133 replies to this topic

[Drax Industries]

Okay, so I've been reading a lot of critical responses to Skyfall and it's clear that critics have loved this film, but looking at comments from members of the public, it's clear that something has gone amiss because it seems many have been disappointed. There were some negative comments from the public read out on the BBC Radio 5 show today and it seems every film section and forum has had many a negative word to say. I know some of this might have a lot to do with trolls wanting to be negative for the sake of being negative, but some have clearly been truly disappointed. I enjoyed the film, but found it a little flawed and in some cases boring. Admittedly the second half was spectacular and I for one (I appear to be in the minority here it seems) loved the Scottish Highlands climax, but is this going to be the overrated Bond? When watching it I couldn't help but feel that it was nowhere near as good as I had been led to believe. Love to hear your thoughts.

[kronsteens shin]

Good post. Yes, there was so much to enjoy, but plenty to criticise as well. The flaws have been enumerrated elsewhere (just to add one that I haven't seen in print so far, since when do tube trains have LT staff travelling in the rear compartment?)

The film was beautifully shot, and edited well (unlike the headache inducing mess of QoS). But there was laziness in there as well - plot elements that just annoyed in being nonsensical, or just going nowhere. And I'm afraid that the whole Scotland sequence came across as a re-written A team episode - albeit with the death of two old friends. One of our greatest actors, Finney was disgracefully underused as they created their makeshift defences - why didn't MI6 mobilise after they'd finished laying breadcrumbs...?

But no Bond film is perfect - as fans we all want different things from them. And this ticked so many boxes, I can forgive it a great deal...

[Dustin]

Yes, I did.

[JCRendle]

but looking at comments from members of the public, it's clear that something has gone amiss because it seems many have been disappointed. There were some negative comments from the public read out on the BBC Radio 5 show today and it seems every film section and forum has had many a negative word to say.

Really? While I've heard the odd negative comment, which is to be expected from even the best film ever made, the overwhelming reaction I've seen in film forums and entertainment sites I visit have been highly positive.

I know some of this might have a lot to do with trolls wanting to be negative for the sake of being negative

this is to be expected

but is this going to be the overrated Bond? When watching it I couldn't help but feel that it was nowhere near as good as I had been led to believe. Love to hear your thoughts.

In my opinion, no - it isn't overrated. I found it highly enjoyable, well made and one of the top Bond films.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

Yes, I enjoyed it immensily.

[Loomis]

When watching it I couldn't help but feel that it was nowhere near as good as I had been led to believe.

I concur.

It strikes me that SKYFALL has more plot holes and loose ends than any other Bond film. Which is saying something.

[Guy Haines]

I most certainly did enjoy it. My criticism of the "Scottish" scenes is, having laid the trap (breadcrumbs), why weren't MI6/armed forces up there in force, with Bond, M etc to reel in Silva and his men? But then the finale would have lacked impact if Silva and co had turned up and been completely surrounded, forced to put their hands up before a shot was fired. (Maybe if "our side" had turned up - like the helicopters over Silva's "Dead City" once battle had commenced? Now that would be different. More like one of those classic battle scenes from YOLT or TSWLM?)

As for "plot holes" - nothing new in Bond. I've been listening on the car CD player to the new audio book of GF. Fine until we get to the plan to raid Fort Knox ("We will use a "clean" atomic bomb to blow the gates" - EH??? I didn't know they did "clean" atom bombs, or that it was perfectly safe to hide a few hundred yards away whilst it explodes, provided you have a radiation suit on!). And that the whole of the Fort Knox community pretended to be dead - men, women and children - whilst Goldfinger and his "troops" rolled in, only to spring to life when Felix Leiter shouts "Santiago!" A plot device they couldn't even find a way around for the film.

[Loomis]

As for "plot holes" - nothing new in Bond.

Well, that's certainly true. It's even true that certain Bond plot holes are endearingly daft (e.g. the question of how Stromberg managed to build his underwater lair without anyone apparently noticing).

