362 replies to this topic

[Guy Haines]

My view on Skyfall was that it was very well directed by Mendes.  I think he is great.  The allusions to previous Bond movies (the DB5, leather door at M's office, etc.) were very well done.  Only 3 things in the movie really disappointed me.

 

1) Daniel Craig-  To each his own, but to me, he just doesn't have "it."  It's hard to explain, but he is just too intense for Bond.  He also doesn't look the part.  He is not suave or debonair, too much of a bruiser.  He always has such a fiery, intense look in his eyes.  He's not laid back enough.  All in all- he is too unrefined.

 

2) M- Using Judi Dench as M has always felt to me to be a very weak accession to feminists.  Great actress, bad fit as M.  In this movie specifically, she comes across and indecisive and weak.  The old M, Bernard Lee, never showed any of these characteristics.  GE is the only movie in which I appreciated Judi Dench in her role as M.  I loved the tension between her and Brosnan in their first interaction.  Glad she is gone.

 

As an aside, I love the new M.  Can't wait to see him in the future.

 

3) Javier Bardem- Unbelievable performance in No Country for Old Men.  Lackluster performance in Skyfall.  Just another bad fit.  I can't really explain it in any other way than he did not fit the character they were trying to develop.  His entrance to the film and the following dialogue was emblematic of him being a poor fit.  It just seemed a bit awkward and unconvincing. Not to mention they already did the traitorous ex-agent angle with 006 in GE (in my opinion, very well done).

 

I consider it a shame the film had the aforementioned shortcomings.  Apart from those things, I thought it was fantastic.  Brosnan is probably my 4th favorite Bond, but if you could take the Pierce of 15 years ago and put him in this movie, it would have been worlds better.  

An interesting view of Skyfall - a great movie except for the three elements at the heart of it?

 

Craig's Bond - he doesn't look "tall, dark and handsome" in SF, but all through his era he's produced a Bond at once layered, hard edged and not afraid to break convention. If you are looking for the cliched "shaken, not stirred, Mr Tuxedo" Bond, he isn't it, but he's much more interesting as a result, imho.

 

Judi Dench's M - I don't think her appointment was a sop to feminism - simply an excellent actor being cast in an iconic role. Her M never struck me as being weak at any stage in the Brosnan and Craig eras. Her attitude to her agents was "treat 'em mean and keep 'em keen", creating the conditions for;

 

Javier Bardem's "Silva"/Rodriguez - Other than feeling betrayed and turning traitor, Silva and GE's 006 are not the same. Trevelyan had, one assumes, a long term "at the back of his mind" plan for revenge on the UK, much like Sir Hugo Drax in the novel Moonraker. He wanted revenge for his family and his people. Silva is much more complex. He was a loyal agent until M used him as a pawn during the Hong Kong negotiations. He stayed loyal while he was being tortured until the penny dropped and he realised who had betrayed him. He even did the "decent thing" once he knew what had happened, and tried to kill himself. Maybe that attempt was what pushed him over the edge -it's hinted at - and turned him into the deranged character of the film. That and the other thing broadly hinted at - an unsettling fixation with M as a love/hate "mother figure". Trevelyan was just villainous, although with some justification. Silva was insane, a man with a death wish, and M had a hand in sending him that way. I didn't find Bardem's villain poor and unconvincing at all - but at the same time he wasn't the clichéd bad guy seeking to blackmail or dominate the world. That said, I wouldn't mind a revert to type in Craig's next movie. And I too am looking forward to Ralph Fiennes' take on M.

[Universal Exports]

 

My view on Skyfall was that it was very well directed by Mendes.  I think he is great.  The allusions to previous Bond movies (the DB5, leather door at M's office, etc.) were very well done.  Only 3 things in the movie really disappointed me.

