350 replies to this topic

[Pussfeller]

Close to the top, nestled somewhere between the bee's knees and the cat's pajamas, is where you'll find Skyfall. It's difficult to compare a Bond made in 2012 with those of the 60's, but in terms of pure entertainment value, it stands as high as anything in the series. And when it comes to the quality of the writing, the production values, the casting, and the evident skill and passion of everyone involved, it has no equal. The Connery films have seniority, but that's all. Skyfall is not just a great Bond film, it's a great film. Maybe that's why some people don't think it belongs. Because it excels in a way that seems unnatural for a Bond film.

True, I was expecting to enjoy it, and perhaps my enthusiasm is partly fueled by confirmation bias. Looking back on the gushing reviews that were written on this forum in 2002, it's a good idea to have some epistemological humility. Maybe my admiration and enjoyment of Skyfall will fade. On the other hand, I had no trouble cringing at QOS when it opened, and even CR struck me as a bit draggy in parts, whereas Skyfall exceeded even those expectations that I feared unreasonable. I braced myself for a certain level of disappointment, but I needn't have bothered.

To begin with, it contains many of the same Craig-era ingredients, but it feels like the first wholly successful application of the recipe, the first in which the ingredients are properly combined and the mixture baked all the way through. The Craig era has shown certain iffy tendencies that continue to be present in Skyfall, but suddenly, instead of disappointing me, they seem to be working as originally intended.

Where to start? Kinnear's Tanner, whom I found to be totally bland and pointless in QOS, is here given enough screentime to make a fine impression. His banality here has a cumulative positive effect, and over the course of many scenes he takes shape as a proper Tanner: a somewhat staid and conservative chum to Bond, plodding but competent. In QOS I knew Kinnear was a good actor, but here I see it without being told. And I wind up liking his character for the same reason Bond must like him: because he's solid and has his head on straight. I find him almost as effective as Michael Kitchen. And to be fair, Kinnear sticks a lot closer to the Tanner of Fleming, whereas Kitchen played him as a sort of rumpled newshound.

Another prominent example: the "remote-control Bond" dynamic, in which 007 is always running about in the field while in constant communication with MI6, is an innovation of the Craig era that was not really present in the Brosnan films, and it's something that I have always disliked. But I think I see now why it didn't work in CR and QOS, because in SF it works brilliantly. Whereas the MI6 of CR and QOS was staffed by dozens of faceless, undefined extras with one or two lines apiece, Skyfall takes the time to introduce us to a small and well-articulated team of fully-realized personalities. With these characters at the other end of the phone, the "mission control" effect is much more satisfying. Compare the "digitalis" scene in CR with the "put your back into it" scene in Skyfall. Instead of an icy asymmetry between Bond in the field and a bunch of anonymous MI6 employees at HQ, we have what amounts to a true conversation between two characters with personality and s shared history of human interactions. The same is true of Bond's ear-chat with Eve in Macau. Instead of the wireless communicator being just a utilitarian plot device, it's now a source of character interaction and character-driven humor. The scene between Bond and Q is loaded with in-the-moment comic beats, while Eve's jealous dig at Severine is perfect characterization for a Moneypenny-to-be. This warmth and depth of character interaction was totally absent from the Bond-to-elf exchanges in CR and QOS. It's one of the most conspicuous and indubitable improvements over previous films, and it makes me very optimistic about Bond 24 and beyond. SF has constructed a solid MI6 family, like we used to have in the old days. The groundwork is laid, and all future films must do is develop and exploit it.

There are a few action scenes that didn't appeal to me, but I'm hard to please about these things. I generally enjoy action scenes less than most Bond fans. The Shanghai tower scene was a bit stylized and obscure for my taste. However, the opening chase was excellent, especially the bit when they get on top of the train. Very clear, well-edited, and satisfying. There are two beats that struck me as especially good: the first is the instant where the train emerges from the tunnel and Bond is momentarily unsure of Patrice's position, which to me feels very real and tense, and is the sort of thing that would happen if you were wrestling with an assassin on top of a train. I love a well-thought-out, engrossing action scene. The second wonderful beat is the moment after Bond's plummet from the train when Patrice vanishes (literally) into the black tunnel, which is just a great little moment, visually and in the little audible whoosh. Everything comes together in a nice tactile pop. The moment goes by quickly, but it illustrates the virtuosity of the film. It just feels good to watch. You sense that the people making the film know what they're doing.

At this point, it's almost a cliche to point out how marvelous the visuals are. Let's just say that Deakins deserves his reputation, and I don't envy his successor, who will be under incredible pressure. I feel more like defending the score, which has received some criticism. Having seen the film and heard the score in action, I find this criticism baffling. The score works perfectly. It complements the rhythms and moods of the film, shaping the tone without trying to imperiously dictate it. Newman doesn't blare at you like the Robot Devil, as Arnold tends to do. Newman's score is melodically interesting, stylistically varied, and capable both of beauty and surprise. It will be a miscarriage of film criticism if Newman's presence, and by implication Arnold's absence, goes down as one of Skyfall's flaws rather than one of its cardinal virtues.

I guess I have to write a little obituary for Judi Dench's M. I don't have as much to say about her as some fans. My feelings about her are neither ardent nor vehement. She'll unquestionably be remembered as the second M, with all due respect to Robert Brown. It's just too bad so much of her era was beneath her, and a waste of her talent and charisma. She was splendid in GE, sparingly used and brilliantly effective. Beginning with TWINE she began to exceed her brief, and the effect on the general rhythm and feel of Bond's adventures was not salutary. Instead of spicing up proceedings in London, she became overstretched and depreciated in value. CR used her a bit differently, but nothing really changed. She continued to overpower the stew, and I personally welcomed the rumors that she was leaving after Skyfall, and that the manner of her departure would have a welcome ring of permanency about it. But Dench brings something very different to SF than she brought to the previous films. Her passion and even her technical skill seem to rise to a new level. I'm not unhappy that she's moving on, as some fans seem to be, but it's obvious that Skyfall wouldn't be possible without her, and that's enough for me to readjust my basic feeling about her tenure as M. If she had been given this kind of material in previous films, she would have reached the same level, and I wouldn't have found her tiresome. So, as Q would say, it's a bit melancholy to see her go. Even as the franchise picks up a bunch of new talent and passion, it's also losing a great talent and a very charismatic presence. For good or ill, Bond will be really different without Dench.

