› ›

SKYFALL: Is this the best Bond film?

1…3132343637…47

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,383

    Roadphill wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    I really liked SF when I first saw it, but now I find it difficult to sit through.

    For a film that attempts a does of realism and arty pretentiousness, the flaws in the plot holes are pretty evident (as many have mentioned before), and is also highly unrealistic.

    The tube suddenly appearing, as though Silva knew exactly that it would come through the tunnel, at the same time he knew Bond would be exactly in the same spot, as Silva was in exactly the right spot where he could escape. It really is taking it too far.

    And Bond falling from such a high height off a bridge in the PTS that he would be dead instantly on impact.

    Both these moments alone overshadow the unrealistic eras of both Moore and Brosnan, which don't really pretend to be anything other than escapist entertaining action flicks.

    I don't like a lot of the whispery dialogue between Bond and Moneypenny, the fact that this is ageing Bond at the end of his career, washed up, yet only 2 films earlier this is Bond at the very beginning of his career (with the follow up QoS as part 2), so this is really the next instalment right after Bond Begins, and yet he is already seemingly nearing the end of his career, burnt up and mojo lost.

    I also don't like the direction, or the way Craig looks in this film. The grey skinhead look is light years away from the Fleming Bond, and light years away from the cinematic Bond. Newman's soundtrack is pretty crap and lazy in many parts, and there is too much of a wannabee Nolan Batman feel throughout, particularly Silva as a poor mans Joker.

    The more I think about it, the more I despise both SF and SP, and Mendes has to take a lot of the blame for that.

    I agree with all of this. I have raised many of these criticism's myself.

    I will concede, despite the stupidity of Bond surviving the fall, I do love the first half of the film. It just completely loses me when we leave Silva's island.

    I guess the thing about the fall is, it's cinematic. I agree there's no way he should have survived it, but if he'd just plopped into a river ten foot below that would be a bit dull. It's okay for other characters but needs to be a bit more operatic for Bond himself. Plus Even needs to not be able to get to him.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,615
    The frustating thing is, IMHO, the faults are so needless. Silva should have transferred to a regular, high security prison. His goons could have taken over the traffic management system to force the prison lorry down a certain route with a great set piece escape (he would have known the transfer was going to happen so it's reasonable that he planned it - unlike the bonkers tube crash). Silva then goes directly to "the hearing" to kill/kidnap M and Bond is forced to run to sprint to the hearing amongst traffic mayhem. (this also does away with the stupid scene where Q plugs Silva's laptop in the the network).
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    mtm wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    I really liked SF when I first saw it, but now I find it difficult to sit through.

    For a film that attempts a does of realism and arty pretentiousness, the flaws in the plot holes are pretty evident (as many have mentioned before), and is also highly unrealistic.

    The tube suddenly appearing, as though Silva knew exactly that it would come through the tunnel, at the same time he knew Bond would be exactly in the same spot, as Silva was in exactly the right spot where he could escape. It really is taking it too far.

    And Bond falling from such a high height off a bridge in the PTS that he would be dead instantly on impact.

    Both these moments alone overshadow the unrealistic eras of both Moore and Brosnan, which don't really pretend to be anything other than escapist entertaining action flicks.

    I don't like a lot of the whispery dialogue between Bond and Moneypenny, the fact that this is ageing Bond at the end of his career, washed up, yet only 2 films earlier this is Bond at the very beginning of his career (with the follow up QoS as part 2), so this is really the next instalment right after Bond Begins, and yet he is already seemingly nearing the end of his career, burnt up and mojo lost.

    I also don't like the direction, or the way Craig looks in this film. The grey skinhead look is light years away from the Fleming Bond, and light years away from the cinematic Bond. Newman's soundtrack is pretty crap and lazy in many parts, and there is too much of a wannabee Nolan Batman feel throughout, particularly Silva as a poor mans Joker.

    The more I think about it, the more I despise both SF and SP, and Mendes has to take a lot of the blame for that.

    I agree with all of this. I have raised many of these criticism's myself.

    I will concede, despite the stupidity of Bond surviving the fall, I do love the first half of the film. It just completely loses me when we leave Silva's island.

    I guess the thing about the fall is, it's cinematic. I agree there's no way he should have survived it, but if he'd just plopped into a river ten foot below that would be a bit dull. It's okay for other characters but needs to be a bit more operatic for Bond himself. Plus Even needs to not be able to get to him.

    People have fallen out of planes and survived.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    mtm wrote: »
    It might well be the ending sure, but I have no idea why you have to be so bitter towards other people you're having a conversation with about it. It's pretty childish.
    Ok ok. Fair enough. I'll tone it down.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    jobo wrote: »
    @jetsetwilly

    We have had similar discussions about this before, and as usual you resort to pretty ridiculous retorts and straw men. If you want to have a serious discussion with me you have to be able to treat the topic like a grown up and take into account what I'm actually writing, not making up drivel in order to attack me. If you are not able to do this, I will not bother...

    Ok ok fair enough. I'll reign it in.
    Apologies.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    The tube suddenly appearing, as though Silva knew exactly that it would come through the tunnel, at the same time he knew Bond would be exactly in the same spot, as Silva was in exactly the right spot where he could escape. It really is taking it too far.

    I see this get brought up a lot among fans, but I think it's a false fan narrative. It's never stated that Silva actually planned for Bond to chase him all the way up to the very spot a train was about to crash into. If you want to make sense of why Silva would have had a train crash there at all, the reason is very simple: Creating a diversion for the authorities while heads over to M's position to attack.

