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
Skyfall.
Having had to endure what seemed like an eternity in waiting for the film to be released here in Australia, I finally got to see the film thursday after work.
Luckily I went in knowing few of the true spoilers, but a few were known to me ahead of time.
First off I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed it, placing it in the same bracket as Casino Royale. A great improvement on the disappointing Quantum Of Solace.
Daniel Craig delivers an equally wonderful performance as Bond as he did with his debut, and it's small wonder that the cash registers are jingling across the globe.
With the four years since the last film, EON has put together a great film, and used the time wisely. Gathering the best people available to the task.
First off, Sam Mendes. Now I've read differing reports on how he has done. Some seem to think he's not suitable for Bond, others say he's done a fine job. I'm one of the latter, who believes, he really understands Bond...but maybe not the Bond of old. Too me, he perfectly understands Craigs Bond, and the Bond created by Fleming, with doses of the old Bond from Connery and Moore thrown in to keep as many people happy as possible.
I would be more than happy to see his return for a future installment.
Roger Deakins is a fine cinematographer and his film looks classy and beautifully shot. He gives all the locations a great look and is a fine addition to the Bond family.
I found the location work to be used fairly well, though it's been done better. The opening in Istanbul is well handled, and the pts, being one of the longest is exciting and tense.
Shanghai is one of the locales that is probably underused, but only because it doesn't get alot of screentime for the audience to appreciate it.
For once though, London does take centre stage, and it's on the whole well used. With some imaginative set pieces. Speaking of which, I have read differing viewpoints regarding the action, though it seems alot of fans found there to be little in the way of action.
The pts, which is nothing new, but still very nicely handled, Bonds ride on the lift (or should I call it an elevator) and the fight with Patrice, the fight in the casino, and the disarming of Silvas men on the island. Silvas escape and Bonds chase through the London underground and into M's hearing is one long action sequence and something that we've not seen before. I really enjoyed this part of the movie, and it was well handled by all. Finally the attack on Skyfall, and the finale are more downbeat than I would've hoped, but still a satisfactory conclusion to the film. The final scene in M's office, where Bond is sent back to work is a cheer worthy moment.
Another element that really stood out for me in this film was the casting. It seems even the smallest role has been meticulous cast. Daniel Craig and Judi Dench are joined by the likes of Ralph Fiennes, Albert Finney and Javier Bardem. But also Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Bérénice Marlohe , Helen McCorry and Rory Kinnear. All the characters work, and actually have something to do, the story and script have imo been fleshed out, and although there are plotholes and questions to be asked (There always are in a Bond film), they are not apparent immediately, and don't hurt the film.
Javier Bardem I found to be a great villain, with an entrance that Bond villains haven't had in a long, longtime. He's evil, yet charming, ruthless, yet you feel sympathy toward him. Over the top, yet in control. I loved him, and Bardem is well cast, but also a fine actor.
Judi Dench gives her best performance as M, and although she has had large roles in previous Bond films, her part in Skyfall was welcomed. Something I cannot say for her part in TWINE. As I have read in other reviews, Harris and Marlohe may be the eye candy, but the Bond girl in Skyfall is surely Dench. Another great role, and Dame Judi makes it look easy. A true pro of the industry. I must say I found the roles of Eve (Naomie Harris) and Severine (Bernice Marlohe) to be slighly underused, but given the story it's not a bad thing. Harris is fine as Eve, and the reveal at the end is a nice touch. (Though many here had guessed the role she would play even after the initial press conference last year)
Rory Kinnear is given more to do as Tanner, and he's more relaxed in this, than he was in QOS four years ago. The role was more akin to the Bond and Tanner relationship of the books. Yet another plus for me.
When I learned that there was to be a new Q in Skyfall, I must admit I thought it impossible to replace Desmond Llewellyn. How could you?
But Ben Whishaw has succeeded in giving us a new take on a beloved character. I again really enjoyed his role.
Ralph Fiennes starts off as a stuffy bureaucrat, who at first their first meeting seems to oppose Bond, but we the audience never turn against him. And then we see him to be a great ally and a natural successor come the end of the film.
Then finally in the acting department we come to the role of James Bond. After three films, Daniel Craig still has lots to give OO7. He's such a good actor, that little nuances are all that are needed at times, and yet we the audience knows what he means.
The hiding in the shadows (a theme that is used throughout the film) in M's house is a case in point. A washed up and out of shape Bond, returns from the dead. Craig is wonderful in this scene, half drunk and on the brink of self destruction. And he knows it.
The return to duty and the moments during his time at Mi6 where he struggles are not new, but the are better played than they have been before. This was something that Pierce Brosnan and Lee Tamahori tried in DAD, and even before in TWINE, but didn't quite get right. Here they appear too.
