145 replies to this topic

[The Shark]

But Skyfall is clearly aiming for a more serious, realistic feel.

Kinda, though it manages to balance that with a light touch, weirdness and goofy moments (I.e. the Komodo dragons), without being schizophrenic. I find the plot contrivances/poetic license easier to buy than in say in CR or QOS, because of the surreal atmosphere.

[jaguar007]

But Skyfall is clearly aiming for a more serious, realistic feel.

Kinda, though it manages to balance that with a light touch, weirdness and goofy moments (I.e. the Komodo dragons), without being schizophrenic. I find the plot contrivances/poetic license easier to buy than in say in CR or QOS, because of the surreal atmosphere.

Shark,
I'm avoiding the spoiler threads, but knowing your past opinions, I'm curious to see what you think of Skyfall. I have been busy and have not been on the boards much the last several months.

[Skudor]

Regarding the Bourne Comparison, sure you can find it if you want (the beach is a good example) but I felt more links to The Dark Knight, especially with Silva (the character in general) and his antics. But I don't really mind as long as it works.

[Jim]

Excellent entertainment.

Anything more would be a spoiler.

[JimmyBond]

Excellent entertainment.

Anything more would be a spoiler.

Glad that you liked it, but it's more entertaining when you don't. You're Die Another Day review was epic.

[Judo chop]

Excellent entertainment.

Anything more would be a spoiler.

You've already said too much, Jim. Don't be surprised when you wake up with your balls in your mouth and your willing replacement standing over you...

[Ren]

Just saw it. It's FANTASTIC! Sure to see it at least twice again.

[Loomis]

Liked the first third, loved the second third, hated the third third.

A bit of a mixed bag, then.

[Judo chop]

Liked the first third, loved the second third, hated the third third.

A bit of a mixed bag, then.

Is there any way to expound on what you hated without spoiling the unspoiled?

Is it the direction the story takes that you hated, or the direction itself? Or lackluster action? Or is it just the final wrap-up (whatever it may be)? Or what?

(And are you really truthfully serious when you say 'hate'?)

[Loomis]

Is it the direction the story takes that you hated, or the direction itself? Or lackluster action? Or is it just the final wrap-up (whatever it may be)? Or what?

All of those things.

[(And are you really truthfully serious when you say 'hate'?)

Yes.

ETA: I did enjoy the very last scene, though.

[freemo]

Liked the first third, loved the second third, hated the third third.

A bit of a mixed bag, then.

Is there any way to expound on what you hated without spoiling the unspoiled?

(And are you really truthfully serious when you say 'hate'?)

Yes, I'd like to hear more about your thoughts too (especially considering that we share the same least favorite Bond film. Do you hate it the way one hates that (similar reasons, etc?), of is this a new, different kind of hate?). I don't mind the odd negative review, and can always rely on you not to be swayed either for or against the wider, fashionable consensus. I'm interested.

[Loomis]

Yes, I'd like to hear more about your thoughts too (especially considering that we share the same least favorite Bond film. Do you hate it the way one hates that (similar reasons, etc?), of is this a new, different kind of hate?). I don't mind the odd negative review, and can always rely on you not to be swayed either for or against the wider, fashionable consensus. I'm interested.

I'm flattered.

Okay, I'll say a little more, but I'll keep things spoiler-free here.

To start with, I was never reminded of TWINE while watching SKYFALL - not once, which may be a bit odd given that the two films share a number of obvious similarities that have for months been striking fear into the hearts of many Bond fans. Still, SKYFALL is not nearly as dull or joyless as TWINE, while Craig in SKYFALL is infinitely better than Brosnan in TWINE, Silva a vastly more compelling villain than Renard (Bardem is excellent and practically steals the film, although I do feel that his character ends up being a trifle underused), and Mendes' direction never reminded me of Apted's.

That said, SKYFALL does recycle a number of plot elements from TWINE and other very recent Bond outings, and for much of SKYFALL's running time we're once again going over a lot of extremely familiar ground. Mendes' effort does have some flair, but very little freshness.

It's not that I think SKYFALL is a bad film (I don't) - I just don't believe it to be worthy of all the hype. Given all the rave reviews, I expected it to match or even eclipse CASINO ROYALE (which I still consider by far the best Bond film - as opposed to Bond movie).

