase in TWINE.

    ...and the thing is I didn't hate Brosnan's films (except DAD), but they did feel like a checklist of formula moments. We all like the formula - that's why we are here - but that's why I like a bit of experimentation: I don't want to watch film after film of exactly the same formula just trying to outdo the spectacle of the previous effort. I cannot hate a Bond film that does a terrific job, but he doesn't order a Vodka Martini for example. In that case, the series just becomes comfort food.

    You sir, are spot on. :D
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 12,837
    I think SF got a good balance of OTT and serious stuff.

    Too serious and you get QOS, too OTT and you get DAD. They need to keep the middle ground they've refound (which I think was lost after TWINE).
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Exactly, TheLivingRoyale.
  • Posts: 3,276
    What? QoS more "serious" than SF? Yeah... QoS was 90 minutes of serious a..-whipping from Bond. Loved him in it! And don't mind if he returns.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Zekidk wrote:
    What? QoS more "serious" than SF? Yeah... QoS was 90 minutes of serious a..-whipping from Bond. Loved him in it! And don't mind if he returns.

    And yet, QOS is hated by many for being just that. I like it, it's in my top ten, but there should always be a healthy mix of "fun" and seriousness. Kinda like SF.
  • Zekidk wrote:
    What? QoS more "serious" than SF? Yeah... QoS was 90 minutes of serious a..-whipping from Bond. Loved him in it! And don't mind if he returns.

    Trouble is we can't see Bond kicking ass because of the terrible editing.

    QOS is a decent action film but there isn't much fun there and SF is a much, much better film imo.
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,541
    The double path for Wilson and Broccoly IMO is

    - to make films of quality and in search or international applause of the critics (like SF: serious runner for Oscar) or

    - to follow the traditional formula that lots of fans are missing since... TND? Bond goes to M´s office, he sends him in a mission... and no personal related stuff.

    So, in case A, we can think of Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino! or Steven Spielberg!!
    In case B, one not-so-arty director...
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    ggl007 wrote:
    like SF: serious runner for Oscar

    I loved it but Oscar worthy? Not sure about that I'm afraid.
  • Posts: 1,548
    Skyfall and CR are perfect Bond films imo. More of the same please Babs and Mike!
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,541
    RC7 wrote:
    ggl007 wrote:
    like SF: serious runner for Oscar

    I loved it but Oscar worthy? Not sure about that I'm afraid.
    Sure we´ll have to wait and I´m not thinking in Best Picture (nomination perhaps? remember TDK?), but IMO Judi Dench and Javier Bardem as Supporting are in the front page... (Deakins anybody?)

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    ggl007 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    ggl007 wrote:
    like SF: serious runner for Oscar

    I loved it but Oscar worthy? Not sure about that I'm afraid.
    Sure we´ll have to wait and I´m not thinking in Best Picture (nomination perhaps? remember TDK?), but IMO Judi Dench and Javier Bardem as Supporting are in the front page... (Deakins anybody?)

    I really don't think any of the actors gave a particularly oscar worthy performance. They were great but none of the roles were what you'd call challenging. Technical aspects possibly, it's certainly a beautiful film but I very, very, very much doubt it.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,276
    Zekidk wrote:
    What? QoS more "serious" than SF? Yeah... QoS was 90 minutes of serious a..-whipping from Bond. Loved him in it! And don't mind if he returns.

    Trouble is we can't see Bond kicking ass because of the terrible editing.

    QOS is a decent action film but there isn't much fun there and SF is a much, much better film imo.
    I agree on both counts. The editing and shakycam destroyed what could have been a fantastic Bond-movie.

    But he still kicked a.. ;-)
    ggl007 wrote:
    The double path for Wilson and Broccoly IMO is

    - to make films of quality and in search or international applause of the critics (like SF: serious runner for Oscar) or

    - to follow the traditional formula that lots of fans are missing since... TND? Bond goes to M´s office, he sends him in a mission... and no personal related stuff.
    Yeah, you pretty much sums it up I guess.

