SKYFALL: FANS' REACTIONS - GUARANTEED SPOILERS

13468999

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,187
    Germanlady wrote:
    Who is able to find a proper thread these days, so...

    http://www.filmstarts.de/nachrichten/18475728.html

    Wow, it's in German, that. Sorry dear lady, we do things in English on this forum. :P
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 6,601
    Who knew, dear Sir. That's why we have yet another new thread about it. But yes, I faile d in translating it, and I mean that.
    Thanks for being a good boy and reminding me of my human ability to fail. What a bummer and what a fest to command on. Nobody should call you out on not being observative and not doing a good job. =D>
  • Saw SF tonight :D I am hugely impressed and surprised. Here is my review on the Jubilee Blog:

    http://bondjubilee2012.blogspot.de/2012/11/skyfall-review-heavy-spoiler-alert.html
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Stop! Look! James Bond has made a welcome return to our screens.
    After fifty years and twenty two previous films with varying degrees of quality, the producers have succeeded in creating an entry that is artistically brilliant, flawlessly acted, full of unconventional suprises and, last but not least, damn exciting. Its predecessor Quantum of Solace – a controversial instalment which has struggled to find its place in the series- suffered from a rushed script and a director who was ambitious but somewhat unfamiliar with the franchise.
    That is not the case here. From the outset it clear Sam Mendes has a personal history with Bond and has achieved the difficult task of acknowledging the legacy of the series but at the same time moving forward in a direction ideal for 2012. The old, fading perceptions of espionage clash with the modern world of computers and techno terrorism throughout the film. A concept present in the original Casino Royale novel which was suggested and then rebuffed was that the hero’s and villains get intertwined. This idea is given a modern context and examined further late on when Dame Judi Dench’s M delivers a superb monologue in front of intrigued spectators.
    The character of Bond has also moved forward from the previous two entries. No longer is he the reckless, arrogant upstart with a point to prove; rather an experienced, cynical spy complete with a dry sense of humour. He still has his box of personal demons however and these are the main focus of the story. The film explores Bond’s background in a way never seen before in the franchise’s history. In lesser hands this could have felt clunky but both Mendes and Craig excel and demonstrate their individual talents wonderfully.
    This drama takes place within a variety of beautiful locations which range from Istanbul (seen previously in From Russia with Love and The World is Not Enough), Shanghai, London and the remote Scottish highlands. All are stunningly captured on film by Roger Deakins (who’s previous work includes Mendes helmed vehicle Revolutionary Road and No Country for Old Men starring Javier Bardem) and offer some of the best visuals ever featured in the series.
    The supporting cast are all excellent and even the actors with lesser screen time succeed in making their parts memorable. Most notably however this is possibly the most important role for series regular Dame Judi Dench and she is supported by Ralph Fiennes, Albert Finney, Bardem (surprisingly amusing yet sinister as the villain of the piece) and of course Craig.
    Finally there’s the action – an essential component for every Bond film – and it delivers in spades. It ranges from a train fight featuring a digger, a chase in an underground tunnel featuring a tube train and the climactic shootout featuring a much loved iconic car.
    The film does have a few weaknesses. As I mentioned earlier some of the supporting characters get relitively little screentime. Additionally some of the CG looks a little questionable at times (although compared to the atrocious CG in the 2002 Bond film Die Another Day its relitively mild) and clocking in at around the two and a half hour mark one wonders if it could have been shortened by a few minutes. That said I struggle to pinpoint which sequence could be cut. Overall these are minor quibbles.
    Following an uncertain period of four years it seems things are back on track. Time (as well as further viewings) will determine whether this is truely a "Bond classic". However most importantly things are looking positive for the next instalment. Let’s just hope it does not take as long next time.

    9/10
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    I forgot to mention that ADELE's song gives me chills...

    :-O
  • BAIN123 wrote:
    Stop! Look! James Bond has made a welcome return to our screens.
    After fifty years and twenty two previous films with varying degrees of quality, the producers have succeeded in creating an entry that is artistically brilliant, flawlessly acted, full of unconventional suprises and, last but not least, damn exciting. Its predecessor Quantum of Solace – a controversial instalment which has struggled to find its place in the series- suffered from a rushed script and a director who was ambitious but somewhat unfamiliar with the franchise.
    That is not the case here. From the outset it clear Sam Mendes has a personal history with Bond and has achieved the difficult task of acknowledging the legacy of the series but at the same time moving forward in a direction ideal for 2012. The old, fading perceptions of espionage clash with the modern world of computers and techno terrorism throughout the film. A concept present in the original Casino Royale novel which was suggested and then rebuffed was that the hero’s and villains get intertwined. This idea is given a modern context and examined further late on when Dame Judi Dench’s M delivers a superb monologue in front of intrigued spectators.
    The character of Bond has also moved forward from the previous two entries. No longer is he the reckless, arrogant upstart with a point to prove; rather an experienced, cynical spy complete with a dry sense of humour. He still has his box of personal demons however and these are the main focus of the story. The film explores Bond’s background in a way never seen before in the franchise’s history. In lesser hands this could have felt clunky but both Mendes and Craig excel and demonstrate their individual talents wonderfully.
    This drama takes place within a variety of beautiful locations which range from Istanbul (seen previously in From Russia with Love and The World is Not Enough), Shanghai, London and the remote Scottish highlands. All are stunningly captured on film by Roger Deakins (who’s previous work includes Mendes helmed vehicle Revolutionary Road and No Country for Old Men starring Javier Bardem) and offer some of the best visuals ever featured in the series.
    The supporting cast are all excellent and even the actors with lesser screen time succeed in making their parts memorable. Most notably however this is possibly the most important role for series regular Dame Judi Dench and she is supported by Ralph Fiennes, Albert Finney, Bardem (surprisingly amusing yet sinister as the villain of the piece) and of course Craig.
    Finally there’s the action – an essential component for every Bond film – and it delivers in spades. It ranges from a train fight featuring a digger, a chase in an underground tunnel featuring a tube train and the climactic shootout featuring a much loved iconic car.
    The film does have a few weaknesses. As I mentioned earlier some of the supporting characters get relitively little screentime. Additionally some of the CG looks a little questionable at times (although compared to the atrocious CG in the 2002 Bond film Die Another Day its relitively mild) and clocking in at around the two and a half hour mark one wonders if it could have been shortened by a few minutes. That said I struggle to pinpoint which sequence could be cut. Overall these are minor quibbles.
    Following an uncertain period of four years it seems things are back on track. Time (as well as further viewings) will determine whether this is truely a "Bond classic". However most importantly things are looking positive for the next instalment. Let’s just hope it does not take as long next time.

    An excellent review BAIN123 ! very well written !
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 2,165
    "What do you say about a man like that...?"

    After a four year wait, following the heels of 2008’s underrated, if severely flawed Quantum of Solace, Skyfall arrives amidst some of the largest hype, excitement and anticipation of any film of 2012, and of the Bond franchise as well. Given the wait between films, and the celebration of the franchise’s 50th Anniversary, Skyfall simply has to deliver.

    The story of Skyfall is a relatively simple one, told in an extremely interesting way. The hook into the story is that a data drive has been stolen, and is being used by Silva (deliciously played by Javier Bardem, in a role which almost steals the show) to exact a personal revenge on M for her role during the handover of Hong Kong in 1997. James Bond, injured on a mission to retrieve said data drive, returns, not quite in physical, or mental, health, to defend M, Queen and Country.

