350 replies to this topic

[FredJB007]

I´m back from seeing it.

It´s awful.

Awfully good!!! Which I know it´s a bloody oxyMORON, but I wanted to start my impression fashionably because I think that anyone who has a problem, yes, one single problem, with this BOND film is, I reiterate this, a MORON. And I´ll be sure to be taking names so I´ll skip your dull opinions in the future. What?! It´s true. To those who have complained about the tone, the humour, the special effects, ..., piss off! This IS James Bond. The one from the novels and the one from the better films, which, in all accounts, is no mean feat. This is Bond with a capital B and it just makes me wonder WHY haven´t they taken this approach before?

It made me feel a particularly good kind of sad because the film conveys the notion that Bond has been working as a 00 for quite some time and is weary. So where are the other missions? It´s as if there´s a void between CR and SF and no, QOS didn´t fill it properly.

I LOVED it! Every single bit.

Those last few minutes were precious. I just wish 2014 were here already. Craig is getting a wonderfull arch here: from rookie agent to the master spy we all love.

As a long, long time fan, a Connery fanboy, a OHMSS lover, a Dalton cult fan, I must say, we are very lucky to have such a film in the cannon. This is the real deal folks. This film separates the waters: Bond fans from those who don´t really get the character. I´m sorry, but that´s the truth. If you had an ill conceived notion of Bond, thinking he was just a ruthless killer who goes from A to B and pouts, or if you think Bond is all about the double taking pigeons and tsunami surfing, than this film is not for you, and you shouldn´t even bother to anwser this post in any fashion whatsoever. If you happen to love both the film Bond of the 60s and Fleming´s Bond, then by all means, SF is for you, as it is for me.

I could write a better review than this, but Vauxall said it all in his and so did Harkers and many of the guys who´s opinions I respect.

A message to Daniel Craig, if one can be even more pedantic : Why oh why did it take you 6 years to show us this versatility? It´s even more Bondian than CR! Job well done Sir.

And to the producers: TOOK YOU LONG ENOUGH!!! Now, open up your massive wallets and bring this A team back for Bond 24!

Univex out. I´ll be sure to convey more of my impressions on the specific threads. Cheers.

Awesome reading......as a fellow 60's and Fleming lover, I cannot wait until 12:07am on Nov. 8th(I gotta go IMAX!). I KNOW this is going to be a great film and I have waited a very long time for this moment in my Bond life. Might sound melodramatic, but after seeing so-so or just plain crap 007 movies for the past 40+years(I did really like FYEO and CR), its about time we got back to "classic" Bond. For those that say it isn't classic because the gunbarrel isn't at the beginning, get over yourself. It's not the gunbarrel that makes Bond, it's the story and the characters that does. Thanks Univex and everyone for your opinions...its much appreciated....after Nov. 8th, I'll add mine.

Edited by FredJB007, 28 October 2012 - 02:14 AM.

[univex]

I´m back from seeing it.

It´s awful.

Awfully good!!! Which I know it´s a bloody oxyMORON, but I wanted to start my impression fashionably because I think that anyone who has a problem, yes, one single problem, with this BOND film is, I reiterate this, a MORON. And I´ll be sure to be taking names so I´ll skip your dull opinions in the future. What?! It´s true. To those who have complained about the tone, the humour, the special effects, ..., piss off! This IS James Bond. The one from the novels and the one from the better films, which, in all accounts, is no mean feat. This is Bond with a capital B and it just makes me wonder WHY haven´t they taken this approach before?

It made me feel a particularly good kind of sad because the film conveys the notion that Bond has been working as a 00 for quite some time and is weary. So where are the other missions? It´s as if there´s a void between CR and SF and no, QOS didn´t fill it properly.

I LOVED it! Every single bit.

Those last few minutes were precious. I just wish 2014 were here already. Craig is getting a wonderfull arch here: from rookie agent to the master spy we all love.

As a long, long time fan, a Connery fanboy, a OHMSS lover, a Dalton cult fan, I must say, we are very lucky to have such a film in the cannon. This is the real deal folks. This film separates the waters: Bond fans from those who don´t really get the character. I´m sorry, but that´s the truth. If you had an ill conceived notion of Bond, thinking he was just a ruthless killer who goes from A to B and pouts, or if you think Bond is all about the double taking pigeons and tsunami surfing, than this film is not for you, and you shouldn´t even bother to anwser this post in any fashion whatsoever. If you happen to love both the film Bond of the 60s and Fleming´s Bond, then by all means, SF is for you, as it is for me.