    I prefer the "traditional formula." Afterall, that's what made me a Bond-fan in the first place.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Yeah but 40 years of the same thing proved that the series was becoming stale and in fact drove the producers into a creative wall. Since CR the caliber of actors have been the best since the 60s if not ever and that's because Bond is taking creative chances, implementing more Fleming and breaking away from the cliched traditions that eventually turned the series into a joke. Some Bond fans are so blinded by tradition they don't stop to think that Bond movies can be more than just a "Bond" movie.
    Some of the best Bond movies are the one's that are quite different from the rest of the series and yet are still amazing movies in their own right for example: FRWL, OHMSS, DN, LALD, LTK, CR, SF. These movies although are very much Bond films, they each contain significant elements that depart from the status quo of the rest if the film's in the series but simultaneously do an excellent job at presenting themselves as great pieces of individual cinema.
  • Posts: 3,276
    doubleoego wrote:
    Yeah but 40 years of the same thing proved that the series was becoming stale and in fact drove the producers into a creative wall. Since CR the caliber of actors have been the best since the 60s if not ever
    Christopher Lee? Curd Jurgens? Christopher Walken? Oscar-winner, Halle Berry? [/quote]
    doubleoego wrote:
    because Bond is taking creative chances, implementing more Fleming
    More Fleming, you say? SF is so not Fleming, IMO. It's GE meets TWINE with a dose of Star Wars, Straw Dogs and Nolan's Batman. Glad they got rid of Purvis&Wade.
    doubleoego wrote:
    Some Bond fans are so blinded by tradition they don't stop to think that Bond movies can be more than just a "Bond" movie.
    I don't mind tradition. Actually, I love it and embrace it. But "different" is also okay with me of course. SF is different in many ways. I think it's a great movie, a worthy entry in the Bond-canon. I just want James Bond back on track that's all. No more suffering, no more mommy-issues, no more dealing with personal issues. We've had that for three movies now, and the rebooting should be over now. So I think it's safe to say that time has come for something... well "different."
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Zekidk wrote:
    More Fleming, you say? SF is so not Fleming, IMO. It's GE meets TWINE with a dose of Star Wars, Straw Dogs and Nolan's Batman. Glad they got rid of Purvis&Wade.


    Actually I found Skyfall to be surprisingly Flemingesque, consider;

    The opening speech by Silva, like the backstory to Fleming's villains.
    Bond not on his best form, i.e. FRWL, TB, YOLT, TMWTGG
    Skyfall Lodge seems to be something Fleming imagined. In fact didn't Fleming grow up in a house, similar to Skyall?

    @JestSetWilly has done an excellent thread about this....

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/4370/10-flemingesque-moments-in-skyfall


  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Thank you @Royale65, you've saved me from having to substantiate the flemingesque elements of SF.

    Also, I'm not saying the series hasn't had great actors in the past but collectively speaking and maintaining consistency, the Craig era's in a league of it's own IMO and @Zekidk, just because Halle Berry won an Oscar doesn't make her top caliber material. Her character was a jole, much like the entirety if the Brosnan era.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Thanks @doubleoego. It surprising just how much Fleming's spirit haunts Skyfall, as they have no Fleming material left to work from.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,276
    @doubleoego

    Come on. You really think Eva Green, Giancarlo Giannini, Mads Mikkelsen, Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric, Naome Harris etc are in a "league of their own" compared to actors from earlier Bond-movies? Okay, that's your opinion. I can think of several actors who I think outshone every single one of them. Walken in AVTAK, Sean Bean in GE just to name a few. But I have to give it to Mendes: The cast of SF, is probably one of the most talented ever for a Bond-movie.
    royale65 wrote:
    Actually I found Skyfall to be surprisingly Flemingesque, consider;
    Bond not on his best form, i.e. FRWL, TB, YOLT, TMWTGG
    Yeah, but in FRWL, TB, YOLT, TMWTGG Bond wasn't a depressed drinker dealing with mommy-issues. He was merely out of shape. I understand that modern heroes have to hit rock bottom, but honestly, it's becoming a cliché, IMO.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    here is my review: I have kept it spoiler free as much as possible! But I too admire the film, whilst bemoaning its lack of good old fashioned Bondian 'FUN' :)

    Skyfall
    A review by James Murphy

    Mi6 Data File:
    Director: Sam Mendes
    Production Company /Studio: Sony /MGM/EON
    Running Time: 2 hours 25 minutes
    Certificate: 12A /PG-13
    Stars: Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Judi Dench, Ralph Fiennes
    Genre: Action /Adventure/Spy Thriller
    Now on General Release

    Plot /Story:
    James Bond is on assignment in Istanbul, but it all goes wrong. A computer hard drive is missing and it contains the locations and identities of all our deep cover agents tracking terror groups worldwide. Bond is missing, presumed dead. And then Mi6 comes under attack from a skilled terrorist, determined to see the organisation and its leadership suffer a deadly defeat. Only one man can help: 007, reporting for duty. But is he up to the challenge?

