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
I agree with you on this statement. O:-)
Well, as Sam Mendes eplained, to start with the gunbarrel didn't work at all, cause the first shot of Bond in SF is him walking down a corridor towards the camera. So you would have had two walks by Bond right after each other (if the gunbarrel would start the movie).
The gunbarrel was meant to be at the start of the movie, but that just didn't workout.
I think the lack of a gun barrel scene at the start is consciously or subsconsciously a metaphor for the demise of the 'original' James Bond franchise. Oh sure, the box office receipts for Skyfall will guarantee James Bond will return.., but it's sort of lost its way. The problem I had with Skyfall is the increased character development of M has made James Bond's world more mundane, less glamourous. Craig's Bond doesn't inhabit Sean Connery's Bond world or George Lazenby's Bond world or Roger Moore's or even Timothy Dalton's or much of Pierce Brosnan's.
The film lacks the over-the-top panaches of the best James Bond films. Now that we've seen Craig's Bond entering the old style Universal Exports, saying hi to Eve Moneypenny (kind of a silly idea - she just happens to have the same surname as the original Moneypenny lol) and we get to see Bond inside M's office and getting a new mission.. perhaps Bond 24 might hark back to the original concept of the James Bond franchise. Then again we've had three Craig Bond films tying to reinvent the Bond wheel so who knows, perhaps Bond 24 will be more of the same 'character development' and pseudo-realism at the expense of real spectacle and aspirational escapism.
One other aspect of the Craig films - the ends seem a bit low key. It would be nice to see some outrageous stunt at the end of the film rather than the usual Craig diving away from flames. Seems like Barbara Broccoli and the writers are obsessed with Craig running away from something on fire. The end of Skyfall was quite good but it would be nice to see something on a larger scale.
I'm sure if Clive Owen has seen Skyfall he probably thinks "nah, I didn't miss much by not becoming the next James Bond after Pierce Brosnan." I'm sure he would love the cash that goes along with playing 007 but I doubt he's actually missed playing the part because I can't see where the franchise is going other than being a drab 'character-driven' reboot of the original concept.
Skyfall is 7 out of 10 as an action film
but
5 out of 10 as a James Bond film.
Perhaps the one billion box office gross will convince Barbara and Michael to make a Thunderball/OHMSS/The Spy Who Loved me type Craig Bond film for 2014? Seems unlikely because it's not where the franchise is at but one can have a vain hope we might get to see something resembling the old franchise. Personally speaking, if we're never get to see an outrageous Bond film again I wouldn't miss it if James Bond would retire and the franchise given a graceful end. There's only so many times James Bond should return (accepting the fact the franchise keeps making money).
Some brief thoughts about the plot.
I thought the plot didn't make much sense. When Silva escapes his glass cage and goes nutty on the railway network we're told it was all a plan so he can infect MI6's computer network. If the whole thing was a great masterplan how come he didn't capture M at the inquiry meeting? He goes in there with his men, they all get shot and he runs away. All that planning just so he runs away? Made little sense.
And they take M to some old house with no weapons? Didn't Bond know Skyfall had no weapons? "Hey, M, I'll take you to some old house and hope I find some weapons!"
Bit silly. You would think he would have contacted Q and asked for some weapons. I'm sure the new Q has the latest in weapons and 'tracking the enemy' stuff! It doesn't seem particularly Bond-like or 00 agent-like to go to a place with zero weapons, zero back-up. I know they wanted to lure Silva to their location but the location didn't seem well-protected.
Craig seems to have lost his ruthless agression that was apparent in his previous two appearances, and there was more humor than seen before with the actor concerned, and the plot was indeed muddled and at times incoherent. The 'home alone' angle at Skyfall near the end, didn't really offer much and there was simply too many absurdities this viewer found. It's a decent release for the half century celebrations, but not the 'best Bond release ever' that some may have envisaged before time of release. Not even in the top 3 for me of all the releases now
Kleinman gave his best work yet for title designs, and however I feel personally about the choice of singer or theme artist for this years release, it was quite a good and catchy tune, and one of the better ones in recent years. I saw it three times, just to take everything in, and think all said, it was money well spent
Irrespective of the incredible (perhaps inexplicable!) box office for Bond 23, Skyfall, I do, hand on heart, believe the franchise can never deliver one more truly iconic James Bond film. Perhaps Casino Royale was the last great plotline in the franchise because it was based on Ian Fleming's work. I'm not a huge Craig as Bond fan but I thought the plot of 2006's Casino Royale was a classic but that was down to the source material, not the modern day screenwriters adapting it. If Ian Fleming could be brought back to life (!) I think we would get a truly classic plot in a future Bond film but Mr Fleming is no longer with us. I'm sure the late Richard Maibaum would also deliver something interesting for a Craig Bond film.
Recently I was getting really into the Bond films again for the first time really since the late 90s, and rewatched Casino Royale (which I adore) followed by watching Quantum of Solace for the first time (which I adore). I also watched Goldfinger through for the first time (also a very good film).
GoldenEye I also think is outstanding, although my opinion of the later Brosnan films is not quite as high.
However, with Skyfall... I am unsure where to start in expressing how much this film disappointed me. I found it morbid, dull and predictable, chucking in easy clichés in the hope of impressing the audience.
Gone are the colourful, exotic locations of Quantum of Solace, the captivating storyline and believable yet charismatic villain of Casino Royale or the piled-on style of GoldenEye, and in its place is a movie venture that looks tired, diluted and cheap.
Very rarely were moments I enjoyed. A few stand-out lines are pleasing such as M's "Take the bloody shot!", and the initial action scene leading up to the suitably morbid introduction. The grotesque appearance of the villain was a quick bit of easy fun (as is most of the film), but is once again tired and predictable, made as an easy shock as opposed to anything with the class of Le Chiffre or Greene.