Of course Fiennes sweetens the deal considerably. My only complaint about Mallory's insinuation into our happy little MI6 family is that it happens a little too quickly, and the procedure is a little too transparent. We see how he's being positioned, we see - beat for beat - how the illusion is being set up for our eyes to perceive, first to grate and then to endear. The scene where he "catches" Q and Tanner in a trivial violation of protocol is supposed to be a sharp turning point and an epiphany about his character, but it doesn't really work, because he's already earned our trust about five times. Q and Tanner are way too surprised when, instead of crucifying them on the spot, Mallory gamely joins in the breadcrumb caper. They shouldn't be surprised at all, so the moment feels a little false. Mallory was never presented as enough of a jobsworth for this reaction to be warranted. And the juxtaposition with McCrory's mean-girl minister has just sweetened him further. By the time he arrives in Q's bunker with his arm in a sling, he's already completed his rather short journey from vaguely crusty but supposedly bureaucratic tool to vaguely crusty yet demonstrably heroic mensch. And if Bond hadn't described him as a bureaucrat, I never would have guessed it. I suppose this is a minor problem, a thread that isn't properly woven into the garment, and it only really becomes manifest in that one scene where Q and Tanner act shocked - shocked! - that Mallory doesn't run and tattle on them to the prime minister, or whatever bureaucratic reaction they're meant to be expecting. It seems as if the filmmakers deeply worried that audiences wouldn't like Mallory and would hiss at him for taking Dench's chair, so it needed to be hammered home what a great guy he is. We have the heroic peacekeeper background, the stone-cold smackdown of the bitch politician, and the borderline suicidal valor exhibited during the shoot-out. After this, and the little throwaway comment about the PM "prattling on", it's pretty clear that Mallory is not the second coming of Frederick Gray.

It's a common view around here, and one that I strongly agree with, that the last couple decades of Bond films have severely overemphasized the "personal" stuff, and succumbed to a lot of angst and melodrama instead of allowing Bond to go out and save the world with a light heart and joy of life. To be sure, Skyfall doesn't reverse that trend. But what it does have is a single, strong villain with a single, strong motive. Every event in the film, from the first to the last scene, radiates from Silva's grievance against M. The story never loses sight of that. Even before it's clear to the audience who or what is behind the attacks on MI6, it's evident that this mysterious antagonist is focused on a particular target: M. Her centrality is evident from the pre-title scene, and her performance gives us a strong hint of the emotional arc of the film. We sense, based on her reaction to the loss of the drive, that an existential threat faces MI6 and herself personally. This emotional starting point is gradually fortified with the facts of the plot. It becomes clear - in a bit of exposition by Tanner that is cleverly justified by Bond's ignorance of recent events, and therefore organic to the plot - that M is the target of a mysterious malevolent force. It doesn't even matter that we don't understand the nature of the malevolence - it is clear enough and coherent enough even in the abstract. When Silva is finally revealed, it isn't necessary to waste a lot of time explaining who he is and what he wants, because we already know. No Bond villain has ever been so smoothly and effectively introduced, no villainous scheme exposed so gradually and plausibly. This is the core of the film that everything else depends on, and once you have a strong foundation, you can build whatever you want.

A few comments about Silva: Considering how reviewers were tossing around words like "flamboyant" and "pansexual", I was expecting a more eccentric performance than Bardem actually delivered. That's not to say he isn't a bit flamboyant, but to me it feels more like Latin vivacity than campiness. Actually, it's both. He does sometimes seem to have walked in from the Almodovar set next door. But it works. The role of Bond villain deserves a big, audacious performance. (Bond needs another Elliott Carver like he needs a hole in the head.) The villain must make a strong impression, gleefully at the expense of realism and dignity. To hell with dignity. To be properly menacing, the villain must be a little bit ridiculous. Silva's creepy petting of Bond so perfectly satisfies all these requirements, I find it unbelievable that this kind of villain didn't appear in a Bond film decades ago. I suppose audiences had to catch up with Bond. Popular conceptions of homosexuality have finally reached the point where it can be incorporated into a villain's persona without making audiences feel like homophobes for sympathizing with Bond. We - and Bond himself - can separate the predatory creepiness of Silva's gesture from the homosexual form that it assumes. There's a definite parallel with Live and Let Die, where the menace of the black villains is made more dangerous and exciting by the contemporary reality of racism, and of racist interpretations. It's as if the film is daring the viewer, and saying, "We're cool enough to get away with this." It's always nice to be reminded that Bond is still cool - at least as cool as he was in 1973.

But the film's pacing puts me in mind of an even earlier era, before Bond was cool. The way it flies by, never wearing out its welcome, reminds me of Goldfinger. From beginning to end, momentum gathers with each new incident, and hurtles everything forward, such that no scene seems to drag on for too long. Unlike CR, with its long, questionable detours in Miami and Venice, there is no scene in Skyfall that seems out of sequence or overlong. (Even the Shanghai assassination, which I found a bit unclear, is fundamentally logical and expeditious, and ends on a high note, with the mesmerizing and weirdly beautiful image of Severine and the Modigliani.) Some critiques have singled out the Scotland scenes as somehow detached from the rest of the film in tone or pacing. Because of this, I was steeling myself for a repeat of Venice or the Perla de las Dunas - a draggy shoot-em-up where the formerly quick pacing is jettisoned in order to make the most of a big conceptual setpiece. The assault on Skyfall Lodge had the potential to be exactly that. But it isn't. Partly this can be credited to the late arrival of Kincade, who heads off any flagging of interest, but the basic fact is that the Scotland segment is way shorter than it could have been. It feels like they show up, spend a little time chatting with Kincade and preparing the house for the assault, and then - bip! - the mooks have showed up. I was expecting a much longer final act, but the swiftness preserves the momentum, and the whole thing is over before you can say "provocatrix" five times fast.