I could write a better review than this, but Vauxall said it all in his and so did Harkers and many of the guys who´s opinions I respect.

A message to Daniel Craig, if one can be even more pedantic : Why oh why did it take you 6 years to show us this versatility? It´s even more Bondian than CR! Job well done Sir.

And to the producers: TOOK YOU LONG ENOUGH!!! Now, open up your massive wallets and bring this A team back for Bond 24!

Univex out. I´ll be sure to convey more of my impressions on the specific threads. Cheers.

Awesome reading......as a fellow 60's and Fleming lover, I cannot wait until 12:07am on Nov. 8th(I gotta go IMAX!). I KNOW this is going to be a great film and I have waited a very long time for this moment in my Bond life. Might sound melodramatic, but after seeing so-so or just plain crap 007 movies for the past 40+years(I did really like FYEO and CR), its about time we got back to "classic" Bond. For those that say it isn't classic because the gunbarrel isn't at the beginning, get over yourself. It's not the gunbarrel that makes Bond, it's the story and the characters that does. Thanks Univex and everyone for your opinions...its much appreciated....after Nov. 8th, I'll add mine.

Cheers Fred. And I´ll be sure to read your review after you see it. Enjoy it, it´s THAT good.

Now that a few hour have passed, I have to say, I love that 3rd act. From the moment they pick up the car until your eyes are burned from the clarity of London´s skyline, it´s heaven. Bond heaven.

[Jack Spang]

]Well, I enjoyed the film but I'm not sure as to whether it lived up to the hype. The one liners just don't belong in the Craig era. He’s just not the type of actor who should be muttering them and while I do think DC is a very talented actor, he can't deliver them with the flair of Connery and Moore. They just seemed out of place in SF. They hinder my enjoyment of the film.

The scene with the reptile in the casino was very Flemingsque but could have been more suspenseful and certainly could have done without Bond making the cheesy quip at the end after pulling himself back onto the bridge. “Put all my money on red”. This is probably the worst line in the film.[/color][/size]
[size=3][color=#000000]I was also hoping Bond would have gone into more detail about his childhood but at the same time I was wondering how they would do it as M was undoubtedly aware of Bond's history.

I'll have to see this a couple of more times but I think Casino Royale is the better film. Campbell made the right decision keeping the one liners out. With Mendes, it just seemed in some parts that he was just ticking all the boxes.

Another example of Mendes just wanting to tick off all the boxes as they did in the horrible Brosnan era is that after the casino he's suddenly in Severine's room then they get it on immediately. It's too rushed and tightly cut. I think they should have just cut this scene out all together then they would have had more room for another scene like one of the following that I would have liked to have seen in the film:

- A shot of Bond running through Regent's Park as he prepares for his MI6 evaluation.

- An exchange between M and Mallory when she quips Bond being in the South China Sea is precise intelligence.

- A procession of hearses and producer Michael G. Wilson's cameo as a pall bearer at the funeral service for the MI6 agents.

- Shots of dead & wounded MI6 agents following the explosion were cut.

Why does the DB5 have guns and an ejector seat? Are we supposed to believe that Demetrious had all this fitted into his car before Bond won it off him in CR? Why would Q do all this when he said that exploding pens are not what they do anymore? Unnecessary. Silly.
I thought that Bardem’s character might have been a little too light hearted and comical for my liking but thankfully I was proved wrong. He did a wonderful job. One of the best villains in the series.

]I love who became the new M at the end, this put a real smile on my face, but Eve turning out to be Moneypenny was a bad move in my opinion.

I was hoping the scenes at the beginning when Bond is "enjoying death" would be a little more panned out. Sadly, they were cut too tightly.
Loved the scenes on the island with Silva (great how they played that vintage music over the speakers. This worked very well) but they could have done without the Bond theme at the end. They should have used this cue in the opening scene with the bulldozer. Newman's score was pretty average. Overall, better than Arnold's as most of Arnold’s action music is horrible but Arnold has the odd well composed individual cue whereas Newman doesn't have anything that really stands out.

Currently, I rate the film around 7 out of 10. CR is better. Campbell had the right idea - leave out the one liners as they just don’t belong in the Craig era. It seemed like Mendes was just ticking off all the boxes in some parts as I said, not unlike in the Brosnan era. I’m not even sure where I would rate this film at the moment. Maybe in the top 10. I did like how there was more character development in this film. It was part action, part thriller, part drama instead of pretty much all just action like in the post Dalton films with the exception of CR.
Oh, and I don't buy into Mendes's comments about how the gun barrel doesn't match up with the first shot. The white circle could have easily faded out into the silhouette of Bond.