    The only thing that Silva had planned out was a route of escape, for his goons to be in key areas to assist, and the detonation of a bomb causing a major crash. There's nothing suggested that Silva planned for Bond to chase him, because there doesn't appear to be any purpose for that. It was just happenstance that Bond was standing right under the site of a oncoming crash, and you can see Silva being highly amused knowing that.

    I also think that Silva had many devices planted around the tube. Again, this can be acted out by anyone with a cell phone (in CR, Dimitrios sent Mollaka the text; six years later, AI can do that on someone's behalf. How often have we received a text from a bot?) So the computer sends out the text to Silva's network, based on the conditions, and the job is done. Same with the accomplices showing up at the right time with a police uniform for him. (They aren't even really accomplices; just "guns for hire.") That wasn't planned out weeks in advance; it was planned out by a computer that sent directions and time to those accomplices just hours in advance. In other words, Silva didn't have to lift a finger--that is why he is so smug in his cell. He had everything programmed weeks in advance: the computer (AI) would take every possibility into account and adjust.

    This is why the opening scene is crucial. Silva didn't need Patrice to steal the list from a hard drive. He could have hacked it easily. So why didn't he? The answer to that question is the beauty of SF.



    I get what you are saying, but the imacculate, perfect pin point timing of the whole thing still depends on a lot if circumstances. The fact that Bond finds the pass word key for instance at the exact right moment. Lets say he needed five minutes to go to the toilet first? Silva would not have reached thpe hearing in time. Not to mention had M decided not to read a poem? Or listened to Tanner´s warning to flee. Those are only a couple of examples of various things that could have turned out differently and disturbed the timing of the whole scheme. You can achieve miracles with computers and algorithms, but to account for all those details... it´s stretching it a bit, isn´t, it?

    I agree. Silva got very lucky (or maybe not), and we can buy into that because of the brilliance of the script. Silva's timing in the virtual field is excellent; you are pointing out how his fieldwork is different. And, in fact, he did ultimately blow it at the hearing.

    Silva hates fieldwork. He calls it "so dull, so dull." And yet he has decided to kill M on those terms. The clues are all there that he was (and is) a bumbling idiot in the field: he couldn't even bite into his cyanide capsule correctly! When he arrives at the hearing and Bond uses the smokescreen, the look on Silva's face is priceless (Bardem is brilliant). He can't improvise. He is terrible in the field. He is the true embodiment of madness: an obsessive need to not only kill M but do so in all the wrong ways. All Silva had to do was rig the explosion with M in the office. There. Done. But that would not have been enough.


    I sure agree that the thematic elements and characterizations in Skyfall are excellent.

    This discussion however, is more of a cold, technical one: Does the plot, and more concretely Silva´s plan, make sense? And it´s no doubt we are supposed to stretch our sense of disbelief in order to accept it. As you say, Silva got very lucky, and that would be completely fine of there wasn´t more to it than that. However the film implies that every detail in this very complicated plan relying on a lot of circumstance was immaculately planned even down to pin point timing, «years in advance». That is where the issue arises. I can buy that Silva planned to be captured and escape in order to humiliate M further and that he would have many backup resources at his disposal. I can however not accept that everything as it turned out was perfectly planned. That simply doesn´t make sense and I feel I have to challenge your claim that everything works with some clever algorithms...

    That being said I am very much on your side in that I consider Skyfall a very enjoyable and excellent Bond film.

    Bottom line is there are flaws in the script (like there are many Bond scripts). I think what makes it more difficult to stomach with SF is the attempt at some kind of realism in its approach, when it becomes as far fetched as anything seen in Moore's tenure.

    Indeed: but it's not a problem for me with Roger's films- I enjoy them, partly because they are far-fetched. Bond films are far-fetched, that's the fun of them.
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    The films based on Fleming novels have a level of plausibility, because it was thought through as a novel in the first place by a very credible writer, and not cobbled together as a script by committee, with rewrite after rewrite by different people. This has been the problem with many of the Bond scripts.

    Well, I'll say again: giant squid :D They're not really plausible at all: Shatterhand living in his evil castle surrounded by evil plants? Even Casino Royale, right from the start, has a plan behind it which is absolute nonsense- and like this, the film of that treated like it was real. But, again: that's the fun of them.
    I don't see what relevance the number of writers has, to be honest.

    Indeed! Lets not fool ourselves and pretend everything makes sense in the old Fleming novels, even the most acclaimed ones. An infertility virus distributed by young, brainwashed women being manipulated from an allergy clinic at the top of an alpine mountain?? Come on! Bond plots are and were always supposed to be grandios and OTT, and Fleming didn't really care about plot holes.

    If unused elements from the novels can succesfully be integrated into a modern action blockbuster I am all for it. However I cannot remember that last time anyone made a convincing illustration of that and how it could work. The garden of death is a good example. People keep shouting about it, yet never give any convincing ideas of how it could be a part of a greater story and actually improve the plot. If it's just about adding it for the sake of adding it, I'd rather make a proper original story from scratch.

    If you look at the most successful Bond films critically (and the ones most loved by fans), they mainly tend to be the ones that adapt fairly closely the Fleming novels, or even the short stories. Is that just plain coincidence? A 60's fad? How do you explain CR then? Or even TLD? Most top 5 films by fans and critics alike will have the likes of OHMSS, GF, FRWL and CR in that list. Mine also includes LTK, which relies heavily on Fleming scenes.

    Who would have thought Bond sat playing cards throughout a huge part of a film would work well, then have Bond tortured by the villain, not have chance to kill him, and then the latter half of the film be nothing more than a tragic love story - how would that make a convincing argument to adapt CR?