The part of Bond is clearly Craigs, and he appears to enjoy playing Bond. I find him to be comfortable in the role, and there is more humour than has been show in the two previous Craig outings. With this third film the shoes fit perfectly.
If I had any gripes, it would be with the score by Thomas Newman. Newman is a fine composer and whilst it's not terrible, I wanted more. And please, please, please put the gun barrel back at the begining next time!
On the whole then I think you could say I really enjoyed Skyfall. With a great cast, good story and direction an enjoyable romp. Bond is set for a hard act to follow in outing 24.
Welcome back OO7...it's good to see you again.
That was also how I saw it.
And you @Benny. Top read.
Great post and I definetly agree with you. SF felt sort of like a reboot but it has lots of the stuff missing in CR. I do like CR but SF feels more Bond.
Totally disagree. Skyfall was a movie that was so far removed from the Bond formula it felt like you were watching any other action movie
Bravo!
In SF Bond is no more different than any other action film character these days: Flawed, self-pitying who eventually hits rock bottom and then ressurects to save the day. No wait, Bond didn't even do that in SF. He got his boss killed by dragging her to Scotland without backup.
Bond has literally never been so much off target, like he was in SF. I respect 100% that some think that this is a good thing, but I don't.
I thought that Craig nailed the Fleming character more in SF than he did in CR, but both films are the closest to Fleming's character since Dalton's LTK.
I agree. But CR was the first reboot, where it would make more sense for Bond no to be like the Fleming character.
SF is the third reboot, and I don't really care for Fleming's Bond. I want A. Broccoli's Bond ;-)
Btw, if Fleming knew that a Bond-script would include hints of Bond as a sexual experimenter, a script that would make Bond drink dutch beer and a script that would make M the key figure of the story, he would probably be turning in his grave ;-)
There are many influences of TMWTGG in SF, the homosexual undertone being just one of them.
As for Fleming Bond or Broccoli Bond? Fleming Bond by a clear mile.
Personally, I'm almost getting fed up with all this "Fleming this" and "Fleming that."
Yes, he created the character, but get 100 so-called "Bond fans" in a room, and how many do you think have read any of the more than 50 year old novels?
Broccoli (and Saltzman) made the brand "James Bond." So I humbly ask: Is Craig's flawed Bond close to the character they envisioned? Or isn't he? Here's a defintion from NicNac that pretty much sums it up:
Looks like Fleming was ahead of his time.
What a disappointing comment. I actively encourage anyone I meet to read the novels. They are works of sheer brilliance.
Most people that like Craig probably haven't even touched a Fleming book. It's because Craig has a rawness that we haven't seen in the screen Bond for a LONG while.
Fleming can't have been ahead of his time. The books were very popular as they came out. People liked his work back then. The thing is the literary Bond has been eclipsed by the film Bond in the years since they were written. More people love and admire Sean Connery than they do Timothy Dalton.
Not in terms of bums on seats TB still wins
And yet Craig's `Fleming Bond' is proving more popular than the `Cubby Bond' of gadgets, safari suits, OTT unrealism, double-taking pigeons and cheesy one-liners.
Also, Cubby himself always tried to go back to the novels if he ever came unstuck with the series. This was never moreso apparent than FYEO after MR, and the hiring of Dalton and the change in direction from AVTAK to TLD.
Truly a genius!!
But I was around in 1977, 1979 and 1981. And I remember what kind of an event a Bond premiere was. I remember the merchandise, fans going crazy, the many reruns at my local theatre. I also remember fans not caring about what the critics in the newspapers said. A shot of a double-taking pigeon that lasted two seconds? Who cared, besides nitpickers.
Now, it's all about pleasing the critics, it seems.
But I respect that you don't like gadgets and "unrealism". For me, that's what defines the Bond-movies. If I want realism and down-to-earth I'd pop in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy!
I respect that you like the Bond films for gadgets and unrealism - there are plenty of Bond films in this style, and plenty of fans who like them, so you are not in a minority.
It's what has made the franchise so special and unique. It caters for a wide variety of tastes.
As for Tinker Tailor - I HATED that movie!! ;)
They weren't Tinker Taylor.
UNLIKE a lot of the films though they didn't descend into parody and cartoons. Even one of the more OTT novels MR ends on a rather down-to-earth note.
Exactly!
I want the "indestructible creature" NicNac is referring to back. A James Bond that is special. Who can make an impact and save the world if the job demands it of him.
I actually saw part of him in both CR and QoS. SF was a step back, IMO!
It could all change again in a few years.
Its about making a balance I think. Craig for instance has a certain "action hero" quality about him. He can leap off cranes, smash through walls, survive being shot and yet gets hurt when people around him suffer. There were SOME moments like that in Brosnan's era but those films often put action first and story second. Craig's films (CR and SF in particular) do it the other way round.