362 replies to this topic

[QOS4EVER]

 

 

 

As I said, it's about expectations.Those who have disliked the reboot of the series and the harder approach of the Craig years were never going to like SF.

 

I love the reboot and the dark, gritty, young, violent take they started of with , but I just loathed Skyfall  .

Even the original poster is the same he explicitly mentioned that he felt it was not on par with the previous 2 which he liked .

 

I just hate the sudden turn around in style, 50 decades of a successful action franchise is now reduced to a housewives drama movie. I wouldn't mind if they took a breather from the 'Quantum' storyline and made something more in line with the Connery movies  or the Brosnan movies or any other Bond for that matter , But they had to pick drama and the other small nods were just to fill in checkboxes. Not 'Bond' at all if you ask me .

 

I don't see any "housewives drama" in the film at all...

Every other Bond movie focused on the glamour and  suave of 007 and his megalomaniac villain with set piece action .The whole core of Skyfall was drama where they show him old and out of his prime which is very unBond.

And Bond was shown as out of his prime, out of it, courting suspension from duty and dismissal from the service in.........the novel You Only Live Twice by Ian Fleming. The original author wasn't afraid to show Bond in a less than flattering light on occasion, and for some of the time this happened in Skyfall. Indeed, there were more than a few nods to the "played out" Bond of the novel YOLT in the film SF.

Perhaps there's a reason why those parts of the novel have not been picked up. How many successful drama franchises are there even close to what Bond has achieved .

If the films had taken that route it wouldn't have survived this long. To quote a review I read on rotten tomatoes "Skyfall is a fine movie on its own, but continues doses of this might risk destroying the franchise"

[gkgyver]

It was a much more real film in the sense it has further developed Mr bond from indestructible superman to an actual person with feelings and everything by golly.

 

Which is totally different from The World Is Not Enough, Tomorrow Never Dies and GoldenEye. The difference between Craig's films and Brosnan's is not how Bond's emotions are portrayed, but rather the toning down of the roadrunner stunts. Unfortunately, they returned in the Skyfall pretitles.

[The Shark]

It was a much more real film in the sense it has further developed Mr bond from indestructible superman to an actual person with feelings and everything by golly.

 

Which is totally different from The World Is Not Enough, Tomorrow Never Dies and GoldenEye.

 

That what's they attempted in those films, but never really hit the mark. Ever because of compromise or hamfisted execution.

[PPK_19]

Skyfall had me gripped from start to finish. My only problem with it is the way they handled Severine's death.

 

A lot of people like comparing SF to CR. Both are top-notch Daniel Craig entries, but my problem with CR is the pacing. I suddenly get very bored after Le Chiffre takes a bullet in the head, right up until that last scene with Bond and Mr White.

 

Skyfall is just a better developed, better paced and overall better film for me. 

[The Shark]

Yep. SKYFALL third act utterly trounces CASINO ROYALE's (minus epilogue).

[PPK_19]

Yep. SKYFALL third act utterly trounces CASINO ROYALE's (minus epilogue).

 

Trounces is a good word. Embarrasses is even better.

 

Just thinking of how well shot and staged that last act of Skyfall was, compared to the Brosnan-esque 'sinking house in Venice' paint-by-numbers bit was, makes me appreciate the talents of Mendes and Deakins even more.

[Baccarat]

Not sure I understand the whole "drama v. escapism" thing when it comes to SF.The two are inextricably linked throughout all 23 films, although clearly to varying degrees. As far as I'm concerned, SF is as "escapist" as any Bond film in pretty much every department (plot, characters, locations, action, etc.). It also seems that the ghost of Bourne still haunts lots of Bond fans, who blame that franchise for negatively influencing the Bond "formula." If it did, I am eternally grateful. The stripped-down "drama" of the Craig era has revitalised Bond in a way I doubt few would have thought possible after the disaster that was DAD.

[delfloria]

The pacing really annoyed me.

 

From a technical standpoint, it was incredibly well paced, with a very steady progress through the plot.

 

However, in terms of momentum, I found SF somewhat lacking because it took so damn long to do everything. Apart from the PTS, which I loved, the scenes drag as Mendes obsesses over the pauses between actors' lines. Sometimes this is important, like when Severine talks to Bond about Silva in the casino, but overall I get tired and end up counting the seconds between lines. It adds a good 5 minutes or so onto the running time. 