    To say anymore about the story would be to ruin it, because Skyfall has an excellent story. Sure, some parts of it don’t hold up after closer inspection, but if you go along for the thrill ride, the plot twists and turns will leave you very much shaken and stirred. Mendes’ does a fantastic job of slowly revealing his hand, and the results are surprising, and shocking.

    There are two standout scenes. The first is Bond’s following, and subsequent killing of the assassin Patrice in a Shanghai skyscraper, slowly moving through a floor of pure glass doors, walls and reflections. This scene encapsulates everything that works in Skyfall. Mendes’ slick direction, combined with suspenseful editing, and wonderful tension building score, and Roger Deakins’ exemplary cinematography all providing what amounts to one of the most visually stunning and suspenseful scenes in the franchise’s history.

    The second is the entire third act, which is probably the riskiest, and most outstanding, in the franchise’s 22 film history. The move away from the traditional “big fight” (see Goldeneye though Quantum of Solace) to something where the stakes are much smaller, the scale much smaller, but the action more refined, choreographed, and here you actually care what the outcome is. By moving Bond away from the villain’s lair to his own, Skyfall Lodge, Mendes, together with regular writers Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, with John Logan, provide a masterstroke of an ending which, like the Shanghai scene, does everything right, providing the emotional punch to match the visceral one.

    Arguably, Skyfall is the first Bond film in a long time which feels more like an actual film, and this can largely be attributed to the cast, who actually act (really well) instead of just turning up and being in a Bond film, traditionally not seen as a beacon of acting excellence (see Halle Berry). Mendes’ is able to bring brilliant performances from the existing cast (both Craig and Dench are on excellent form), but add some wonderful additions to the cast, including Bardem as easily one of the series most interesting villains (with shade of The Joker in his performance), Naomi Harris, Bernice Marlohe (in a criminally underutilised role), and even in the smaller roles, packs out the cast with talent such as Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Albert Finney and Rory Kinnear (in a much larger role than in QoS, which is great). Praise must also go to Ola Rapace for bring a great sense of danger to a very small, but highly plot pivotal, role as Patrice, the man who sets the story in motion.

    Concern was initially raised when Mendes’ was announced as Skyfall’s director. As a director more versed in drama than action, many wondered how the action would hold up. Luckily, it’s every bit as brilliant as everything else. The initial chase through Istanbul is varied and exciting, expertly edited together, providing a thrilling scene without resorting to cheating it by quick cutting it together. Mendes, along with second unit director Alexander Witt, let the camera take a back seat and let the action unfold in front of it, an extremely wise decision. All of the action sequences are great (standouts include the London Underground chase, the attack on Skyfall Lodge and the Komodo dragon fight).

    Much has been made of David Arnold’s replacement by Mendes’ long term collaborator Thomas Newman. Luckily, the partnership is as strong as ever, with Newman delivering a standout score that manages to be several things; not just a through sound worthy of the Bond title, but one that is infused with a classical style that only Newman is able to add to his scores, successfully integrating the classic Bond them around his own motifs and styles. Stand out tracks include “Shanghai Drive”, “Jellyfish”, “Komodo Dragon”, “The Chimera” and “Deep Water”. The whole soundtrack could be listed, it really is that good. The same can be said of Adele’s theme, which blends perfectly with Daniel Kleinman’s title sequence, involving Bond’s “death”.

    Unlike Die Another Day, the film celebrating Bond’s 40th Anniversary, Mendes smartly handles the 50th Anniversary references. They are always there, but never made a big deal of. There are no scenes where Bond walks through a room of previous gadgets (thankfully), but the small nods to the franchise’s past (I noticed references to Goldfinger, Goldeneye and Casino Royale) are handles masterfully, that equilibrium found perfectly. The Aston Martin DB5 is brought back, and is used to a brilliant end, something I genuinely didn’t see coming, and it was amazing to see the silver beauty firing (literally) on all cylinders once again).

    There are one or two minor quibbles, however. Some of the CGI is a little bit suspect (Bond on the Grand Bazaar, the Helicopters over Silva’s island) but is nowhere near on the same scale as Die Another Day. The first half of the film, after the titles and until Bond arrives in Shanghai, does drag a little bit and could have benefited from a little bit of tightening, and Bernice Marlohe is underutilised, it would have been nice to have seen her do a bit more.

    But those are nitpicking. The fact I could write load more on the different aspects of Skyfall is a testament to just how good the film is. It’s the most technically accomplished film in the franchise, the most beautiful, with brilliant performances, a well written script, and with a score to match. Michael G Wilson and Barbara Broccoli took a huge risk in bring in Sam Mendes and his team, and opening Bond up to them. It’s the best thing they have ever done.

    To quote 007 himself; “It’s a brave new world”. Where 007 goes next will be extremely interesting.

    Skyfall in a nutshell:

    + One of the best Bond film ever, delivering in almost every aspect
    + Excellent performances from the entire cast, especially Craig, Dench and Bardem
    + Roger Deakins’ fantastic cinematography
    + Thomas Newman’s score hits all the right notes
    + A unique third act which surprises and delights in equal measure

    - Some slightly iffy CGI shots here and there
    - Bernice Marlohe is underutilised
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    I'm just back from watching Skyfall and although I knew most of the story it still managed to surprise me. This is the mark of a great film, for Skyfall is not only a Bond with a capital B but also a Film with a capital F.
    The opening shot is brilliant, I agree with those who said it is, in a way, a gunbarrel. The way Bond is slowly revealed, the white light in the background. From that first establishing shot it tells you this is both different and the same.
    The PTS is brilliantly shot but I have a couple of complaints. The CGI of the faces when they are riding the motorcycles on rooftops and Eve, who doesn't convince me at all in these scenes. The train stunt is amazing and one of the best in the series and the moment Bond falls is so charged that although I have watched it many times before it hits me harder everytime I watch it. Magistral work.
    The Title sequence is my least favourite part of the film. I was so disappointed by it! Kleinman has done an amazing work in the past, CR probably has the most brilliant title sequence of the franchise. I love Adele's song and I thought that with the sequence it would be an exciting moment but it wasn't, I really didn't like it at all and that is a real shame.
    Happily my complaints are (mostly) over! The rest of the film is sheer brilliance. The story grabs you, the tension grows every minute, the work of the cast is amazing! Each one of them did a stunning job, and that shows. I don't even know where to start with the characters.
    Craig gives us a perfect Bond, from the moment he appears again on screen, downbeat and damaged, we can believe every look, every movement, every word, a colossal acting work. Now I'm saying something very serious, Connery was always my favourite Bond, Craig was second almost tied with him. Now Craig reigns as Number 1 in my list. The fact is that he is at ease with the darker moments as well as the lightest ones and nothing feels out of place! He manages to show exactly what goes on inside Bond without ever feeling forced, like it was simply flowing. I was with 2 friends at the cinema, one of them is (or should I say was) not really a Bond fan and confessed me before the film she thought Craig is a great actor but she didn't get used to him (her favourite was Moore and she didn't like Brosnan at all). At the end she looked at me and said she had changed her opinion, that she could really understand the complexity of the character for the first time and that he was perfect throughout.
    Bardem is another acting powerhouse in this film. How amazing can he be? Silva is lunatic, villainous, campy, odd, tragic, and everything in between. A truly relevant villain, one who could have been penned by Fleming himself, and who is an instant classic. The villain for Bond 24 will have very big shoes to fill. His final moments with M in the chapel were emotional in a very twisted but brilliant way.
    Dench is wonderful as M, from the ruthless moments when she is willing to sacrifice the lives of her agents (and we believe her) to her most vulnerable she shows why she's considered one of the greatest actresses of all times.
    Fiennes has a short but powerful performance right from the moment when he is talking to M. The sudden entry in action is perfect as he jumps from politician to action man in a believable way. I look forward to watching him as M for many good films to come. I'm very satisfied with his casting.
    Whishaw is great as Q, if I ever had any doubts they were smashed into the ground. I love the way he talks, so serious. And the line about returning the equipment got everyone laughing in the room.
    Marlowe surprised me in a positive way as Severine. What a great presence and what a talent! I could feel her fear showing, slowly, in her every move but never overacting. This brings me to a small complaint, why did they kill her so fast? She deserved more screen time, truly mesmerizing.
    Kinnear is the ever faithful Tanner, I really like him and hope he sticks to the role for a long time.
    Harris got me mixed feelings. I didn't really like her in the PTS, not believable. However I did like her witty exchanges with Bond, the shaving scene, and I understood her passage from field agent to Miss Moneypenny. Still she didn't completely convince me and I'm afraid that in such a cast she is the weakest link.
    Finney is lovable as Kincade, he gets some of the best lines in the film. There's nothing else I can say about him except he's amazing.
    Rapace is OK as an assassin for hire, the scene with Bond at Shanghai is amazing but he's pretty forgettable I'm afraid.

