133 replies to this topic

[THX-007]

But then Bond telling the new M he would accept his new assignment "with pleasure" would have made Bond seem self-centered, as if he was glad the old M was gone.

I don't think it was that he was "glad that the old M is gone" but that he's back in the game

[x007AceOfSpades]

After seeing it the second time today and in IMAX my opinion has changed a little bit.

I LOVED IT. I wouldn't call it Best Bond film, but It certainly is a damn good one. For me, It's tied with Casino Royale. The only thing I really wish was improved on, was Silva. I didn't find him menacing at all, but it's clear he was driven by revenge to Kill M and Bond and anyone that get's in his way. I think a fight scene with Bond and Silva would've been great.

I thought the Lodge shootout was amazing, definitely my favorite action sequence from a Bond Film.

New score: 5/5!

[bill007]

This film was so visually appealling, from the darkness and neon of the Patrice kill in the Shanghai sky-scraper, the white-out sky of the ship sailing to Silva's Island, the cool misty clouds of the low-land seaside, and the gusty breezes atop MI6 HQ during the 'box' exchange. Yes, this film put me right in it.

This film was so dramatically appealling, from the chase in the pre-title sequence, the sense of fallibility in M, the history of an orphan who became a double-O, to 007 risking his legacy to save his boss. Yes, this film drew me right in.

This film was so musically appealing, from the crisp two beats at the beginning of the pre-title sequence, the haunting 007 theme bars at every dark turn, the addition of the Skyfall (Adele) theme at key points offfering an aural divergence to the typical Bond fare, all the way to the gun barrel closure.

Yes, honestly, I enjoyed it.

[Iceskater101]

It was so awesome you have no idea. I can't stop talking about this movie. I loved the younger Q he was so nerdy and awesome. I loved Silva he was creepy in the best way and he was one of my favorite bond villains ever. I also loved the Bond girls the fact that Eve is the new moneypenny is awesome except now she won't ever hook up with Bond which is depressing. I also loved Ralph Fiennes being the new M. I think he is perfect for it. I loved all the classics they brought back (bond music, aston martin and the cushion door that is seen in M's office) I can't wait for the new Bond in 2014.

[A Kristatos]

It was so awesome you have no idea. I can't stop talking about this movie. I loved the younger Q he was so nerdy and awesome. I loved Silva he was creepy in the best way and he was one of my favorite bond villains ever. I also loved the Bond girls the fact that Eve is the new moneypenny is awesome except now she won't ever hook up with Bond which is depressing. I also loved Ralph Fiennes being the new M. I think he is perfect for it. I loved all the classics they brought back (bond music, aston martin and the cushion door that is seen in M's office) I can't wait for the new Bond in 2014.

I loved that door too! That last scene may be the most perfect ending to a Bond film ever! Hopefully they keep the classic office at least during Craig's run as Bond, and not as a one time tribute to the 50th anniversary of Bond. Hopefully they will.

After seeing it the second time today and in IMAX my opinion has changed a little bit.

I LOVED IT. I wouldn't call it Best Bond film, but It certainly is a damn good one. For me, It's tied with Casino Royale. The only thing I really wish was improved on, was Silva. I didn't find him menacing at all, but it's clear he was driven by revenge to Kill M and Bond and anyone that get's in his way. I think a fight scene with Bond and Silva would've been great.

I thought the Lodge shootout was amazing, definitely my favorite action sequence from a Bond Film.

New score: 5/5!

Same here. I don't think any Bond film can touch FRWL and OHMSS in my book, but they certainly have come darn close! I have CR 3rd on my list, and like you, I can't separate CR and SF right now. I'll have to watch SF a few more times to make a decision, or maybe just keep them tied.

But then Bond telling the new M he would accept his new assignment "with pleasure" would have made Bond seem self-centered, as if he was glad the old M was gone.

I don't think it was that he was "glad that the old M is gone" but that he's back in the game

Great point THX.