 

1) Daniel Craig-  To each his own, but to me, he just doesn't have "it."  It's hard to explain, but he is just too intense for Bond.  He also doesn't look the part.  He is not suave or debonair, too much of a bruiser.  He always has such a fiery, intense look in his eyes.  He's not laid back enough.  All in all- he is too unrefined.

 

2) M- Using Judi Dench as M has always felt to me to be a very weak accession to feminists.  Great actress, bad fit as M.  In this movie specifically, she comes across and indecisive and weak.  The old M, Bernard Lee, never showed any of these characteristics.  GE is the only movie in which I appreciated Judi Dench in her role as M.  I loved the tension between her and Brosnan in their first interaction.  Glad she is gone.

 

As an aside, I love the new M.  Can't wait to see him in the future.

 

3) Javier Bardem- Unbelievable performance in No Country for Old Men.  Lackluster performance in Skyfall.  Just another bad fit.  I can't really explain it in any other way than he did not fit the character they were trying to develop.  His entrance to the film and the following dialogue was emblematic of him being a poor fit.  It just seemed a bit awkward and unconvincing. Not to mention they already did the traitorous ex-agent angle with 006 in GE (in my opinion, very well done).

 

I consider it a shame the film had the aforementioned shortcomings.  Apart from those things, I thought it was fantastic.  Brosnan is probably my 4th favorite Bond, but if you could take the Pierce of 15 years ago and put him in this movie, it would have been worlds better.  

An interesting view of Skyfall - a great movie except for the three elements at the heart of it?

 

Craig's Bond - he doesn't look "tall, dark and handsome" in SF, but all through his era he's produced a Bond at once layered, hard edged and not afraid to break convention. If you are looking for the cliched "shaken, not stirred, Mr Tuxedo" Bond, he isn't it, but he's much more interesting as a result, imho.

 

Judi Dench's M - I don't think her appointment was a sop to feminism - simply an excellent actor being cast in an iconic role. Her M never struck me as being weak at any stage in the Brosnan and Craig eras. Her attitude to her agents was "treat 'em mean and keep 'em keen", creating the conditions for;

 

Javier Bardem's "Silva"/Rodriguez - Other than feeling betrayed and turning traitor, Silva and GE's 006 are not the same. Trevelyan had, one assumes, a long term "at the back of his mind" plan for revenge on the UK, much like Sir Hugo Drax in the novel Moonraker. He wanted revenge for his family and his people. Silva is much more complex. He was a loyal agent until M used him as a pawn during the Hong Kong negotiations. He stayed loyal while he was being tortured until the penny dropped and he realised who had betrayed him. He even did the "decent thing" once he knew what had happened, and tried to kill himself. Maybe that attempt was what pushed him over the edge -it's hinted at - and turned him into the deranged character of the film. That and the other thing broadly hinted at - an unsettling fixation with M as a love/hate "mother figure". Trevelyan was just villainous, although with some justification. Silva was insane, a man with a death wish, and M had a hand in sending him that way. I didn't find Bardem's villain poor and unconvincing at all - but at the same time he wasn't the clichéd bad guy seeking to blackmail or dominate the world. That said, I wouldn't mind a revert to type in Craig's next movie. And I too am looking forward to Ralph Fiennes' take on M.

 

 

I never said it was a great movie.  In my humble opinion, it is a below average Bond movie.  I said apart from the 3 things (obviously all 3 are part of the core of the movie), it was fantastic.  With those 3 weaknesses, it was just a below average Bond movie.

 

On Craig: Some prefer the modern, Jason Bourne-like Bond, I prefer Bond to be tough, yet refined and smooth.  Craig doesn't have that, but he is good for action scenes.  What you call cliches, I would call necessities.  

 

It is with no shame that I say it doesn't get any better than Connery, with Lazenby, Moore, and Brosnan in his shadow.  I don't care for Craig or Dalton, personally.

 

 

On M:  Her weakness and poor decision making plagued Craig and MI6 in SF.  In the 2nd half of the movie, she was clearly portrayed as a weak, poor old woman.  Very unbecoming of M.