    The garden of death could be a great ending to a movie. Bond caught, tied to a chair above a tiny volcano that is about to erupt, manages to escape, kills the enemy and escapes via a helium balloon, only to be shot down and fall into the sea, causing amnesia, not knowing who he is.

    Any scriptwriter worth his salt should be able to work that into the ending for a movie - easily. Far better than much of the crap we've had from `original' stories over the years.

    It sounds like you despise the Fleming novels, fair enough. But just remember that the very best films work because they adapted the novels you dislike so much.

    The Fleming novels worked in part because that era, the early decades of the Cold War, lent itself to the formation of an evil organization.

    It doesn't work the same way today. "Evil" organizations are more clandestine, and really made up of few people, pulling the reins, manipulating institutions for their financial benefit. QoS got it. SP didn't. (I really bristled at all the
    patb wrote: »
    As a huge SF fan, it clearly has issues. So just imagine how good it would have been if these had been sorted!!

    The only issue I see is Bond's cold/callous handling (or lack thereof) of Severine's death.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2020 Posts: 16,383
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    I really liked SF when I first saw it, but now I find it difficult to sit through.

    For a film that attempts a does of realism and arty pretentiousness, the flaws in the plot holes are pretty evident (as many have mentioned before), and is also highly unrealistic.

    The tube suddenly appearing, as though Silva knew exactly that it would come through the tunnel, at the same time he knew Bond would be exactly in the same spot, as Silva was in exactly the right spot where he could escape. It really is taking it too far.

    And Bond falling from such a high height off a bridge in the PTS that he would be dead instantly on impact.

    Both these moments alone overshadow the unrealistic eras of both Moore and Brosnan, which don't really pretend to be anything other than escapist entertaining action flicks.

    I don't like a lot of the whispery dialogue between Bond and Moneypenny, the fact that this is ageing Bond at the end of his career, washed up, yet only 2 films earlier this is Bond at the very beginning of his career (with the follow up QoS as part 2), so this is really the next instalment right after Bond Begins, and yet he is already seemingly nearing the end of his career, burnt up and mojo lost.

    I also don't like the direction, or the way Craig looks in this film. The grey skinhead look is light years away from the Fleming Bond, and light years away from the cinematic Bond. Newman's soundtrack is pretty crap and lazy in many parts, and there is too much of a wannabee Nolan Batman feel throughout, particularly Silva as a poor mans Joker.

    The more I think about it, the more I despise both SF and SP, and Mendes has to take a lot of the blame for that.

    I agree with all of this. I have raised many of these criticism's myself.

    I will concede, despite the stupidity of Bond surviving the fall, I do love the first half of the film. It just completely loses me when we leave Silva's island.

    I guess the thing about the fall is, it's cinematic. I agree there's no way he should have survived it, but if he'd just plopped into a river ten foot below that would be a bit dull. It's okay for other characters but needs to be a bit more operatic for Bond himself. Plus Even needs to not be able to get to him.

    People have fallen out of planes and survived.

    Yes indeed, into water though? I thought that's basically like hitting concrete.
    I don't mind at all though- it's a movie. I still have absolutely zero problem with Indiana Jones getting into that fridge!
    :)
    TripAces wrote: »
    The only issue I see is Bond's cold/callous handling (or lack thereof) of Severine's death.

    It's an odd moment, I think mostly because it's not really clear to the audience what's going on: is he being callous to throw his captors off guard or does he actually believe it? How are we supposed to feel about it? And before we get a chance to think about it the film has moved on to Bond turning the tables and capturing Silva. I think it's a bit of a directorial fumble just there.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    mtm wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    I really liked SF when I first saw it, but now I find it difficult to sit through.

    For a film that attempts a does of realism and arty pretentiousness, the flaws in the plot holes are pretty evident (as many have mentioned before), and is also highly unrealistic.

    The tube suddenly appearing, as though Silva knew exactly that it would come through the tunnel, at the same time he knew Bond would be exactly in the same spot, as Silva was in exactly the right spot where he could escape. It really is taking it too far.

    And Bond falling from such a high height off a bridge in the PTS that he would be dead instantly on impact.

    Both these moments alone overshadow the unrealistic eras of both Moore and Brosnan, which don't really pretend to be anything other than escapist entertaining action flicks.

    I don't like a lot of the whispery dialogue between Bond and Moneypenny, the fact that this is ageing Bond at the end of his career, washed up, yet only 2 films earlier this is Bond at the very beginning of his career (with the follow up QoS as part 2), so this is really the next instalment right after Bond Begins, and yet he is already seemingly nearing the end of his career, burnt up and mojo lost.

    I also don't like the direction, or the way Craig looks in this film. The grey skinhead look is light years away from the Fleming Bond, and light years away from the cinematic Bond. Newman's soundtrack is pretty crap and lazy in many parts, and there is too much of a wannabee Nolan Batman feel throughout, particularly Silva as a poor mans Joker.

    The more I think about it, the more I despise both SF and SP, and Mendes has to take a lot of the blame for that.

    I agree with all of this. I have raised many of these criticism's myself.

    I will concede, despite the stupidity of Bond surviving the fall, I do love the first half of the film. It just completely loses me when we leave Silva's island.

    I guess the thing about the fall is, it's cinematic. I agree there's no way he should have survived it, but if he'd just plopped into a river ten foot below that would be a bit dull. It's okay for other characters but needs to be a bit more operatic for Bond himself. Plus Even needs to not be able to get to him.

    People have fallen out of planes and survived.