 

I wonder if some people don't notice the length because SIlva's only in it for an hour? It really picks up when he comes on screen, and feels like a whole new story. The first few times watching it, the forty minutes between the titles and Silva's entrance dragged for me so much,

 

Other niggles: Moneypenny's AWKWARD reveal. Eve and Bond's AWKWARD chemistry. Eve and Bond's AWKWARD one-liners. Thomas Newman's alternatingly brilliant/bland score.

 

This isn't a flaw so much as a failure on my part: what does Bond's Circle of Life one-liner mean? I still don't get it.

Took me a couple of viewings to get it. The man being eaten by the dragon screams (the scream is very low for some reason so it

is hard for the audience to hear) and Bond says "Circle of life". Perhaps a reference to Bond's "Bon Appetite" in YOLT.

[PPK_19]

The pacing really annoyed me.

 

From a technical standpoint, it was incredibly well paced, with a very steady progress through the plot.

 

However, in terms of momentum, I found SF somewhat lacking because it took so damn long to do everything. Apart from the PTS, which I loved, the scenes drag as Mendes obsesses over the pauses between actors' lines. Sometimes this is important, like when Severine talks to Bond about Silva in the casino, but overall I get tired and end up counting the seconds between lines. It adds a good 5 minutes or so onto the running time. 

 

I wonder if some people don't notice the length because SIlva's only in it for an hour? It really picks up when he comes on screen, and feels like a whole new story. The first few times watching it, the forty minutes between the titles and Silva's entrance dragged for me so much,

 

Other niggles: Moneypenny's AWKWARD reveal. Eve and Bond's AWKWARD chemistry. Eve and Bond's AWKWARD one-liners. Thomas Newman's alternatingly brilliant/bland score.

 

This isn't a flaw so much as a failure on my part: what does Bond's Circle of Life one-liner mean? I still don't get it.

Took me a couple of viewings to get it. The man being eaten by the dragon screams (the scream is very low for some reason so it

is hard for the audience to hear) and Bond says "Circle of life". Perhaps a reference to Bond's "Bon Appetite" in YOLT.

 

 

Yes, and when Dalton said the same thing to the goon he flung in the draw of maggots in LTK.

 

I always thought the 'Circle of Life' line was just a reference to the fact that there is a food chain...lame I know, and the lamest one-liner in Skyfall.

[tdalton]

 

 

 

 

As I said, it's about expectations.Those who have disliked the reboot of the series and the harder approach of the Craig years were never going to like SF.

 

I love the reboot and the dark, gritty, young, violent take they started of with , but I just loathed Skyfall  .

Even the original poster is the same he explicitly mentioned that he felt it was not on par with the previous 2 which he liked .

 

I just hate the sudden turn around in style, 50 decades of a successful action franchise is now reduced to a housewives drama movie. I wouldn't mind if they took a breather from the 'Quantum' storyline and made something more in line with the Connery movies  or the Brosnan movies or any other Bond for that matter , But they had to pick drama and the other small nods were just to fill in checkboxes. Not 'Bond' at all if you ask me .

 

I don't see any "housewives drama" in the film at all...

Every other Bond movie focused on the glamour and  suave of 007 and his megalomaniac villain with set piece action .The whole core of Skyfall was drama where they show him old and out of his prime which is very unBond.

And Bond was shown as out of his prime, out of it, courting suspension from duty and dismissal from the service in.........the novel You Only Live Twice by Ian Fleming. The original author wasn't afraid to show Bond in a less than flattering light on occasion, and for some of the time this happened in Skyfall. Indeed, there were more than a few nods to the "played out" Bond of the novel YOLT in the film SF.

 

I agree there is certainly nothing wrong with that........Don't know why people have problem with using Fleming element in this Skyfall it very BOND unlike the Moore or Bronsan which is NOT BOnd at all........Skyfall use real Fleming material so it has to more Bond 

 

It's not so much the content that I would imagine that a great deal of people have an issue with, but rather the timing in terms of the overall narrative of Craig's tenure.  The idea to use elements of Fleming's You Only Live Twice and The Man With the Golden Gun is a sound idea, but not when it's coming on the heels of two movies that feature "rookie Bond".  We go from Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, which feature Bond as a rookie agent, to Skyfall, which features Bond as more or less towards the end of his career, burned out, bitter, etc.  That type of characterization is something that should have been done in Craig's final film (or perhaps the one immediately preceding that if he goes on to do a few more), but not in just his third film, the third film of the supposed reboot, and only one film removed from featuring "rookie Bond".