The trick is, though, for the film/novel to be so enjoyably absurd and so thoroughly entertaining that these plot holes not only don't matter but even arguably enhance the whole thing. Sadly, I didn't find this to be the case with SKYFALL. I found its plot holes simply annoying because the film rarely clicked for me as the sort of grand escapist hokum that Bond has always provided. It didn't charm me enough for me to be happy to overlook its many lapses of logic.

[deth]

I most certainly did enjoy it. My criticism of the "Scottish" scenes is, having laid the trap (breadcrumbs), why weren't MI6/armed forces up there in force, with Bond, M etc to reel in Silva and his men? But then the finale would have lacked impact if Silva and co had turned up and been completely surrounded, forced to put their hands up before a shot was fired. (Maybe if "our side" had turned up - like the helicopters over Silva's "Dead City" once battle had commenced? Now that would be different. More like one of those classic battle scenes from YOLT or TSWLM?)

We are led to believe that Silva would have figured out that he would have been faced with a big reception. He'd have been tipped off.

[dirtymind]

Good movie, but not the best Bond movie. To me it wasn't Bond with a capital B as they promised.

[bonds_walther]

I enjoyed it even more on second viewing.

As for the Lodnon Underground scene, sometimes staff do travel in the rear carriage. The thing that stood out for me in that part of the film was, when Bond first enters the tunnel, why are the tunnel lights on? Tubes on the LU never travel when the lights are on like that. They only come on when people are working down there on the tracks, etc.

[Vauxhall]

The flaws have been enumerrated elsewhere (just to add one that I haven't seen in print so far, since when do tube trains have LT staff travelling in the rear compartment?)

This actually happens fairly often. I think that's a fair inclusion in the scene.

[The Shark]

I just don't understand it, did I watch a different movie???? There were so many holes you could drive an Aston Martin through the plot.

Not all of us care about plot holes. I was able to dismiss them in SKYFALL because of the film's surreal atmosphere, wit and charm. There were some hokey moments, but even the very best Bonds have them.

[triviachamp]

Well I've noticed that most people are willing to excuse plot holes if they like the movie. Look at the BFI's new GREATEST FILM EVAH! as an example. So critiquing films for having plot holes is problematic. Not to mention that I don't think any Bond film really stands up to logical scrutiny anyway.

[Dustin]

SKYFALL was - in all honesty - never going to be unanimously loved by each and everybody.

[kronsteens shin]

I enjoyed it even more on second viewing.

As for the Lodnon Underground scene, sometimes staff do travel in the rear carriage.

My mistake - I love these forums, 'cos I learn from them! Patrice's murder of the art appreciator annoys me. The guy is in a room full of people who are aware that he's going to be iced. So, instead of popping over and killing him, he decides to break in to a neighbouring building, killing two guards for the hell of it, cut a hole in a window and take all that extra risk. Cinematically it worked, but then of course it ultimately didn't because it's bugging me and detracting from the whole film. It would have taken seconds to build up the impression that the art guy victim was impossible to kill close up. Perhaps it was filmed (maybe with just some actual computer hacking rather than the vague implication that Silva can hack). If it was, show it!

[Jim]

In all honesty, yes I did.

[Guy Haines]

As for "plot holes" - nothing new in Bond.

Well, that's certainly true. It's even true that certain Bond plot holes are endearingly daft (e.g. the question of how Stromberg managed to build his underwater lair without anyone apparently noticing).

The trick is, though, for the film/novel to be so enjoyably absurd and so thoroughly entertaining that these plot holes not only don't matter but even arguably enhance the whole thing. Sadly, I didn't find this to be the case with SKYFALL. I found its plot holes simply annoying because the film rarely clicked for me as the sort of grand escapist hokum that Bond has always provided. It didn't charm me enough for me to be happy to overlook its many lapses of logic.