    Main Review:

    This is a very difficult film to review objectively. I would go so far as saying that it is my ‘toughest assignment yet’ (permit the 007 analogy, in context). Skyfall’ has won universal praise and it is the fiftieth anniversary of a beloved, British franchise. We all want this film to do well. That is the film’s greatest strength and its one weakness: it must exist both as original thriller and as wider tribute to the Bond mythology. And so, we get an examination of what makes the character 'tick', redfining his apeal by peeling back layers and reliving the past, whilst renewing things to move forward.

    The last time this happened, we were greeted with Die Another Day (2002, the 40th anniversary year and the great Pierce Brosnan’s swansong as 007). That film was vilified, just like Licence To Kill’ and Quantum of Solace: brave Bond films, nonetheless loathed by many critics. But I love those entries to the series and I can see strands of their DNA in Skyfall’. So why has Skyfall succeeded, where some of its predecessors tried and failed to please all breeds of viewer and fan? The answer is simple: this one is made with cohesion, confidence and conviction and craftsmanship at every level.

    The acting is the main selling point. Daniel Craig continues to convince as an actual veteran of battle as well as the archetypal pulp hero of the Fleming novels. He is world weary, grumpy, ruthless and clinical. But he is also charming, incredibly well spoken and there is every hint that Craig’s Bond is a gentleman in his programming. He does owe a debt to his predecessors (notably Timothy Dalton's depth and Sean Connery's poise) but this is still Craig's role, his distinctive take and his kingdom. Long may he reign!

    Dame Judi Dench has never been better as M. She is effectively the ‘Bond Girl’, mentor and arguably the ‘mcguffin’ of the piece. Javier Bardem also gives us value for money as the villain: he is possibly the best in the series’ history. There are nods to other Bond adversaries in the character (Robert Davi's Sanchez, Christopher Lee's Scaramanga and Sean Bean's Travelyan). But this is no composite character,so much as a consumate actor at the peak of his powers. Bardem is the first opponent in a Bond film to actually frighten me, right down to his bad wolf at the door psychological game-play.

    Bardem is matched by an equally committed supporting cast, who make great contributions, even in cameo roles (Helen McCrory: we love you, such a shame that you are not playing Bond's lover here). And look out for Ralph Fiennes (himself once mooted as a possible 007): is he a villain or an ally? Wait and see, as you are kept guessing until the final scenes. Sam Mendes is an actor's director and that admirable quality is clear in every scene of the film.

    What about plot, locations, gadgets or plain old fashioned escapism? Bond travels the globe, beats up baddies and jumps onto a moving train or two. The opening scenes are a rousing triumph that will make you happy to have visited the cinema (especially if you select the IMAX version). And there is a thrilling chase through London, finally harnessing the city's backdrops in an original and exciting fashion, with familiarity married to freshness in the scenic shots.

    But Bond just isn’t having any fun. True, he endures a trauma at the start of the film, but realistically, even the ‘gritty’ Bond of the Fleming novels would simply have moved on far more quickly. This is now the third film in a row where we see Bond get set up as the ultimate agent and have his psyche /past /physique explored, only to save precious little time for him just enjoying his job and life with aplomb. It's not as though we lacked the time to do so: this film is a very long one, when one considers its genre. Where is Bond the connoisseur? Why can't we now watch him ordering dinner or buying a suit etc? It would not compromise the reality, but enhance the film’s social fantasy.

    The new Q is also just an annoying boffin.They may as well not have bothered. The joke at the expense of the series’ past backfires. ‘What did you expect: an exploding pen?’ he asks. Well yes, actually. You need not have invisible cars to have fun with gadgets. It is a lazy myth that we cannot have Bond enjoy technology simply because everyone now has a mobile phone.