    Yes indeed, into water though? I thought that's basically like hitting concrete.
    I don't mind at all though- it's a movie. I still have absolutely zero problem with Indiana Jones getting into that fridge!
    :)
    TripAces wrote: »
    The only issue I see is Bond's cold/callous handling (or lack thereof) of Severine's death.

    It's an odd moment, I think mostly because it's not really clear to the audience what's going on: is he being callous to throw his captors off guard or does he actually believe it? How are we supposed to feel about it? And before we get a chance to think about it the film has moved on to Bond turning the tables and capturing Silva. I think it's a bit of a directorial fumble just there.

    I have no problem with the "waste of good scotch" line, which indeed is to throw them off. But after the helicopters arrive, I would have liked to have seen him at least glance in her direction or check her pulse. Or maybe after they arrive back at MI6 we see him being briefed about who she is and that she will be flown to a resting place and Bond gives instructions regarding how the body should be handled. Something.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited September 2020 Posts: 5,131
    mtm wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    I really liked SF when I first saw it, but now I find it difficult to sit through.

    For a film that attempts a does of realism and arty pretentiousness, the flaws in the plot holes are pretty evident (as many have mentioned before), and is also highly unrealistic.

    The tube suddenly appearing, as though Silva knew exactly that it would come through the tunnel, at the same time he knew Bond would be exactly in the same spot, as Silva was in exactly the right spot where he could escape. It really is taking it too far.

    And Bond falling from such a high height off a bridge in the PTS that he would be dead instantly on impact.

    Both these moments alone overshadow the unrealistic eras of both Moore and Brosnan, which don't really pretend to be anything other than escapist entertaining action flicks.

    I don't like a lot of the whispery dialogue between Bond and Moneypenny, the fact that this is ageing Bond at the end of his career, washed up, yet only 2 films earlier this is Bond at the very beginning of his career (with the follow up QoS as part 2), so this is really the next instalment right after Bond Begins, and yet he is already seemingly nearing the end of his career, burnt up and mojo lost.

    I also don't like the direction, or the way Craig looks in this film. The grey skinhead look is light years away from the Fleming Bond, and light years away from the cinematic Bond. Newman's soundtrack is pretty crap and lazy in many parts, and there is too much of a wannabee Nolan Batman feel throughout, particularly Silva as a poor mans Joker.

    The more I think about it, the more I despise both SF and SP, and Mendes has to take a lot of the blame for that.

    I agree with all of this. I have raised many of these criticism's myself.

    I will concede, despite the stupidity of Bond surviving the fall, I do love the first half of the film. It just completely loses me when we leave Silva's island.

    I guess the thing about the fall is, it's cinematic. I agree there's no way he should have survived it, but if he'd just plopped into a river ten foot below that would be a bit dull. It's okay for other characters but needs to be a bit more operatic for Bond himself. Plus Even needs to not be able to get to him.

    People have fallen out of planes and survived.

    Yes indeed, into water though? I thought that's basically like hitting concrete.
    I don't mind at all though- it's a movie. I still have absolutely zero problem with Indiana Jones getting into that fridge!
    :)
    TripAces wrote: »
    The only issue I see is Bond's cold/callous handling (or lack thereof) of Severine's death.

    It's an odd moment, I think mostly because it's not really clear to the audience what's going on: is he being callous to throw his captors off guard or does he actually believe it? How are we supposed to feel about it? And before we get a chance to think about it the film has moved on to Bond turning the tables and capturing Silva. I think it's a bit of a directorial fumble just there.

    Good point. I took it that Bond was pretending not to be bothered by Severine’s death (much like Fleming’s books). But I have no proof of this, just my own take.

    It could be seen either way, as you say. The tone and direction isn’t clear.
  • GeneralGogolGeneralGogol
    Posts: 928
    TripAces wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    I really liked SF when I first saw it, but now I find it difficult to sit through.

    For a film that attempts a does of realism and arty pretentiousness, the flaws in the plot holes are pretty evident (as many have mentioned before), and is also highly unrealistic.

    The tube suddenly appearing, as though Silva knew exactly that it would come through the tunnel, at the same time he knew Bond would be exactly in the same spot, as Silva was in exactly the right spot where he could escape. It really is taking it too far.

    And Bond falling from such a high height off a bridge in the PTS that he would be dead instantly on impact.

    Both these moments alone overshadow the unrealistic eras of both Moore and Brosnan, which don't really pretend to be anything other than escapist entertaining action flicks.

    I don't like a lot of the whispery dialogue between Bond and Moneypenny, the fact that this is ageing Bond at the end of his career, washed up, yet only 2 films earlier this is Bond at the very beginning of his career (with the follow up QoS as part 2), so this is really the next instalment right after Bond Begins, and yet he is already seemingly nearing the end of his career, burnt up and mojo lost.

    I also don't like the direction, or the way Craig looks in this film. The grey skinhead look is light years away from the Fleming Bond, and light years away from the cinematic Bond. Newman's soundtrack is pretty crap and lazy in many parts, and there is too much of a wannabee Nolan Batman feel throughout, particularly Silva as a poor mans Joker.

    The more I think about it, the more I despise both SF and SP, and Mendes has to take a lot of the blame for that.

    I agree with all of this. I have raised many of these criticism's myself.

    I will concede, despite the stupidity of Bond surviving the fall, I do love the first half of the film. It just completely loses me when we leave Silva's island.

    I guess the thing about the fall is, it's cinematic. I agree there's no way he should have survived it, but if he'd just plopped into a river ten foot below that would be a bit dull. It's okay for other characters but needs to be a bit more operatic for Bond himself. Plus Even needs to not be able to get to him.

