Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Your overall impression/opinion of Skyfall


137 replies to this topic

#31 perdogg

perdogg

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 116 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 19 November 2012 - 03:32 PM

It was not Flemingesque as promissed; just another Bourne/Battman graphic novel movie with pretty pictures and psychobabble.

#32 hilly

hilly

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Location:Lost. Last seen Brass Rubbing in Brittany

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:19 PM

At the risk of evoking Austin Powers, with Skyfall Bond has got his mojo back...


Edited by hilly, 19 November 2012 - 07:20 PM.


#33 jamie00007

jamie00007

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 555 posts
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 19 November 2012 - 09:59 PM

Loved it! A contender for the best Bond film yet. Certainly in the top echelon of Bond films.

#34 Panavision

Panavision

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 137 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:10 PM

Better than QoS, but the film is a mess. Screenplay lacks wit, too many pointless scenes like Bond's close shave with the field agent. The third act has Bond putting M into a dangerous situation.

#35 perdogg

perdogg

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 116 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 20 November 2012 - 06:47 PM

I assume Bond fans would be insulted by what the producers thought of them by this presentation. By the end of the title sequence we have one 00 agent slumped in a chair in Instanbul dying and one 00 agent assumed dead by fratricide from a dithering field agent who has her every movement dictated by a command center. Apparently, there was no search for his whereabouts after the incident. Then we are told later in the film, the 00 section was around "to fight wars in the shadows". Heaven help the empire.

Contrast this with Dalton-Bond 25 years ago in The Living Daylights where Bond is relatively alone, no earpiece, using the skill and knowledge entrusted to him as 00 agent in Bratislava, in control of his situation, making split seconds decisions on matters of life and death, right or wrong and without regret.

I don't want pay $15 for a movie to see The Three Stooges or Fanatastic Four. I want to see Bond..the real Bond. The Bond who was bold enough to go into space or a Bond who was going to blow the screen off the ship-based command center in TSWLM.

Edited by perdogg, 20 November 2012 - 06:48 PM.


#36 sharpshooter

sharpshooter

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8996 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 07:52 AM

Finally saw the movie. I thought it was fantastic, one of my favourite entires in the series.

#37 The Gunner

The Gunner

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 24 posts
  • Location:Skyfall Lodge (ruins)

Posted 26 November 2012 - 10:26 PM

Just saw Skyfall on Saturday. Brilliant Bond film, tapping into the roots and 'origin story' of Bond in a way very rarely seen before. The best Bond of the Craig era so far - minimalist and brilliant! Second only to OHMSS, IMHO.

#38 FlemingBond

FlemingBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 610 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, Az U.S.

Posted 26 November 2012 - 10:31 PM

Just saw it in IMAX. I definitely thought it had a Flemingesque quality to it, with more of a small scale ending. Big movie, long. Have to let it sink in a bit.
Really liked the last scene.

#39 The Gunner

The Gunner

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 24 posts
  • Location:Skyfall Lodge (ruins)

Posted 26 November 2012 - 10:36 PM

I assume Bond fans would be insulted by what the producers thought of them by this presentation. By the end of the title sequence we have one 00 agent slumped in a chair in Instanbul dying and one 00 agent assumed dead by fratricide from a dithering field agent who has her every movement dictated by a command center. Apparently, there was no search for his whereabouts after the incident. Then we are told later in the film, the 00 section was around "to fight wars in the shadows". Heaven help the empire.

Contrast this with Dalton-Bond 25 years ago in The Living Daylights where Bond is relatively alone, no earpiece, using the skill and knowledge entrusted to him as 00 agent in Bratislava, in control of his situation, making split seconds decisions on matters of life and death, right or wrong and without regret.

I don't want pay $15 for a movie to see The Three Stooges or Fanatastic Four. I want to see Bond..the real Bond. The Bond who was bold enough to go into space or a Bond who was going to blow the screen off the ship-based command center in TSWLM.


I think maybe you expected a little too much.

Thankfully the days of TSWLM are over - back to Fleming is hopefully here to stay!

#40 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 03 December 2012 - 12:57 AM

Not sure about overall impression, but I'd like to comment about what our villain was up to in SF. We're used to Bond villains who are after power or money or both, or have some deranged idea about re-making the world in their image. So, what can we say about Raoul Silva/Tiago Rodriguez?