    The denouement is compelling and stunningly photographed (thank you, Roger Deakins). But its tone and motif owe much to Batman, Peckinpah, Inspector Morse, The Bodyguard and just about everything except Bond films! So, instead of simply enjoying the climax, one finds oneself asking ‘why not just send in more Police or the Army?’ and bemoaning the fact that the villain’s master plan is actually a tad dull and domestic.

    It is as though we get half the treats and thrills of a Bond film, but also an apology for those and a withholding of the fun for later episodes. Even the Bond theme is cut off, half way through (despite an otherwise excellent score from Thomas Newman). But I discovered those minor quibbles out of love. I am a lifelong fan of this series and have the greatest affection for the family of film-makers that continue to make them for us.

    Rarely has a Bond film had such a palpable sense of family onscreen and that befits the reality of its creative union behind the scenes.The director (Sam Mendes) is a gentleman and a visionary director and the Producer (Barbara Broccoli) is a champion of film in all its forms. They both kindly and personally encouraged my passion for film when I was a student at Oxford so it is wonderful to see them collaborate so effectively.

    It is interesting that Sony Pictures are rushing through the next Bond film for 2014. One can see their logic. If they can retain the same team then it will be just as good, if not better. Might I suggest using QUANTUM, the villains of the two films preceding Skyfall’? They appeal to ongoing fears of war and terror, allowing Bond to remain on the side of capitalist freedom, whilst credibly policing its recent excesses and monitoring its extremist opponents. Just a thought.

    007/10: England expects everyone to see the film and enjoy it, immediately!

    Very well written review. Fine choice of words and you clearly know the Bond history.

  • Posts: 12,526
    Before Skyfall was on the scene? I was just missing Bond full stop let alone an OTT Bond adventure!
  • Posts: 12,526
    Before Skyfall was on the scene? I was just missing Bond full stop let alone an OTT Bond adventure!
  • Good review above until you ruined it with your 007/10! It's at least 8.5/10 and that's on a bad day. I don't think there is such a thing as a perfect Bond movie and I agree there needs more Bondian moments. The movie otherwise though is excellent.
  • Posts: 1,492
    Zekidk wrote:

    Come on. You really think Eva Green, Giancarlo Giannini, Mads Mikkelsen, Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric, Naome Harris etc are in a "league of their own" compared to actors from earlier Bond-movies? Okay, that's your opinion. I can think of several actors who I think outshone every single one of them. Walken in AVTAK, Sean Bean in GE just to name a few. .

    If you don't realise the actors doubleoego listed as sterling in quality then you must give me name of your occulist. The Craig era does seem be attracting big names...often because they want to work with DC himself.

    Sean Bean?? Even in GE he soesn't even get the RP accent right.



  • Posts: 11,189
    I agree with @actonsteve, I thought all the actors Zekidk listed above did very well and held their own.

    What does RP stand for?
  • Posts: 1,492
    received pronounciation ie posh.
  • Trevelayn is one of my favourite villians but Bean should've stuck with his normal accent. His posh voice sounds a bit stupid.
    actonsteve wrote:
    If you don't realise the actors doubleoego listed as sterling in quality then you must give me name of your occulist. The Craig era does seem be attracting big names...often because they want to work with DC himself.

    Olga a sterling actress? :)) I think her work post Bond (basically 2 crappy video game adaptions) proves that's not true. There have been some really good actors in Craigs films though, like Bardem, etc.

    Often because they want to work with DC himself, where'd you get that? Well, maybe that's true for SF but I doubt people in CR signed on because Craig was in it (he wasn't really well known at the time).
  • Posts: 1,492
    Trevelayn is one of my favourite villians but Bean should've stuck with his normal accent. His posh voice sounds a bit stupid.

    ).

    There we have it folks. Straight for Livingroyales mouth. I am surprised we didn't see the cue cards,

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    actonsteve wrote:
    received pronounciation ie posh.

    Ah I see :p Yeah he does over-pronouce a couple of times.
  • Maybe MI6 don't like yorkshire accents? ;)
  • Posts: 1,314
    Doctor Nowt.
Sign In or Register to comment.