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

#121 Odd Jobbies

Odd Jobbies

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1573 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 07 January 2013 - 01:09 PM

 

As for Rodger Moore, I think all of his Bond films are a joke and disgrace to not only the bond franchise, but also to Ian Fleming.


Funny enough, that's exactly how I view Purvis & Wade and Paul Haggis's CASINO ROYALE, though I imagine for different reasons than the anti-fun, dark n gritty Bond fans of the GOLDENEYE N64 generation.

 

I was the Roger Moore generation and i love the' dark n gritty' Bond we have now, finding it huge fun.

 

In fact i think it's the other way around, if you look at the eras objectively it's the 70's / early 80s  Moore films that scream comic-strip, appealing more to the pre-teens (which i was at the time, so i got lucky there i guess).

 

Dalton's era has all the earnestness of mid to late teenage mentality - the naivety to believe you can change the world. Brosnan's era goes from adventure to sheer stupidity (perhaps that's the LSD experimentation of one's 20's ;)  while Craig's has the cynicism of the older gent whose seen dreams gone astray as the gritty realities of life dismember the fantasies of youth.

 

Or you could say that 9/11  had this effect on western culture as a whole - a stark wake up call that makes the old fashioned imperialistic adventures of Moore et al just a little hokey, naive and outdated.

 

I imagine someone like Fleming, with his WW2 experience would simply see the post 9/11  generation as woken up form a mass delusion in which, between wars, western society forgot about the realities of conflict. In short i think it's the Craig era that would chime closest to Fleming's world view and if you feel that in turn chimes with the 'GOLDENEYE N64 generation' then draw your own conclusions.



#122 Orion

Orion

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1579 posts
  • Location:Great Britain (rule Britania)

Posted 07 January 2013 - 03:27 PM

 

 

As for Rodger Moore, I think all of his Bond films are a joke and disgrace to not only the bond franchise, but also to Ian Fleming.


Funny enough, that's exactly how I view Purvis & Wade and Paul Haggis's CASINO ROYALE, though I imagine for different reasons than the anti-fun, dark n gritty Bond fans of the GOLDENEYE N64 generation.

 

I was the Roger Moore generation and i love the' dark n gritty' Bond we have now, finding it huge fun.

 

In fact i think it's the other way around, if you look at the eras objectively it's the 70's / early 80s  Moore films that scream comic-strip, appealing more to the pre-teens (which i was at the time, so i got lucky there i guess).

 

Dalton's era has all the earnestness of mid to late teenage mentality - the naivety to believe you can change the world. Brosnan's era goes from adventure to sheer stupidity (perhaps that's the LSD experimentation of one's 20's ;)  while Craig's has the cynicism of the older gent whose seen dreams gone astray as the gritty realities of life dismember the fantasies of youth.

 

Or you could say that 9/11  had this effect on western culture as a whole - a stark wake up call that makes the old fashioned imperialistic adventures of Moore et al just a little hokey, naive and outdated.

 

I imagine someone like Fleming, with his WW2 experience would simply see the post 9/11  generation as woken up form a mass delusion in which, between wars, western society forgot about the realities of conflict. In short i think it's the Craig era that would chime closest to Fleming's world view and if you feel that in turn chimes with the 'GOLDENEYE N64 generation' then draw your own conclusions.

 

I would agree, it is difficult to judge all Bond films with a modern eye, as all Bond movies (and books) are made for the time they where made. Brosnan' s and Moore' s where made in a Britain without international conflicts (mostly) and so a frivolous tone is more suited. Craig' s are part of a Great Britain that' s involved in two wars in the name of fighting terror, calling for a harder tone.

 

More on topic I loved Skyfall, it made me excited about Bond in a way I have not been in a long time. It struck a balance in tone, as well as the constant battle for Bond movies of style vs content.



#123 Blofelds Cat

Blofelds Cat

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 153 posts
  • Location:Perth, Western Australia

Posted 12 January 2013 - 11:52 AM

Finally went to see 'Skyfall' yesterday and I am sorry to have to say that it was a disappointing experience. Craig, who I liked in CR and QoS (even if the latter was a poor film), didn't seem to have his acting-heart in it. Bardem's take on the villain was a joke (an opinion shared by my fellow audience-members if their giggles every time Bardem opened his mouth is anything to go on). What is it with Hollywood that they persist with the stereotype of the homosexual male being a lisping mincer!? The 'touching-up' of 007 would have been sinister and unsettling if the villain was assumed to be "straight" up 'til that point. Evidently Eon haven't moved on from Wint & Kidd.

 

And did anyone else find themselves wondering - as the film was playing-out, not later with time to think - why someone would bother to hire an assassin to shoot a target who is sitting in a room with three people who are themselves all in on the kill; two of the three obviously being thugs who could quite easily have done the job themselves.