    The photography is amazing, every single shot is magnificent! Editing is well done and does a good job in showing what's going on without distractions. Soundtrack is, in my opinion, 5 star quality. I really warmed into it, it works very well. Sound editing gets thumbs up. Locations as well. Attention to detail was impressive. Effects were quite good in my opinion except for the PTS I talked about before. Finale at M's office is the icing on the cake that left me with a big smile on my face :D Gunbarrel sequence is not amazing but I liked Craig's walk, I just wished they hadn't friezed him, that felt odd.

    Sam Mendes is amazing and I can only hope he gets to do more Bond films. This is the kind of director the franchise needs and obviously he makes a dream team with Craig and the rest. I would say dream team but this film isn't a dream any more, it's reality.

    Best:
    - Cast and acting deserves 10/10, especially the 2 acting powerhouses Bardem and Craig;
    - Photography stunning;
    - Dialogue and script brilliant;
    - Soundtrack;
    - Directing.

    Worse:
    - CGI at PTS;
    - Marlowe underused;
    - Title sequence (for me the worst of the series).

    Final verdict: One of the best Bond films, my favourite film of the year so far. Only minor flaws to point. 9/10 and a very happy Bond fan :D
  • What can I say? Skyfall is a great film, far better than other action films because it has a great script solid action as opposed to action bits, great performances, and the best crew in the business. However, the whole perception of Bond films has changed in the sense that they are more militaristic ie. as good as Daniel Craig is, he looks the part of a trained ex-military man. That of course makes him more realistic, but 40 years I've been used to 007 as someone that doesn't appear like an assassin, a ladies man, the English gentleman with the charm, that can switch into the cold killer that is just like that. A young Sean could do what Craig does, as he had the physique, but not Roger, Timothy or Pierce. Roger and Pierce were "pretty boys" which was great, attracting all the girls blah-blah. Timothy was in the middle with his "monogamous" style, but had the roughness. Lazenby a non-actor, never appealed to me 'cause of the era, ( I was young) his lines were bad and I hated the "Sir Hilly" character in Blofeld's alpine clinic. Craig's appeal is different than the other actors and in SF his haircut is like a gov. operative. For a leading lady, Severine didn't last long. She reminded me of Maud Adams in TMWTGG in many ways, but I guess the emphasis on the women in this film was solely on M. It solidifies the deep relationship between Bond and M. Wisely the script mentioned her late husband, a faceless character in the last two films. Craig's Bond is also a non-Bond and although he's done a remarkable job during his three films, they are not light entertainment but quite heavy. That's the trade off for realism and its fine. However, I miss sitting in the cinema, waiting for the old intros with the music the gun barrel lead-ins the clever dialogue, etc. Thankfully the producers stirred away from the errors of DAD which was such a let down, a great intro and after BOMB! Great to have M say she fucked up. I was glad to see a gun in her hand. The best part she ever had in the series.
  • CatchingBulletsCatchingBullets facebook.com/catchingbullets
    edited November 2012 Posts: 292
    A THINKING, TAILORED, BOLDER SPY

    Catching Bullets – Memoirs of a Bond Fan author Mark O’Connell looks at the 23rd James Bond 007 film, Skyfall.

    SPOILER WARNING!

    “We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
    One equal temper of heroic hearts,
    Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
    To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield”
    Ulysses,
    Lord Alfred Tennyson





    From the opening shot of Bond emerging from the shadows at the bloody end of a Turkish shoot-out via the murky corners of cyberspace, the neon silhouettes of a Shanghai sniper attack and the measures a villain takes in order to hide and avenge his own physical phantasms to an ancestral pad that is now decaying in them, Skyfall is all about the shadows. But as Daniel Craig undeniably emerges from the ones of his predecessors, director Sam Mendes and Eon Productions’ 50th anniversary Bond opus is – to quote Skyfall’s accidental poet laureate Tennyson – “one equal temper of heroic hearts”. Proving the healthy sense of collaboration between Daniel Craig and creative house Eon Productions, it was 007 himself who gave director Sam Mendes his mission. And what a moment of apt serendipity as Skyfall is easily the finest end result of the re-pointing project of James Bond 007 as started by producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson as far back as 1995’s GoldenEye and matured like a bottle of ’62 whisky in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace.


    “This is the end” starts London songstress Adele as Daniel Kleinman’s watery title girls pull Daniel Craig into a riverbed vortex of bleeding target silhouettes, dagger shaped headstones and skulls with tombstones for teeth. The first solo artist for a while to be at the absolute peak of her game when belting out a 007 song and the first song since GoldenEye to be about an actual plot MacGuffin, Adele is a natural choice for a very London and very British Bond film. With crystal-clear lyrics, Paul Epworth’s pristine production and those twirling Bassey wrists underscoring every beat, Ms Adkins soars and “stands tall” with Kleinman’s artistry. One title girl’s slo-mo gun to camera turn is as gloriously 1970s Bond as that continued use of a font that should surely by now be officially named Binder (after Bond title innovator, Maurice Binder). The baronial sweep of Skyfall and its’ stags, thorny pathways, Chinese dragons rolling at the audience like Victorian phantoms and the Bond family graves all vying for deathly prominence proves is the most gothic title sequence since Live and Let Die with its animated urgency, warped shadows and shattering hall of mirrors. Sorry Ms Adkins, but if Skyfall’s objets d’ark opener proves anything, there is no “end” in sight for Bond just yet. And if you are not singing Skyfall at the 2013 Academy Awards with a 50th anniversary 007 montage ebbing around you, this Bond fan will be most surprised.