 

M should be a decisive, dignified, and distinguished ex-member of the Royal Navy.  I wouldn't come out and say Judi Dench is an embarrassment to M's character, but she's close.  Great actress, bad M.
 

 

On Silva: The betrayal and turning traitor are THE essential parts of both of their characters.  So, I understand they have other differences, but to me, it was mostly the same story, just not as well done as GE (partially due to the lack of originality).

 

As a side note, the story on Silva only confirms my problem with Judi Dench's M.  Previous M's would have never betrayed one of their own like that.

 

 

 

As I said, though, to each his own.

Edited by Universal Exports, 13 October 2013 - 01:06 AM.

[Guy Haines]

 

 

My view on Skyfall was that it was very well directed by Mendes.  I think he is great.  The allusions to previous Bond movies (the DB5, leather door at M's office, etc.) were very well done.  Only 3 things in the movie really disappointed me.

 

1) Daniel Craig-  To each his own, but to me, he just doesn't have "it."  It's hard to explain, but he is just too intense for Bond.  He also doesn't look the part.  He is not suave or debonair, too much of a bruiser.  He always has such a fiery, intense look in his eyes.  He's not laid back enough.  All in all- he is too unrefined.

 

2) M- Using Judi Dench as M has always felt to me to be a very weak accession to feminists.  Great actress, bad fit as M.  In this movie specifically, she comes across and indecisive and weak.  The old M, Bernard Lee, never showed any of these characteristics.  GE is the only movie in which I appreciated Judi Dench in her role as M.  I loved the tension between her and Brosnan in their first interaction.  Glad she is gone.

 

As an aside, I love the new M.  Can't wait to see him in the future.

 

3) Javier Bardem- Unbelievable performance in No Country for Old Men.  Lackluster performance in Skyfall.  Just another bad fit.  I can't really explain it in any other way than he did not fit the character they were trying to develop.  His entrance to the film and the following dialogue was emblematic of him being a poor fit.  It just seemed a bit awkward and unconvincing. Not to mention they already did the traitorous ex-agent angle with 006 in GE (in my opinion, very well done).

 

I consider it a shame the film had the aforementioned shortcomings.  Apart from those things, I thought it was fantastic.  Brosnan is probably my 4th favorite Bond, but if you could take the Pierce of 15 years ago and put him in this movie, it would have been worlds better.  

An interesting view of Skyfall - a great movie except for the three elements at the heart of it?

 

Craig's Bond - he doesn't look "tall, dark and handsome" in SF, but all through his era he's produced a Bond at once layered, hard edged and not afraid to break convention. If you are looking for the cliched "shaken, not stirred, Mr Tuxedo" Bond, he isn't it, but he's much more interesting as a result, imho.

 

Judi Dench's M - I don't think her appointment was a sop to feminism - simply an excellent actor being cast in an iconic role. Her M never struck me as being weak at any stage in the Brosnan and Craig eras. Her attitude to her agents was "treat 'em mean and keep 'em keen", creating the conditions for;

 

Javier Bardem's "Silva"/Rodriguez - Other than feeling betrayed and turning traitor, Silva and GE's 006 are not the same. Trevelyan had, one assumes, a long term "at the back of his mind" plan for revenge on the UK, much like Sir Hugo Drax in the novel Moonraker. He wanted revenge for his family and his people. Silva is much more complex. He was a loyal agent until M used him as a pawn during the Hong Kong negotiations. He stayed loyal while he was being tortured until the penny dropped and he realised who had betrayed him. He even did the "decent thing" once he knew what had happened, and tried to kill himself. Maybe that attempt was what pushed him over the edge -it's hinted at - and turned him into the deranged character of the film. That and the other thing broadly hinted at - an unsettling fixation with M as a love/hate "mother figure". Trevelyan was just villainous, although with some justification. Silva was insane, a man with a death wish, and M had a hand in sending him that way. I didn't find Bardem's villain poor and unconvincing at all - but at the same time he wasn't the clichéd bad guy seeking to blackmail or dominate the world. That said, I wouldn't mind a revert to type in Craig's next movie. And I too am looking forward to Ralph Fiennes' take on M.