    People have fallen out of planes and survived.

    Yes indeed, into water though? I thought that's basically like hitting concrete.
    I don't mind at all though- it's a movie. I still have absolutely zero problem with Indiana Jones getting into that fridge!
    :)
    TripAces wrote: »
    The only issue I see is Bond's cold/callous handling (or lack thereof) of Severine's death.

    It's an odd moment, I think mostly because it's not really clear to the audience what's going on: is he being callous to throw his captors off guard or does he actually believe it? How are we supposed to feel about it? And before we get a chance to think about it the film has moved on to Bond turning the tables and capturing Silva. I think it's a bit of a directorial fumble just there.

    I have no problem with the "waste of good scotch" line, which indeed is to throw them off. But after the helicopters arrive, I would have liked to have seen him at least glance in her direction or check her pulse. Or maybe after they arrive back at MI6 we see him being briefed about who she is and that she will be flown to a resting place and Bond gives instructions regarding how the body should be handled. Something.

    I remember at the cinema, some people were already getting up thinking the film ended when the helicopters arrived and the theme blared. Anyway, that was too convenient of a resolution - I agree that there should've been better closure for Severine's death.

    Also, wasn't there a deleted scene between Bond and Silva on the plane back to England? Does anyone know if it was filmed, or was just in story boards?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2020 Posts: 16,383
    TripAces wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    I really liked SF when I first saw it, but now I find it difficult to sit through.

    For a film that attempts a does of realism and arty pretentiousness, the flaws in the plot holes are pretty evident (as many have mentioned before), and is also highly unrealistic.

    The tube suddenly appearing, as though Silva knew exactly that it would come through the tunnel, at the same time he knew Bond would be exactly in the same spot, as Silva was in exactly the right spot where he could escape. It really is taking it too far.

    And Bond falling from such a high height off a bridge in the PTS that he would be dead instantly on impact.

    Both these moments alone overshadow the unrealistic eras of both Moore and Brosnan, which don't really pretend to be anything other than escapist entertaining action flicks.

    I don't like a lot of the whispery dialogue between Bond and Moneypenny, the fact that this is ageing Bond at the end of his career, washed up, yet only 2 films earlier this is Bond at the very beginning of his career (with the follow up QoS as part 2), so this is really the next instalment right after Bond Begins, and yet he is already seemingly nearing the end of his career, burnt up and mojo lost.

    I also don't like the direction, or the way Craig looks in this film. The grey skinhead look is light years away from the Fleming Bond, and light years away from the cinematic Bond. Newman's soundtrack is pretty crap and lazy in many parts, and there is too much of a wannabee Nolan Batman feel throughout, particularly Silva as a poor mans Joker.

    The more I think about it, the more I despise both SF and SP, and Mendes has to take a lot of the blame for that.

    I agree with all of this. I have raised many of these criticism's myself.

    I will concede, despite the stupidity of Bond surviving the fall, I do love the first half of the film. It just completely loses me when we leave Silva's island.

    I guess the thing about the fall is, it's cinematic. I agree there's no way he should have survived it, but if he'd just plopped into a river ten foot below that would be a bit dull. It's okay for other characters but needs to be a bit more operatic for Bond himself. Plus Even needs to not be able to get to him.

    People have fallen out of planes and survived.

    Yes indeed, into water though? I thought that's basically like hitting concrete.
    I don't mind at all though- it's a movie. I still have absolutely zero problem with Indiana Jones getting into that fridge!
    :)
    TripAces wrote: »
    The only issue I see is Bond's cold/callous handling (or lack thereof) of Severine's death.

    It's an odd moment, I think mostly because it's not really clear to the audience what's going on: is he being callous to throw his captors off guard or does he actually believe it? How are we supposed to feel about it? And before we get a chance to think about it the film has moved on to Bond turning the tables and capturing Silva. I think it's a bit of a directorial fumble just there.

    I have no problem with the "waste of good scotch" line, which indeed is to throw them off. But after the helicopters arrive, I would have liked to have seen him at least glance in her direction or check her pulse. Or maybe after they arrive back at MI6 we see him being briefed about who she is and that she will be flown to a resting place and Bond gives instructions regarding how the body should be handled. Something.

    Yeah true; it's very similar to Solange in CR, but with her you do get a feeling that Bond regrets her death even though he doesn't actually say much to the contrary- the film gives you enough information to know that he's leaving it unsaid. Here it's a bit too fuzzy.
    GeneralGogol wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    I really liked SF when I first saw it, but now I find it difficult to sit through.

    For a film that attempts a does of realism and arty pretentiousness, the flaws in the plot holes are pretty evident (as many have mentioned before), and is also highly unrealistic.

    The tube suddenly appearing, as though Silva knew exactly that it would come through the tunnel, at the same time he knew Bond would be exactly in the same spot, as Silva was in exactly the right spot where he could escape. It really is taking it too far.

    And Bond falling from such a high height off a bridge in the PTS that he would be dead instantly on impact.

    Both these moments alone overshadow the unrealistic eras of both Moore and Brosnan, which don't really pretend to be anything other than escapist entertaining action flicks.

    I don't like a lot of the whispery dialogue between Bond and Moneypenny, the fact that this is ageing Bond at the end of his career, washed up, yet only 2 films earlier this is Bond at the very beginning of his career (with the follow up QoS as part 2), so this is really the next instalment right after Bond Begins, and yet he is already seemingly nearing the end of his career, burnt up and mojo lost.