    Talking of Oscar – he was obviously going to knock many a previous villain out of the Bond park but Javier Bardem supplies a literally jaw-dropping turn as bad boy Raoul Silva and could well be in the Best Supporting Actor club come ‘for your consideration’ season. Sadistically prissy with a dye blonde mane of hair and a Karl Lagerfeld sense of cosmetic vanity and pinched eyes, Silva’s look alone purposely doesn’t stack up – and his line in 1970s lounge wear straight from the wardrobe marked “Roger Moore” is just as nasty. This is a glorious Pedro Almodóvar queen of a rogue, a Villain on The Edge of a Nervous Breakdown. Without lending Silva a solid and familiar manifesto to upturn the world with a deliberate caper of monetary gain or global one-upmanship, Mendes and his writers’ Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan forever jar proceedings with Raoul. From his curious entrance via a slow-arriving elevator with echoes of The Rocky Horror Picture Show’s Frankenfurter (“don’t get strung out by the way I look”) to an unsettling anecdote about changing the killing instincts of rats, Silva purposely just doesn’t stack up. The sick relish in which a captured Raoul zips up his prison uniform aware he is about to escape is jarring. The non-regulation thick blonde hair under a policeman’s hat is jarring. Silva cutting an almost underground Nosferatushadow when Bond ups the lights is jarring. Even just seeing Bardem on the London underground alone is jarring. And when those Catalonian eyes of Silva’s roll with anger at the chance of helicopter ride home being somewhat diminished or when Bond fires at some fire extinguishers to curtail a tribunal room shoot-out, Bardem’s simmering spite is as instantly memorable as Gert Fröbe idly scratching his eye “expecting” Bond to die in Goldfinger or Robert Shaw’s unnerving attempts to bromance 007 in From Russia With Love.

    And taking the Almodóvar reference to its logical conclusion, Bardem literally ties Bond up and ties him down to give him a bad education about his real feelings for our man James and the skin that he lives in. Actually, if Pedro hadn’t got there first, Skyfall and its ‘mommy’ issues could well have been christened All About My Mother. As Silva unbuttons 007’s Tom Ford shirt and lets his fingers do the wandering it is not a bullet scar that he is interested in finding, but rather sexual ones suggesting he could be in with a chance with Bond. M’s star pupil and the school reject should really not be playing playground bouts of “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours” but it is a glorious move on the writers part to threaten Bond not with lasers, tarantulas or ball-busting ropes but a villain’s hand stretching optimistically towards His Majesty’s crown jewels. Casino Royale’s Le Chiffre certainly got his man-crush eyes on Bond first. But now 007 is the victim of sexual harassment by a literal undressing against his will and an even more blatant sexual deviant than himself. Cue co-writer John Logan and his pièce de irresistible thunder-curveball and the best Bond-mot we have heard for a long time – “what makes you think this is my first time?”. In that one line a smirking Craig appeases those who suspected his 007 could be the one to suggest such sexual inclusivity (why wouldn’t Bond toy with a guy to move a mission on) but also suggests our man James is possibly a true Etonian after all.

    Silva’s party piece is grotesque, the nearest the 007 series has stepped towards horror since 1973’s Live and Let Die and a viable reason why title designer Daniel Kleinman utilizes all those melting skulls and burning veins. Whilst Mendes and the film possibly misses a trick to return to that jaw-dropping motif in the finale (how much more creepy could Bardem have been if Silva lost his ‘smile’ when forcing his gun and himself on his last act victims?), it is still a gorgeously outrageous gesture that in one grisly flourish justifies Silva’s Bond villain tag and Bardem’s high praise in the role. In Skyfall, he is both the devil and the detail. And the only Bond foe to ultimately get what he wants.

    Taking a role that was possibly a tweed-jacketed cliché, the gently mischievous Ben Whishaw is a deliciously impish Q soulfully aware though of both the “inevitability of time” and his Earl Grey tea. Removing the dusty red tape and pratfall confrontations of previous incumbents, Whishaw turns his Palo Alto geekery into a consequence-shy beatnik quicker than it takes to shelve the use of “exploding pens” with a winning grin even Bond can agree with. A Zuckerberg generation wolf in a sheep’s cardigan, this Q takes the hackneyed out of hacking with a learned temperament beyond his years as his darting eyes betray a panic and human concern beneath. Armed only with a Q-mug of Earl Grey, Whishaw works the late shift to control-alt-delete Bardem’s rather anti-social network, yet all the time keeping that vital impatience with Bond (“of course there are people everywhere, welcome to the rush hour”) as well as displaying a quiet love of art history to underline how Turner’s “grand old warship being ignominiously hauled away for scrap” is of course M’s plight in Skyfall. “Age is no guarantee of efficiency” defends Whishaw as the institution of Q points the finger at the 007 series itself. Mercifully, astute casting in Bond is always a “guarantee of efficiency”. And there is no more efficient use of scant screen-time than at the hands of the villain’s lady stooge, Séverine.

    Making scene-stealing swipes at any clichéd attempts to ‘update’ the Bond women, Bérénice Lim Marlohe’s Séverine is old-school personified with a grimly prescient backstory of child prostitution and an apparent lifetime of abuse. A Bond film is almost only as good as those first exchanges with a chanteuse by the baize tables of a casino. Skyfall is no exception as Marlohe acts Craig off his Macau barstool with her sinking face and quivering talons forecasting with a chill the malicious evil of Silva that is about to come (“what do you know about fear?”). Already a walking obituary to every first-act Bond girl, Marlohe soon cuts a sinewy, staggering silhouette as she and Bond are led through a Planet of the Apes style abandoned city crumbling quicker than Séverine’s hopes of a final salvation. In a series of films whose first-act lovelies have written the book on elaborate and memorable deaths, Séverine’s curtain down is a stark William Tell moment of a balanced whisky shot as Bond’s nervous gun hand refuses to play Silva’s sick games.

    Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace made conscious, successful strides to reset the character of these films, to have no back story connected to what went before (except perhaps the continued casting of Judi Dench as M). One of the joys of Skyfall is that with three films in Daniel Craig is now able to trade on his own previous 007 outings. A curt instruction to Naomie Harris’s Eve to take her finger away from her radio earpiece recalls Craig’s earlier pet hate at some uncouth field agent’s identical faux-pas in Casino Royale. Being strapped to a chair as a male villain peacocks around him sees 007 yet again become the non-simpering heroine tied to the railway tracks of a villain’s sexual proclivities. A line of dialogue about knowing when a woman is scared quietly recalls the tragedy of Vesper Lynd and the last time Daniel Craig set foot in a casino. Just as Judi Dench’s M once declares inTomorrow Never Dies (1997) how “unlike the Americans, we prefer not to get our bad news from CNN”, that is exactly how the ‘dead’ James Bond is pulled into the mission of Skyfall when a TV in a backpackers beach bar breaks word of MI6’s misfortune. However, after three films where Bond is caught in the early hours necking M’s home stash of Bourbon you’d think the head of MI6 could install some decent locks.Daniel Craig is on blistering form inSkyfall. Clearly dedicated to the fitness, motivation, purpose and presentation of the James Bond character like no-one before him, his is now a Bond that lets a grin in on the edges. The writers continue the conscience of the character as laid out in Royale and Solace – a recurring concern for a dying fellow agent Ronson and a refusal to put him out of his misery hints sees Craig’s Bond now guided by his scruples rather than wrestling with them like before. The moment when a chapel-bound Bond nurses a dying friend with his childhood guardian looking helplessly on is an agonising beat for the Bond series. Never before has Bond been seen as the orphaned boy with literally no-one in the world left. But Skyfall, Mendes and Craig pull that off without once derailing the granite emotions of the very insular Commander Bond. If anything, his newly re-formed MI6 family are now of greater emotional relevance than ever before. It is not just the returning cinematic iconography of reuniting all these figures for the first time in a while that causes an inward cheer. You are glad Bond has those characters back in his life because this lone white knight has no-one else.

    As expected this fiftieth anniversary entry honours the expected beats of a Bond movie – not least the score. Composer Thomas Newman (American Beauty, Wall-E) continues his penchant for Celtic undercurrents and slithers of governmental intrigue, replacing his trademark Americana from the likes of The Horse Whisperer, Revolutionary Road and Meet Joe Black for The Iron Lady’s sense of Westminster machinations and corridors of power. Funereal bugles and brass add sombre flourishes to the beginnings of M’s downfall alongside a gloriously camp and 1930s serials sense of matinee villainy as Séverine’s yacht steers toward the Skull Island that is Silva’s not-so palatial residence.