[Iceskater101]

Yeah the classic office really made me smile. I mean that is one thing that I did love in the older bond movies and it was good for the fans who recognize those little characteristics.

[Publius]

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!

Wow, just goes to show. UNTIL they got to Scotland, I thought it was a largely average (if enjoyable enough) Bond movie. The Scotland ending and the movie's epilogue really made the entire movie for me.

[JimmyBond]

The finale in Scotland is so different from anything that's came before in a Bond film I think it throws some people off. I love it though, but to be fair, I didn't really latch onto it until my second viewing.

[Publius]

The finale in Scotland is so different from anything that's came before in a Bond film I think it throws some people off.

I imagine, but that's why I loved it. Completely did not expect it. And then to follow it up with two of the most predictable "twists" in movie history (hopefully surprise is not what they were going for! not that it mattered!), yet somehow do it so damn well that I'm clamoring for more, it truly was a fantastic ending.

I actually found the intro and titles to be fairly ho-hum (although Adele's song was far better than the one in QOS), but finishing strong is always better than starting that way, and they truly delivered in that regard.

[The Dove]

In all honestly, I absolutely LOVED IT...period...end of statement...Going for my 2nd viewing on Tuesday..

[Iceskater101]

I don't know when I will see it hopefully during the week sometime, I want to see this again for sure.

[JimmyBond]

I actually found the intro and titles to be fairly ho-hum (although Adele's song was far better than the one in QOS), but finishing strong is always better than starting that way, and they truly delivered in that regard.

By intro I'm assuming you mean the pretitle sequence? You just opened a can of worms, I could write all day on this wonderful sequence I'll keep it brief though.

I think it's without a doubt the best of Craig's openings, though I still think Quantum is my favorite, just because the car chase is so much fun.

Bond coming across Ronson and then attempting to stabilize him with M telling Bond to leave him. That was just a wonderful moment and beautifully acted by Craig. Bond's look to Ronson conveys so much emotion: anger, grief, sadness. And there's just something so cool watching Bond creep through the hallway with his gun drawn. Not trying to disparage Brosnan here, but Craig makes it look cool in a way Brosnan never could.

Then the brief car chase is wonderful as well, thanks to Bond and Eve's repartee, my favorite being "That's ok, we weren't using it." Then Eve knocking off the other mirror "Wasn't using that one either." It's the first of many light-hearted quips we get from Bond in this outing, something that was sorely lacking from his first two films.

And the music, oh the music, Newman's Grand Bazaar track really elevates this whole sequence.

M's inclusion feels natural, and not once do we feel the MI6 scenes are intruding on the action, the whole sequence flows smoothly and really has that "mini movie" feel the pretitle sequences of past films had.

Oh boy, I already wrote a fair bit didn't I. Think I'll stop while I'm ahead

[Morgan]

Have seen it twice now and I liked it more the second time round but still have a problem with some of Mendes' plot points. Plot points that hurt the film more than help it.

1) How Bond survives the fall is not explained, even in the slightest. He is not superman and unless someone pulled him from the water (if the fall didn't kill him) to save him from drowning then what gives. Nor are there any other bullet wounds, other than from Patrice, showing where Eve had shot him. I know the credits show a hand reaching out and grabbing his hand but that hand pulls him down. Unlike DAD where we see Bond being tortured in the credits, there is no indication as to how he survived. Mendes taking liberty's.

Now i know that other characters, take Jaws for example, have come back from certain death without explanation but in Jaws' case it's a bit different as he's a giant and you would expect be tougher to kill. Bond has never before escaped peril without the audience seeing how he does it and by not showing us in SF Mendes's is taking liberty's with the audience.