I did like Harris in Skyfall but why they made a field agent a secretary is beyond me. Since they did she should have gone into more explanation as to why she chose to take a desk job at the end. I thought it was corny the way she said I haven't told you my last name or something like that, then she says "Moneypenny."
Pity there couldn't have been some dialogue exchanged between Bond and his girlfriend at the beginning and I wish they had have lingered on the two drinking scenes with the scorpion and when he's on the beach at the bar. I thought that Greek girl (Greek is she?) was going to have a bigger part. She was merely a featured extra.

Anyway, I'm always a bit too critical of a Bond film upon first viewing. It was the same with Casino Royale too. I do like SF but at the moment I feel like it doesn't quite live up to the hype created by the critics. It's a good film but not that good. Well, I'll see how I feel after the second viewing next Sunday.

For Bond 24 and beyond, I'm going to avoid these photo threads because otherwise I will accidently read all this speculation which often proves to be accurate. It was no surprise what happened at the end of the film for me.

sdddgdfgdf

Edited by stromberg, 04 November 2012 - 08:59 AM.

[thecasinoroyale]

Glad you enjoyed it univex!

And I know what you mean about your eyes being burned by London's skyline after the dark confides of Skyfall Lodge and the moors!

[Peckinpah1976]

Brilliantly made, well acted, lots of nice details along the way but none of it amounted to very much for me and I was sadly left rather under-whelmed overall. Simply as a cinema experience/first impression (and not necessarily meaning one is better than the other) I actually enjoyed Quantum of Solace much more and this seemed to be structured/paced as an over-reaction to the (IMO overstated) criticisms of that film; lots of meaningful pauses that the paper-thin story didn't really earn and self-consciously long-held shots during the fight scenes. After the teaser, it seemed to take forever for anything of interest to happen with the admittedly visually stunning detours through Shanghai and Macao being utterly superfluous (didn't like the way Severine was so glibly dispatched, either). Film finally seemed to find it's feet with Bond's pursuit of Silva (a terrific Javier Bardem) through London before grinding to a halt again at the admittedly well-staged climax where it's revealed that Bond is actually a Highland version of Bruce Wayne. The use of nail bombs by the 'heroes', terrorists disguised as Policemen and atrocities in central London left a bad taste for me and seemed odd choices for a film seemingly determined to drop the 'real-world' politics of it's immediate predecessor and return the series to it's escapist fantasy roots.

If this all makes it sound like I didn't enjoy it; I did, just not that much and with some serious reservations - however, the closing seconds between Craig and Fiennes had a pleasingly comfortable, familiar and not to say promising feel to them that made me realise I've missed the Bond of old more than I'd realised.

Maybe next time.

*** out of *****

Edited by Peckinpah1976, 28 October 2012 - 12:18 PM.

[Vauxhall]

I LOVED it! Every single bit.

Very, very pleased to hear it!

[SimonTemplar]

Long time Bond fan, first time poster. I've seen Skyfall twice and my comments are:

MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW

- Overall, I was satisfied when the movie ended and it is a considerable improvment over QOS. It doesn't reach the heights of the better Connery movies, TLD or GoldenEye.

- The three leads were excellent in their roles. It was nice that Dench had such a juicy role for her last appearence in the series. She really displayed what a talented actor she is and her contribution to the series cannot be overstated and her presence will be missed. Having said that, I think Fiennes makes a fine replacement as M. I'm looking forward to seeing how his relationship with Bond developes. I also liked how Mallory was initially introduced as a possible adversery, but was gradually shown to be sympathetic towards M and MI6.

- I was surprised that Q was given such a big supporting role as opposed to the traditional single q-branch scene. However, I had no problem with Ben Whitshaw. I thought he did a fine job conveying Q's rather unique personality, albeit one that does differ from Desmond's interpretation. I liked the "bring the equipment back in one piece" line though.

- Silva is probably the most memorable villian since the 60s. A Bond movie can often suffer due to a weak villian (QOS for example), but the opposite is the case with Silva. I've read a few reviews comparing Silva to The Joker from TDK. Silva will never be as iconic as The Joker, but Bond's first meeting with him certainly had elements of the Batman/Joker relationship, together with Silva's rather unusual vocal delivery.