    I also don't like the direction, or the way Craig looks in this film. The grey skinhead look is light years away from the Fleming Bond, and light years away from the cinematic Bond. Newman's soundtrack is pretty crap and lazy in many parts, and there is too much of a wannabee Nolan Batman feel throughout, particularly Silva as a poor mans Joker.

    The more I think about it, the more I despise both SF and SP, and Mendes has to take a lot of the blame for that.

    I agree with all of this. I have raised many of these criticism's myself.

    I will concede, despite the stupidity of Bond surviving the fall, I do love the first half of the film. It just completely loses me when we leave Silva's island.

    I guess the thing about the fall is, it's cinematic. I agree there's no way he should have survived it, but if he'd just plopped into a river ten foot below that would be a bit dull. It's okay for other characters but needs to be a bit more operatic for Bond himself. Plus Even needs to not be able to get to him.

    People have fallen out of planes and survived.

    Yes indeed, into water though? I thought that's basically like hitting concrete.
    I don't mind at all though- it's a movie. I still have absolutely zero problem with Indiana Jones getting into that fridge!
    :)
    TripAces wrote: »
    The only issue I see is Bond's cold/callous handling (or lack thereof) of Severine's death.

    It's an odd moment, I think mostly because it's not really clear to the audience what's going on: is he being callous to throw his captors off guard or does he actually believe it? How are we supposed to feel about it? And before we get a chance to think about it the film has moved on to Bond turning the tables and capturing Silva. I think it's a bit of a directorial fumble just there.

    I have no problem with the "waste of good scotch" line, which indeed is to throw them off. But after the helicopters arrive, I would have liked to have seen him at least glance in her direction or check her pulse. Or maybe after they arrive back at MI6 we see him being briefed about who she is and that she will be flown to a resting place and Bond gives instructions regarding how the body should be handled. Something.

    I remember at the cinema, some people were already getting up thinking the film ended when the helicopters arrived and the theme blared. Anyway, that was too convenient of a resolution - I agree that there should've been better closure for Severine's death.

    Also, wasn't there a deleted scene between Bond and Silva on the plane back to England? Does anyone know if it was filmed, or was just in story boards?

    Never heard of that before, sounds interesting. I guess they don't really speak again until the frozen lake.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Is it fair to suggest that the fact there’s a sizable amount of fans that regard this as among the best of Bond actually bothers fans that don’t like the film?
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    mtm wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    I really liked SF when I first saw it, but now I find it difficult to sit through.

    For a film that attempts a does of realism and arty pretentiousness, the flaws in the plot holes are pretty evident (as many have mentioned before), and is also highly unrealistic.

    The tube suddenly appearing, as though Silva knew exactly that it would come through the tunnel, at the same time he knew Bond would be exactly in the same spot, as Silva was in exactly the right spot where he could escape. It really is taking it too far.

    And Bond falling from such a high height off a bridge in the PTS that he would be dead instantly on impact.

    Both these moments alone overshadow the unrealistic eras of both Moore and Brosnan, which don't really pretend to be anything other than escapist entertaining action flicks.

    I don't like a lot of the whispery dialogue between Bond and Moneypenny, the fact that this is ageing Bond at the end of his career, washed up, yet only 2 films earlier this is Bond at the very beginning of his career (with the follow up QoS as part 2), so this is really the next instalment right after Bond Begins, and yet he is already seemingly nearing the end of his career, burnt up and mojo lost.

    I also don't like the direction, or the way Craig looks in this film. The grey skinhead look is light years away from the Fleming Bond, and light years away from the cinematic Bond. Newman's soundtrack is pretty crap and lazy in many parts, and there is too much of a wannabee Nolan Batman feel throughout, particularly Silva as a poor mans Joker.

    The more I think about it, the more I despise both SF and SP, and Mendes has to take a lot of the blame for that.

    I agree with all of this. I have raised many of these criticism's myself.

    I will concede, despite the stupidity of Bond surviving the fall, I do love the first half of the film. It just completely loses me when we leave Silva's island.

    I guess the thing about the fall is, it's cinematic. I agree there's no way he should have survived it, but if he'd just plopped into a river ten foot below that would be a bit dull. It's okay for other characters but needs to be a bit more operatic for Bond himself. Plus Even needs to not be able to get to him.

    People have fallen out of planes and survived.

    Yes indeed, into water though? I thought that's basically like hitting concrete.
    I don't mind at all though- it's a movie. I still have absolutely zero problem with Indiana Jones getting into that fridge!
    :)
    TripAces wrote: »
    The only issue I see is Bond's cold/callous handling (or lack thereof) of Severine's death.

    It's an odd moment, I think mostly because it's not really clear to the audience what's going on: is he being callous to throw his captors off guard or does he actually believe it? How are we supposed to feel about it? And before we get a chance to think about it the film has moved on to Bond turning the tables and capturing Silva. I think it's a bit of a directorial fumble just there.

    I have no problem with the "waste of good scotch" line, which indeed is to throw them off. But after the helicopters arrive, I would have liked to have seen him at least glance in her direction or check her pulse. Or maybe after they arrive back at MI6 we see him being briefed about who she is and that she will be flown to a resting place and Bond gives instructions regarding how the body should be handled. Something.

    Yeah true; it's very similar to Solange in CR, but with her you do get a feeling that Bond regrets her death even though he doesn't actually say much to the contrary- the film gives you enough information to know that he's leaving it unsaid. Here it's a bit too fuzzy.

    Yes. I would say Bond was troubled deeply by the deaths of both Solange and Fields. I have argued in the past that Bond is not the misogynist some critics think he is.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2020 Posts: 16,383
    TripAces wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    I really liked SF when I first saw it, but now I find it difficult to sit through.