He had an operation out in his Dead City base which made him a small fortune, I expect. One of the criticisms I have of the storyline is that the writers have thrown away the opportunity to have a villain seeking power/money etc by causing havoc online. If the likes of SPECTRE was around in 2012, I imagine its ransom demand would have been sent by email, with a threat to copy in the rest of the world on YouTube.

Instead - we have M theatened by a glorified online stalker, one who has had a grudge festering for years, has the means to hurt not only M but MI6, and doesn't care if he survives or not. The man who wants to get his own back, because he wants to get his own back. His plan is on a grand scale, but his aim is small scale. Normally, Bond takes on some grand, cerebral threat to the civilised world. Here, he's taking on something different, very dangerous and all too human and real - the nutter with a personal grudge, who is willing to pursue it to the bitter end.

#41 Matt_13

Matt_13

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5969 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 03 December 2012 - 01:17 AM

Skyfall has made it difficult for me to rewatch any of Craig's previous entries, both of which held top spots on my list. I adore it.

#42 sharpshooter

sharpshooter

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8996 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 12:58 PM

Skyfall has made it difficult for me to rewatch any of Craig's previous entries, both of which held top spots on my list. I adore it.

I do as well. It's terrific. I keep going over the movie in my head, and keep discovering interesting little details. For example Silva's rat speech appearing in the film's narrative. Bond went deep underground after his parents death and emerged a different person. His nature had been changed.

#43 Hockey Mask

Hockey Mask

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1027 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 04 December 2012 - 01:05 PM


Skyfall has made it difficult for me to rewatch any of Craig's previous entries, both of which held top spots on my list. I adore it.

I do as well. It's terrific. I keep going over the movie in my head, and keep discovering interesting little details. For example Silva's rat speech appearing in the film's narrative. Bond went deep underground after his parents death and emerged a different person. His nature had been changed.

Yes. The whole 'last rat standing' played throughout the movie with "rats" in the subway tunnel. "Rats" in the Skyfall tunnel. Unfortunately, in the long run, M proved herself to be a rat too. At least that is the way I saw it.

#44 Nicolas Suszczyk

Nicolas Suszczyk

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3735 posts
  • Location:Buenos Aires, Argentina

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:00 PM



LOVED EVERYTHING ELSE! But especially...

• "Agent Down" and the Sky falls & it starts to rain...gave me chills!

 

 

Freaking amazing that moment. You know, when studying romantic poetry in secondary school four years ago I recall out teacher told us how weather sympathises of the hero's fate (i.e. if he's sad, it starts to rain, if he's happy and found love etc., it's a sunny day). What a lovely connection with SKYFALL here.

 

"...Agent down." ***Rains. M contemplating the rain, sympathizing for her loss.***



#45 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:29 PM

Not sure about overall impression, but I'd like to comment about what our villain was up to in SF. We're used to Bond villains who are after power or money or both, or have some deranged idea about re-making the world in their image. So, what can we say about Raoul Silva/Tiago Rodriguez?

He had an operation out in his Dead City base which made him a small fortune, I expect. One of the criticisms I have of the storyline is that the writers have thrown away the opportunity to have a villain seeking power/money etc by causing havoc online. If the likes of SPECTRE was around in 2012, I imagine its ransom demand would have been sent by email, with a threat to copy in the rest of the world on YouTube.

Instead - we have M theatened by a glorified online stalker, one who has had a grudge festering for years, has the means to hurt not only M but MI6, and doesn't care if he survives or not. The man who wants to get his own back, because he wants to get his own back. His plan is on a grand scale, but his aim is small scale. Normally, Bond takes on some grand, cerebral threat to the civilised world. Here, he's taking on something different, very dangerous and all too human and real - the nutter with a personal grudge, who is willing to pursue it to the bitter end.


I suppose Silva has more than just a little grudge to nurse. The man very much was an earlier version of Bond, not a 00 but a top 'star agent' inside MI6 in his own right. He was willing to die for his service and for his boss M. Who was the one who betrayed him. The guy had every right to get after the woman and give her hell. While she didn't even want to call him by his name. To me SKYFALL's villain is not Silva at all; it's M, who built her career on Silva's expertise and coldly sold him to the enemy the minute she had no more use for him. With the flimsy excuse he had gone beyond his mission. A flaw not exactly uncommon to Bond...