- I read a previous poster here didn't like that Bond went to Scotland because he would be more comfortable away from the technology. That wasn't my reading of his motivation. On two occasions, MI6's computer system has been hacked by Silva to devestating effect. I believe Bond brought M to Scotland not because he felt more confortable in a traditional environment, but because it elimated Silva technological advantage.

- I liked the inclusion of the DB5, and its reveal got a great reaction from the two audiences I saw it with. It was a great thrill to hear the Bond theme on guitar as the DB5 drives away. I also liked the ejector seat banter between M and Bond.

- The direction was outstanding, as one would expect from Mendes. So too was the photography - the entire third act in Scotland looked beautiful, and the silluette fight was probably the artistic highpoint of the whole series. Although, I would have liked for it to have lasted just a little longer.

- M's death was the most powerful emotional scene in the whole series. Her last line "I got one thing right" had me choking up. Whether or not this type of emotion is appropriate for a Bond movie or if it should just be pure escapism is another debate.

- I absolutely loved the return to the traditional Moneypenny/M office layout complete with M's padded door. I really hope they keep this office for future movies. Dench's M never had a consistent office. I believe the last time we saw Bond in the traditional office was TLD. I hope this continues. BTW, I also liked the painting of the MI6 building on the wall behind Fiennes. Keep an eye out for it if you missed it the first time.

- Daniel Klienman really outdid himself with the titles. They are stunning, especially with the imagery of the Skyfall grounds (the house, the deer, the graves). BTW...there is a shot in the titles of a spy projected onto a brick wall. I swear it is the spitting image of Timothy Dalton. If you see the movie again, keep an eye out for it. It appears just after Bond shoots the four shadows on the ground. THe 50 years of Bond logo at the start of the end credits was also a nice touch.

- Adele's song is the best in a long long time. The lyrics and her voice fit the movie very well. The chorus is outstanding and I love the rising notes of the "stand tall" line and the cameo of the Bond theme in song. I would be happy for her to return like Bassey. Sadly, David Arnold was missed, and Newman couldn't fill his shoes especially during the later action scenes. Hopefully Arnold will return for Bond 24.

- I too had a problem with another "Bond reborn" story. We've had similar reborn themes in DAD and CR. I think it would have been better if Bond returned to MI6 as a fully physically and mentally capable agent and dispense with the "physical wreck" subplot. Afterall, this is a Bond movie and as a die hard Bond fan, I don't want him to be a physical wreck who can't hit a target. It was superfluous to the main plot of Silva's revenge. Bond could have been at 100% and the movie's plot wouldn't have suffered at all. Also, the whole "Bond is getting too old for field work" subplot came out of nowhere and doesn't sit well with the series.

- I liked the tube sequence, but doesn't quite live up to the excellent Miami Airport scenes from CR.

- The movie could have done with a few more Bondian moments. The best example is his reaction to the destruction of the DB5. We see the car being destroyed and cut to a shot of Bond looking pissed off accompanied by a powerful performance of his theme. But what does he do: he lights a stick of dynamite on top of a few gas cylinders! Any grunt can do that. Such a personal attack on the iconic Bond car should have been met with a better Bond-esque payoff than simply lighting some dynamite. I appreciate the producers are striving for reality, but they need to understand they are making a JAMES BOND movie, not a Bourne or Nolan Batman movie. Clearly, I don't want the return of double-taking pigeons or iceberg surfing that plagued previous movies but the suspension of disbelieve is allowed in a Bond movie. The train scene in the pre-credits is what I'm talking about. Sadly, the rest of the movie didn't deliver these Bondian moments, despite some otherwise excellent spy/action setpieces.

- Likewise, I would have liked to have seen some more gadgets. Obviously, I don't want to go back to the invisible car, but just include a simple watch gadget for example. Again, make it distinctive 007 instead of just a typical spy thriller. I hope Q's comment about Q-branch not making exploding pens anymore is not an indication that the future movies will have little or no gadgets.

- In conclusion, a strong entry into the series but not in the top 5. However, I do hope the producers make Bond 24 more of a Bond film and less of a Bourne-esque spy thriller. If they don't, they may gain a younger fan base at the expense of alienating their long time loyal fans. Previous entries in the series have proven it is possible to do a fairly realistic spy thriller while retaining the Bond experience. Despite these shortcomings, as a long time Bond fan it is very gratifing to see that Skyfall currently has a rating of 94% on RottenTomatoes and 8.5 on imdb togther with massive public interest in the series (both screenings I went to got a round of applause at the end). It is an outstanding movie, but falls just a little short of being an outstanding BOND movie.