Not even close. This is, to my mind, a middle-ranking affair that's no more well-crafted or clever than, say, TOMORROW NEVER DIES. And while I freely admit that the fault for this may be mine entirely, I did expect more from Mendes. I expected (or, perhaps more accurately, wanted) "a Sam Mendes film that just happens to be about James Bond" (something genuinely surprising and groundbreaking, in other words, which was the film that CASINO ROYALE succeeded in being, to a large extent), but what we have is "a fairly standard-issue modern Bond movie that just happens to be directed by Sam Mendes, although you'd be hard pushed to detect his auteur stamp or personal vision on the finished work".

Now, SKYFALL is far from appalling, although, yes, I think its finale (the final third of the film, roughly) falls flat. To say more here would be too "spoilerific", but, as I told Judo chop, I have all the gripes that he raised ("Is it the direction the story takes that you hated, or the direction itself? Or lackluster action? Or is it just the final wrap-up (whatever it may be)?") - I guess my problem lies more with the execution than the concept, though (although I'm not particularly fond of the concept).

I don't want to put anyone off SKYFALL (as if I could) - there are many good things about this film and I did enjoy quite a bit of it tremendously. Craig is superb, as ever, while Fiennes and Whishaw are also terrific. As for Bardem, like I say, he almost steals the show. There are some nice action moments (nothing really eye-popping, though) and some very cool visuals (especially during the Shanghai segment, although I never found Deakins' cinematography as ravishing as I'd felt led to expect), while I enjoyed the score (not a fan of the title song, though) and found there to be one huge laugh-out-loud moment (Craig's response to a question Bardem asks him at their first encounter).

On the other hand, there are a couple of subplots that didn't quite work for me, and the whole thing is absolutely riddled with plot holes and loose ends. "But all twenty-two of SKYFALL's predecessors are also full of plot holes!" I hear people cry. And that is very true (and many vintage Bond plot holes even come across as endearing), but this time round it all smacks of a laziness that I'd hoped that the series had left behind. Once again, the fault may well be mine in expecting the moon from Mendes, but make no mistake, the SKYFALL script is no less messy, half-baked and join-the-dots than that of, say, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II. Why is it that when "name" writers and directors board franchises like Bond the results so often feel like a case of "Will this do?"?

At its best, though, SKYFALL is good, entertaining stuff, and perhaps it misses the whole point of it (and of Bond) to hold it up to the harsh and excessive scrutiny of ultra-picky fandom. Also, had it followed DIE ANOTHER DAY instead of coming (almost immediately) after CASINO ROYALE it might seem much more impressive.

[Tarl_Cabot]

You didn't love Casino Royale on first viewing right?

[Judo chop]

Yes, I'd like to hear more about your thoughts too (especially considering that we share the same least favorite Bond film. Do you hate it the way one hates that (similar reasons, etc?), of is this a new, different kind of hate?). I don't mind the odd negative review, and can always rely on you not to be swayed either for or against the wider, fashionable consensus. I'm interested.

I'm flattered.

Okay, I'll say a little more, but I'll keep things spoiler-free here.

I guess I should've used more flattery in my query, you sexy tarzan of a Brit.

Thank you for coughing up a review. Although, it comes across as a general assessment and what I'm interested in hearing is exactly (but of course not sooo exact that I am spoiled) what happens in the third act that drags the whole thing down to dwell with the "middle-ranking" Bond. Your earlier synopsis indicates that if the third-third were as good as the first, or better yet, the second (which you loved), we might be talking about a champion, even in the wake of Casino Royale.

Maybe what I'm asking for is impossible. It just sounds as if SF had you believing for 90-100 minutes or so that it was going to triumph and meet your lofty expectations and then the floor suddenly dropped out. Of all the reviews I've read (not too many) I hadn't heard any review turn so hard on the last act. You can understand my curiosity.

ps. I love you.

[SecretAgentFan]

This is, to my mind, a middle-ranking affair that's no more well-crafted or clever than, say, TOMORROW NEVER DIES.

That assessment alone boggles my mind.

[Judo chop]

This is, to my mind, a middle-ranking affair that's no more well-crafted or clever than, say, TOMORROW NEVER DIES.

That assessment alone boggles my mind.

I can't be shocked for what it says about SKYFALL, as I have not yet seen the film. But I am boggled to think that Loomis "likes the first third", and "loves the second third" (or any proportional equivalent of such an estimation) when it comes to TND.

I think there's something we're not being told here and I aim to find out what it is this Friday!

[Loomis]

Yes, I'd like to hear more about your thoughts too (especially considering that we share the same least favorite Bond film. Do you hate it the way one hates that (similar reasons, etc?), of is this a new, different kind of hate?). I don't mind the odd negative review, and can always rely on you not to be swayed either for or against the wider, fashionable consensus. I'm interested.