Your criticism is more about what should be in a Bond film than whether the screenwriters should paper over the cracks in its plot. And it depends on what you mean by "escapist hokum", I suppose. I don't necessarily think a Bond film must have a regulation set of escapist stuff (such as Stromberg's HQ, or Blofeld's volcano? Or an invisible Aston Martin?). FRWL certainly didn't, but is nevertheless regarded by most fans and critics alike as a classic Bond film.

[SecretAgentFan]

Regarding the so-called "plot holes":

- Audiences and critics these days are always very quick to point out "plot holes" when events happen that they do not immediately understand. However, those "holes" very often are not holes at all but coincidences, used to tell the story. In real life there ARE coincidences as well, and nobody would say: Hey, this is impossible, that can´t happen.

- In SKYFALL I actually detected no coincidence that took me out of the movie at all. Some people point to Silva´s plan - but I don´t think at all it has any holes. Silva is characterized as extremely resourceful and able to improvise, just like Bond. He uses the unfolding events to his advantage. If some thing remain unexplained that does not mean there are plot holes but narrative omissions to speed up the story. You know, it is okay to ask yourself about it and think how things happened during those omissions.

- A real plot hole only happens when there can no explanation be found at all. Simple as that.


Regarding the thread´s title:

I enjoyed SKYFALL immensely (surprise!).

Of course, no film, not even CITIZEN KANE will encounter unanimous praise.

[Invincible1958]

SKYFALL was - in all honesty - never going to be unanimously loved by each and everybody.

NO movie is ever going to be loved by each and everybody.
NO Bondfilm is either.

But Skyfall pleases lots of people from different backgrounds, more than most of the other Bondfilms.

[ggl]

SKYFALL was - in all honesty - never going to be unanimously loved by each and everybody.

NO movie is ever going to be loved by each and everybody.
NO Bondfilm is either.

But Skyfall pleases lots of people from different backgrounds, more than most of the other Bondfilms.

Agree. Skyfall is the film that will be loved by everybody (even critics) that didn´t liked Bond before.

But, talking of Bond fans, those are very difficult to please... Ones love Connery or Dalton, the others love Moore or Brosnan. Skyfall? Parts are conneryan, parts are mooreian, parts are craig... so, it´s impossible that all fans put SF in their top 5.

And yes, I liked Skyfall. A lot.

[Dustin]

SKYFALL was - in all honesty - never going to be unanimously loved by each and everybody.

NO movie is ever going to be loved by each and everybody.
NO Bondfilm is either.

But Skyfall pleases lots of people from different backgrounds, more than most of the other Bondfilms.

Agree. Skyfall is the film that will be loved by everybody (even critics) that didn´t liked Bond before.

But, talking of Bond fans, those are very difficult to please... Ones love Connery or Dalton, the others love Moore or Brosnan. Skyfall? Parts are conneryan, parts are mooreian, parts are craig... so, it´s impossible that all fans put SF in their top 5.

And yes, I liked Skyfall. A lot.

Fans are so hard to please because each one has his/her own idea of a 'perfect' Bond film. Often we agree on certain parts and elements, we love and hate the same films and maybe would even find an agreement on what we'd like to see in a future entry. But if it came to actually produce & direct one we'd end up with a million different yet similar results.

If's far easier to find acceptance and praise with the casual fans and ordinary audience whose ideas about Bond are not nearly as formed as ours is. The people do not spend their spare time with thinking about Bond, they have a fairly generic set of images - martinis, girls, guns & an Aston - and are strangely all the more open-minded about what entertains them in Bonds.

I've been talking for decades to all kinds of fans, the casuals as well as the hardcore Fleming buffs, and on sober reflection it has to be said letting one of us fan(atics) anywhere near a Bond production would almost certainly result in a sudden and extremely messy death of the entire franchise once and for all. And I'm not just talking about the obvious lunatic hicks from the hinterlands of nowhere and with zero understanding of the character, entertainment and cinema in general. Even levelheaded, sensible people tend to get this red spark in their eyes - betraying utter madness - when the fan in them is called to give his ideas about the next possible Bond 2X. Believe me, I'm one of them...