    And we have a barnstormer of a Bond Arriving moment as Newman’s swelling strings and Daniel Craig glides in upright on a Macau casino boat flanked by fireworks, elaborate dragons, floating lanterns and Roger Deakins’ lush cinematography. A detour to Shanghai provides an elevator-grab straight out of a You Only Live Twice Tokyo break-in as billboard neon jellyfish turn a silhouetted bout of fisticuffs into a Maurice Binder underwater skirmish. Brief touches honour the golden milestone of Bond – Silva has a bottle of ’62 whisky, an apocalypse wow moment sees John Lee Hooker’s ’62 Boom Boom ignite the finale attack from a helicopter tannoy, M’s Cadogan Square homestead is not a million metres from where John Barry resided in the 1960s, Fleming’s favourite city Istanbul overtures proceedings and a quick step on the back of a komodo dragon surely bares its teeth of homage to, once again, Live and Let Die. And of course the Aston Martin DB5 is brought out of storage for the audiences to let out their biggest cheer and to cut a stark sight in the imposing hills of Glencoe – the location of both one of Scottish history’s most infamous massacres and that of James Bonds (it is where his parents mountain-climbing parents Andrew and Monique met a death with their own skyfall, thus shaping our man James and his outlook on the world forever more). Like all the Bond films, the DB5 of Skyfall is a silvery sidekick to Bond and a valued member of a ragtag, small unit of anti-Silva defenders making do in a shadowy old baronial seat. When an approaching line of Silva’s men drop into the horizon like armed plunderers from Peter Weir’s Witness, it is the DB5 that is the last line of defence before Bond, M and Albert Finney’s benevolent gamekeeper Kincade (possibly the childhood benefactor Vesper Lynd alludes to in Royale) have to go all Straw Dogs on Silva’s men.

    But Skyfall’s best nod to its heritage is how Mendes, his writers, cinematographer Deakins and production designer Dennis Gassner craft a near-airtight narrative made up of cause-and-effect character judgments, motivations and outcomes. Nothing is left hanging in Skyfall. Except perhaps Bond dangling above a Shanghai skyline in a Vertigo moment of back-projection just that bit cruder and less ‘realistic’ than it should be. The end result of that quick beat is an instant time-machine back to mid-1960s Connery and the back-projection trickery that has curiously aged less than Brosnan’s CGI tsunami kite-surfing debacle. Following the examples set in Casino Royale andQuantum of Solace, the set pieces in Skyfall are all about Bond – not the stuntman’s union. Even in a sea of MI6 bods and tribunal ministers (a tenet of the Brosnan years), Deakins and Mendes keep their story and camera focus simply on M, Mallory and Tanner. The resulting shoot-out is a gun-slinging bout of story-forwarding character decisions, not second unit fireworks. And when Bond sprints through the chaos of panicking emergency services, MI6 allies giving instructions from the crow’s nest of cyberspace and Thomas Newman’s stately score it is that lone Daniel Craig that emerges as centrepiece, the real English lion of Skyfall and this rich era of 007.

    In Gassner’s most expressionistic of MI6 bunkers, a busy sea of typists and desk elves are visible but the drama resides in Mallory, Q and Tanner on their own in this bunker after hours. A Macau casino is a gorgeous timber den of croupiers with fierce silver fringes, stocky Korean heavies sans killer hats, leggy lovelies walking through frame at that slow Pinewood extras pace and komodo dragons lurking beneath the floorboards like SPECTRE piranhas. The Macau moments have a brilliant sense of 007 artifice about them, a thumbs up to former design maestro Ken Adam proving that you can take Bond out of Pinewood Studios, but you cannot and (must not) take the Pinewood out of Bond.

    London has featured or been referenced in nearly all the Bond films, usually via a quick cut-away of a red telephone ringing on M’s desk or a red bus passing the MI6 building old and new. Yet this is not London through a 101 Dalmatians lens. The red, white and blue of the Jubilee, the Olympics and even Craig’s notorious parachuting monarch moment are now usurped for a more tangible London of squealing paramedics, Metropolitan police stab vests, Vauxhall Bridge holds ups, tube barriers, dirty lock-up garages and, er, Clapham high street. A Union Jack flag may symbolically stand tall with a closing-scene Bond surveying all that he protects, but the iconic emblems are first seen draped over the coffins of the MI6 dead. This is a 2012 without tourist pageantry and vistas. Deakins’ shots of Trafalgar Square, Whitehall and Westminster are street level – no Bond Arriving grandiosity on the home turf here. From Tottenham girl Adele on opening crooning duties and the National Portrait Gallery lending Ben Whishaw’s Q and Bond a great water-cooler moment under the seafaring watch of Turner’s ‘The Fighting Temeraire’ to the shadows and catacombs of unused tube lines and a Churchillian porcelain bulldog stressing M, Bond and the 007 series steely resolve, this is curiously both the London of empire and post-empire – a possible nod to the Connery years and the crossroads of past and future they carefully positioned themselves in.

    The Blair-ite era of the MI6 years in Vauxhall is here resigned to an aged oil painting of said building behind a very familiar oak and mahogany strewn office with a stage-right leather door and a leather-topped desk purpose made (or taken out of Pinewood storage) for dropping Eyes Only documents and passports onto with boss-like urgency. MI6’s London is now stepping away from the capital of the Pierce Brosnan years (with its video-walls, glass partitions and holographic training programmes) towards a bespoke, possibly Tory-inspired modernism more akin to the Robert Brown as M / Universal Exports years. But instead of the hierarchy of cigar-fuelled gentlemen’s clubs, this is a MI6 made up of ‘Northern Ireland’ veterans, field agents who are not the best shot, filthy temporary digs, Bond in regulation trainers, presumed dead operatives seeing their homes sold off in an instant and agents who get passed without meeting medical criteria. Ralph Fiennes is a clever bridging measure in Skyfall. Initially pitched as an incisive bureaucrat in braces, his quiet approval of M and Bond and eventual less quiet support of them and their principles is one of the joys of Skyfall. In an era of cinematic moles and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy remakes, it is refreshing just to have a governmental meddler who is doing so for the right reasons. As Fiennes’ Mallory rolls up his sleeves to muck in when the finger-pointers have long clocked off, that sage-like Whitehall wisdom is no longer a smokescreen. It is who Mallory is going to be. And not just in this film.

    At the core of Skyfall – and risky as it is not strictly Bond’s story arc – is Judi Dench’s M and her suffering an external fall from grace, an unrequited humiliation at the hands of ex-employee and all-round fruit-loop Raoul Silva. Mendes renders M’s career demise as ever so familiar in a current British political context of “midday” tribunals and inquests masking real blame and accountability, and all the time bypassing any decent understanding of the real shadows good men like Bond have always worked in. This is a dangerously distracted and sadly familiar Britain – where how things look are of more concern than how they are. A heart-rousing scene involves M not only pulling apart the finger-pointing rhetoric of Helen McCrory’s MP with a brilliantly protracted and interspersed use of Tennyson’s Ulysses (could you imagine a Die Another Day set-piece pausing for such eloquent breath?), but all the time underscoring the very nature of Bond as her hero, a British hero and our hero. This is Skyfall’s very own Leveson Enquiry with extra acting leverage – a stirring beat of a scene when the initially snippy Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) proves his real allegiances and the only MI6 members not to flee like cowards deftly prove their gun-toting durability and possible resolve for 007 films to come. Just as Bond could be narratively sidelined, M’s plight becomes Bond’s. Not because he is her star pupil, but because he is (and has always been) the only one to embody that “will” of Tennyson’s “to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield”. M puts herself into Bond’s hands not because she has given up (though she comically doesn’t care if he uses his ejector button on her in the DB5), but because she knows he will not. Or rather, cannot.