I'm flattered.

Okay, I'll say a little more, but I'll keep things spoiler-free here.

I guess I should've used more flattery in my query, you sexy tarzan of a Brit.

Thank you for coughing up a review. Although, it comes across as a general assessment and what I'm interested in hearing is exactly (but of course not sooo exact that I am spoiled) what happens in the third act that drags the whole thing down to dwell with the "middle-ranking" Bond. Your earlier synopsis indicates that if the third-third were as good as the first, or better yet, the second (which you loved), we might be talking about a champion, even in the wake of Casino Royale.

Maybe what I'm asking for is impossible. It just sounds as if SF had you believing for 90-100 minutes or so that it was going to triumph and meet your lofty expectations and then the floor suddenly dropped out. Of all the reviews I've read (not too many) I hadn't heard any review turn so hard on the last act. You can understand my curiosity.

ps. I love you.

So do I.

The thing is, Judo, I can't wax any more explicit on the third act of SKYFALL without becoming spoilerific.

[Loomis]

You didn't love Casino Royale on first viewing right?

Right.

[Judo chop]

The thing is, Judo, I can't wax any more explicit on the third act of SKYFALL without becoming spoilerific.

Understood.

[univex]

In light of what´s has been said about the third act of the film, specially on this thread page, I have to say I loved it. It was for me, unquestionably, the best part of the film. I really don´t see the point in saying it doesn´t belong in a Bond film because I don´t wear blinkers. I love the western feel to it and the way they take Bond out of the usual and expected element and into his own, personal wild, and let him just be...Bond. And it´s bloody well done, in what cinematography is concerned. It´s done tastefully, every bit of it.

That being said, for me, Skyfall is all about that third act, and I loved it. So, sorry Loomis, don´t agree with you on that one, old pal. Cheers.

[freemo]

Yes, I'd like to hear more about your thoughts too (especially considering that we share the same least favorite Bond film. Do you hate it the way one hates that (similar reasons, etc?), of is this a new, different kind of hate?). I don't mind the odd negative review, and can always rely on you not to be swayed either for or against the wider, fashionable consensus. I'm interested.

I'm flattered.

Okay, I'll say a little more, but I'll keep things spoiler-free here.

I guess I should've used more flattery in my query, you sexy tarzan of a Brit.

Thank you for coughing up a review. Although, it comes across as a general assessment and what I'm interested in hearing is exactly (but of course not sooo exact that I am spoiled) what happens in the third act that drags the whole thing down to dwell with the "middle-ranking" Bond. Your earlier synopsis indicates that if the third-third were as good as the first, or better yet, the second (which you loved), we might be talking about a champion, even in the wake of Casino Royale.

Maybe what I'm asking for is impossible. It just sounds as if SF had you believing for 90-100 minutes or so that it was going to triumph and meet your lofty expectations and then the floor suddenly dropped out. Of all the reviews I've read (not too many) I hadn't heard any review turn so hard on the last act. You can understand my curiosity.

ps. I love you.

So do I.

The thing is, Judo, I can't wax any more explicit on the third act of SKYFALL without becoming spoilerific.

Third acts / finales have always been a weakness for the Bond films, though the vibe I get from reading non-spolier comments is that this one is different from usual.

Sounds like this is one that may grow on you, Loomis (subsequent viewings will, obviosuly, be without the level of expectation you had the first time), even if it doesn't rise beyond mid-tier for you.

To start with, I was never reminded of TWINE while watching SKYFALL - not once, which may be a bit odd given that the two films share a number of obvious similarities that have for months been striking fear into the hearts of many Bond fans. Still, SKYFALL is not nearly as dull or joyless as TWINE

Joy of joys! Didn't really think that it would be, but one can never take chances with such things. I don't think I could live in a world with two TWINEs.

[Loomis]

Sounds like this is one that may grow on you, Loomis (subsequent viewings will, obviosuly, be without the level of expectation you had the first time), even if it doesn't rise beyond mid-tier for you.

You may well be right. I'm planning to see SKYFALL again the week after next, and strangely enough I'm really looking forward to it.

BTW, Judo, I do admire your resolve in remaining (I'm assuming) almost completely spoiler-free. When I sat down to SKYFALL earlier this week I already knew a huge amount about what happened in it, so it's not as though the elements that I have gripes with took me by surprise. It's not as though I was suddenly shocked and flummoxed by "unBondian" twists to the narrative, for I knew they were coming. My quibbles, then, were more to do with execution that with any concepts that supposedly take 007 out of his fans' comfort zone.