[Guy Haines]

 

 

 

 

As I said, it's about expectations.Those who have disliked the reboot of the series and the harder approach of the Craig years were never going to like SF.

 

I love the reboot and the dark, gritty, young, violent take they started of with , but I just loathed Skyfall  .

Even the original poster is the same he explicitly mentioned that he felt it was not on par with the previous 2 which he liked .

 

I just hate the sudden turn around in style, 50 decades of a successful action franchise is now reduced to a housewives drama movie. I wouldn't mind if they took a breather from the 'Quantum' storyline and made something more in line with the Connery movies  or the Brosnan movies or any other Bond for that matter , But they had to pick drama and the other small nods were just to fill in checkboxes. Not 'Bond' at all if you ask me .

 

I don't see any "housewives drama" in the film at all...

Every other Bond movie focused on the glamour and  suave of 007 and his megalomaniac villain with set piece action .The whole core of Skyfall was drama where they show him old and out of his prime which is very unBond.

And Bond was shown as out of his prime, out of it, courting suspension from duty and dismissal from the service in.........the novel You Only Live Twice by Ian Fleming. The original author wasn't afraid to show Bond in a less than flattering light on occasion, and for some of the time this happened in Skyfall. Indeed, there were more than a few nods to the "played out" Bond of the novel YOLT in the film SF.

Perhaps there's a reason why those parts of the novel have not been picked up. How many successful drama franchises are there even close to what Bond has achieved .

If the films had taken that route it wouldn't have survived this long. To quote a review I read on rotten tomatoes "Skyfall is a fine movie on its own, but continues doses of this might risk destroying the franchise"

Well, I did say that Mr. Fleming showed Bond in a less than flattering light "on occasion". I don't think SF is a template for future Bond films. Its story is so personal that it couldn't be.

 

Odd that you should mention the way the Bond series could have gone. I have a good friend, a few years older than me, who also likes Bond. He read all the books in his youth - but he doesn't rate the films. Any of them. Not even the so called "classics". As far as he is concerned, the only true Bond is the one on the printed page, and he would have liked - or would like, if the film makers were so inclined -  the Bond books filmed as Fleming had written them.

 

Which begs the question raised. How long would the series have lasted had that route been taken, I wonder?  Perhaps we'll never know.

[00 Brosnan]

SkyFall is basically everything I was hoping for in Craig's third outing as Bond. Emotional and raw like Casino Royale, but a little more witty
and humorous like the pre-Craig films. More traditional Bond thrown in.

 

It's definitely in my Top 4 Bond films.

[trevanian]

This is called 'disappointment w/ skyfall' -- not your excuses for finding a way to like it. 

 

As for all the folks saying the aspects of late Fleming in SKYFALL are a good thing ... uhh-uhh. I love those books (and Dalton seems to have captured that era of Bond perfectly already, in a way that integrated with character and story instead of being superimposed upon it), but it is a matter of context, and the stuff is all stuck in here in the WRONG WRONG WRONG context. Bond missing presumed dead because he has lost his memory and then wandered off to Russia has NOTHING to do with a Bond who chooses to remain 'dead' after having a bad break and a big fall. 

 

SKYFALL is the first Bond movie that has absolutely no feel of being James Bond to me. As terrible as MR, VIEW, TND and DAD were, there were at least moments (well, only one in MR and VIEW each) that felt Bond-like. CR pissed away a grand opportunity in a huge way to send off Brosnan in favor of trying to pass this old ugly guy off as a rookie double0 with the emotional temperment of a Tom Cruise 80s character -- something that WOULD have worked if they'd cast young like Henry Cavil, but only comes off as immensely stupid with a guy way too old to be acting out in such a fashion. So even though I found CR an epic fail, not just on casting but on ludicrous plotting of kill guys to get their cellphone info as the main device driving the plot, I figured it couldn't get any worse. QUANTUM for all its faults had a couple of okay moments plus Tosca, so things did get better from my perspective. But this thing? 