Realistically, I don't think we could have expected a better Bond film than the one they delivered. When they make the next one, they'll be under a huge amount of pressure. Sometimes that helps. The good news is that Skyfall did a lot of narrative heavy lifting that will benefit future installments. For the first time in a decade, the MI6 manger scene is fully stocked, and our craggy baby jesus is basking in the adoration he deserves. Whether or not the next one is better, Skyfall will always be around, and that's nice because it's awesome.

Score: 9.9 / 10
(If not for Mallory's maladroit introduction, it would get a perfect score.)

P.S. Not since the Moore era has a Bond film accorded so much prominence to a nick nack. Does anyone remember which commenter first put two and two together about the dog? I think it was Tightpants, or maybe Gerard. Whoever it was, you just know he's boasting about it to his cats and Star Wars figurines. Sad, really.

[Sunraker]

I know M pulls the agents, but still the vital disk content is never recovered and is still a major intelligence concern at the end of the movie. I thought there was little closure on this major plot point, which after all got the story going.

Hmm... I had assumed that the data was recovered and safe once Silva got caught and his lair raided?

Possible, but why would Silva give back the info that easily? After all, it was his plan to get caught. It seems like a big waste, Silva seems smart enough not to store it in a central location.

Anyway, I would've preferred less room for assumptions.

[MkB]

Hmm... I had assumed that the data was recovered and safe once Silva got caught and his lair raided?

Possible, but why would Silva give back the info that easily? After all, it was his plan to get caught. It seems like a big waste, Silva seems smart enough not to store it in a central location.

Anyway, I would've preferred less room for assumptions.

I see your point. My personal assumption is that Silva never really cared for the data, it was just instrumental for him. Getting M was the end of his journey, so once he got caught the data was of no interest to him, and he would probably let MI6 find it at his lair.

[The Shark]

Hmm... I had assumed that the data was recovered and safe once Silva got caught and his lair raided?

Possible, but why would Silva give back the info that easily? After all, it was his plan to get caught. It seems like a big waste, Silva seems smart enough not to store it in a central location.

Anyway, I would've preferred less room for assumptions.

I see your point. My personal assumption is that Silva never really cared for the data, it was just instrumental for him.

Exactly. It was just bait for Bond.

[kneelbeforezod]

Pussfeller: magnificent review.

[Dustin]

Splendid piece, Pusfeller!

[Tuxedo]

Thanks a lot, Pussfeller. Great review!

[FredJB007]

Pussfeller, one word........AWESOME!

[Pussfeller]

Glad you guys enjoyed my review. It's way more than I intended to write, but there's loads in SF to praise and discuss. It's a remarkably rich film, and I expect I'll probably have even more to say about it after I see it again.

[Elvenstar]

such awesome review Pussfeller !

[Messervy]

Just back from seeing it again.
Splendid. Positively splendid.

[PPK_19]

Finally seen Skyfall!

Saw it at IMAX, and by god i'm glad i did! The best Bond film ever made. I can sum up my feelings by quoting my sister, who saw it with me.

"Whilst i was watching it i was thinking not only is this just a good Bond film, but overall a brilliant film in itself."

And that's just it in a nutshell. There was a point during the London scenes, when M is reading the poem from her late husband, as Silva is on her way to kill her. Something about that moment just made me realise that i was watching quality. That, and the fight between Patrice and Bond in the Shanghai skyscraper; silhouettes only- gripping, intense- the best Bond cinematography on film. I know the Academy don't rate Bond but if Deakins doesn't get a nod for Skyfall i'll cry.

And all this fuss over Newman's score....i thought it was good, even great in places. The third act at Skyfall lodge was a stand out in terms of music, as was Shanghai.

My favourite bit: the goon picking up Bond's signature Walther, and Bond quipping "good luck with that", completely unconcerned.

The worst bit: the end. As in, i didn't want it to end.

Five stars, 11/10, colour me Bonded for life.

Edited by PPK_19, 04 November 2012 - 10:21 PM.

[gkgyver]

I agree with you, Shark. And I not only disagree with gkgyver´s review - I think it is full of misunderstandings and probably deliberately polemic misinterpretations. And what the heck does he mean with "fending off Danny deVito"?

Well, dear sir, had you read my "review" with the necessary attention, you could know that these were spontaneous thoughts, written one hour after having seen the film, at 3 o'clock at night, and therefor there was little time to come up with "deliberate polemic misinterpretations".

To assume as much indicates some malevolence on your part, though.

Personally, I think you are seeing Skyfall through a Bond fan filter and can't handle it if someone does't find it as earth-shattering as some make it out to be.

To give you something to grumble about, here is another thing I didn't like. Severine's introduction was great. Killing her off in literally the next 10 minutes was a really stupid decision. Finally a character to explore other than Bond or M, and then she's gone. That's like killing Natalya right there in the interrogation room five minutes after she met Bond. Or killing Melina in Cortina.
Just not a very smart move.

[The Shark]

To give you something to grumble about, here is another thing I didn't like. Severine's introduction was great. Killing her off in literally the next 10 minutes was a really stupid decision. Finally a character to explore other than Bond or M, and then she's gone. That's like killing Natalya right there in the interrogation room five minutes after she met Bond. Or killing Melina in Cortina.
Just not a very smart move.

But neither of those were sacrificial lambs. Better comparisons would be Plenty O'Toole, Corinne Dufour, Countess Lisl or Solange.

[Cyclone49]

While it's not coming out in Australia for a couple more weeks, I managed to catch a showing yesterday while in Thailand. And, I have to say, it was quite brilliant. Some minor niggles about certain plot/logic aspects, but an extraordinarily enjoyable Bond film on the whole.

It's all still a bit of a blur for me right now, so I'll stick to just listing what immediately comes to mind instead of trying for any sort of coherent review.

I have to agree with the assessment that this feels like Craig's Goldfinger (or TSWLM) in many ways - it's a very fun, engaging action-adventure film that doesn't try to be much more, though despite that I thought it ended up being a lot stronger in emotion and characterization than Quantum of Solace ever was, helped by the fact the plot and characters are given much more room to breathe. If anything, it struck me as the sort of film EON kept trying to make during the Brosnan era but never quite achieved - there's a real TWINE-done-right vibe to it.