[Loomis]

As for "plot holes" - nothing new in Bond.

Well, that's certainly true. It's even true that certain Bond plot holes are endearingly daft (e.g. the question of how Stromberg managed to build his underwater lair without anyone apparently noticing).

The trick is, though, for the film/novel to be so enjoyably absurd and so thoroughly entertaining that these plot holes not only don't matter but even arguably enhance the whole thing. Sadly, I didn't find this to be the case with SKYFALL. I found its plot holes simply annoying because the film rarely clicked for me as the sort of grand escapist hokum that Bond has always provided. It didn't charm me enough for me to be happy to overlook its many lapses of logic.

Your criticism is more about what should be in a Bond film than whether the screenwriters should paper over the cracks in its plot. And it depends on what you mean by "escapist hokum", I suppose. I don't necessarily think a Bond film must have a regulation set of escapist stuff (such as Stromberg's HQ, or Blofeld's volcano? Or an invisible Aston Martin?). FRWL certainly didn't, but is nevertheless regarded by most fans and critics alike as a classic Bond film.

I don't see where I'm asking for "a regulation set of escapist stuff ... Stromberg's HQ, or Blofeld's volcano...."). I don't demand Bond films that tick boxes in this way. I love CASINO ROYALE, but it has no Moneypenny, no Q, no conventional gunbarrel opening, no elaborate lair for the its villain.... (That said, I must admit that I didn't find the Skyfall Lodge to be a sufficiently "Bondian" location in which to set the film's finale. It's the sort of location suitable for a Fleming or Higson novel, but it wasn't what I wanted for the cinematic 007.)

I like all manner of Bond films. And all of them have their plot holes - CASINO ROYALE certainly has its fair share. But I'll give a film a pass for its plot holes only if I find it sufficiently well-made and enjoyable. Consequently, I carp more at SKYFALL than I do at, say, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

I've ABSOLUTELY LOVED the film, even when the gunbarrel could have been put at the beginning. And, as a matter of fact, I found it extremely entertaining for a 2hr 30' Bond film. It is even more entertaining (and sorry for the blasphemy) than OHMSS and CR, the other long Bond films.

It really amuses me how some little minnows tried to bash the film here with nonsense argumentations: "It's a xenofobic film because the villain is a Latin" (don't you remember where Dr No, Stromberg, Greene, Sánchez, etc came from? I think the UN should call a comitte meeting to discuss this!), the villain appears 70 min later (as the "real" Alec, Renard, Withaker if I'm not mistaken), etc. IMO is no better than other Bond films, but it does a pretty well done and deserved 50th anniversary homage!

I've ABSOLUTELY LOVED the film, even when the gunbarrel could have been put at the beginning. And, as a matter of fact, I found it extremely entertaining for a 2hr 30' Bond film. It is even more entertaining (and sorry for the blasphemy) than OHMSS and CR, the other long Bond films.

It really amuses me how some little minnows tried to bash the film here with nonsense argumentations: "It's a xenofobic film because the villain is a Latin" (don't you remember where Dr No, Stromberg, Greene, Sánchez, etc came from? I think the UN should call a comitte meeting to discuss this!), the villain appears 70 min later (as the "real" Alec, Renard, Withaker if I'm not mistaken), etc. IMO is no better than other Bond films, but it does a pretty well done and deserved 50th anniversary homage!

[Gothamite]

Regarding the so-called "plot holes":

- Audiences and critics these days are always very quick to point out "plot holes" when events happen that they do not immediately understand. However, those "holes" very often are not holes at all but coincidences, used to tell the story. In real life there ARE coincidences as well, and nobody would say: Hey, this is impossible, that can´t happen.

This. I riotously, rabidly applaud you with a standing ovation for this. Thank you.