2) The DB5! You could argue that Bond is Bond, is Bond, is Bond and that everything being equal Bond owns the Aston Martin because after all he's Bond right? I say wrong!
Bond was rebooted in CR/QOS re-establishing the character so this film takes place after those events in present time not before. And in those films there was no Q or Moneypenny so how did Bond suddenly own the gadget laden DB5? Because he is Bond? Because he retro fitted the car he won in CR? i think not! SF takes liberty in trying to be both classic and new a the same time bringing us a new Q and Moneypenny and M while giving a bit of the old classic (DB5) and Bond family history which makes SF really a continuation of CR/QOS or shall i say a further reboot. If Mendes is rebooting then noway the DB5 with it's ejector seat and machine guns exists. And he destroys it at the end, along with M, which is another way of saying goodbye to the old and hello to the new. Reboot time.

And the many references to Bond being old ('old dog new tricks'. "no harm in admitting you 've lost a step") are really annoying.

So in my opinion Mendes is cheating a bit and trying to have it both ways which he cannot. It's either reboot or classic. Reboot is confirmed at the end of SF with the new Moneypenny and the old office complete with leather padded door and the new M and the gunbarrel.

Also if this was supposed to be a classic then why no opening gunbarrel? Mendes has gone on record to say that he wanted to use the gunbarrel at the beginning but thought it would look 'ridiculous' as the film opens with Bond hold his gun. Really! I don't think so as it would have worked beautifully.

So good film but not great as these two plot points make no sense.

[Publius]

I actually found the intro and titles to be fairly ho-hum (although Adele's song was far better than the one in QOS), but finishing strong is always better than starting that way, and they truly delivered in that regard.

By intro I'm assuming you mean the pretitle sequence? You just opened a can of worms, I could write all day on this wonderful sequence I'll keep it brief though.

I think it's without a doubt the best of Craig's openings, though I still think Quantum is my favorite, just because the car chase is so much fun.

Yes, that's what I meant... take an extended leave and you forget about all the widely accepted terminology!

Anywyay, don't get me wrong, ho-hum by Bond standards is still pretty good! I think it started well, and ended solidly enough, but in between I felt it was much too familiar ground. I would say it's about on par with the Miami airport part of CR, well-done and technically advances the narrative, but as a whole I didn't find it incredibly compelling or memorable, even if it was enjoyable (although the bit with the backhoe was a nice tough of classic Bond being his creative self).

Compared to the raw simplicity and intensity of the pre-title sequence in CR, or the frenetic energy of the pre-title sequence in QOS, the pre-title sequence in Skyfall didn't strike me as anything extraordinary. However, that's analyzing it on a certain level of cinematic function ("pre-title sequence"). Taken as just one part of the movie at-large, it was a good mix of action and suspense, with just the right kind of humor. But I grade on a curve when it comes to Bond, and after CR and QOS hit home runs with their pre-title sequences, Skyfall "only" hit a double in my book!

[Lucky]

I loved it! A solid 4/5 for me. I'd rank it below Casino Royalebut above Quantum of Solace. I really enjoyed how everything came together in the end.

[NATO Sub]

I enjoyed it.

My wife enjoyed it.

My father enjoyed it and my mother enjoyed it.

Walking out of two Skyfall screenings, there weren't any murmurs of discontent that I could detect.

Edited by NATO Sub, 12 November 2012 - 08:15 AM.

[JimmyBond]

Have seen it twice now and I liked it more the second time round but still have a problem with some of Mendes' plot points. Plot points that hurt the film more than help it.

1) How Bond survives the fall is not explained, even in the slightest. He is not superman and unless someone pulled him from the water (if the fall didn't kill him) to save him from drowning then what gives. Nor are there any other bullet wounds, other than from Patrice, showing where Eve had shot him. I know the credits show a hand reaching out and grabbing his hand but that hand pulls him down. Unlike DAD where we see Bond being tortured in the credits, there is no indication as to how he survived. Mendes taking liberty's.

Now i know that other characters, take Jaws for example, have come back from certain death without explanation but in Jaws' case it's a bit different as he's a giant and you would expect be tougher to kill. Bond has never before escaped peril without the audience seeing how he does it and by not showing us in SF Mendes's is taking liberty's with the audience.

