SKYFALL: FANS' REACTIONS - GUARANTEED SPOILERS

1363739414299

Comments

  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,129
    Well it's that time for me to post my thoughts on the 23rd official Bond film....
    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.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Nice review @Benny.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Great read @Benny, glad you also liked it.
    dragonsky wrote:
    Just one thing that's been bugging me.

    If Silva had planned the whole thing about being captured etc. how did he know JB was going to get him at that precise time so he could sort M out at the hearing. Remember he had to have uniforms etc to sort out. How did he know?

    I like to think that he didn't know.
    He had a plan. "Sooner or later they'll capture me.They'll get my computer.They'll mess around with it which means that I will release my self few hours after they capture me.Your job is to find me near MI6 few hours after they capture me.You'll tell me where M is and then I'll find her and kill her" Said Silva to his henchmen.


    Or so I want to believe.

    That was also how I saw it.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Benny wrote:
    Welcome back OO7...it's good to see you again.

    And you @Benny. Top read.
  • In many ways Skyfall is the movie that Casino Royale, the purported franchise reboot, should have been. With his film Mendes not only resurrects 007, but makes the character’s defining trademarks make more sense in a modern world. It’s important that James Bond always remains James Bond, but it must also be recognized that Dr. No is a much different kind of action film than the ones being made today – and there’s nothing wrong with that. All characters need to grow and change, and the ultimate British superspy is no exception.
  • In many ways Skyfall is the movie that Casino Royale, the purported franchise reboot, should have been. With his film Mendes not only resurrects 007, but makes the character’s defining trademarks make more sense in a modern world. It’s important that James Bond always remains James Bond, but it must also be recognized that Dr. No is a much different kind of action film than the ones being made today – and there’s nothing wrong with that. All characters need to grow and change, and the ultimate British superspy is no exception.

    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.
  • 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
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    In many ways Skyfall is the movie that Casino Royale, the purported franchise reboot, should have been. With his film Mendes not only resurrects 007, but makes the character’s defining trademarks make more sense in a modern world. It’s important that James Bond always remains James Bond, but it must also be recognized that Dr. No is a much different kind of action film than the ones being made today – and there’s nothing wrong with that. All characters need to grow and change, and the ultimate British superspy is no exception.
    CR was what more of Skyfall should have been.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    In many ways Skyfall is the movie that Casino Royale, the purported franchise reboot, should have been. With his film Mendes not only resurrects 007, but makes the character’s defining trademarks make more sense in a modern world. It’s important that James Bond always remains James Bond, but it must also be recognized that Dr. No is a much different kind of action film than the ones being made today – and there’s nothing wrong with that. All characters need to grow and change, and the ultimate British superspy is no exception.

    Bravo!
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    Incisor wrote:
    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
    I agree 100%. Hence the JB theme was only played as a wink.

    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.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Zekidk wrote:
    Incisor wrote:
    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
    I agree 100%. Hence the JB was only played as a wink.

    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.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    @Jetsetwilly

    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 ;-)
  • Posts: 3,327
    Zekidk wrote:
    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 ;-)
    Not really. M was always a piviotal figure throughout all the novels. Bond does drink beer in the books, his favourite is Millers High Life, and Fleming did experiment with homosexuality, particularly in his last novel TMWTGG. There is an interesting article on it here - http://commanderbond.net/1110/sex-and-the-single-agent-the-man-with-the-golden-gun.html

    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.

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    As for Fleming Bond or Broccoli Bond? Fleming Bond by a clear mile.
    I respect that.

    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:
    NicNac wrote:
    the reason everyone fell in love with the films in the first place was because Bond became this indestructible creature who could run, jump, shoot, ski, surf, drive, fly and parachute better than anyone else. He is a funny, charming womaniser who knows everything about sherry, caviar, exotic fish and butterflies.
    There is nothing Bond can't pilot, sail or drive when need be and that's why we love him, because he is so ridiculously clever and adaptable.
    I want my Bond to be that bit more amazing than any other man, it's why I watched them in the first place.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Like it or not most people don't care about the books. That's pretty much a fact in this day and age.
  • Posts: 3,327
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Like it or not most people don't care about the books. That's pretty much a fact in this day and age.
    True, and yet Craig's reign overall is the closest we have seen yet to the books, and his films are proving immensley popular, moreso than Cubby's Bond.