    For a film that attempts a does of realism and arty pretentiousness, the flaws in the plot holes are pretty evident (as many have mentioned before), and is also highly unrealistic.

    The tube suddenly appearing, as though Silva knew exactly that it would come through the tunnel, at the same time he knew Bond would be exactly in the same spot, as Silva was in exactly the right spot where he could escape. It really is taking it too far.

    And Bond falling from such a high height off a bridge in the PTS that he would be dead instantly on impact.

    Both these moments alone overshadow the unrealistic eras of both Moore and Brosnan, which don't really pretend to be anything other than escapist entertaining action flicks.

    I don't like a lot of the whispery dialogue between Bond and Moneypenny, the fact that this is ageing Bond at the end of his career, washed up, yet only 2 films earlier this is Bond at the very beginning of his career (with the follow up QoS as part 2), so this is really the next instalment right after Bond Begins, and yet he is already seemingly nearing the end of his career, burnt up and mojo lost.

    I also don't like the direction, or the way Craig looks in this film. The grey skinhead look is light years away from the Fleming Bond, and light years away from the cinematic Bond. Newman's soundtrack is pretty crap and lazy in many parts, and there is too much of a wannabee Nolan Batman feel throughout, particularly Silva as a poor mans Joker.

    The more I think about it, the more I despise both SF and SP, and Mendes has to take a lot of the blame for that.

    I agree with all of this. I have raised many of these criticism's myself.

    I will concede, despite the stupidity of Bond surviving the fall, I do love the first half of the film. It just completely loses me when we leave Silva's island.

    I guess the thing about the fall is, it's cinematic. I agree there's no way he should have survived it, but if he'd just plopped into a river ten foot below that would be a bit dull. It's okay for other characters but needs to be a bit more operatic for Bond himself. Plus Even needs to not be able to get to him.

    People have fallen out of planes and survived.

    Yes indeed, into water though? I thought that's basically like hitting concrete.
    I don't mind at all though- it's a movie. I still have absolutely zero problem with Indiana Jones getting into that fridge!
    :)
    TripAces wrote: »
    The only issue I see is Bond's cold/callous handling (or lack thereof) of Severine's death.

    It's an odd moment, I think mostly because it's not really clear to the audience what's going on: is he being callous to throw his captors off guard or does he actually believe it? How are we supposed to feel about it? And before we get a chance to think about it the film has moved on to Bond turning the tables and capturing Silva. I think it's a bit of a directorial fumble just there.

    I have no problem with the "waste of good scotch" line, which indeed is to throw them off. But after the helicopters arrive, I would have liked to have seen him at least glance in her direction or check her pulse. Or maybe after they arrive back at MI6 we see him being briefed about who she is and that she will be flown to a resting place and Bond gives instructions regarding how the body should be handled. Something.

    Yeah true; it's very similar to Solange in CR, but with her you do get a feeling that Bond regrets her death even though he doesn't actually say much to the contrary- the film gives you enough information to know that he's leaving it unsaid. Here it's a bit too fuzzy.

    Yes. I would say Bond was troubled deeply by the deaths of both Solange and Fields. I have argued in the past that Bond is not the misogynist some critics think he is.

    I think maybe not being entirely un-upset that a woman has died violently and horribly doesn't completely let someone off being a misogynist though- you don't have to take pleasure in the deaths of females to be one! :)

    I do get what you mean and I don't disagree 100%, and yet I think in places Craig's Bond is maybe a bit more of a misogynist than Brosnan's was. But not all of the time, he is at least a slightly complex character.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    So I posted this a year ago today :)

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Is it fair to suggest that the fact there’s a sizable amount of fans that regard this as among the best of Bond actually bothers fans that don’t like the film?

    Not in the slightest. I can accept that it's objectively well made in a lot of areas, even if it's ranked 23 for me. I couldn't care less how other people feel about a given film or product, it won't detract from my enjoyment (or lack thereof).
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,547
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Is it fair to suggest that the fact there’s a sizable amount of fans that regard this as among the best of Bond actually bothers fans that don’t like the film?

    Not in the slightest. I can accept that it's objectively well made in a lot of areas, even if it's ranked 23 for me. I couldn't care less how other people feel about a given film or product, it won't detract from my enjoyment (or lack thereof).

    Where can we find your ranking?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Is it fair to suggest that the fact there’s a sizable amount of fans that regard this as among the best of Bond actually bothers fans that don’t like the film?

    Not in the slightest. I can accept that it's objectively well made in a lot of areas, even if it's ranked 23 for me. I couldn't care less how other people feel about a given film or product, it won't detract from my enjoyment (or lack thereof).

    Where can we find your ranking?

    It could use some tweaking, this list is from a little over a year ago, but as of the last ranking:

    New 2019 Ranking:

    1. GE
    2. OHMSS
    3. QOS
    4. DN
    5. CR
    6. YOLT
    7. FYEO
    8. LALD
    9. GF
    10. OP
    11. AVTAK
    12. TSWLM
    13. FRWL
    14. MR
    15. TWINE
    16. TB
    17. LTK
    18. DAD
    19. DAF
    20. TMWTGG
    21. TND
    22. TLD
    23. SF
    24. SP
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    @Creasy47 , our biggest difference is obviously GE, which is in my bottom three.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    @Creasy47 , our biggest difference is obviously GE, which is in my bottom three.

    I figured as much. Hopefully we have some that align.

    I take it your bottom four equals the entire Brosnan era?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    @Creasy47 , our biggest difference is obviously GE, which is in my bottom three.