I was slightly ambivalent during the first two acts - it was all very good, but so Bond-by-numbers that it threw m, for a loop at first (and the continued mistreatment of the gunbarrel put a bad taste in my mouth - yes, I am that petty) - but things really kick into gear once Bond and M arrive in Scotland. I've read some criticisms of the final act, but I found it to the strongest part of the film - utterly unexpected, gorgeously shot, and packed both with great action and excellent drama and character development (that was all quintessentially Fleming).

Great casting all around - most surprising for me was Bérénice Marlohe as Sévérine, who made a potentially cliched character one of the most memorable in the movie. Really liked everyone else as well, from Javiar Bardem's slimy, bat insane villain (that bit where he removes his teeth is horrifying), to the new Q (pleasantly surprised at how much screentime he got), to Ralph Fiennes' character, whose character arc and developing relationship with Bond was very satisfying. Naomi Harris was perhaps the weak link - not a bad performance by any means, but I'm not sure how much favors the script did her - she seemed to devolve into the one of the walking one-liners that tended to populate the Brosnan movies. Props to the production team too for (as far as I could tell) keeping all the big twists at the end under wraps - despite all the rumors surrounding the identities of certain characters, the eventual revelations were all very satisfying.

After all the headache-inducing shaky cam of QoS, the action scenes were all very refreshing, especially the subway chase (loved the "I hope that wasn't meant for me" "No. This is." exchange) and the fight in the komodo dragon pit that felt straight out of a Moore film. Shame about all the nonsense gibberish while Q and Bond were "hacking" the... whatever that was. Mendes' direction was excellent all around - I'd be very happy for him to take the helm for the few more films. Otherwise all the other elements were great, from Kleinman's gorgeous titles to Newman's score (hardly discernible from Arnold's work, but still very good) to the excellently crafted script. And Craig once again owns the role, to the point where he's close to rivaling Connery as my favourite Bond.

9/10 for now, points deducted for a few minor issues here and there, plus that goddamn gunbarrel.

It was a great gunbarrel too, much better than QoS's rushed effort, and with the rest of the film being a deliberate move towards business-as-usual, "classic" Bond, it seems a shame that the gunbarrel of all things was the one missing element. I realize it's a very minor element that doesn't effect the quality of the actual movie, but it's such an iconic aspect of the Bond experience (plus a nice little relic from a past era of filmmaking) that removing it just seems a move towards making Bond like every other generic thriller.

[SecretAgentFan]

I agree with you, Shark. And I not only disagree with gkgyver´s review - I think it is full of misunderstandings and probably deliberately polemic misinterpretations. And what the heck does he mean with "fending off Danny deVito"?

Well, dear sir, had you read my "review" with the necessary attention, you could know that these were spontaneous thoughts, written one hour after having seen the film, at 3 o'clock at night, and therefor there was little time to come up with "deliberate polemic misinterpretations".

To assume as much indicates some malevolence on your part, though.

Personally, I think you are seeing Skyfall through a Bond fan filter and can't handle it if someone does't find it as earth-shattering as some make it out to be.

To give you something to grumble about, here is another thing I didn't like. Severine's introduction was great. Killing her off in literally the next 10 minutes was a really stupid decision. Finally a character to explore other than Bond or M, and then she's gone. That's like killing Natalya right there in the interrogation room five minutes after she met Bond. Or killing Melina in Cortina.
Just not a very smart move.

Ooops, sorry to think that a long, elaborate post done at 3 o´ clock is not worth discussing.

But even your later, hopefully more thought out assessment of Severine´s death does not persuade me at all. I respect your opinion and there is no malevolence on my part whatsoever. But if you post it on a message board you will have to live with me disagreeing. I think killing off Severine is an extremely smart move, shocking and surprising. In fact, keeping her around for the later events of the film would not have made sense.

[Roebuck]

I agree with you, Shark. And I not only disagree with gkgyver´s review - I think it is full of misunderstandings and probably deliberately polemic misinterpretations. And what the heck does he mean with "fending off Danny deVito"?

Well, dear sir, had you read my "review" with the necessary attention, you could know that these were spontaneous thoughts, written one hour after having seen the film, at 3 o'clock at night, and therefor there was little time to come up with "deliberate polemic misinterpretations".

To assume as much indicates some malevolence on your part, though.

Personally, I think you are seeing Skyfall through a Bond fan filter and can't handle it if someone does't find it as earth-shattering as some make it out to be.

To give you something to grumble about, here is another thing I didn't like. Severine's introduction was great. Killing her off in literally the next 10 minutes was a really stupid decision. Finally a character to explore other than Bond or M, and then she's gone. That's like killing Natalya right there in the interrogation room five minutes after she met Bond. Or killing Melina in Cortina.
Just not a very smart move.

Ooops, sorry to think that a long, elaborate post done at 3 o´ clock is not worth discussing.

But even your later, hopefully more thought out assessment of Severine´s death does not persuade me at all. I respect your opinion and there is no malevolence on my part whatsoever. But if you post it on a message board you will have to live with me disagreeing. I think killing off Severine is an extremely smart move, shocking and surprising. In fact, keeping her around for the later events of the film would not have made sense.

Not wishing to be argumentative here, but personally I found Servine’s death far too telegraphed to be shocking or surprising. You have a character designed for a particular function; to shepherd Bond to the island. After that the plot has no further use for her and she becomes the cliché sacrificial lamb. Her murder has nothing of the impact of, for example, Corinne Dufour in Moonraker.

[FutureJamesBond]

I'm seeing Skyfall Friday afternoon,(release day in the USA,) and I plan on writing a review hopefully by Sunday.

[gkgyver]

I agree with you, Shark. And I not only disagree with gkgyver´s review - I think it is full of misunderstandings and probably deliberately polemic misinterpretations. And what the heck does he mean with "fending off Danny deVito"?

Well, dear sir, had you read my "review" with the necessary attention, you could know that these were spontaneous thoughts, written one hour after having seen the film, at 3 o'clock at night, and therefor there was little time to come up with "deliberate polemic misinterpretations".