    Looks like Fleming was ahead of his time.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Like it or not most people don't care about the books. That's pretty much a fact in this day and age.

    What a disappointing comment. I actively encourage anyone I meet to read the novels. They are works of sheer brilliance.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Like it or not most people don't care about the books. That's pretty much a fact in this day and age.
    True, and yet Craig's reign overall is the closest we have seen yet to the books, and his films are proving immensley popular, moreso than Cubby's Bond.

    Looks like Fleming was ahead of his time.

    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.
  • BAIN123 wrote:
    Like it or not most people don't care about the books. That's pretty much a fact in this day and age.
    True, and yet Craig's reign overall is the closest we have seen yet to the books, and his films are proving immensley popular, moreso than Cubby's Bond.

    Looks like Fleming was ahead of his time.

    Not in terms of bums on seats TB still wins
  • Posts: 3,327
    Zekidk wrote:
    As for Fleming Bond or Broccoli Bond? Fleming Bond by a clear mile.
    I respect that.

    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?
    No he is not. He is closer to the literary character.

    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.




  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,327
    BAIN123 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Like it or not most people don't care about the books. That's pretty much a fact in this day and age.
    True, and yet Craig's reign overall is the closest we have seen yet to the books, and his films are proving immensley popular, moreso than Cubby's Bond.

    Looks like Fleming was ahead of his time.

    Most people that like Craig probably haven't even touched a Fleming book.
    Yes, I think you are right. Like I said, Fleming was ahead of his time. I think the guy was a genius to write a series of novels that have managed to prolong a 50 year film franchise. I bet in his wildest dreams he would never have imagined such a feat, and to think the series 50 years later has become just as close to his orginal material as it was when he was still alive, and proving more popular than ever.

    Truly a genius!!

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Like it or not most people don't care about the books. That's pretty much a fact in this day and age.
    True, and yet Craig's reign overall is the closest we have seen yet to the books, and his films are proving immensley popular, moreso than Cubby's Bond.
    You know what? I wasn't around in '63 when Goldfinger premiered. But I've heard stories.
    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!
  • Posts: 3,327
    Zekidk wrote:
    You know what? I wasn't around in '63 when Goldfinger premiered. But I've heard stories.
    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.

    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 wasn't around in 1963 either, but I grew up on the novels. I didn't care much for the Moore films but loved it when Dalton came on the scene.....then hated it when he left.

    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!! ;)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Fleming novels and Moore films are not mutually exclusive. I love them both for their merits. Never understood why people are so black and White about things.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I think the thing about the Fleming novels was that, while they were relitively serious, they had a charm about them...a joi de vivre you couldn't get from other spy novels of the period. The locations, the rather over-the-top plots and the flamboyant characters all had their genisis in the books.

    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.
  • Posts: 3,327
    RC7 wrote:
    Fleming novels and Moore films are not mutually exclusive. I love them both for their merits. Never understood why people are so black and White about things.
    Not all Moore films are bad. I really like LALD and TMWTGG, and there are parts of MR that I really like too, if I can overlook the sillier moments in that movie. The centrifuge scene is superb, and to me that was Moore's crowning moment in portraying the Fleming Bond. It is the one scene I could have imagined Fleming writing (and yes, I know it does have a gadget that saves him).

  • Posts: 3,327
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I think the thing about the Fleming novels was that, while they were relitively serious, they had a charm about them...a joi de vivre you couldn't get from other spy novels of the period. The locations, the rather over-the-top plots and the flamboyant characters all had their genisis in the books.

    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!

  • Posts: 3,274
    But I don't really care about either the cold-war novels of Fleming or the flawed and "human" James Bond that so many seem to like.

    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!
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,327
    Zekidk wrote:
    But I don't really care about either the cold-war novels of Fleming or the flawed and "human" James Bond that so many seem to like.

    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!
    You never know. Movie audience taste change over time. Maybe in a few years people will want more of the outlandish Bond again. Dalton's realistic human Bond wasn't popular back in 1989, yet audience tastes have changed, and now prefer this style of Bond for the present moment.

    It could all change again in a few years.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Zekidk wrote:
    But I don't really care about either the cold-war novels of Fleming or the flawed and "human" James Bond that so many seem to like.

    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!

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.