Edited by SimonTemplar, 28 October 2012 - 01:50 PM.

[univex]

well-staged climax where it's revealed that Bond is actually a Highland version of Bruce Wayne.

Completely different scenarios. Have you read the books? Nothing was "revealed" if you have read them. Even the circumstances of their deaths have nothing to do with murder. Bond comes from a very different background.

[JCRendle]

At the end of the disappointing Quantum of Solace we were promised "James Bond will return". Skyfall has delivered on this promise and so much more.

The 4 years between films has not been wasted. The script is brilliantly written - sharp, funny and emotional. The film feels a lot like an old school Connery Bond film without feeling dated, whilst giving us something new and special - This may sound like a contradiction, but it is handled so well that the elements don't jarr. I've heard Purvis and Wade are leaving the franchise and handing the reigns to fellow Skyfall screenwriter John Logan for Bond 24, it looks like it will be in safe hands.

Skyfall is a beautiful movie. Deakins is the cinematographer that Bond has been waiting for, stunning wide shots showing off the best of London, the Bladerunner inspired lights of Shanghi, the Scottish Moors as well as several other exotic locations.

The use of lighting and colours through the film are expertly handled and I hope Bond 24 stays with Deakins. Fingers crossed.

The acting is top notch. Broccoli and Wilson have previously stated that they got their first choice for each part and it shows.

Javier Bardem is one of the best Bond villains in the entire series. A Bond villain who the audience feels sorry for is something very different.

This is Judi Dench's best turn as M. You see a very different side to M, a darker side. The role was very moving. At parts I didn't know whether I liked M, she made a lot of bad decisions, both in her past and in the present, though there is reasoning behind what she does and she is redeemed.

Daniel Craig is fantastic. He knows and loves Bond. He handles the more humorous Bond with ease. Craig is a fantastic actor and you really feel for Bond in this

Wishaw's Q is a different breed of Quartermaster to Llewelyn's gadgetmaster, but his interpretation is just as effective. I look forward to seeing him again in the future, though I will always have a soft spot for the longest serving Bond veteran.

Ralph Fiennes was very effective. His character grows through the film, you start off not trusting him - as Bond points out, he's starts off as a bureaucrat but with a military past. As his character Mallory interacts with the members of MI6 he develops an understanding and respect for the inner workings of the "shadow" like organisation and you know that when his character returns, he will fit in perfectly in his new job.

The Bond girls, Naomi Harris and Bérénice Marlohe are more than just eye candy. I would have liked to have seen more of their characters, and it looks like Harris will be reprising her role in Bond 24. Unusually for a Bond girl Marlohe was given quite a dark back story that you seldom see in a Bond film and she definitely deserved more screen time.

Thomas Newman's score for the film fitted well, though occasionally the music seemed a little loud during a couple of the action scenes, but this is only a minor complaint. I'm not an expert on film scores, so please don't ask me to compare to any previous scores - Whilst I have all the Bond title songs on CD, and Skyfall's theme downloaded, the only Bond score I have is the James Bond theme.

On the Bond theme, it's back! The James Bond theme is used several times throughout the film, and when it isn't prominent you can often hear it hinted at in other parts of the score.

As I have said previously, Skyfall is not just a fantastic Bond movie, it's a fantastic movie in general. I know that Bond films are overlooked at the Oscars, but if Skyfall is overlooked for best direction, best cinematography, best acting - I will wonder what they are thinking.

Several reviewers have called the last act of the film lesser than the rest of the film. I can not disagree more. Suspenseful, emotionally charged, fantastically acted and directed.

James Bond is Back!

[univex]

Couldn´t agree more, word for word, JCRendle. Good review, it really mirrors my feelings, specially about the film´s 3rd act.

[kneelbeforezod]

Slightly baffled by people having a problem with the film's third act, which I thought was easily one of the most distinctive, striking and atmospheric climaxes in the series. I guess this is the fine line the producers always have to walk, some fans know exactly what they want and won't accept anything different.

For me, it was a pleasure to see something that beautifully staged/shot, as well as being a climax that came organically from the story/characters, rather than some generic baddie's base or whatever. Minor spoiler: the shot of that line of baddies walking down the hill towards the house is a classic.

[JCRendle]

Slightly baffled by people having a problem with the film's third act, which I thought was easily one of the most distinctive, striking and atmospheric climaxes in the series.

100% agree!

[marktmurphy]

The ultimate Bond film? Maybe. Certainly one of the strongest Bond movies ever.