    I figured as much. Hopefully we have some that align.

    I take it your bottom four equals the entire Brosnan era?

    It used to be that way, but I place DAD and TND a little below the middle now. Bottom four are TLD, GE, LALD and TWINE. And sure, we have some that pretty much align . I also have OHMSS, QOS and DN in my top five. As for SF, which this thread is about after all, it is just outside my top ten.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited October 2020 Posts: 8,183
    My bottom three consists

    22. DAD
    23. TND
    24. TWINE

    GE is like #8 or something.

    I don't dislike DAD, it's got plenty I like. The two below it, however, I haven't seen in many years and have little reason to want to revisit them.

    As for Craig's run:

    3. SF
    5. CR
    15. SF
    19. QOS
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    For the Broz:
    5. GE
    13. TND
    15. TWINE
    21. DAD

    For Craig:
    4. CR
    9. SF
    18. QoS
    20. SP
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    On an objectivity scale, DAD would rank right at the bottom for me, but I get too much enjoyment out of it and there's a bit of childhood bias since it was the first Bond film I got to see in theaters. Nice to see it not ranking dead last for everyone else too.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    DAD was actually my first Bond film in theaters, but I don't have much nostalgic attachment to it. What elevates it above the bottom two for me is the first half of the film. It's a good enough half that if it maintained itself for the second half it probably would have ranked even higher than GE. However, that second half is so utterly ruinous. But at least it's not so dull like TND and TWINE.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,030
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    On an objectivity scale, DAD would rank right at the bottom for me, but I get too much enjoyment out of it and there's a bit of childhood bias since it was the first Bond film I got to see in theaters. Nice to see it not ranking dead last for everyone else too.

    There is no "objectivity scale". All of this is subjective. I consider SP the second-best Bond film for myself, but have absolutely no problem with you ranking it as the second-worst. There's no accounting for personal taste. I mean, even with this kind of disagreement we're not on a, say, Stanley Kubrick vs. Ed Wood level.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited October 2020 Posts: 40,968
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    On an objectivity scale, DAD would rank right at the bottom for me, but I get too much enjoyment out of it and there's a bit of childhood bias since it was the first Bond film I got to see in theaters. Nice to see it not ranking dead last for everyone else too.

    There is no "objectivity scale". All of this is subjective. I consider SP the second-best Bond film for myself, but have absolutely no problem with you ranking it as the second-worst. There's no accounting for personal taste. I mean, even with this kind of disagreement we're not on a, say, Stanley Kubrick vs. Ed Wood level.

    Well obviously, hence my comment. My only point was that from an objective stance, it'd be quite obvious why most would have DAD at the very bottom.

    Of course everyone's list is subjective and based on personal preference and enjoyment, and I don't ever take issue with anyone's list. As I've stated previously, it's fun to compare rankings but I don't take it personally if someone loves a film I don't care for or vice versa. I couldn't care less about that stuff and find it funny when some do.
  • MalloryMallory
    Posts: 2,165
    Tom Newman is guest on Roger Deakins’ podcast this week. Its a good chat, they touch upon Skyfall quite a bit (funnily no mention of Spectre), but not in any great detail or any new info.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2020 Posts: 16,383
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    On an objectivity scale, DAD would rank right at the bottom for me, but I get too much enjoyment out of it and there's a bit of childhood bias since it was the first Bond film I got to see in theaters. Nice to see it not ranking dead last for everyone else too.

    Yeah I think TWINE is a better made film, and yet I find it really quite dull and joyless. DAD at least thunders along like a stupid bouncy puppy.
    I was watching a few of the older Bonds in lockdown, and then I stuck on TWINE randomly, and that opening in the banker's office is such a shock when you've been watching some of the classier Connerys and Moores. He's just sat in a boring-looking grey ordinary room, in an overcast boring city, being photographed like it's on TV, saying dull things with very poor dialogue, in a weird situation that suddenly turns violent for no apparent reason, and then he has a really quite uninteresting escape while the Bond theme is playing, desperately trying to assure you that this is Bondy and exciting. If you watch something like the opening to even TMWTGG and switch suddenly to this, it's like all the wit and verve and class has drained out of the Bond films in front of your eyes. I was really surprised how offended I was by it! :D
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,030
    mtm wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    On an objectivity scale, DAD would rank right at the bottom for me, but I get too much enjoyment out of it and there's a bit of childhood bias since it was the first Bond film I got to see in theaters. Nice to see it not ranking dead last for everyone else too.

    Yeah I think TWINE is a better made film, and yet I find it really quite dull and joyless. DAD at least thunders along like a stupid bouncy puppy.
    I was watching a few of the older Bonds in lockdown, and then I stuck on TWINE randomly, and that opening in the banker's office is such a shock when you've been watching some of the classier Connerys and Moores. He's just sat in a boring-looking grey ordinary room, in an overcast boring city, being photographed like it's on TV, saying dull things with very poor dialogue, in a weird situation that suddenly turns violent for no apparent reason, and then he has a really quite uninteresting escape while the Bond theme is playing, desperately trying to assure you that this is Bondy and exciting. If you watch something like the opening to even TMWTGG and switch suddenly to this, it's like all the wit and verve and class has drained out of the Bond films in front of your eyes. I was really surprised how offended I was by it! :D

    I always love a good TWINE bashing since I really find that film inferior among the contenders, but the Bilbao scenes are IMO a good start (the "highlight") of a movie that keeps descending into camp and lack of logic and basically stupidity, only surpassed (or should that be sous-passed?) by its successor in being at the bottom of the franchise.
Sign In or Register to comment.