To assume as much indicates some malevolence on your part, though.

Personally, I think you are seeing Skyfall through a Bond fan filter and can't handle it if someone does't find it as earth-shattering as some make it out to be.

To give you something to grumble about, here is another thing I didn't like. Severine's introduction was great. Killing her off in literally the next 10 minutes was a really stupid decision. Finally a character to explore other than Bond or M, and then she's gone. That's like killing Natalya right there in the interrogation room five minutes after she met Bond. Or killing Melina in Cortina.
Just not a very smart move.

Ooops, sorry to think that a long, elaborate post done at 3 o´ clock is not worth discussing.

"Not worth discussing" is not what you said; you said it was deliberate polemic malevolence against the film, which is quite frankly ridiculous.
Not that you gave any signal that you are willing to discuss anyway. Gushing about Skyfall is ok, but dealing with some criticism is too uncomfortable apparently.

But even your later, hopefully more thought out assessment of Severine´s death does not persuade me at all. I respect your opinion and there is no malevolence on my part whatsoever. But if you post it on a message board you will have to live with me disagreeing.

Well, good that I didn't persuade you, I had no intention to.
And don't play the "respect the opinion" card after you outwardly branded my remarks as malicious nonsense.

[Pussfeller]

Nice duel, but it could really use a coup de grâce.

[SecretAgentFan]

Very good comment, Pussfeller!

And let me move things forward and offer a hand to you, gkgyver. You were disappointed, I was excited. We had the same disagreement in the Thomas Newman-thread. Let´s just leave it at the all-time favorite "let´s agree to disagree".

I certainly was a bit harsh when I criticized your points against SKYFALL. My apologies.

Maybe we will reverse our opinions a bit after repeated viewings of SKYFALL. Maybe not.

[ggl]

Very good comment, Pussfeller!

And let me move things forward and offer a hand to you, gkgyver. You were disappointed, I was excited. We had the same disagreement in the Thomas Newman-thread. Let´s just leave it at the all-time favorite "let´s agree to disagree".

I certainly was a bit harsh when I criticized your points against SKYFALL. My apologies.

Maybe we will reverse our opinions a bit after repeated viewings of SKYFALL. Maybe not.

That´s an Answer, SecretAgentFan.

Congratulations for that.

[Joyce Carrington]

Thoughts on SKYFALL.

First things first: it’s pretty good.

Best Bond ever? Not for me – ‘Casino Royale’ still holds that place. ‘Skyfall’ took a similar route and focused a lot on character, which I am very grateful for. But somehow it never managed to touch me – whereas ‘Casino Royale’ did. (In terms of character deaths alone, Vesper wins this one. Sorry M.) I’ll probably rank this near my personal top, among some of the Brosnan films: it’s mostly a fun adventure if you don’t stop to point out all the silly things.

THE GOOD.

It’s visually stunning.

Bardem is fantastic.

It holds onto the Craig era’s ‘gutsyness’. From the moment Bond got shot in the shoulder in the PTS, I knew I would appreciate the tone. This was confirmed when M ordered Eve to shoot Bond moments later. Then we had Silva feeling up Bond, of course – which makes me incredibly happy. The death of Severine is on this list as well, though it came a bit soon for me – I expected more from her since they had just started revealing an interesting backstory.

The little details. M’s bulldog figurine is used very well, for instance.

The humour. There were a couple of moments where they dragged it on slightly too long (“Circle of life” for instance) and I wondered if I was back in a Moore film, but this is nitpicking. There was some great banter there.

The title sequence. Nitpicking again, but where was this in ‘Quantum of Solace’? Well, let us not speak of ‘Quantum of Solace’ again.

THE FINE.

The new Q, Moneypenny and M. And the new headquarters – or is it the old?

The action. I really loved the PTS – it alone was better than the whole of ‘Quantum of Solace’. Damn! There I go speaking of it again.

THE LESS GOOD.

The length. I felt it in some places (Macau for instance).

I liked that Bond was given an injury. I did not like that it suddenly disappeared. Bonds shoulder was still bothering him when he had to shoot the glass off Severine’s head. By the time he was pursuing the escaped Silva, everything was fine again. By the time he reached Scotland, he was surprising Kincaid with his skills. This is fine – though it takes away some suspense for the coming fight – but I would at least liked to have seen a little moment made of this: Bond missing, gritting teeth, focusing, taking another shot: hit. He’s back. Did I miss this?

THAT THIRD ACT.

Cue The A-Team music! Or the MacGyver theme song.

It’s an odd duck. It comes out of nowhere, really, and for all the running around and blowing up the London tube system (more potential victims = higher stakes) that came before it, it feels slightly anti-climactic.

[On that note, I actually expected Silva to get up again after the knife in his back and have one more hand-to-hand fight scene with Bond (Bond pulling his fake jaw out and gouging out his eyes with it, perhaps). But he died quite easily, actually.]

I’m trying to make sense of it – was this done because of theme? Since M is a mother figure to both Bond and Silva, did they want to tie this into Bonds real parents? Or is this about the resurrection theme – Bond has to go back to his roots and be reborn there? It would have been fine either way, but I fear they made it so subtle it was completely lost on me.

It’s easy to draw parallels to the Nolan Batman films. That’s perhaps also why I expected more. When Kincaid told the story of Bond hiding out in the secret tunnel, I squirmed in my seat. I knew someone would head into that tunnel at some point. What would they find there? Bonds batcave? Some kind of symbol? Some hint as to what Bond had been doing there for two days? Something that explained why Bond became who he became? As much as I feared something really cheesy, I was kind of disappointed when it turned out there was nothing at all. Somehow the whole plan to come to Scotland didn’t seem necessary anymore. They could have hidden out anywhere. Why here? Why does it matter?

QUESTIONS.