For me, on my first viewing, Skyfall was very much an enjoyable experience but it didn't electrify me the way CR did and the way I hoped SF would. Like a lot of the newer, more ambitious, hyped-up genre films (The Dark Knight Rises springs to mind), the first viewing is such a tense ordeal of expectations either being met or not quite being lived up to.

It takes a second viewing to really enjoy the film and it was that second viewing that convinced me that Skyfall is one of the very best James Bond films ever, and that Daniel Craig is my favourite James Bond actor ever.

[The Shark]

How would SKYFALL's defenders here answer these criticisms levelled at the screenplay?

1) You touched on it, but how on Earth would Silva obtain goons, weapons and a freaking miltary class helicopter in Britain when every police force and security agency in the country would be after him, would have his face plastered on every wall and he presumably would be all over every 24/hour newsservice with calls for identificiation?

2) The utter, utter, utter implausibility of Silva getting ANYWHERE near that Parliamentary inquiry without a bullet in his skull, let alone away from it, presumably just because he was disguised in a police uniform. In a Banana Republic? Sure. In an emerging power? Maybe. In 21st Century, CCTV-addled London? Not a flipping chance.

3) The internal inconsistency of Bond, who called in the reinforcements for an impromptu meeting on the other side of the world, not doing the same when laying a trap for Silva within the UK, where he was a wanted man fresh off a massive terrorist attack, where he would no doubt have had unlimited resources and cooperation. Makes perfect sense.

4) Likewise, the ridiculous notion that Mallory, Tanner and Q would sit there and do nothing while they monitored Silva's following of the 'breadcrumbs' and not organise reinforcements, detainment, etc.

All credit goes to Vesper/Robert Watts.

[Tuxedo]

I enjoyed it.

[Dustin]

How would SKYFALL's defenders here answer these criticisms levelled at the screenplay?

1) You touched on it, but how on Earth would Silva obtain goons, weapons and a freaking miltary class helicopter in Britain when every police force and security agency in the country would be after him, would have his face plastered on every wall and he presumably would be all over every 24/hour newsservice with calls for identificiation?

Probably acquired troops and equipment a long time beforehand. His face in the news or on every wall doesn't account for anything. You can take the tube on any given day right beside the PM and would most likely not recognise the guy, especially in a police uniform. People tend to see the uniform, not the person.

2) The utter, utter, utter implausibility of Silva getting ANYWHERE near that Parliamentary inquiry without a bullet in his skull, let alone away from it, presumably just because he was disguised in a police uniform. In a Banana Republic? Sure. In an emerging power? Maybe. In 21st Century, CCTV-addled London? Not a flipping chance.

One assumes he and his people also have special restricted zone passes. Actually the 'flipping' chance to become victim of a crime right under a CCTV system are especially high in London. These things provide enough footage to keep the voyeur entertained from here to eternity on any given day. Sadly we haven't the funds to employ enough people to actually watch it, but it makes for nice sensationalist features AFTER something happened so it's pretty much useless for actual prevention.

3) The internal inconsistency of Bond, who called in the reinforcements for an impromptu meeting on the other side of the world, not doing the same when laying a trap for Silva within the UK, where he was a wanted man fresh off a massive terrorist attack, where he would no doubt have had unlimited resources and cooperation. Makes perfect sense.

Explained by the fact Silva's access to government systems seems - relatively speaking - pretty global. Bond didn't want to scare off Silva so he had to avoid giving the impression he had the cavalry waiting for him at Skyfall.

4) Likewise, the ridiculous notion that Mallory, Tanner and Q would sit there and do nothing while they monitored Silva's following of the 'breadcrumbs' and not organise reinforcements, detainment, etc.

See above.

[YOLT]

Till Scotland I did ( no offense ). Till Scotland it was an easily top 10 or even top 5 007 movie. However after that it was boring. They could have done the ending better!

[Twingolot]

Yes, I loved it.

Skyfall isn't overrated at all, I think it's going to be underrated by many viewers.

Casino Royale was a little overrated.