#46 Nicolas Suszczyk

Nicolas Suszczyk

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3735 posts
  • Location:Buenos Aires, Argentina

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:58 PM

 

Not sure about overall impression, but I'd like to comment about what our villain was up to in SF. We're used to Bond villains who are after power or money or both, or have some deranged idea about re-making the world in their image. So, what can we say about Raoul Silva/Tiago Rodriguez?

He had an operation out in his Dead City base which made him a small fortune, I expect. One of the criticisms I have of the storyline is that the writers have thrown away the opportunity to have a villain seeking power/money etc by causing havoc online. If the likes of SPECTRE was around in 2012, I imagine its ransom demand would have been sent by email, with a threat to copy in the rest of the world on YouTube.

Instead - we have M theatened by a glorified online stalker, one who has had a grudge festering for years, has the means to hurt not only M but MI6, and doesn't care if he survives or not. The man who wants to get his own back, because he wants to get his own back. His plan is on a grand scale, but his aim is small scale. Normally, Bond takes on some grand, cerebral threat to the civilised world. Here, he's taking on something different, very dangerous and all too human and real - the nutter with a personal grudge, who is willing to pursue it to the bitter end.


I suppose Silva has more than just a little grudge to nurse. The man very much was an earlier version of Bond, not a 00 but a top 'star agent' inside MI6 in his own right. He was willing to die for his service and for his boss M. Who was the one who betrayed him. The guy had every right to get after the woman and give her hell. While she didn't even want to call him by his name. To me SKYFALL's villain is not Silva at all; it's M, who built her career on Silva's expertise and coldly sold him to the enemy the minute she had no more use for him. With the flimsy excuse he had gone beyond his mission. A flaw not exactly uncommon to Bond...

 

 

I still see Silva as the villain. As Alec reminded us in GOLDENEYE - "007's Loyalty is always to the mission, never to his friends". That's what M did, and the reason why she didn't accept "voluntary retirement" before. She wanted to "catch whatever did this", even at expenses of her own opperatives. Would Miles Messervy have done something different? I doubt it.

 

On another side, she hasn't "coldly sold him". The man was her agent, he started hacking the Chineses and that's why she sold him. Silva wasn't expendable, he wasn't obeying orders - a "rouge (techie) agent". M's not completely innocent of course, but if you think that way, you can start thinking all the bad guys in the 23 films are the good ones and the MI6 team are the true villains: Poor Alec was betrayed by England so he should go on with his plan unless bad boy stops him, so Elektra and why not Stromberg and Drax too. 

 

Silva killed a lot of innocent people in the MI6 attack, just like Bin Laden did on the 9-11. Does the objective justify the medium?



#47 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:53 PM

I still see Silva as the villain. As Alec reminded us in GOLDENEYE - "007's Loyalty is always to the mission, never to his friends". That's what M did, and the reason why she didn't accept "voluntary retirement" before. She wanted to "catch whatever did this", even at expenses of her own opperatives. Would Miles Messervy have done something different? I doubt it.


But she knew who did it, and why. Towards the end she even acknowledged it. No, I don't think Messervy would have acted the same way, no previous M would have.



On another side, she hasn't "coldly sold him". The man was her agent, he started hacking the Chineses and that's why she sold him. Silva wasn't expendable, he wasn't obeying orders - a "rouge (techie) agent".


She didn't even deny it. Disobeying orders is hardly uncommon in the Bond-verse, and loyalty is not a one-way route. You can hardly expect agents to give their best - right to the end even - when their life is only just a matter of 'what do we get in exchange?'



M's not completely innocent of course, but if you think that way, you can start thinking all the bad guys in the 23 films are the good ones and the MI6 team are the true villains: Poor Alec was betrayed by England so he should go on with his plan unless bad boy stops him, so Elektra and why not Stromberg and Drax too.


Different cases. 006's parents were betrayed by England, but it never is clear what actually made Trevelyan turn sides, that betrayal or the botched mission in the USSR or perhaps the effects of the explosion there - has he lost his sanity maybe? - or just plain greed or was 006 a traitor much longer? It's never really explained, for all we know he could have been a double agent, although that's even less logic, working for the killers of his parents against the country that at least saved his life.



Silva killed a lot of innocent people in the MI6 attack, just like Bin Laden did on the 9-11. Does the objective justify the medium?


Obviously a question M asked herself and came up with a wrong answer.

#48 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:45 PM

a "rouge (techie) agent".