I thought it was terrific: hugely exciting and involving action scenes which pretty much all use the element of tension. Some genuinely funny gags (Q telling Bond to get on the train, Bond's bizarre but hilarious reaction to the Komodos etc.); really emotional moments (M's Tennyson speech worked wonderfully whilst intercut with Bond running down the middle of the street: who wasn't thinking 'Go James'?); amazing performances (Bardem is the best Bond villain ever. I can't think of any contest); and Daniel Craig eatin' up the screen.
Looks incredible (despite some dodgy CGI moments- Craig's head being stuck on the bike rider at the beginning is nasty in some shots), the music works really well. And the biggest explosion I've seen in ages looking fantastic!
The titles are wonderful- Kleinman owns this job.

Some bum moments: Silva's barely in it. Seems a shame not to have him around much, and ultimately his big evil plan is... to kill an old lady. And even worse than that: he wants to kill her in revenge for an event we haven't seen and didn't know about before. I'm not keen on that sort of thing; feels a bit convenient.
M's death is a bit old hat. Dies from a flesh wound that didn't seem to be a problem earlier; and in Bond's arms. I'd have liked something a bit more surprising.

Amazing the shiver you get when the Aston DB5 is unveiled. We all know it was going to be in it, but that doesn't prepare you somehow. It's actually a bit of a character in this movie, and when we find out that it's still packing a deadly punch... that's a bit of a punch-the-air moment. Fantastic.

The ultimate Bond movie? The film where Bond dies; MI6 is destroyed, we see Bond's roots and find out the names of his parents; M is targeted; it's set in London; Q is restored; Moneypenny gets up close and personal with Bond; the DB5 returns with a bang; M is killed and a new M takes over; and all of this packing an emotional wallop whilst looking amazing, sounding great and with the best cast of a Bond movie ever...? Yeah, it could well be the ultimate Bond.

[marktmurphy]

But for me the ending isn't right. Bond is always a contemporary man, comfortable with the technology of his time. Here, not only is he labelled old fashioned but he embraces it. Yes, book and film Bonds have always had a liking for old fashioned suits, cars and ideals etc, But here we have the notion that Bond gets an edge on the bad guy by "going back to the past" - because that's where he's more comfortable. I just don't find that very Bondian.

The baddies have the Ken Adam-futuristic sets and futuristic tailoring, Bond gets old suits and an MI6 run by an old Admiral in a wood panelled room. Bond has always been old-fashioned.




Also, is it me, or did this feel really Fleming in places? Not just the obvious stuff like Silva's deformity but in places like the rat monologue Severine's backstory, Silva's island, the little assassination situation in the Shanghai skyscraper. Those really had a twist of Fleming and his love of little side-stories in them.

[univex]

Absolutely Mark. Really glad you liked it. Although... I already knew you would

[Scrambled Eggs]

But for me the ending isn't right. Bond is always a contemporary man, comfortable with the technology of his time. Here, not only is he labelled old fashioned but he embraces it. Yes, book and film Bonds have always had a liking for old fashioned suits, cars and ideals etc, But here we have the notion that Bond gets an edge on the bad guy by "going back to the past" - because that's where he's more comfortable. I just don't find that very Bondian.

The baddies have the Ken Adam-futuristic sets and futuristic tailoring, Bond gets old suits and an MI6 run by an old Admiral in a wood panelled room. Bond has always been old-fashioned.




Also, is it me, or did this feel really Fleming in places? Not just the obvious stuff like Silva's deformity but in places like the rat monologue Severine's backstory, Silva's island, the little assassination situation in the Shanghai skyscraper. Those really had a twist of Fleming and his love of little side-stories in them.

First paragraph is selective maybe? Even in the novels, Bond was provided with current technology. I think there is actually a Fleming quote about this - Bond always being contemporary. I'll fish it out. Theres certainly no point where, despite the Bentley, you feel that Bond is revelling in being an anachronism, which is what you get in the last third of Skyfall.

I completely agree that there is a lot of newly invented but very Flemingian material in this film. The Bardem speech is wonderful. Theres an implication that he largely improvised it - if so that suggests he has read a lot of Fleming in preparation. Kudos to Javier.

While watching him touching up Bond I was instantly reminded of Amis's conception of Scaramanga and there are a couple of other plot elements (dont need to tell you which ones) which seem to come from TMWTGG. Anyway, I really dont disagree with you in this point, the ghost of Fleming hovers over this film, although I'd argue that the ghost of Guy Hamilton actually looms larger - not that that's a bad thing (and yes, I know he's not dead).