 

 

I never said it was a great movie.  In my humble opinion, it is a below average Bond movie.  I said apart from the 3 things (obviously all 3 are part of the core of the movie), it was fantastic.  With those 3 weaknesses, it was just a below average Bond movie.

 

On Craig: Some prefer the modern, Jason Bourne-like Bond, I prefer Bond to be tough, yet refined and smooth.  Craig doesn't have that, but he is good for action scenes.  What you call cliches, I would call necessities.  

 

It is with no shame that I say it doesn't get any better than Connery, with Lazenby, Moore, and Brosnan in his shadow.  I don't care for Craig or Dalton, personally.

 

 

On M:  Her weakness and poor decision making plagued Craig and MI6 in SF.  In the 2nd half of the movie, she was clearly portrayed as a weak, poor old woman.  Very unbecoming of M.

 

M should be a decisive, dignified, and distinguished ex-member of the Royal Navy.  I wouldn't come out and say Judi Dench is an embarrassment to M's character, but she's close.  Great actress, bad M.
 

 

On Silva: The betrayal and turning traitor are THE essential parts of both of their characters.  So, I understand they have other differences, but to me, it was mostly the same story, just not as well done as GE (partially due to the lack of originality).

 

As a side note, the story on Silva only confirms my problem with Judi Dench's M.  Previous M's would have never betrayed one of their own like that.

 

 

 

As I said, though, to each his own.

 

I still regard Connery as the best Bond, narrowly ahead of Craig - different eras, but similar rough with the smooth style, imho. And there's the point about the films - different eras. Connery's Bond was a product of the 1960s, Craig's a product of the here and now - the "Bourne" again era, if you like!  Both eminently watchable though. As for the "clichés" or "necessities" - the problem, for me at least, is that with every Bond film one can start judging it not by its merit as a film, but whether there's the bits when Bond wears a "tux", orders his Vodka Martini, has his scenes with Moneypenny & Q, and so on. Interestingly, the Craig movies have been successful in spite of those scenes being either handled differently, or absent altogether.

 

I still disagree with you about Judi Dench's M being weak and indecisive. As she said herself in GE, she had "no compunction" about sending Bond to his death, but not on a whim. She did, however, make mistakes, notably in TWINE because of her connections to Elektra King's father - she couldn't believe that King's daughter was a wrong 'un, in the context of the film, understandably. In the Connery movies we hardly ever saw Bernard Lee make mistakes because, to be blunt, his role was to give Bond his assignment. The role of M was gradually expanded when Judi Dench was cast. Whether that was a good idea is open to debate.

 

(I don't want to nit pick too much, but we learn in SF that Gareth Mallory is an ex-Colonel in the SAS, not a Royal Navy officer. His accent makes him upper bracket British, but we'll have to wait until Bond 24 to see if there are further similarities with the M of the Connery era. His character is only a few years older than Bond. Will the role be confined to a cameo, handing Bond his next assignment after the film's theme tune? I wonder.)

 

As for the villain - Silva's an interesting character in his own right, not Alec Trevelyan with a latin accent and a dubious dress sense. And as for lack of originality, well it isn't the first time this has happened in the series - compare GF with AVTAK, both very similar storylines. But Silva is a sufficiently well drawn character that he comes across as different from 006, in spite of his motivations being similar. As for 006, I don't think enough was made of his rivalry with Bond - by the time the story moves to Cuba, Trevelyan has gone from scarred, embittered ex-agent to standard brand Bond baddie, complete with underwater lair and gizmos. Trevelyan was a potentially fascinating character underdone by the script turning him into a conventional Bond movie threat.