 

How many 'idiot plot device' moments in this one? Christ, more than CR! The entire last act is contrivance atop contrivance, and you have instances of baddies trying to kill Bond when their boss wants him alive -- in a movie where their boss supposedly has EVERYTHING figured out, in fact the movie is predicated on him knowing more than he possibly could -- more incongruity (that's the polite word.)

 

As much as I thought PROMETHEUS was going to be the biggest letdown of the year, SKYFALL utterly smokes it in that department. Whether it is the detour into the Conneryverse with the DB5 or the near-bullettime length sequence of Craig letting the guy  hold him while atop the train, it all felt wrong. The Shanghai sequence looks glorious, but even in the context of the film it doesn't work because it raises more questions than it answers. A Bond movie that doesn't merit rewatching? That's impossible! Therefore SKYFALL must not be a Bond movie, cuz I can't imagine being willing to sit down to any of it again, unless I was being paid to write about it again. 

[007jamesbond]

deleted 

Edited by 007jamesbond, 02 March 2013 - 02:51 AM.

[tdalton]

Skyfall is true Fleming Bond movie= don't like it=not a real fleming fan ! 

 

I guess I'm not a fan of Fleming's work then.  Apparently enjoying all of the novels that Fleming himself wrote as well as Fleming-inspired films like Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and On Her Majesty's Secret Service don't outweigh disliking a film penned by someone other than Fleming.  

[FOX MULDER]

Just watched it again tonight. If anything, I think Silva is underused. The film jumps up a gear when he comes into it, but I think he comes in too late. 

 

Also, regarding the climax, I think they should have ended it all in the house. The whole 'escaping to the church' sequence slows it down too much. By cutting out this part they would have also brought the running time down a little, which I think it needs.

 

Very good film, though. A few changes here and there and it could have been perfect.

[Commander E]

Skyfall is true Fleming Bond movie= don't like it=not a real fleming fan ! 

This statement is both ridiculous and unreasonable.

[The Shark]

Skyfall is true Fleming Bond movie= don't like it=not a real fleming fan ! 

 

007jamesbond. Giving Skyfall fans a bad name since 2013.

[QOS4EVER]

 We go from Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, which feature Bond as a rookie agent, to Skyfall, which features Bond as more or less towards the end of his career, burned out, bitter, etc.  That type of characterization is something that should have been done in Craig's final film

Strongly agree.

Edited by QOS4EVER, 02 March 2013 - 07:48 AM.

[QOS4EVER]

Which begs the question raised. How long would the series have lasted had that route been taken, I wonder?  Perhaps we'll never know.

I could say with sure certainty it wouldn't have succeeded , The novel fans pales in comparison to the avid escapist seeking movie goers . See for yourself, the top most successful franchises are all escapist movies. Bond would have died out a long time ago if it went that path .

 

I don't think SF is a template for future Bond films.

I so hope you are right !

 

 

 

This is called 'disappointment w/ skyfall' -- not your excuses for finding a way to like it. 

Haha, Couldn't have said it better myself

Edited by QOS4EVER, 02 March 2013 - 07:48 AM.

[Jim]

Let's not turn it into disappointment with each other, though.

[Guy Haines]

Just watched it again tonight. If anything, I think Silva is underused. The film jumps up a gear when he comes into it, but I think he comes in too late. 

 

Also, regarding the climax, I think they should have ended it all in the house. The whole 'escaping to the church' sequence slows it down too much. By cutting out this part they would have also brought the running time down a little, which I think it needs.

 

Very good film, though. A few changes here and there and it could have been perfect.

I would have made this change to the final scenes. The underwater fight, I think, is superfluous - Bond battling an unnamed henchman and, inevitably, overcoming the odds to dispose of the henchman and escape the frozen lake. Rather, I'd have had a scrap between Bond and Silva, at the end of which Bond apparently dies. Silva then moves on M, is about to kill her, and himself, then Bond appears to finish off the "last rat standing".

 

We haven't had a decent Bond -v- villain scrap for a while. And as for Bond re-appearing - well, his hobby is "resurrection"!