I don't know whether you've been reading professional reviews of SKYFALL, but if you want to remain unspoilered my advice is: don't. Reviewers have no business blowing twists to the general public but for some reason they're having a field day doing so with SKYFALL.

[Elvenstar]

its interesting how differently ppl react to the last 3rd
Its my fav one & the audience I saw the movie with all 3 times reacted more positively to it than to the first 2

Edited by Elvenstar, 04 November 2012 - 03:35 PM.

[Judo chop]

My quibbles, then, were more to do with execution that with any concepts that supposedly take 007 out of his fans' comfort zone.

Ok, then. Simple question. Narrative unorthodoxy aside, does the execution of the film take a drastic dive in the third act, IYO? Are you shaking your fists at Mendes for ruining at the end a nearly perfect thing, or I am making too much of your suppressed review?

To tell the truth, I am deliberately fishing for criticism (from credible, respectable sources such as yourself). The general, non-spoiler reviews I've read (and I am, basically, entirely spoiler free - I know only what the trailers can tell me) have all been positive:
"The film will make you forget QOS."
"Overall not quite as good as CR, yet equally redefining, and yet again better in some ways."
"Five Stars" (seems the old way of making stars in here doesn't work. Where's that whippersnapper Q when you need him?)

etc...

I'm a nervous Bondfan looking for some logical grounding. I don't want to enter the film with expectations as high as the, ahem... Sky, only to see them, ahem... Fall.

I don't know whether you've been reading professional reviews of SKYFALL, but if you want to remain unspoilered my advice is: don't. Reviewers have no business blowing twists to the general public but for some reason they're having a field day doing so with SKYFALL.

'preciate the warning. I will pay heed. For me, it's heads down, eyes closed until this Friday. I should be able to wear my show-white tux to the premiere with zero pretense.

[AgentBentley]

Just saw it. I thought it was brilliant, especially the way they bring old elements back in. It kind of takes the reboot full circle.
The only scenes I have (slight) problems with are the island and Macau - they both look fake as hell.

[Loomis]

Ok, then. Simple question. Narrative unorthodoxy aside, does the execution of the film take a drastic dive in the third act, IYO? Are you shaking your fists at Mendes for ruining at the end a nearly perfect thing, or I am making too much of your suppressed review?

I don't know about a drastic dive, but, yeah, the execution did seem to me to take a dive in the third act. Mind you, I didn't consider SKYFALL "nearly perfect" up to that point.

[Shaun Forever]

So this film is a 12A, does this mean I can take my six year old son?


Do you think he would have problems understanding the film? I still haven't seen it yet myself, so not sure what to do.

[sharpshooter]

The response to Skyfall has been a little weird in a way, I think. People have seen the movie and most have said it’s great. It’s a big movie, look at the box office. But there doesn’t seem to be a high level of excitement on the forums (like say with Casino Royale), with people saying their piece and moving on. It might be because of the lack of other users who have seen the movie, but I’m not sure.

[TheSilhouette]

So this film is a 12A, does this mean I can take my six year old son?


Do you think he would have problems understanding the film? I still haven't seen it yet myself, so not sure what to do.

In a sense, the plot is a little emotionally complex and involves some relationship dynamics a six year old may not understand. Also there are long stretches of the film with mostly dialogue that may not hold his attention, and a scene that is a little grotesque and frightening. The film doesn't have anything too shocking or violent, but I'm not sure it would be that interesting for someone that young.

Edited by TheSilhouette, 07 November 2012 - 10:15 AM.

[Vesper And Tracy]

So, saw the 'film' last night at an IMAX Charity Premiere in downtown Toronto (courtesy of Sony and EON Productions)...

...and I must say that it's not "The Best James Bond Film Everrrrrr..."!

I'm actually going to see the 'film' again tonite for another preview screening (movie actually opens in North America Nov 8 in IMAX and Nov 9 everywhere else) and, to be honest, i'm looking forward to it as there's some jolly good stuff in it.

I'd say 85 percent of the 'film' is pure James Bond Gold...but there are some moments - in the final act - that people used to ConneryBond would just find absolute drivel.

But, then again, we're in a Bold New World Of 007 Film Making...so we simply must utilize all the 'acting chops' of the 'Award-Winning ensemble cast' available, etcetera.

Edited by Vesper And Tracy, 07 November 2012 - 01:26 PM.