    Cue a Harold and Maude road trip – or Harold and M – as Craig and Dench take the high-road to the Highlands in the first Bond film finale to pitch its tent of explosive fun on British soil. Fleming famously cited in his latter Bond novels how 007 had Scottish heritage. Skyfall’s “back in time” motif sees the Bond movies and Ian Fleming go full circle. Believed to be a Fleming eleventh hour nod to the successful casting of Sean Connery in the screen embodiment of Bond, Skyfall now marks the dual foundations of why we are all here fifty years after Dr. No – namely the titular Skyfall lodge has both Connery and Fleming to thank.

    For this golden anniversary 007 bullet, Skyfall is a Bond film whose story drives are cleverly predicated on the supposed 007 clichés that Royale and Solace took wise steps away from. Bond and Raoul do not have elaborate toys at their disposal. Using unsexy radios – the gadget wow factor of the early Bonds – is how these two dual. Silva’s literal burning rage at queen and country has been triggered because a cyanide-tooth regulation gadget dramatically failed. Bond’s car is not a modern city boy’s wet dream, it is the vintage Aston Martin DB5 cutting through a deliberately foreboding aerial shot straight out of The Shining as Bond forewarns “a storm is coming”. Bond’s recurrent lady aide Eve is not a formula-escaping twist. She is as part of the beloved formula as a double-tufted leather door, a stage-left office desk and an impatient intercom demanding we “cut the pleasantries”. Sam Mendes was not lying through Silva’s back-teeth when he said Skyfall was going to feel like it could have been made fifty years ago. With the sky fallen good and proper, this 23rd Bond film ends on a purge of utter nostalgia. Who would have thought a double-tufted leather door and a new secretary could have caused so many 007 fans’ souls to somersault with glee at how Skyfall culminates and where the future of Bond begins.

    To get your copy of Catching Bullets go to www.splendidbooks.co.uk and all good print and e-book stockists.

    Mark O’Connell is on Twitter : @Mark0Connell

    CATCHING BULLETS Facebook Page : https://www.facebook.com/#!/catchingbullets?fref=ts
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 1,817
    I know I don't have the writing skills of many people here (and even less in a second language for me) but this are some thoughts of mine after my first viewing of Skyfall.
    Overall it is a great Bond flick, but also a very good movie in general. It has a solid story that makes it interesting for the lay viewer, but what amazes me most is that many jokes and references could be understood only by a Bond fan (it requires at least some memory of GF, GE and some of Moore's).
    Regarding the acting, Craig was not only surpassing himself but at the same time establishing his mature Bond portrayal. Fiennes, Wishaw are just perfect for the role, accomplishing a balaced between innovation and tradition. Judi Dench got the final appearance she deserves after all her trajectory. Also Finney gave us a very likeble new character, funny but not campy.
    Berenice was good but her screen time was too short, and Harris was not outstanding, in my opinion.
    Bardem portrayed a good villain, but it was a little too much over-the-top... perhaps I can appreciate it more withe subsequent views.
    On the technical aspects, the photography is superb, as many have noted before. In relation with the music, it was good but is no a masterpiece (niether the soundtrack or the theme, however I like the latter better than the former.) The title sequence was good but not my favorite. I like though the Asian females in Binder-style and the water motif (not that much the Skyfall chapel, it was too explicit.) About the gunbarrel, although I have complain many times about it's placement in both QOS and SF, I can't deny that it was very cool at the ending. It shouldn't be there, however, but my possition is purely dogmatic, not esthetic.
    Regarding the story, one thing that I'm thankful is that they didn't change the murder of Bond's parent in an attemp of giving more drama (like saying that Silva killed them or something like that.) They respected Fleming's story.
    That leads me to another point: Bond's character. I found it very close with Fleming, mostly because of the drinking, drug using and boring attitude towards life (like when he's sitting on the bar, not that much the scorpion and drinking, a call for attention that Fleming's Bond would never do), only compensated by his commintement to his duty and the loyalty to England. The only flaw in that sense in the lack of some snobbery, but at least this time around Bond know which dinner jacket use.
    For the moment, SF is my 5th favorite (behind FRWL, CR, OHMSS and TB), which is very good because the three on the top are highly immobile.
    But I have to say that one of the biggest virtues of SF is that it sets the ground for a new standard-formulaic Bond 24: the main characters are already introduced, and Bond is established.
    With this, I can't wait for seeing it another time in the theater, buying the DVD and then watch Bond 24!
  • Posts: 122
    I have to agree with everything bently said
    Bentley wrote:
    Fellow Agents,
    At last we've got the Bond movie we deserve.
    As a Fleming aficionado, I've always preferred the novels and the only four movies that I have had any affection for are Dr.No, FRWL,OHMSS & CR and in truth, I'd pretty much given up hope on anybody making the perfect Bond movie.
    Then, for the 50th anniversary, along comes Sam Mendes with his deftly plotted, superbly acted, perfectly shot, beautifully scored masterpiece and finally we get what we've all been waiting for, the best Bond film of all time!
    He succeeds at every level by achieving the perfect equilibrium between humour, tension, realism, and glamour. Something that is so difficult to achieve and something that, to varying degrees, has defeated all of his predecessors.
    Furthermore, he gave the movie a huge sense of Englishness that made us all proud to be British.
    I loved it to bits and hope like hell that he directs the next one.
    Regards,
    Bentley
    apart from I feel some of the old ones are still the best like Goldfinger but Skyfall Is still up there and i stands alone from the others its different in so many ways that it is brilliant loved it and yes please Mendes do more Bonds

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,119
    'SKYFALL' IS UNIQUE IN ITS OWN WAY

    Back in 2008, shortly after the premiere of ‘The Dark Knight’, I was both thrilled ánd disappointed. Thrilled, because the movie was playing masterfully with the psyche of moviegoers. Heath Ledger’s version of The Joker did do exactly that to me: I was both pleasantly entertained ánd disgusted by The Joker’s twisted games. But I was disappointed because I truly believed that this kind of feeling should have been produced by a Bond-villain. By Gert Waterink (alias Gustav_Graves)

    Memorable bad guy
    It’s exactly this element that the last eight Bond films suffered from: A memorable antagonist. True, ‘Casino Royale’ was an almost perfect Bond film. And Le Chiffre indeed was an Ian Fleming antagonist, being both smart and vulnerable. But within the cinematic life of Bond, we keep referring to the Bond villains that were part of Connery’s triumphant reign of Bond films. If it is Dr. No or Ernst Blofeld as head of SPECTRE or Fransisco Scaramanga and Emilio Largo with their twisted attitude towards Bond-women (mistresses Domino Derval and Andrea Anders and now 'concubine' Sévérine suffering a similar fate), I haven’t seen such a villain during most recent Bond films.