I think Casino Royale remains a more Flemingian film. Only because you have a greater sense of Bond being a stone cold killer. Its a more visceral, sexier film and maybe for me, thats what Bond is about.

Of course, being more Flemingian doesn't mean a Bond movie fails. Fleming should be something they respect but aren't subservient to. Overall they probably get the balance right,

For what its worth, I liked it better the second time and I didn't exactly hate it first time around.

[The Shark]

I think Casino Royale remains a more Flemingian film. Only because you have a greater sense of Bond being a stone cold killer.

But Fleming's Bond is only really a "stone cold killer" (or blunt instrument) in the very first few books. As the novels progress, Bond becomes a more nostalgic, romantic, even at times sentimental figure.

Its a more visceral, sexier film

I don't know about that. There's more sexiness for me in SKYFALL's brief shower scene than in all of CASINO ROYALE's finger sucking, little fingers, and homoeroticism. Maybe it's because Berenice Marlohe does a lot more for me than Eva Green, and likewise with Thomas Newman's romantic music vs. David Arnold's.

[JCRendle]

Other than Bond's Bentley, you have his beretta which had had for too long, kept jamming and was unsuitable for service etc - he was unwilling to give it up when ordered to take the PPK.

[Messervy]

Well, I might sound like the party pooper here, but I'm really left disappointed.
Sure, this is a very beautiful movie as such. Great cinematography, great cast, superb shots.
But this is not a Bond movie. This would have been more suitable for another character. Bond doesn't call for a movie about his inner traumas. Bond doesn't call for a movie where he takes care of M like she's his mother. I mean, we see M almost as often as we see Bond! I must have missed the part when they said Skyfall would be a hitchkockian film about a putative mother/son relationship...
Whatever happend to the Bond character we so love? Whatever happened to the simple notion of a spy sent on a mission to do what he does best? Why on Earth do we need to get inside Bond's mind and delve into his childhood issues?
To me, eventhough it is brilliantly done, this kind of movie is really uncalled for in the Bond series.
The only glimmer of hope I got was watching the last minute, where we (finally!) get Bond back. Maybe the next one will actually be a Bond movie. Better late than never...

[thecasinoroyale]

I understand your review Messervy and it's valid - I still miss the mission Bond goes on from orders, which is why I hope the ending will allow Bond 24/25 the room to do this.

Saying that, I thought "James Bond was back" at the end of 'Quantum Of Solace'...how many films can end with that feeling that "James Bond Is Back!"...this HAS to be the end of that now...?

[Messervy]

I understand your review Messervy and it's valid - I still miss the mission Bond goes on from orders, which is why I hope the ending will allow Bond 24/25 the room to do this. Saying that, I thought "James Bond was back" at the end of 'Quantum Of Solace'...how many films can end with that feeling that "James Bond Is Back!"...this HAS to be the end of that now...?

Yes, but then did we really need a third film (after CR and QoS) to see that James Bond was going to be back?... I thought that he already was back by the end of QoS, and that SF would actually picture him fully as Bond.

[thecasinoroyale]

Me too - I suppose in a way he is back, and the only thing holding his leash was his relationship with M, and that she was one of the factors that had to change for him to change during 'Skyfall', to build from their relationship in the past 2 films.

There pretty much is nothing left to hold him back now...I suspect...?

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

Me too - I suppose in a way he is back, and the only thing holding his leash was his relationship with M, and that she was one of the factors that had to change for him to change during 'Skyfall', to build from their relationship in the past 2 films.

There pretty much is nothing left to hold him back now...I suspect...?

Most certainly in my opinion. ALL the traditional characters are now on their places and we've pretty much returned to pre-Brosnan era.

[Messervy]

Me too - I suppose in a way he is back, and the only thing holding his leash was his relationship with M, and that she was one of the factors that had to change for him to change during 'Skyfall', to build from their relationship in the past 2 films.

There pretty much is nothing left to hold him back now...I suspect...?

Yes, I can see what you mean. And I congratulate the filmmakers for being quite original in their handling of Bond and for daring to try a new approach. It's just that, eventhough SF is a superb film, I still can't connect it to Bond. By that, I mean that it's too "personal", and I don't think Bond should be too personal. Sure, we need to have some glimpses of Bond's psyche (like we had, for instance, in TSWLM when Anya tells Bond about his late wife, or in LTK when Della tells Bond he should get married), but to me we don't need a whole movie about that.
I sure hope that, now, all this psycho-trauma-trust issues are done with, and that we'll now resume the Bond trend.

