It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Me wanting to end Connery’s era on a high note: DAF.
lol
Me wanting to end Craig's era on a high note: Spectre
I was a bit disappointed after QOS, so imagine how happy I was that SF restored my faith. It's really rather terrific.....
This film undeniably qualifies as a 'modern classic.' It feels both like an update on the old formula but also distinctly modern. This is a movie so effortlessly and thoughtfully directed by Sam Mendes. Furthermore, it isn't afraid to delve into the Bond mythology and actually be subversive. In many respects, it isn't really a Bond movie, it feels more like a bespoke thoughtful blockbuster - akin to the work of Denis Villenueve or Christopher Nolan. If you like action, you'll probably not like this more talky film. In this respect, SF is more rich in terms of character detail and story than action or special effects. Mendes is helped by a never better script - it's probably the best written Bond film.
However, whilst SF breaks the Bond formula it still remains true to its essential beats. Without sacrificing action or overall energy, Mendes puts the actors at the forefront, exploring their complex emotional states in ways the franchise has never before dared. Daniel Craig now absolutely owns Bond. This is a new Bond, ageing, vulnerable and off his game and Craig gets some new notes to play for the character, and does as reliably and excellently as he did in the two previous entries. There are some hints even of Richard Burton's Alec Leamas to the broken Bond reintroduced here. There's a dogged and ugly quality to him. 007 now fits Daniel Craig like a glove.
But make no mistake this is film really belongs to Judi Dench. She has a real character to play this time out, as M now faces the prospect that her own methods may be extinct. There is some very enjoyable Whitehall intrigue as M's competency is questioned. M is a resilient tough matriarch, who makes some pretty horrendous judgement calls - which rightly come back to haunt her. I think it's fascinating that some of the tougher decisions she has to make as the head of MI6 portray her as heartless. Judi Dench, as usual, makes the most of the opportunity, investing her authority role with great dignity undercut with a touch of insecurity and remorse. M will never say it aloud, but Mendes lingers on Dench's face long enough for us to see that she never truly believes her own bluster and that beneath there are pangs of regret lurking. She also has great understated chemistry with Craig.
Which brings us to Javier Bardem's Silva, who is actually half persuasive and half lunatic. It's a fabulously flamboyant role and exactly what the movie needs. He's charismatic and vile. His first scene with Bond is a great flirtation, one-upmanship sequence for the ages. Beyond the more grotesque 'Bond villain' accoutrements, he too gets a real character to play. Someone wounded by M and now intent to embarrass and destroy her and MI6. M someone with a lot of emotional power over her agents. I enjoyed that M can hardly remember Silva, which got me thinking about all the slights we commit to others without knowing. Basically, be careful who you piss off....
What I really like is that this is a film about a Bond who is both physically and psychologically wounded. I never really appreciated the finale at Skyfall till rewatching it yesterday (not least because Albert Finney's appearance is like getting a nice warm hug). It's an unusual, but certainly not unwelcome plot development. I had to pause it to take a beat to think of the resonance of Bond returning to that house - the root of his childhood trauma. The film doesn't hit you over the head with the meaning of it. But the significance has a residual impact. It gives the film an added layer of depth. Especially in his dialogue scenes with M - where the pair never really tell the other how they feel. They are both very British in that respect. If Citizen Kane had his Rosebud, then Bond has his Skyfall....
I kinda have to search for things I didn't really like about the film...I suppose I thought it was a bit of a shame that the whole 'broken 007' angle was seemingly dropped by the time Bond is in action, with almost all his issues disappearing (though I think you could mount an argument that Bond is off game throughout the entire film). The London chase is a bit pants (though, again, I was much more invested in the characters and dialogue than the chases). The kimono dragon scene is a dud and feels like a deleted scene from a bad Roger Moore-era film. Oh...I also think Craig's hair is too short. That's kinda it.
In the technical categories, Roger Deakins renders the imagery so freshly that you’d think you were seeing a Bond film for the first time. There are some images in this film which really made me catch my breath. He also shoots London in a very real and sincere way. Thomas Newman's score is also excellent - I don't care what the naysayers think - he's better than David Arnold (mainly as he's doing something new and not aping John Barry's style).
All in all, I really loved this film. Sam Mendes can take a bow. In fact, I'm somewhat tempted to watch it all over again immediately. SF is a 'modern classic.' Bravo, Mr Mendes ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐/5
And these are just the ones that I had bookmarked. There's plenty of examples.
Excellent review, thanks Pierce2Daniel.
Oh no, it's beautiful: I'd say it may well be the best-looking Bond ever (although Ken Adam's sets pretty much do their own cinematography in the films he worked on so it's not easy to call). Just being vibrant doesn't always equal beauty: those moody shots of Skyfall lodge may not be colourful but they are full of power and mood and beauty.