So what was Silva’s plan? He wanted to shame M, face her one last time and then kill her? To do this, he had a) the list stolen, b ) the MI6 building blown up, c) the list made public, all to d) have M send someone after him, so e) he could be captured and taken to her, then f) subsequently escape and head to the ‘court’ she would be at to answer for losing the list, and g) shoot her (and himself, as we figure out in Scotland). It sounds complex when I list it this way, but it actually felt pretty simple. I kept waiting for some other factor to come into play – blowing up London or something. Why else the huge operation (Silva had so many men, and so many men disguised as London police officers as well)? Why did he start releasing the names on the list? Was there a ransom demand tied to it? Did I miss something?

Who did Patrice kill in Shanghai?

Must Bond sleep with every single woman he encounters (aside from M)? Why was the shower scene necessary? Severine had already betrayed Silva enough to ‘justify’ him killing her.

What was the point of the shaving scene? Sure, it’s an original setting to have some dialogue exchanged, but that dialogue hardly matters: it’s background information about Mallory. Are they trying to throw the audience off by making us wonder about him and whether he is perhaps to be trusted? Or is this about trust between Bond and Eve? Because he still doesn’t really trust her after this – in the field, I mean.

It was really convenient that the train that came crashing down through the tunnel had no passengers, wasn’t it? Why was this? Would it have been too shocking to show a lot of dead people? Then why do this at all? Could Silva really anticipate Bond following him here?

EDIT: Another question. Am I to believe that to REALLY piss Bond off, I should destroy his car? This is James Bond, I know, but it felt a little petty.

EDIT: Another question. I liked that Eve HAD character development, but did I miss something here as well? When did she decide she didn't want to be a field agent anymore? Her last action as a field agent was saving Bonds life and that went pretty well. Am I to believe she got 'closure' by doing that and decided that was all she wanted?

THE END. For now.

[Dustin]

Some fine points there, Joyce!

On the tube train: I didn't think that was supposed to hit Bond, just to make pursuit impossible for whoever was close enough to actually try to head off Silva.

[IcedCamaro]

Love and virtually agree with everything on Joyce's post.

[NATO Sub]

Some hint as to what Bond had been doing there for two days? Something that explained why Bond became who he became? As much as I feared something really cheesy, I was kind of disappointed when it turned out there was nothing at all. Somehow the whole plan to come to Scotland didn’t seem necessary anymore. They could have hidden out anywhere. Why here? Why does it matter?

What was he doing in the tunnel for two days? Turning from a boy into a man (not a physical transformation - a mental one).

Why go to Scotland? Firstly Silva uses technology to gain an advantage, Skyfall Lodge barely even has electricity - no internet, no networks, not even a working telephone. Secondly, it's Bond's "home turf". He knows the geography and he knows about the tunnel which gives him an edge on Silva. It's also isolated, so there is less chance of collateral damage during the confrontation and it's easy to see anyone approaching.

[Aisforauric]

Close to the top, nestled somewhere between the bee's knees and the cat's pajamas, is where you'll find Skyfall. It's difficult to compare a Bond made in 2012 with those of the 60's, but in terms of pure entertainment value, it stands as high as anything in the series. And when it comes to the quality of the writing, the production values, the casting, and the evident skill and passion of everyone involved, it has no equal. The Connery films have seniority, but that's all. Skyfall is not just a great Bond film, it's a great film. Maybe that's why some people don't think it belongs. Because it excels in a way that seems unnatural for a Bond film.

True, I was expecting to enjoy it, and perhaps my enthusiasm is partly fueled by confirmation bias. Looking back on the gushing reviews that were written on this forum in 2002, it's a good idea to have some epistemological humility. Maybe my admiration and enjoyment of Skyfall will fade. On the other hand, I had no trouble cringing at QOS when it opened, and even CR struck me as a bit draggy in parts, whereas Skyfall exceeded even those expectations that I feared unreasonable. I braced myself for a certain level of disappointment, but I needn't have bothered.

To begin with, it contains many of the same Craig-era ingredients, but it feels like the first wholly successful application of the recipe, the first in which the ingredients are properly combined and the mixture baked all the way through. The Craig era has shown certain iffy tendencies that continue to be present in Skyfall, but suddenly, instead of disappointing me, they seem to be working as originally intended.

Where to start? Kinnear's Tanner, whom I found to be totally bland and pointless in QOS, is here given enough screentime to make a fine impression. His banality here has a cumulative positive effect, and over the course of many scenes he takes shape as a proper Tanner: a somewhat staid and conservative chum to Bond, plodding but competent. In QOS I knew Kinnear was a good actor, but here I see it without being told. And I wind up liking his character for the same reason Bond must like him: because he's solid and has his head on straight. I find him almost as effective as Michael Kitchen. And to be fair, Kinnear sticks a lot closer to the Tanner of Fleming, whereas Kitchen played him as a sort of rumpled newshound.

Another prominent example: the "remote-control Bond" dynamic, in which 007 is always running about in the field while in constant communication with MI6, is an innovation of the Craig era that was not really present in the Brosnan films, and it's something that I have always disliked. But I think I see now why it didn't work in CR and QOS, because in SF it works brilliantly. Whereas the MI6 of CR and QOS was staffed by dozens of faceless, undefined extras with one or two lines apiece, Skyfall takes the time to introduce us to a small and well-articulated team of fully-realized personalities. With these characters at the other end of the phone, the "mission control" effect is much more satisfying. Compare the "digitalis" scene in CR with the "put your back into it" scene in Skyfall. Instead of an icy asymmetry between Bond in the field and a bunch of anonymous MI6 employees at HQ, we have what amounts to a true conversation between two characters with personality and s shared history of human interactions. The same is true of Bond's ear-chat with Eve in Macau. Instead of the wireless communicator being just a utilitarian plot device, it's now a source of character interaction and character-driven humor. The scene between Bond and Q is loaded with in-the-moment comic beats, while Eve's jealous dig at Severine is perfect characterization for a Moneypenny-to-be. This warmth and depth of character interaction was totally absent from the Bond-to-elf exchanges in CR and QOS. It's one of the most conspicuous and indubitable improvements over previous films, and it makes me very optimistic about Bond 24 and beyond. SF has constructed a solid MI6 family, like we used to have in the old days. The groundwork is laid, and all future films must do is develop and exploit it.