    With Javier Bardem, who portrays cyber terrorist Raoul Silva, the Bond films finally do exactly that what I was hoping for. Perhaps Bond producers, Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson and director Sam Mendes were inspired by British director Christopher Nolan. If there is a weakness of the recent Bond films, then it’s maybe this minor glitch certain Bond-pessimists like to bring about. But with a franchise that is celebrating its 50 year golden jubilee, one should be careful pointing out certain cross-fertilization between movies. Because if there is one franchise that influenced 50 years of blockbuster cinema, then it’s certainly Bond. Christopher Nolan got his inspiration from Bond and franchises like Jack Bauer and Jason Bourne surprisingly enough use Bond’s initials

    Fleming aspects
    Back to ‘Skyfall’. Can this latest Bond thriller stand on its own? Can it entertain us in a Bond-ian, escapist way? And can it also make us think about current day politics? Yes, absolutely. And I dare to say that the late Bond creator, Ian Fleming, would be very happy with this one. Although the Bond producers stressed that this movie is by no means directly based on a Fleming novel, they certainly were heavily inspired by Ian Fleming.

    Skyfall’ starts of like a typical good Bond-flick. Bond needs to recover a stolen hard drive containing detailed information about secret agents from NATO-countries. But as this mission goes terribly wrong, Bond needs to go into ‘rehab’, if he wants to return to Her Majesty’s Secret Service. And indeed, Bond gets the full Shrublands-treatment at the new MI6 headquarters, an element we could have read in Ian Fleming’s novel ‘Thunderball’ and which was repeated in the non-EON movie ‘Never Say Never Again’.

    But it is Bond’s childhood that is one of the central focus points of this Bond film. For the ordinary cinema audience this might be a risky move. And risky it is to dig into Bond’s past, just as it was risky back in 1969 to let Bond marry a girl in ‘On Her Majesty’s Secret Service’. Still, it works for ‘Skyfall’ and it makes the movie unique within the film franchise. Unique for us, but for Ian Fleming this was really a part of his novel ‘You Only Live Twice’. From that novel we know that Bond is the son of a Scottish father, Andrew Bond, of Glencoe, and a Swiss mother, Monique Delacroix, of the Canton de Vaud. And in ‘Skyfall’ it is Albert Finney’s warm portrayal of Kincade that receives Bond at his ancestral home in Scotland.

    Espionage in 2012
    Besides these obvious links, it is really the overall theme of the movie that works: The rising importance of intelligence services in a post-9/11 modern day society. Judi Dench gets the opportunity in this movie to fully use her character ‘M’. During a hearing of the parliamentary committee of intelligence affairs --after Silva’s Wikileaks-like scandal exposes MI6-- ‘M’ explains us why today’s secret agents need to fight more difficult forces, forces that do not necessarily belong to a specific country (Perhaps an idea to re-introduce SPECTRE?). Villains that operate in a grey zone, like Raoul Silva is doing, are the real danger for today’s society. And trust me, spies are still among us in 2012. Perhaps the Cold War is ended, but recent news about China using cyber spies breaking into US websites from the federal government and the Polonium-scandal in the United Kingdom are just a few examples of why we should take espionage a bit more serious.

    Typical Bond
    Besides the grittier realism that has encompassed Craig’s outings as Bond --Craig’s films remind me so much more of the early Connery films-- ‘Skyfall’ is still a worthy escapist, lush, Bond-film. Roger Deakins’ breathtaking wide shots of Turkey, Shanghai, Macau, London and especially Scotland makes ‘Skyfall’ feel like Craig’s biggest Bond of all. As mentioned earlier, we see the welcome return of the biggest Bond villain of our lifetime. And ‘Skyfall’ marks the slow but welcome return of some beloved characters in the Bond universe. Casting the new ‘Q’ could have resulted in a cheesy Desmond-rip-off. Instead actor Ben Whishaw skilfully revitalizes Q-branch. In an original way, he is bringing back some of the beloved Bond humour and he has some great interaction with agent 007. From a music perspective, Adele enhances the atmosphere with perhaps the best Bond themed song since ‘A View To A Kill’. Combined with Kleinman’s eerie main titles we’re being prepared for a great Bond ride.

    Goodbye MI6, welcome back MI6
    On top of that, and I am seriously happy for that, the British Secret Service is slowly getting its feet back on the ground in this 23rd official Bond adventure. Again, the terrific Dame Judi Dench portrays ‘M’. She does so in her own blunt but vulnerable feminine way. But during her reign --during the past four or five Bond films-- MI6 did slowly turn into a rather incompetent, not-so-secret detective agency, baring no resemblance with real-life intelligence services. Therefore I am happy this has been corrected in ‘Skyfall’. Not in a cheesy way off course, but in a memorable way that can only be done in a Bond film.

    I don’t know if ‘Skyfall’ is the best Bond film of the bunch, but it certainly is one of the most unique ones. Like ‘From Russia With Love’, ‘On Her Majesty’s Secret Service’ and ‘Casino Royale’, ‘Skyfall’ not only tickles your eyes, but also your thoughts and emotions. When the end titles of this surprisingly intelligent Bond film start rolling, you know Her Majesty’s Secret Service and its most loyal agent, James Bond 007, are truly back. James Bond will most certainly return.

    Rating: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ □
  • Posts: 11,425
    Just back from seeing the big SF for the first time and was majorly disappointed. It confirmed all my worst fears. What do I know about fear, you may ask? And the answer is, of course, everything.

    Don't have much to say right now, except that the best scene was the final one with M's old office restored at last. At least they got that right. I quite liked Fiennes as well. That bodes well for the future I suppose. But DC, man you are really not growing in my appreciation. Stop running like a Terminator and get yourself a proper Savile Row tailor. Dear oh dear oh dear...

    And Severine... what is she even in it for...? so wierd from start to finish.
  • Posts: 198
    doubleoego wrote:
    You missed Arnold??? I thought Newman did a fantastic job with the score.

    I agree. Now it gets even better after seeing the movie and therefore catching the mood listening the soundtrack!
  • Posts: 11,425
    the score was flat. definitely missed Arnold
  • Are we reading each others reviews actually in this topic?
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Are we reading each others reviews actually in this topic?

    I am!
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,119
    Sandy wrote:
    Are we reading each others reviews actually in this topic?

    I am!

    I read yours. Liked it a lot Sandy. Though I didn't mind Severine being killed off so early. It suited the movie and it especially gave Silva a memorable villainous moment. I mean.....I was...really shocked what they did to Severine. It makes me mourn over her! But I wouldn't have mourned her, if there was a typical 'Happy Bond Ending' in which Severine sighs "Ooowh Jamessss!" That fact alone, that it really tickles my emotions, that makes 'Skyfall' one hell of a Bond film. Magnificent!

    By the way, I loved the political relevance of 'Skyfall' too. Watching a cameo of CNN's Wolf Blitzer ads some extra realism. And because of 'Skyfall' I have been checking out this website a lot: http://wikileaks.org/ ! Especially the 'Spy Files'. And you know what? I liked 'Skyfall' way more than 'The Dark Knight Rises'.
  • Posts: 306
    Getafix wrote:
    Just back from seeing the big SF for the first time and was majorly disappointed. It confirmed all my worst fears. What do I know about fear, you may ask? And the answer is, of course, everything.

    Don't have much to say right now, except that the best scene was the final one with M's old office restored at last. At least they got that right. I quite liked Fiennes as well. That bodes well for the future I suppose. But DC, man you are really not growing in my appreciation. Stop running like a Terminator and get yourself a proper Savile Row tailor. Dear oh dear oh dear...

    And Severine... what is she even in it for...? so wierd from start to finish.

    Same here, friend.

    It's another boring angsty po-faced PRE-Bond movie and I've pretty much given up on them giving us a fun, truly exciting popcorn adventure with the cool hero we used to know. Yes, it moves along and is diverting enough scene to scene, but it still has the same dour quality as all DC's films. And he's still playing it like he thinks it's Hamlet. I actually thought he showed a lighter touch in parts of QOS. The plot is thin, the action is sparse and mundane, and ultimately the entire story felt kind of pointless to me.