2) The DB5! You could argue that Bond is Bond, is Bond, is Bond and that everything being equal Bond owns the Aston Martin because after all he's Bond right? I say wrong!
Bond was rebooted in CR/QOS re-establishing the character so this film takes place after those events in present time not before. And in those films there was no Q or Moneypenny so how did Bond suddenly own the gadget laden DB5? Because he is Bond? Because he retro fitted the car he won in CR? i think not! SF takes liberty in trying to be both classic and new a the same time bringing us a new Q and Moneypenny and M while giving a bit of the old classic (DB5) and Bond family history which makes SF really a continuation of CR/QOS or shall i say a further reboot. If Mendes is rebooting then noway the DB5 with it's ejector seat and machine guns exists. And he destroys it at the end, along with M, which is another way of saying goodbye to the old and hello to the new. Reboot time.

And the many references to Bond being old ('old dog new tricks'. "no harm in admitting you 've lost a step") are really annoying.

1) It's a Bond film.

2) It's a Bond film.

These two issues didn't bug me nearly as much as they did you. It is interesting to point out that in the original draft it was Bond's DB5 from Caisno Royale, no gadgets, it was Mendes who felt it needed gadgets. Purvis and Wade just had the boot filled with a lot of weapons (that Bond used in the finale).

And I loved the question of whether or not Bond is past his prime. It wasn't just people questioning Bond in the film, it was the filmmakers questioning whether or not Bond films themselves are still relevant in this day and age. And of course the answer is a resounding yes.

[_005]

I'm very much middle of the road on my enjoyment of this film. While I don't think it was a particularly well constructed plot, I tend not to dwell on plots holes and take Film CritHULK's take on that.

There were lots of moments I enjoyed: Severine, the banter between Eve and Bond, the tough choices M makes, much of the Scotland sequence. Yet I feel the movie is less than the sum of its parts. It comes down to themes. The movie works for me when it's about the personal consequences of intelligence work. The movie falls apart for me when navel-gazing. More specifically...

1) After the last decade-plus of pop culture, I am really quite done with the cute self-references. 50-year-old scotch, I get it. Ejector seat. Yes, yes. Haha, exploding pens. I fear at some point the Bond films are going to get stuck in an infinite recursion of nods to previous films.

2) The film is an incredibly long journey back to status quo. Male M, Moneypenny, Q. Down to the padded leather door and coat hanger. I remember after CASINO ROYALE coming out that no one particularly missed Moneypenny or Q. They weren't needed. I would have been fine with the series evolving away from that towards the modern, big-budget interpretation of the novels the previous two movies were. I'm fine with the new M and Moneypenny, but why did we need an entire movie to set that up? Why couldn't they just be there in either this or the next movie? At this point, we've spent 3 entire movies (at least half of Craig's tenure) setting up a return to normal Bond movies. Speaking of cute, there's no reason to hide the fact that Eve is Moneypenny until the last scene. It's entirely predictable, and it's an awfully painful reminder of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.

3) The "Is Bond still relevant?" theme fell entirely flat for me. It was a question I didn't ask and didn't need answered. This isn't 1995, when the Cold War had ended and Bond disappeared for 6 years. We're 6 years removed from one of the best beloved Bond films ever and 4 years removed from the last Bond film. What's changed? Is it because of the round number thing that was the impetus for the self-references? Are we going to be re-answering this again for Bond 27/28 in 10 years? And along those lines, the old jokes got tiresome. Why do we have this obsession as a society to deconstruct and reconstruct every damn piece of pop culture from the 50s through 90s? Can you just give me a damn Bond film with a fourth wall?

4) The film worked best when addressing two themes and playing them off each other: hard choices and physical/spiritual endurance. The Tennyson poem is a great distillation of the latter. All throughout, M is shown to make cold-blooded decisions that cost lives in the short run but save lives in the long run. She carries on, however, like any good Brit. Bond and Silva are opposite sides of the coin in terms of the consequences of M's choices. One endures and finds the resolve to fight on; the other collapses into insanity.