[SecretAgentFan]

I think Bond´s back story is dealt with now: Vesper, his parents and - almost most importantly - M as a mother figure.

That does not mean that his traumatic experiences won´t play a role in future missions. But it surely will be less important.

I do believe that there is still one character that will cause another traumatic experience, at some time down the line. Having set up Bond so perfectly with the three films of the new era, it is too tempting not to re-introduce Tracy. And it would be a fitting end to Craig´s arc if his Bond were to fall in love again, this time for real, and ending in tragedy.

[Hockey Mask]

I think Bond´s back story is dealt with now: Vesper, his parents and - almost most importantly - M as a mother figure.

That does not mean that his traumatic experiences won´t play a role in future missions. But it surely will be less important.

I do believe that there is still one character that will cause another traumatic experience, at some time down the line. Having set up Bond so perfectly with the three films of the new era, it is too tempting not to re-introduce Tracy. And it would be a fitting end to Craig´s arc if his Bond were to fall in love again, this time for real, and ending in tragedy.

I wouldn't mind revisiting Tracy either but it seems too soon since Vesper. It seems like that aspect of angst has already been told.

[Messervy]

I think Bond´s back story is dealt with now: Vesper, his parents and - almost most importantly - M as a mother figure. That does not mean that his traumatic experiences won´t play a role in future missions. But it surely will be less important. I do believe that there is still one character that will cause another traumatic experience, at some time down the line. Having set up Bond so perfectly with the three films of the new era, it is too tempting not to re-introduce Tracy. And it would be a fitting end to Craig´s arc if his Bond were to fall in love again, this time for real, and ending in tragedy.

Please, no more tragedy! Let Bond be Bond, without throwing in traumas every minute!

[marktmurphy]

First paragraph is selective maybe? Even in the novels, Bond was provided with current technology. I think there is actually a Fleming quote about this - Bond always being contemporary. I'll fish it out. Theres certainly no point where, despite the Bentley, you feel that Bond is revelling in being an anachronism, which is what you get in the last third of Skyfall.

I'd say Bond represents the old way- keeping the status quo. And he does it in a pretty old fashioned way- killing. He revels in classical pleasures from old booze and classic food. MovieBond doesn't even like the Beatles. He fights against villains trying to impose a new way; often they represent modernist thinking and even live in modernist homes in the films.
Fleming thought this way himself: hence Goldfinger being named after the modernist architect he intensely disliked.

Bond might get a new gadget occasionally, but he's resistant to change (doesn't even like giving up his gun or his old car)- I don't think he's exactly an early adopter. The villains he fights against are exactly that.

[YOLT]

I think Bond´s back story is dealt with now: Vesper, his parents and - almost most importantly - M as a mother figure. That does not mean that his traumatic experiences won´t play a role in future missions. But it surely will be less important. I do believe that there is still one character that will cause another traumatic experience, at some time down the line. Having set up Bond so perfectly with the three films of the new era, it is too tempting not to re-introduce Tracy. And it would be a fitting end to Craig´s arc if his Bond were to fall in love again, this time for real, and ending in tragedy.

Please, no more tragedy! Let Bond be Bond, without throwing in traumas every minute!

Totally agree, the two Bonds, who made 007 a series ( Connery and Moore ) didnt had any "personal" movies. Moore had minor parts ( in TSWLM and FYEO I remember ) about Bond's wife but nothıng more. This "personal" thıng had gone from a few ( OHMSS, LTK) to the major Bond issue with Brosnan and especially with Craig. The last "non personal" 007 movie was TND I guess.

[Pussfeller]

It's interesting that even the most negative reviews for SF rarely dispute its merits as a film. It's not criticized for any lack of entertainment value or production quality, but merely for falling outside the viewer's own personal conception of what constitutes a normative, orthodox Bond experience. (Which is a fantasy in itself, since every Bond film has been different, and even the "classic" films deliver wildly different experiences.) But this is the major objection lodged by Xanthor Brooks and Jeremy Clarkson. Basically, they freely admit that Skyfall is a good film, but it's not what they think of as a Bond film, therefore it isn't really a Bond film, therefore the filmmakers must have done something wrong. This attitude is impossible to satisfy. It demands that every Bond film be trite and familiar, the easier to be pigeonholed and dispensed with. It's the attitude of a supercilious observer who just wants the stupid little movies to conform to his fossilized expectations.