    Now he's Bond? Wait...NOW? Tell me when he's Bond again. What personal problem will he overcome in the next 'adventure'? Maybe he'll conquer his dyslexia... Cuz he's not a hero, he's just a flawed man like the rest of us. How exhilarating. Hell, he can't even save Bond Girls anymore, doesn't even try... How many has he killed off now? I need a calculator. For a supposedly more sensitive Bond, he doesn't seem to give a damn about any of them. The last Severine scene was just ugly, absolutely ugly. Not a waste of Scotch, a waste of a talented actress that is sexier than all get-out and could have been a great character. DC has all the charm and warmth of a serial killer. Oh, that's right, he is. As much as I object to the whole idea of it, the ending would have been a great deal more effective if DC was a little more likeable.

    It's a perfectly fine film on it's terms - not spectacular by any means, but fine - but it is by no means a 'classic Bond' that I have any desire to rewatch over and over.

    I thought with no big action set-pieces, it would at least be "smart". Not really...

    It felt cheap and claustrophobic, in just the way some of us predicted.

    I know almost everyone here disagrees and I'm not going to say anymore about it. It's more depressing than anything else. A few of you have told me to let go already and just realize that DC's reign will never be to my liking... I got it now.

    I'm glad this is and will be a hit and that the series goes on and...

    They're just movies after all.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 152
    I haven't seen the movie yet so I will not make any judgement on it right now, but I just watched the first 60 minutes of it that somebody leaked online and so far it kind of feels as how you described it @VeryBond. Obviously it will be a much better experience in the theater, but I really hope it picks up more in the second half and we get a little more action then. I can't wait to see it in IMAX and hopefully the whole movie will work out in the end.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Sandy wrote:
    Are we reading each others reviews actually in this topic?

    I am!

    I read yours. Liked it a lot Sandy. Though I didn't mind Severine being killed off so early. It suited the movie and it especially gave Silva a memorable villainous moment. I mean.....I was...really shocked what they did to Severine. It makes me mourn over her! But I wouldn't have mourned her, if there was a typical 'Happy Bond Ending' in which Severine sighs "Ooowh Jamessss!" That fact alone, that it really tickles my emotions, that makes 'Skyfall' one hell of a Bond film. Magnificent!

    the part is totally underwritten. bizarrely so. frankly i didn't care what happened to her. and she was obviously so scared of Silva she openly invited some guy onto her boat and shagged him in full sight of his immensely scary henchmen. her whole story arc makes about as much sense as as a tin of alphabet spaghetti. seriously. they had four years and mendes bigged it up so much and this was the script and story?

    the whole premise that MI6 is seen as redundant by the political establishment rings untrue. post 9/11, who on earth thinks thinks this?

    frankly, M comes across as incompetent (again), Bond as a dimwitted but loyal guarddog (again) and Silva as a rather sympathetic villain (again). Mendes' undoubtedly steals most of his scenes and is probably the best thing about it, but it's difficult not to feel you're on his side. frankly Bond deserved to burn, with his idiotic plan to lure Silva to a remote and exposed house in the Highlands. i'd have been laughing if had actaullly be intentionally funny, but sadly, despite the much hyped return of humour, it takes itself almost unremiitingly seriously.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Oh dear oh dear Getafix. You never fail to disappoint :))
  • Posts: 6,601
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Oh dear oh dear Getafix. You never fail to disappoint :))

    Actually he didn't. He wrote exactly the review, that we would have expected from him and so did Very Bond and Craigrules. Its like they could have written it way before seeing the film.
    But so what?
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    I am utterly bemused by how any one could think it was a better film than CR, or IMO, QoS.

    I was shocked by how poor it was. I am fully aware of what certain people might 'expect' me to say. Given that I'm one of the biggest defenders of QoS on this site, I think those people could at least give me some credit for being neither a troll nor negative without reason.

    I was genuinely hyped up before going into the cinema and was convinced it was going to be at least an entertaining couple of hours, but I was utterly, utterly underwhelmed. I found the whole feel of the film strangely flat right from the start (Newman's strangely muted score is undoubtedly part of the problem) . As BAIN points out, the CGI'd motorbike chase didn't help. Despite the chase actually having been shot for real it felt at once totally contrived (not necessarily a bad thing) but also simply unexciting and without danger. As has become fairly typical with Craig's action sequences, there is an air of inevitability about him getting his man to the extent that you end up rooting for the other guy. And of course Bond would have got his man if M hadn't idiotically had him shot.

    One good thing at least, Dench is dead and at least we don't have to endure any more of her tedious trust issues. The film ends with her saying that she got one thing right, when of course the whole premise of the film is that she got everything completely and utterly wrong, including her loss of nerve and faith in Bond when it mattered most. SF portrays M as serially incompetent, a betrayor of her agents, mistrustful and lacking in confidence in Bond and utterly uselless in the field of intelligence. her disdain for the committee she has to go before makes her even less sympathetic - as Mallory (a much better character and thank god he is now M!) says, it's her job to be accountable and since she has done such an utterly catastrophic job she fully deserves to be hung out to dry. Her incompetence, arrogance and inability to accept responsibility makes her seem like an extremely dangerous person to have at the head of an intelligence organisation. It would have been a nice touch if Mallory had just replaced her right at the start.

    She says she had no choice but order Bond shot or she'd risk losing the disk, when of course, if she remotely trust Bond (which after three films she still doesn't) then she'd have seen him as her best chance of getting it back. Since they had put practically the entire PTS in the trailer I obviously knew what was going to happen any way, so I was not surprised, but despite this I was disappointed to see M's lack of faith in Bond being a central part of the story... again.

    It's not that I expect my Bond films to make sense (most of them don't), but when you make your story so pretentious and supposedly 'serious' and yet completely and utterly unbelievable, you invite people to question it.

    The Xan Brooks review in the Guardian makes a whole lot more sense to me now after seeing the film. I feel he is the only reviewer who has dared to speak the truth about this film.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Oh dear oh dear Getafix. You never fail to disappoint :))

    I am utterly bemused by how any one could think it was a better film than CR, or IMO, QoS.

    I was shocked by how poor it was. The audience In the cinema that I saw it in barely reacted to any of the supposed humour.

    I got a lot of laughs the screenings I attended (and I've seen it twice)
  • Posts: 306
    Germanlady wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Oh dear oh dear Getafix. You never fail to disappoint :))

    Actually he didn't. He wrote exactly the review, that we would have expected from him and so did Very Bond and Craigrules. Its like they could have written it way before seeing the film.
    But so what?

    And you continue to arrogantly write off anyone who disagrees with you. What's new?

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 6,601
    Best not engage him any further into discussion, as this is how he defines himself. Through his negativity, he gets the attention. He will fload every possible thread anyway...already started.

    Big surprise - I am not afraid of a negative review, but always hearing the same people complain is getting boring.

    For them its not enough to voice their opinion once, no, once they start, they are all over this place.
  • Posts: 306
    Germanlady wrote:
    Best not engage him any further into discussion, as this is how he defines himself. Through his negativity, he gets the attention. He will fload every possible thread anyway...already started.

    Big surprise - I am not afraid of a negative review, but always hearing the same people complain is getting boring.

    No no...you're the negative one here, GL. Always attacking other people. And yeah, it gets really old. You seem to think you run this place.

  • Posts: 6,601
    Thanks, the mods will be happy to hear this ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.