There are a few action scenes that didn't appeal to me, but I'm hard to please about these things. I generally enjoy action scenes less than most Bond fans. The Shanghai tower scene was a bit stylized and obscure for my taste. However, the opening chase was excellent, especially the bit when they get on top of the train. Very clear, well-edited, and satisfying. There are two beats that struck me as especially good: the first is the instant where the train emerges from the tunnel and Bond is momentarily unsure of Patrice's position, which to me feels very real and tense, and is the sort of thing that would happen if you were wrestling with an assassin on top of a train. I love a well-thought-out, engrossing action scene. The second wonderful beat is the moment after Bond's plummet from the train when Patrice vanishes (literally) into the black tunnel, which is just a great little moment, visually and in the little audible whoosh. Everything comes together in a nice tactile pop. The moment goes by quickly, but it illustrates the virtuosity of the film. It just feels good to watch. You sense that the people making the film know what they're doing.

At this point, it's almost a cliche to point out how marvelous the visuals are. Let's just say that Deakins deserves his reputation, and I don't envy his successor, who will be under incredible pressure. I feel more like defending the score, which has received some criticism. Having seen the film and heard the score in action, I find this criticism baffling. The score works perfectly. It complements the rhythms and moods of the film, shaping the tone without trying to imperiously dictate it. Newman doesn't blare at you like the Robot Devil, as Arnold tends to do. Newman's score is melodically interesting, stylistically varied, and capable both of beauty and surprise. It will be a miscarriage of film criticism if Newman's presence, and by implication Arnold's absence, goes down as one of Skyfall's flaws rather than one of its cardinal virtues.

I guess I have to write a little obituary for Judi Dench's M. I don't have as much to say about her as some fans. My feelings about her are neither ardent nor vehement. She'll unquestionably be remembered as the second M, with all due respect to Robert Brown. It's just too bad so much of her era was beneath her, and a waste of her talent and charisma. She was splendid in GE, sparingly used and brilliantly effective. Beginning with TWINE she began to exceed her brief, and the effect on the general rhythm and feel of Bond's adventures was not salutary. Instead of spicing up proceedings in London, she became overstretched and depreciated in value. CR used her a bit differently, but nothing really changed. She continued to overpower the stew, and I personally welcomed the rumors that she was leaving after Skyfall, and that the manner of her departure would have a welcome ring of permanency about it. But Dench brings something very different to SF than she brought to the previous films. Her passion and even her technical skill seem to rise to a new level. I'm not unhappy that she's moving on, as some fans seem to be, but it's obvious that Skyfall wouldn't be possible without her, and that's enough for me to readjust my basic feeling about her tenure as M. If she had been given this kind of material in previous films, she would have reached the same level, and I wouldn't have found her tiresome. So, as Q would say, it's a bit melancholy to see her go. Even as the franchise picks up a bunch of new talent and passion, it's also losing a great talent and a very charismatic presence. For good or ill, Bond will be really different without Dench.

Of course Fiennes sweetens the deal considerably. My only complaint about Mallory's insinuation into our happy little MI6 family is that it happens a little too quickly, and the procedure is a little too transparent. We see how he's being positioned, we see - beat for beat - how the illusion is being set up for our eyes to perceive, first to grate and then to endear. The scene where he "catches" Q and Tanner in a trivial violation of protocol is supposed to be a sharp turning point and an epiphany about his character, but it doesn't really work, because he's already earned our trust about five times. Q and Tanner are way too surprised when, instead of crucifying them on the spot, Mallory gamely joins in the breadcrumb caper. They shouldn't be surprised at all, so the moment feels a little false. Mallory was never presented as enough of a jobsworth for this reaction to be warranted. And the juxtaposition with McCrory's mean-girl minister has just sweetened him further. By the time he arrives in Q's bunker with his arm in a sling, he's already completed his rather short journey from vaguely crusty but supposedly bureaucratic tool to vaguely crusty yet demonstrably heroic mensch. And if Bond hadn't described him as a bureaucrat, I never would have guessed it. I suppose this is a minor problem, a thread that isn't properly woven into the garment, and it only really becomes manifest in that one scene where Q and Tanner act shocked - shocked! - that Mallory doesn't run and tattle on them to the prime minister, or whatever bureaucratic reaction they're meant to be expecting. It seems as if the filmmakers deeply worried that audiences wouldn't like Mallory and would hiss at him for taking Dench's chair, so it needed to be hammered home what a great guy he is. We have the heroic peacekeeper background, the stone-cold smackdown of the bitch politician, and the borderline suicidal valor exhibited during the shoot-out. After this, and the little throwaway comment about the PM "prattling on", it's pretty clear that Mallory is not the second coming of Frederick Gray.

It's a common view around here, and one that I strongly agree with, that the last couple decades of Bond films have severely overemphasized the "personal" stuff, and succumbed to a lot of angst and melodrama instead of allowing Bond to go out and save the world with a light heart and joy of life. To be sure, Skyfall doesn't reverse that trend. But what it does have is a single, strong villain with a single, strong motive. Every event in the film, from the first to the last scene, radiates from Silva's grievance against M. The story never loses sight of that. Even before it's clear to the audience who or what is behind the attacks on MI6, it's evident that this mysterious antagonist is focused on a particular target: M. Her centrality is evident from the pre-title scene, and her performance gives us a strong hint of the emotional arc of the film. We sense, based on her reaction to the loss of the drive, that an existential threat faces MI6 and herself personally. This emotional starting point is gradually fortified with the facts of the plot. It becomes clear - in a bit of exposition by Tanner that is cleverly justified by Bond's ignorance of recent events, and therefore organic to the plot - that M is the target of a mysterious malevolent force. It doesn't even matter that we don't understand the nature of the malevolence - it is clear enough and coherent enough even in the abstract. When Silva is finally revealed, it isn't necessary to waste a lot of time explaining who he is and what he wants, because we already know. No Bond villain has ever been so smoothly and effectively introduced, no villainous scheme exposed so gradually and plausibly. This is the core of the film that everything else depends on, and once you have a strong foundation, you can build whatever you want.