 
James Bond: Rouge Agent.
 
http://www.freakingn.../James-Bond.jpg

#49 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:33 AM

 To me SKYFALL's villain is not Silva at all; it's M, who built her career on Silva's expertise and coldly sold him to the enemy the minute she had no more use for him. With the flimsy excuse he had gone beyond his mission. A flaw not exactly uncommon to Bond...


 
Completely agreed.  It's also that characterization of M that is the reason the film's emotional core lacks any true punch to it.  It's a hard task for a filmmaker to get the audience to root for the villain, and that's exactly what SKYFALL asks of its audience.

Edited by tdalton, 07 December 2012 - 01:34 AM.


#50 FOX MULDER

FOX MULDER

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 178 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:57 AM

Better than QoS, but the film is a mess. Screenplay lacks wit, too many pointless scenes like Bond's close shave with the field agent. The third act has Bond putting M into a dangerous situation.

I would suggest M was already in a 'dangerous situation' long before Bond took her to Scotland...

 

I agree - somewhat - about the lack of wit, though. Some of the interactions between Bond and Eve were cliché-heavy and dull (about as far from Connery/Maxwell or Moore/Maxwell as one can get), and the one-liners were flat and simply not funny.



#51 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 07:03 AM


To me SKYFALL's villain is not Silva at all; it's M, who built her career on Silva's expertise and coldly sold him to the enemy the minute she had no more use for him. With the flimsy excuse he had gone beyond his mission. A flaw not exactly uncommon to Bond...


Completely agreed. It's also that characterization of M that is the reason the film's emotional core lacks any true punch to it. It's a hard task for a filmmaker to get the audience to root for the villain, and that's exactly what SKYFALL asks of its audience.

Don't get me wrong, I like SKYFALL and M's depiction, a very complex and multi-layered character and now I am thankful for her gradually extended role during the last few films, otherwise this story would not have possible. But I was indeed waiting for some kind of further explanation for her deeds. As it is the Ulysses speech is her apologia, but her moral compass in Silva's case was seriously lacking and the loyalty Bond shows toward her does seem to embarrass M more than anything else. She clearly feels guilty and her reasons to betray Silva - an agent so fiercely loyal as to rather die for her than talking to his captors - support this. You might even make a case her guilty conscience was what subliminally caused her to care for Bond's fate in the Craig films. I doubt this kind of story would have been possible with a character who was merely seen for a few lines at the beginning in her office. The clucking M was what made it possible.

#52 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 07 December 2012 - 07:31 AM

 

Not sure about overall impression, but I'd like to comment about what our villain was up to in SF. We're used to Bond villains who are after power or money or both, or have some deranged idea about re-making the world in their image. So, what can we say about Raoul Silva/Tiago Rodriguez?

He had an operation out in his Dead City base which made him a small fortune, I expect. One of the criticisms I have of the storyline is that the writers have thrown away the opportunity to have a villain seeking power/money etc by causing havoc online. If the likes of SPECTRE was around in 2012, I imagine its ransom demand would have been sent by email, with a threat to copy in the rest of the world on YouTube.

Instead - we have M theatened by a glorified online stalker, one who has had a grudge festering for years, has the means to hurt not only M but MI6, and doesn't care if he survives or not. The man who wants to get his own back, because he wants to get his own back. His plan is on a grand scale, but his aim is small scale. Normally, Bond takes on some grand, cerebral threat to the civilised world. Here, he's taking on something different, very dangerous and all too human and real - the nutter with a personal grudge, who is willing to pursue it to the bitter end.


I suppose Silva has more than just a little grudge to nurse. The man very much was an earlier version of Bond, not a 00 but a top 'star agent' inside MI6 in his own right. He was willing to die for his service and for his boss M. Who was the one who betrayed him. The guy had every right to get after the woman and give her hell. While she didn't even want to call him by his name. To me SKYFALL's villain is not Silva at all; it's M, who built her career on Silva's expertise and coldly sold him to the enemy the minute she had no more use for him. With the flimsy excuse he had gone beyond his mission. A flaw not exactly uncommon to Bond...