What else erm... I guess that's about it. I understand that the budget got cut but my goodness it must have been pretty severe to explain this. Towards the end I felt like I was watching a Home Alone film, not a Bond movie.
I honestly struggle to think of more strengths, outside of the fantastic action sequence before the title song, which felt like a welcome echo of Quantum of Solace. The new Q was nice enough, although after furnishing Bond with all of a gun and a radio you wonder why they even bothered.
Overall, simply pointless and tired. I look forward to the series' next reboot, may it be a little brighter than this!!!
My rating would be around 4/10 whereas I would give Casino and Quantum 10 and 8.5 respectively.
I have actually cancelled my pre-order of Skyfall and instead purchased GoldenEye and Dr. No!
Agreed, thank you :)
Felt like a cheap parody, not a Bond movie.
Just snipped a bit so as to make it easier to see the points I'm responding to...
As for Moneypenny, of course she'll have the same last name as Moneypenny because she's playing...Moneypenny! Do you find it odd that Craig's James Bond has the last same name as the "old" James Bond? Or that Q is still called Q? I don't understand the point you were trying to make here.
As for their being no weapons at Skyfall it's clearly stated in the film that there was a room full of guns there (referred to in the film as...wait for it...the "gun room"!) but unbeknownst to Bond they had been sold off after his "death". So from the character's point of view he was going to a place full of weapons.
Again, 100% agree.
It's sad to me because Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace made the series feel SO vibrant and alive to me. I guess that's what pulled me back into it. The energy coming from those films is at least to me so strong you can really feel it. However it's like when that bullet hit Bond on the train, all of that energy and life died with it.
From such a position of life back in 2006-2008 (despite the relatively small wobbles in opinion regarding Quantum of Solace), it's sad to see us at a point where probably a significant number of people wouldn't mind seeing it ending if it continues like this.
I have a friend who is only 16, and he said "It was the perfect end to a great series" and I had to actually explain to him that it wasn't the last Bond and he was like "Erm.. where can they go from here?"
Insane that you can change things so much in only one movie.
I couldn't possibly agree more.
Isn't it a pretty depressing new beginning though?
I'm all for reinventing series, but this feels like a shadow of what it was before.
Also, I do wish they'd stop rebooting it!! Once was more than enough lol
Depressing? No!
Seriously... "where can they go from here?" :-O They can go pretty much anywhere they like "from here". If there are people who wouldn't mind the series end, there are also many who now care more than they ever did - people who are now even bigger fans than they were before as well as brand new fans.
Skyfall is still part of the CR reboot. It finished introducing all the characters in the 'Bond universe'.. no new reboot, just perhaps a slight shift in tone?
Perhaps it wouldn't have been quite so bad if there were more foreign locations like in QoS.
I also found myself during the firearms exam and that going "How come Bond sucks?" lol
They built Daniel Craig up as so bad-ass so it seemed like a shot in the foot to sabotage that o.O
hehe sorry, I only got back into Bond recently :)
Mate, he was shot in the shoulder twice, fell off a train going 50 miles per hour, and collided with the water, drifting uncontrollably for who knows how long. That's going to wreck you and throw off your aim, especially when you have been in a pill and drink addled mess for weeks on end like Bond is when he is recovering.
As you will see in the shooting range scene, as he is shooting and missing he tugs on his shoulder from the pain as well as because he knows it is what is throwing his aim off.
After the scene he cuts out the bullet shrapnel and gives it to forensics to look at. After it is out of his shoulder his aim is obviously back.
That's not self-sabotage by EON and Mendes, that's clever filmmaking.
What debate, exactly?
well said.
Sadly too many see Bond as a superhero i.e Superman that he recover and be as sharpe as he was after been shot twice. It's great acting and storytelling and actually makes Bond a human hero who struggles back and makes the ending even more special.
Ie, is SF a work of earth shattering genius or just overhyped and a bit dull?
Or perhaps something right around the middle? No need to polarize anything (not saying you specifically are)
Nah you're dull and Skyfall is a work of genuis and best Bond film since Casino royale which was the best Bond film since OHMSS.
Please. Please. @Getafix don't respond to him. Leave him and his ignorance be.
I guess it's virtually impossible to film huge action scene in London's Underground. The authorities would never permit it so the film makers had to scale down the action. An empty train crashing - one that clearly looked CGI enhanced - wasn't quite as thrilling as it might have seen written in the screenplay. In hindsight I think a gas attack on the London Underground might have been more exciting. Bond has to stop Silva before he releases the gas onto a main station! Heck, even a big fight inside a tube carriage might have upped the drama stakes. That could have been shot on a set with a 'built to scale' series of carriages. That way you avoid shooting the scene in a real station.
Well, it really is for those that like the thematic material and true Bond pride the film has. You may not like all that, but the themes of morality, Hero/Villain doppelganger dichotomy, loyalty vs. betrayal, old v.s. new, rising and falling and of course the masterpiece Tennyson scene (the hallmark of the film and series as a whole) and so much more are very clever and brilliant aspects of this film that make most before it that take the lazy "Bond is a superhero" approach seem amateur in comparison, and they are given a severe gut punch. Skyfall, now more than ever (as well as OHMSS, TLD, LTK, CR and QoS in the past) have proven that Bond films can not only be pleasing in the avenues of action and adventure, but can in addition have the deep drama found in enduring film classics of the past and present. THIS Bond is the one I want to see, not some jokey fool that is about as deep and dimensional as a circle drawn on a piece of paper. For this and more, I turn to Sean, Tim and Dan when I want Bond done right.