It feels like a film that tries to do too much and doesn't end up doing anything all that well. Maybe if the movie were made before DARK KNIGHT RISES, the STAR TREK reboot, and the STAR WARS prequels, I wouldn't mind some of those parts so much. As it is, I'm exhausted.


P.S. Just for fun, I saw LINCOLN this weekend and it ended with this exchange:
Lincoln: "You should use your real name, Mr. King."
King: "Please. Call me Martin."

Edited by _005, 13 November 2012 - 02:41 AM.

[Chief of SIS]

Loved it. Won't rank it till I see it again. I have a whooper of a review coming for you guys in a week or so after second viewing. I look forward to hearing some articulated responses.

The finale in Scotland is so different from anything that's came before in a Bond film I think it throws some people off. I love it though, but to be fair, I didn't really latch onto it until my second viewing.

As far as the Scotland thing goes, I think one reviewer said it best when they called the last third of the film Bond's take on 'Straw Dogs.'

[Iceskater101]

I think the fact that is James Bond is enough to explain why he didn't die. I mean I just figured he got grabbed out of the water because in the theme song it showed a hand reaching out to him. I am just going to assume that's what happened and that hut he was staying in, that women grabbed him out of the water.

[Bon-san]

I found Skyfall to be brilliant in every way. I was fully engrossed from start to finish--continuously marvelling at the production design, the cinematography and the performances. M's passing ran deep, and I'm still grappling with it, hours later. A second viewing is definitely in the cards tomorrow evening.

Bravo to the filmmakers. Yay for us!

[Simon]

I'm very much middle of the road on my enjoyment of this film. While I don't think it was a particularly well constructed plot, I tend not to dwell on plots holes and take Film CritHULK's take on that.

There were lots of moments I enjoyed: Severine, the banter between Eve and Bond, the tough choices M makes, much of the Scotland sequence. Yet I feel the movie is less than the sum of its parts. It comes down to themes. The movie works for me when it's about the personal consequences of intelligence work. The movie falls apart for me when navel-gazing. More specifically...

1) After the last decade-plus of pop culture, I am really quite done with the cute self-references. 50-year-old scotch, I get it. Ejector seat. Yes, yes. Haha, exploding pens. I fear at some point the Bond films are going to get stuck in an infinite recursion of nods to previous films.

2) The film is an incredibly long journey back to status quo. Male M, Moneypenny, Q. Down to the padded leather door and coat hanger. I remember after CASINO ROYALE coming out that no one particularly missed Moneypenny or Q. They weren't needed. I would have been fine with the series evolving away from that towards the modern, big-budget interpretation of the novels the previous two movies were. I'm fine with the new M and Moneypenny, but why did we need an entire movie to set that up? Why couldn't they just be there in either this or the next movie? At this point, we've spent 3 entire movies (at least half of Craig's tenure) setting up a return to normal Bond movies. Speaking of cute, there's no reason to hide the fact that Eve is Moneypenny until the last scene. It's entirely predictable, and it's an awfully painful reminder of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.

3) The "Is Bond still relevant?" theme fell entirely flat for me. It was a question I didn't ask and didn't need answered. This isn't 1995, when the Cold War had ended and Bond disappeared for 6 years. We're 6 years removed from one of the best beloved Bond films ever and 4 years removed from the last Bond film. What's changed? Is it because of the round number thing that was the impetus for the self-references? Are we going to be re-answering this again for Bond 27/28 in 10 years? And along those lines, the old jokes got tiresome. Why do we have this obsession as a society to deconstruct and reconstruct every damn piece of pop culture from the 50s through 90s? Can you just give me a damn Bond film with a fourth wall?

4) The film worked best when addressing two themes and playing them off each other: hard choices and physical/spiritual endurance. The Tennyson poem is a great distillation of the latter. All throughout, M is shown to make cold-blooded decisions that cost lives in the short run but save lives in the long run. She carries on, however, like any good Brit. Bond and Silva are opposite sides of the coin in terms of the consequences of M's choices. One endures and finds the resolve to fight on; the other collapses into insanity.