Good points. A grudge could mean anything from a small slight which is magnified many times by the person offended by it, to the cold betrayal you refer to. In this film, M really has brought it all on herself - the list that shouldn't have existed goes missing, the refusal to withdraw the embedded agents until they start dying on YouTube, and, way back in 1997, the selling out, for reasons of politics, of an agent who was overdoing his job. (As you point out, how many times have we seen Bond overstep the mark?) Talk about "what goes around, comes around." I'm not sure about M being the real villain, but as the film reviewer of The Guardian newspaper, Peter Bradshaw, points out, she created the conditions with her employees - "treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen" he calls it - which eventually led to one of them turning on her.



#53 sharpshooter

sharpshooter

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8996 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:18 AM

Freaking amazing that moment. You know, when studying romantic poetry in secondary school four years ago I recall out teacher told us how weather sympathises of the hero's fate (i.e. if he's sad, it starts to rain, if he's happy and found love etc., it's a sunny day). What a lovely connection with SKYFALL here.

 

"...Agent down." ***Rains. M contemplating the rain, sympathizing for her loss.***

I like that part, too. Especially how the rain blends into the sound of Bond falling down the waterfall.


Edited by sharpshooter, 07 December 2012 - 08:18 AM.


#54 Ragal El Mostaheel

Ragal El Mostaheel

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 17 posts
  • Location:Cairo, Egypt

Posted 09 December 2012 - 08:50 PM

Just came back from the movie, overall it was great. Loved the nods they made (which is no doubt due to the 50 year anniversay), it wasn't perfect (so far Casino Royale is Craig's best Bond film IMO) but for my money is a way better improvement over the misstep of QOS and it was totally worth the money.

 

Now Craig is tied with Brosnan for my third favorite Bond behind Connery and Moore.


Edited by Ragal El Mostaheel, 09 December 2012 - 08:51 PM.


#55 A Kristatos

A Kristatos

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 609 posts
  • Location:Chicago, USA

Posted 10 December 2012 - 03:25 AM

I assume Bond fans would be insulted by what the producers thought of them by this presentation. By the end of the title sequence we have one 00 agent slumped in a chair in Instanbul dying and one 00 agent assumed dead by fratricide from a dithering field agent who has her every movement dictated by a command center. Apparently, there was no search for his whereabouts after the incident. Then we are told later in the film, the 00 section was around "to fight wars in the shadows". Heaven help the empire.

Contrast this with Dalton-Bond 25 years ago in The Living Daylights where Bond is relatively alone, no earpiece, using the skill and knowledge entrusted to him as 00 agent in Bratislava, in control of his situation, making split seconds decisions on matters of life and death, right or wrong and without regret.

I don't want pay $15 for a movie to see The Three Stooges or Fanatastic Four. I want to see Bond..the real Bond. The Bond who was bold enough to go into space or a Bond who was going to blow the screen off the ship-based command center in TSWLM.

I'm constantly amazed by people like you who feel that a Bond movie is not "Flemingesque" enough if Bond is not "Superman" enough in a Bond movie.  While "Skyfall" certainly contains a few "Bournish" elements, it portrays Bond as far more human and far more realistic as Fleming always portrayed Bond in his novels.  Bond is not Superman, he is a deeply flawed human being who suffers emotional consequences for his actions.  And while I'm sure there will come a time for a more lighthearted Bond movie than even "Skyfall" attempted to be, after going through over a decade of larger than life Brosnan Bond films, and over 12 years of Roger Moore Bond films (both great Bond actors in their own right), I don't think there is any problem with a run of Bond films portraying Bond from a more emotional, humanistic standpoint.

 

Nothing personal perdogg, as you have every right to your opinion.  But judging by the astonishing worldwide box office numbers, I would say your assessment of "Skyfall" is definitely in the small minority.


Edited by A Kristatos, 10 December 2012 - 03:26 AM.


#56 supernova

supernova

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 209 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 06:15 AM

What sets Skyfall apart from Casino Royale is that there a sense of story and space in Skyfall, whereas in Casino Royale it seems like its one action set piece stitched to another -- with narrative in the in-between places. Skyfall is an interesting yarn with intelligent dialogue -- and the action/violence is not as nasty as in many modern movies -- I am talking to you Christopher Nolan and Quentin Taratino.


Edited by supernova, 10 December 2012 - 06:15 AM.


#57 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 10 December 2012 - 08:47 AM

What sets Skyfall apart from Casino Royale is that there a sense of story and space in Skyfall, whereas in Casino Royale it seems like its one action set piece stitched to another -- with narrative in the in-between places. Skyfall is an interesting yarn with intelligent dialogue -- and the action/violence is not as nasty as in many modern movies -- I am talking to you Christopher Nolan and Quentin Taratino.