[x007AceOfSpades]

Just watched it again tonight. If anything, I think Silva is underused. The film jumps up a gear when he comes into it, but I think he comes in too late. 

 

Also, regarding the climax, I think they should have ended it all in the house. The whole 'escaping to the church' sequence slows it down too much. By cutting out this part they would have also brought the running time down a little, which I think it needs.

 

Very good film, though. A few changes here and there and it could have been perfect.

I would have made this change to the final scenes. The underwater fight, I think, is superfluous - Bond battling an unnamed henchman and, inevitably, overcoming the odds to dispose of the henchman and escape the frozen lake. Rather, I'd have had a scrap between Bond and Silva, at the end of which Bond apparently dies. Silva then moves on M, is about to kill her, and himself, then Bond appears to finish off the "last rat standing".

 

We haven't had a decent Bond -v- villain scrap for a while. And as for Bond re-appearing - well, his hobby is "resurrection"!

 

That was the only thing I disliked in Skyfall, no fight between Bond and Silva.

[PPK_19]

 We go from Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, which feature Bond as a rookie agent, to Skyfall, which features Bond as more or less towards the end of his career, burned out, bitter, etc.  That type of characterization is something that should have been done in Craig's final film (or perhaps the one immediately preceding that if he goes on to do a few more), but not in just his third film, the third film of the supposed reboot, and only one film removed from featuring "rookie Bond".

 

 

No. Craig is only around for 5 films, as we all know. It would have been silly to still have him as a 'rookie' agent for Skyfall, the THIRD of his Bond films i.e 60% the way through his tenure and the 50th Anniversary film. Skyfall was billed as 'classic Bond', so you can't have him still being a 'rookie'.

 

In my opinion the filmmakers were right in pressing fast-forward so to speak on Bond's career as a double-oh.

[Peckinpah1976]

A plot-less, stale and pretentious film distinguished by some nice photography and performances - it's not even the best Daniel Craig Bond film let alone the greatest overall. 

 

After three viewings I'm still none-the-wiser as to it's appeal and if anything my opinion has changed for the worse. 

Edited by Peckinpah1976, 02 March 2013 - 09:51 AM.

[Grard Bond]

 

 We go from Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, which feature Bond as a rookie agent, to Skyfall, which features Bond as more or less towards the end of his career, burned out, bitter, etc.  That type of characterization is something that should have been done in Craig's final film (or perhaps the one immediately preceding that if he goes on to do a few more), but not in just his third film, the third film of the supposed reboot, and only one film removed from featuring "rookie Bond".

 

 

No. Craig is only around for 5 films, as we all know. It would have been silly to still have him as a 'rookie' agent for Skyfall, the THIRD of his Bond films i.e 60% the way through his tenure and the 50th Anniversary film. Skyfall was billed as 'classic Bond', so you can't have him still being a 'rookie'.

 

In my opinion the filmmakers were right in pressing fast-forward so to speak on Bond's career as a double-oh.

I think it's very strange and not logical that they just went from rooky to a much older and burned out Bond.

So they just skipped the Craig Bond in his best primal years?

Two Bondmovies long we heard he is not the Bond we all know, he is only at the beginning of his career, but slowely he will turns into that guy we all know and loved, but now -in his third installment- we got suddenly a much older Bond.

It comes very unbelievable, if -in his fourth Bondmovie- Craig's Bond is in supercondition again,

so we will never see Craig's Bond in his best years?

[MarkA]

This is called 'disappointment w/ skyfall' -- not your excuses for finding a way to like it. 
 
As for all the folks saying the aspects of late Fleming in SKYFALL are a good thing ... uhh-uhh. I love those books (and Dalton seems to have captured that era of Bond perfectly already, in a way that integrated with character and story instead of being superimposed upon it), but it is a matter of context, and the stuff is all stuck in here in the WRONG WRONG WRONG context. Bond missing presumed dead because he has lost his memory and then wandered off to Russia has NOTHING to do with a Bond who chooses to remain 'dead' after having a bad break and a big fall. 
 