It feels like a film that tries to do too much and doesn't end up doing anything all that well. Maybe if the movie were made before DARK KNIGHT RISES, the STAR TREK reboot, and the STAR WARS prequels, I wouldn't mind some of those parts so much. As it is, I'm exhausted.

Fair points, all.

[S K Y F A L L]

I strongly agree with your second point and I'm afraid that your first point already started with CR. IMO they have been recycling little Bond tidbits since CR and its more noticeable in QOS, but with SF I think its expected since its such an important anniversary.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

The only weak things I really found was the gunbarrel at the end again and some plot holes that could have been better explained. As for the rest, awesome!

[DaveBond21]

I love it, it's a great Bond movie. I just wish the last third was better.

 

_

[sharpshooter]

The Scotland ending and the movie's epilogue really made the entire movie for me.

 

 

I liked the entire movie, but the Scotland finale is probably my favourite section. From when Bond and M acquire the DB5 onwards I think the pacing is excellent. The ejector seat moment and the beautiful cinematography of the DB5 driving and entering Skyfall’s grounds. I enjoyed Kincade, he brought good humour. I like the battle itself and that massive fireball. But the chase through the moors and the final confrontation are even better in my book.

[EyesOnly]

I've seen Skyfall twice and I still don't know why, but it doesn't resonate with me like it does with most. There is a lot to love about it especially the casino scenes, but overall I was left a little underwhelmed. Maybe seeing it at home will change my opinion of the film.

I don't want to say I'm getting tired of Daniel Craig in the role as I think he plays a great Bond, but I do think his next two films need lighter themes.

[tdalton]

I've seen Skyfall twice and I still don't know why, but it doesn't resonate with me like it does with most. There is a lot to love about it especially the casino scenes, but overall I was left a little underwhelmed. Maybe seeing it at home will change my opinion of the film.

 

I feel the same way.  I loved the casino scenes, as well as the stuff in Shanghai, but "underwhelming" is the exact word I'd use to describe just about everything else.

[Double-0-Seven]

It's kind of neat how many people are torn on the conclusion (Scotland onwards). Some people absolutely loved it, while some feel it's the weakest part of the film. I remember reading an early review that called the final third underwhelming compared to the first two, but when I saw it, I could not figure out why. I thought it was an amazing ending. It's so different from the climaxes of previous Bond films but it's still one hundred percent Bond. Very fun sequence, lots of nice Bond moments, and great action. A friend of mine called it the "coolest" ending to a Bond film. I'm inclined to agree.

[tdalton]

It's kind of neat how many people are torn on the conclusion (Scotland onwards). Some people absolutely loved it, while some feel it's the weakest part of the film. I remember reading an early review that called the final third underwhelming compared to the first two, but when I saw it, I could not figure out why. I thought it was an amazing ending. It's so different from the climaxes of previous Bond films but it's still one hundred percent Bond. Very fun sequence, lots of nice Bond moments, and great action. A friend of mine called it the "coolest" ending to a Bond film. I'm inclined to agree.

 

I didn't like the finale of the film because it just seemed like the most pointless way to go about trying to get rid of Silva and save M.  Laying the trail of breadcrumbs for Silva to find was smart, but since that's all Silva has to go on, why does M even need to be there?  It's not as though she's actually offering Bond any physical assistance when it comes to defeating Silva and his men.  Bond would have been much smarter to stash M somewhere else and then let the trail lead Silva directly to him at Skyfall, and only him.  Silva wouldn't have known that M wasn't there anyway, and Bond could have defeated him without putting his boss in danger, and allowed her to face the humiliation of her retirement like she deserved to.

 

It also wasn't helped by the reliance on the gadget-laden Aston Martin either.  That just added a dose of silliness to a sequence that wanted to be amongst the most serious in the entire franchise, and it simply didn't work.