Agreed entirely.



#58 Odd Jobbies

Odd Jobbies

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1573 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 10 December 2012 - 10:57 AM

What sets Skyfall apart from Casino Royale is that there a sense of story and space in Skyfall....

 

Very well put, this is exactly what sets Skyfall  apart from all of the Bond movies since OHMSS.  It's what sets all quality films apart, whatever their genre, from the rest that are churned out.

 

The better Bond films had more of this and CR  had more than most since the 60s. But SF  is head and shoulders above CR  in terms of 'story and space' and even more than the DB5  it's this quality that really harks back to the 60s.


Edited by Odd Jobbies, 10 December 2012 - 11:01 AM.


#59 Peckinpah1976

Peckinpah1976

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 351 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:37 AM

What sets Skyfall apart from Casino Royale is that there a sense of story and space in Skyfall, whereas in Casino Royale it seems like its one action set piece stitched to another -- with narrative in the in-between places. Skyfall is an interesting yarn with intelligent dialogue -- and the action/violence is not as nasty as in many modern movies -- I am talking to you Christopher Nolan and Quentin Taratino.

 

While I agree with your criticisms of Casino Royale, this time around you clearly saw a different film to me; I thought Skyfall was virtually plotless and too obviously indebted to Christopher Nolan, in fact the only film I've seen lately that was even less deserving of it's critical reception and more portentous and ludicrously written than Bond 23 was The Dark Knight Rises....  

 

Which isn't to say I didn't like the new film at all but the quality of the screenplay (beyond the dialogue) was a big stumbling block for me. 



#60 Odd Jobbies

Odd Jobbies

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1573 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 10 December 2012 - 02:50 PM

 

What sets Skyfall apart from Casino Royale is that there a sense of story and space in Skyfall, whereas in Casino Royale it seems like its one action set piece stitched to another -- with narrative in the in-between places. Skyfall is an interesting yarn with intelligent dialogue -- and the action/violence is not as nasty as in many modern movies -- I am talking to you Christopher Nolan and Quentin Taratino.

 

While I agree with your criticisms of Casino Royale, this time around you clearly saw a different film to me; I thought Skyfall was virtually plotless and too obviously indebted to Christopher Nolan, in fact the only film I've seen lately that was even less deserving of it's critical reception and more portentous and ludicrously written than Bond 23 was The Dark Knight Rises....  

 

Which isn't to say I didn't like the new film at all but the quality of the screenplay (beyond the dialogue) was a big stumbling block for me. 

 

 

Personally i like Supernova's choice of words, 'space and story'.  The quality of SF's plot is certainly debatable and owes much to The Dark Knight, not just in tone - darkness -, as Mendes is quoted, but in plot points that appear wholesale lifted from TDK.

 

However, what Mendes accomplished direction and Deakin's peerless photography give us (along with Craig's ability to present a hitherto un-captured depth to Bond) is a sense of a real 'space/time that it inhabits - unlike contemporary action movies, including Bond, it doesn't rush the parts that don't have action.

 

This time to show and take in the scenery and the atmos gives it a sense of realism that boosts that of the story. It's only when analysed that TDK structure becomes pretty evident.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, eckinpah1976 - i think i'm saying you're both right.

 

Btw, i'd love to have seen a Peckinpah directed Bond - maybe Never Say Never Again, so he could whatever he wanted, truly anti-hero Bond, truly evil villain and a blood bath finale. Connery would've gone out with a real bang.

 

 

 

 

ETA: I saw Skyfall again yesterday and it played sooo much better.

 

There's still a couple of awkward moments that don't tonally gel with the rest of the movie: The ejector seat gag and the 70s homage of the old couple's comment as Bond mounts the tube train. But i've bored you all far too often with this complaint.

 

IMO Skyfall really is peerless in the Bond canon.

 

Fantastic work by Mendes, Logan and Deakins and very, very detailed work by Craig and Bardem (the latter's finale puts his villain right up there with Frank Booth from Blue Velvet). 

 

BTW, i've now seen it first in IMAX and then in a 'regular' cinema and i can highly recommend seeing it in IMAX - there really is much added value in the extra quality and size.


Edited by Odd Jobbies, 13 December 2012 - 07:28 PM.