SKYFALL is the first Bond movie that has absolutely no feel of being James Bond to me. As terrible as MR, VIEW, TND and DAD were, there were at least moments (well, only one in MR and VIEW each) that felt Bond-like. CR pissed away a grand opportunity in a huge way to send off Brosnan in favor of trying to pass this old ugly guy off as a rookie double0 with the emotional temperment of a Tom Cruise 80s character -- something that WOULD have worked if they'd cast young like Henry Cavil, but only comes off as immensely stupid with a guy way too old to be acting out in such a fashion. So even though I found CR an epic fail, not just on casting but on ludicrous plotting of kill guys to get their cellphone info as the main device driving the plot, I figured it couldn't get any worse. QUANTUM for all its faults had a couple of okay moments plus Tosca, so things did get better from my perspective. But this thing? 
 
How many 'idiot plot device' moments in this one? Christ, more than CR! The entire last act is contrivance atop contrivance, and you have instances of baddies trying to kill Bond when their boss wants him alive -- in a movie where their boss supposedly has EVERYTHING figured out, in fact the movie is predicated on him knowing more than he possibly could -- more incongruity (that's the polite word.)
 
As much as I thought PROMETHEUS was going to be the biggest letdown of the year, SKYFALL utterly smokes it in that department. Whether it is the detour into the Conneryverse with the DB5 or the near-bullettime length sequence of Craig letting the guy  hold him while atop the train, it all felt wrong. The Shanghai sequence looks glorious, but even in the context of the film it doesn't work because it raises more questions than it answers. A Bond movie that doesn't merit rewatching? That's impossible! Therefore SKYFALL must not be a Bond movie, cuz I can't imagine being willing to sit down to any of it again, unless I was being paid to write about it again.

I think mate if the Bond team have listened to you there wouldn't be a series to talk about today. 'Old ugly guy', where do you base that insult on. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder but most of the woman I know think Craig is very sexy. You have every right to like or dislike what you want but what makes me laugh about the whole thing is you Craig haters must hate it the way the box office has gone through the roof on these films. Ha Ha.

[tdalton]

 

 We go from Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, which feature Bond as a rookie agent, to Skyfall, which features Bond as more or less towards the end of his career, burned out, bitter, etc.  That type of characterization is something that should have been done in Craig's final film (or perhaps the one immediately preceding that if he goes on to do a few more), but not in just his third film, the third film of the supposed reboot, and only one film removed from featuring "rookie Bond".

 

 

No. Craig is only around for 5 films, as we all know. It would have been silly to still have him as a 'rookie' agent for Skyfall, the THIRD of his Bond films i.e 60% the way through his tenure and the 50th Anniversary film. Skyfall was billed as 'classic Bond', so you can't have him still being a 'rookie'.

 

In my opinion the filmmakers were right in pressing fast-forward so to speak on Bond's career as a double-oh.

 

No.  I never said to keep him as a rookie.  I said was that he went from being a rookie Bond in CR and QOS to being an agent at the end of his career in the very next film.  There is middle ground between there, and that's where they should have gone with it. 

 

Also, if Skyfall is billed as being "classic Bond", it makes zero sense to have him as a burned out, near the end of his career agent. 

Edited by tdalton, 02 March 2013 - 11:34 AM.

[Grard Bond]

I totaly agree with you. Mine point excactly!

[QOS4EVER]

 

 

 We go from Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, which feature Bond as a rookie agent, to Skyfall, which features Bond as more or less towards the end of his career, burned out, bitter, etc.  That type of characterization is something that should have been done in Craig's final film (or perhaps the one immediately preceding that if he goes on to do a few more), but not in just his third film, the third film of the supposed reboot, and only one film removed from featuring "rookie Bond".

 

 

No. Craig is only around for 5 films, as we all know. It would have been silly to still have him as a 'rookie' agent for Skyfall, the THIRD of his Bond films i.e 60% the way through his tenure and the 50th Anniversary film. Skyfall was billed as 'classic Bond', so you can't have him still being a 'rookie'.

 

In my opinion the filmmakers were right in pressing fast-forward so to speak on Bond's career as a double-oh.

 

No.  I never said to keep him as a rookie.  I said was that he went from being a rookie Bond in CR and QOS to being an agent at the end of his career in the very next film.  There is middle ground between there, and that's where they should have gone with it. 

 

Also, if Skyfall is billed as being "Classic Bond", it makes zero sense to have him as a burned out, near the end of his career agent.

This ^