There most certainly are stunning sections in SF, like the ones above, but its not consistent throughout, most of the interior shots are rather flat and colourless! Schaefers lensing is richer pallette all the way through!
But then OHMSS has stuff like the fairly poor day-for-night (or midday-for-dawn) filming of the PTS.
Not sure how one looks at these and comes away saying that OCTOPUSSY looks better. Horses for courses.
I do love Schaefer's work in QoS but I would note that the contrast between the vivid stuff and the more monotone look of certain sections is very intentional. It might not be the most exciting thing to look at out of context, but the bright hues of Shanghai are a great contrast to the more dour interiors of London's office/courtroom settings. I felt like there was always intent behind that. The excitement of the field versus the mundane daily routine of London life. It fits the story nicely, I think. And Deakins is a great storyteller in his own right; not just a creator of pretty images.
Just my two cents on that.
True, but that doesn’t bother me too much considering it’s largely due to a technical limitation of the time. And while it doesn’t look like night, I don’t think it looks *bad*.
Well the only limitation was that they didn't get up early enough! :D It doesn't look *great* and that's what we're talking about. And the tyres screech on sand ;)
To me, the point of Bond is that it's a load of old hokum but made incredibly stylishly and by people who are far too talented to be working on this stuff. John Barry, Sir Ken Adam, Sir Sean Connery, Sir Sam Mendes, Daniel Craig, Dame Judi Dench, Thomas Newman, Sir Roger Deakins etc. all far too ridiculously talented to be working on films about a secret agent, but the result is -just like with Ian Fleming's ridiculously good prose- you get something which is of far higher quality and style than it has any right to be. And that's why I probably even prefer Skyfall to Casino Royale - CR is probably the better-plotted film, but it doesn't have that pure luxury feel that Skyfall does: it's sumptuous like the leather interior of an Aston Martin or the lining of a Saville Row suit, and that's what Bond should be if you ask me.
Look at those screengrabs above. Has there been a more stylish sequence in Bond in the last 50 or so years than the Jellyfish scene?
If they could shoot at night then they could shoot at dawn. They even have some dawn shots in the helicopter assault bit. They just didn't do it.
It is, but it's also very scrappy in places- I would say more so than some of its predecessors even. The editing tricks, dialogue placed over peoples' mouths not moving, flipped shots, 'guns make me nervous' etc. it does kind of erode that sense of style and make it feel a bit thrown together in places. Less so than YOLT before it which does feel a bit ragged, but I'd say that even Thunderball feels a bit slicker.
It does have that quality to it, for sure. I've often come across it on ITV2 and watched big chunks of it despite having on recently viewed the Blu-Ray. You can pretty much jump on board at any point.
Well Bond is in evening dress (and so is Tracy), so I think the intention is that he's on his way back after a night on the tiles. I suspect you're right though: he thought he could fix more in the edit than he really could (look at when they think they can get away with flipping the shot of the stock car driver upside down to make us think they filmed him when his car was on its roof - c'mon Pete and John, we're not stupid :D )
Thank you @mtm - means a lot to me.
Something that me and @peter were talking about beforehand was the evolution in Bond's character in SF. In CR and QOS, he's portrayed as being a bit of a 'bad boy'; someone willing to break the rules and turn against authority. There are certainly elements of that character still in play here, but I feel that its been subdued. It's clear to me that Craig felt that he had accomplished that depiction of the character and wanted to play an older, broken Bond - one with mummy issues and some psychological texture. At the same time, it's also arguably Craig's most 'Bond performance' - he's looser, funnier and still brutal in the action.
In some ways, it feels like the first 3 films form their own trilogy and that the reboot era came full circle with SF. I know some take umbrage that Craig went from being a rookie Bond to an old Bond. However, it's the really dramatic meat that Craig needed and it shows a progression in character by not boxing him in as one particular 'type' of 007.
Besides that,it’s one of the very worst Bond films for me.The plot is completely absurd.I know this isn’t new for a Bond film,but given its serious tone and “ gritty and realistic “ approach ,it just makes it all the more ridiculous.
I just feel like Skyfall (much like NTTD) is a bunch of loosely written scenes to connect dramatic & action pieces. And that's nothing new for a Bond movie, but given that we are supposed to take it all so deadly seriously I would assume they'd be as deadly serious with the plot holes & reasoning behind the characters motivations for their choices. Given that M had to die in the end, I feel there were better ways to get to it than what they put together. I'm not even talking about a complete rewrite, just adjustments to the script to make it all a little less on-the-fly-seeming.
Yes, good points. I look at the Macau casino scene as part of that. They need an excuse to get the tropes of Bond in a tux and to a casino and make contact and put in a poor action scene with a CGI exotic animal to get him to Silva's island. It's a glaring example of silly and unnecessary in advancing the story.
Does anybody else find the action in SF the most underwhelming of Craig's era?