A few comments about Silva: Considering how reviewers were tossing around words like "flamboyant" and "pansexual", I was expecting a more eccentric performance than Bardem actually delivered. That's not to say he isn't a bit flamboyant, but to me it feels more like Latin vivacity than campiness. Actually, it's both. He does sometimes seem to have walked in from the Almodovar set next door. But it works. The role of Bond villain deserves a big, audacious performance. (Bond needs another Elliott Carver like he needs a hole in the head.) The villain must make a strong impression, gleefully at the expense of realism and dignity. To hell with dignity. To be properly menacing, the villain must be a little bit ridiculous. Silva's creepy petting of Bond so perfectly satisfies all these requirements, I find it unbelievable that this kind of villain didn't appear in a Bond film decades ago. I suppose audiences had to catch up with Bond. Popular conceptions of homosexuality have finally reached the point where it can be incorporated into a villain's persona without making audiences feel like homophobes for sympathizing with Bond. We - and Bond himself - can separate the predatory creepiness of Silva's gesture from the homosexual form that it assumes. There's a definite parallel with Live and Let Die, where the menace of the black villains is made more dangerous and exciting by the contemporary reality of racism, and of racist interpretations. It's as if the film is daring the viewer, and saying, "We're cool enough to get away with this." It's always nice to be reminded that Bond is still cool - at least as cool as he was in 1973.

But the film's pacing puts me in mind of an even earlier era, before Bond was cool. The way it flies by, never wearing out its welcome, reminds me of Goldfinger. From beginning to end, momentum gathers with each new incident, and hurtles everything forward, such that no scene seems to drag on for too long. Unlike CR, with its long, questionable detours in Miami and Venice, there is no scene in Skyfall that seems out of sequence or overlong. (Even the Shanghai assassination, which I found a bit unclear, is fundamentally logical and expeditious, and ends on a high note, with the mesmerizing and weirdly beautiful image of Severine and the Modigliani.) Some critiques have singled out the Scotland scenes as somehow detached from the rest of the film in tone or pacing. Because of this, I was steeling myself for a repeat of Venice or the Perla de las Dunas - a draggy shoot-em-up where the formerly quick pacing is jettisoned in order to make the most of a big conceptual setpiece. The assault on Skyfall Lodge had the potential to be exactly that. But it isn't. Partly this can be credited to the late arrival of Kincade, who heads off any flagging of interest, but the basic fact is that the Scotland segment is way shorter than it could have been. It feels like they show up, spend a little time chatting with Kincade and preparing the house for the assault, and then - bip! - the mooks have showed up. I was expecting a much longer final act, but the swiftness preserves the momentum, and the whole thing is over before you can say "provocatrix" five times fast.

Realistically, I don't think we could have expected a better Bond film than the one they delivered. When they make the next one, they'll be under a huge amount of pressure. Sometimes that helps. The good news is that Skyfall did a lot of narrative heavy lifting that will benefit future installments. For the first time in a decade, the MI6 manger scene is fully stocked, and our craggy baby jesus is basking in the adoration he deserves. Whether or not the next one is better, Skyfall will always be around, and that's nice because it's awesome.

Score: 9.9 / 10
(If not for Mallory's maladroit introduction, it would get a perfect score.)

P.S. Not since the Moore era has a Bond film accorded so much prominence to a nick nack. Does anyone remember which commenter first put two and two together about the dog? I think it was Tightpants, or maybe Gerard. Whoever it was, you just know he's boasting about it to his cats and Star Wars figurines. Sad, really.

Fabulous review, Pussfeller. Fabulous.

[Joyce Carrington]

Some hint as to what Bond had been doing there for two days? Something that explained why Bond became who he became? As much as I feared something really cheesy, I was kind of disappointed when it turned out there was nothing at all. Somehow the whole plan to come to Scotland didn’t seem necessary anymore. They could have hidden out anywhere. Why here? Why does it matter?

What was he doing in the tunnel for two days? Turning from a boy into a man (not a physical transformation - a mental one).

Why go to Scotland? Firstly Silva uses technology to gain an advantage, Skyfall Lodge barely even has electricity - no internet, no networks, not even a working telephone. Secondly, it's Bond's "home turf". He knows the geography and he knows about the tunnel which gives him an edge on Silva. It's also isolated, so there is less chance of collateral damage during the confrontation and it's easy to see anyone approaching.

I know, this is all very logical.

And yet, using this location almost roused the expectation that there was going to be some statement made about Bond - aside from the fact that he lost his parents at a young age. But there was nothing more than just that. I guess I'm looking for a development in Bonds character that happens in Scotland. Did this happen? Can someone point it out for me?

[PPK_19]

A link to the full review i wrote of Skyfall for my blog: Skyfall review

[Germanlady]

Some hint as to what Bond had been doing there for two days? Something that explained why Bond became who he became? As much as I feared something really cheesy, I was kind of disappointed when it turned out there was nothing at all. Somehow the whole plan to come to Scotland didn’t seem necessary anymore. They could have hidden out anywhere. Why here? Why does it matter?

What was he doing in the tunnel for two days? Turning from a boy into a man (not a physical transformation - a mental one).

Why go to Scotland? Firstly Silva uses technology to gain an advantage, Skyfall Lodge barely even has electricity - no internet, no networks, not even a working telephone. Secondly, it's Bond's "home turf". He knows the geography and he knows about the tunnel which gives him an edge on Silva. It's also isolated, so there is less chance of collateral damage during the confrontation and it's easy to see anyone approaching.

I know, this is all very logical.

And yet, using this location almost roused the expectation that there was going to be some statement made about Bond - aside from the fact that he lost his parents at a young age. But there was nothing more than just that. I guess I'm looking for a development in Bonds character that happens in Scotland. Did this happen? Can someone point it out for me?

Its all been just scratched, talking to M before arrival "You know the story", meeting Kincade, just being back in general, two days hiding, becoming a man, the gravestones - all of this is about Bonds past, But remember, they can only go this far in a Bond film. I have often heard them saying this. Its not only for hardcore Bondfans, who might be interested to know even more, but for a general audience, who might get bored with too much psycho details. IMO, making a Bondfilm and having to tick this box, but not that one etc etc is the hardest of all the francises. They did well IMO..