 

As for the villainous masterplan, so meticulously planned that Bond was standing in the exact place, at the exact moment, a train would come careening through a hole blown in a roof, gimme an effing break. In fact so many elements of this "years in the planning" scheme depended on exact time and space positioning of so many people and objects that I was taken out of the movie and placed back in a seat in an auditorium, staring at a movie screen on which a live-action 'Tom & Jerry' cartoon was playing.

 

Then there's the dumbing-down of the film's screenplay. I'm sure most of us had figured out that Bond had failed the tests but we had to have it hammered home with the M/Tanner scene in the car; the fact that the villain would later impart the truth to Bond seems to have counted for nothing in the view of the Producers. And did we really need to see Bond activating the 'distress' beacon before getting of the boat? All this did was totally demolish the suspense which would have been felt when Bond looked like his number was up (how's our Jimmy going to get out of this one, Mum?); thanks to the 'activation' scene, we know exactly when the (air) cavalry will arrive.

 

Thank the maker for the Aston-Martin at Skyfall - the only genuine, and thrilling, moment of the entire 'too-long-by-at-least-45-minutes' movie.

 

It's a bit much when the best part of a Bond movie is the gunbarrel sequence; but at least they saved the best for last.

 

I have no desire to watch 'Skyfall' again. I might give it another go when the 4K Ultra-HD home-video version is released in 2015/16.



#124 Odd Jobbies

Odd Jobbies

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1573 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 12 January 2013 - 04:52 PM

Well, Blofeld's Cat, i can't wait to see legion of fan-bulliys come charging out demanding you be banned for such poo-pooing of their film... ;)    Really well done for the big gonads and ruthlessness with which you just dismembered Skyfall.

 

I don't agree with the gay bit - thought that was good fun, and there was a lot more than the Aston to be happy about. But as for the rest of your points it's hard to contradict them or justify their being in the film. The assassin's motive is a big black hole; the plot's dependency on things that are obviously not in Silva's complete control having to happen in a certain way for his plan to work was far too heavy; i also thought Bond's arrival where the tube train exploded was mighty fortuitous in order for the cinematic drama to unfold. The double reveal of Bond's test failure was indeed unnecessary and negated the moment when Silva revealed it, but that's not a biggie for me.

 

First time i saw the film i didn't notice Bond activate the transmitter (i dealing with a noisy cinema-neighbour at the time), so when the airborne cavalry arrived i was a little perplexed. On the 2nd viewing i saw the transmitter activation and the cavalry arrival now made perfect sense.

 

Also, how did you feel about the out of context camp-comedy of the old couple commentating on him mounting the rear of the tube train, and the 'health & safety gag (Craig doesn't do a good Roger Moore - he shouldn't have to)

 

And the over-cooked gag of the ejector seat; We got the visual gag and it was very good, but then spoilt by M having to tell Bond (and the audience because we'll all morons) to go ahead and eject her...

 

These are 'crow-barred-in' gags that don't ruin the movie, or make any difference if you just pretend they didn't happen. However, (spoiler ahead) in the finale the ending depends upon Silva spotting M escape towards the church. He spots her because she's using a torch... I mean, really, the head of British Intelligence doesn't realise that this might give away their position? I know she'd been shot, but she was obviously compos mentis. Totally undermines hers and the film's integrity.

 

But, although that is a lot of negativity i've just typed, it's still one the best Bond movies ever, but considering these negatives it's no surprise the film didn't get any major Oscar nods (especially Best Original Script).


Edited by Odd Jobbies, 12 January 2013 - 04:58 PM.


#125 Blofelds Cat

Blofelds Cat

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 153 posts
  • Location:Perth, Western Australia

Posted 14 January 2013 - 09:56 AM

Also, how did you feel about the out of context camp-comedy of the old couple commentating on him mounting the rear of the tube train, and the 'health & safety gag (Craig doesn't do a good Roger Moore - he shouldn't have to)

 

And the over-cooked gag of the ejector seat; We got the visual gag and it was very good, but then spoilt by M having to tell Bond (and the audience because we'll all morons) to go ahead and eject her...

 

These are 'crow-barred-in' gags that don't ruin the movie, or make any difference if you just pretend they didn't happen. However, (spoiler ahead) in the finale the ending depends upon Silva spotting M escape towards the church. He spots her because she's using a torch... I mean, really, the head of British Intelligence doesn't realise that this might give away their position? I know she'd been shot, but she was obviously compos mentis. Totally undermines hers and the film's integrity.

 

 

The 'old couple' gag was pointless but I'm just thankful that Michael G. Wilson didn't give himself the part of the old geezer; the 'health and safety' line was just plain idiotic - especially in this security-conscious age (and the London tube attack of a few years ago). Flashing an MI6 badge would have been a more plausible response.

 

The inclusion of the redundant exposition by M about the ejector seat illustrates the dumbing-down of the film that marred the entire experience. Thankfully it didn't ruin the later - and I have to say brilliant - usage of another of the DB5's gadgets. I have to acknowledge the superb creative use of the forward-mounted machine-guns in 'Skyfall'; I did not expect it and the sequence looks set to be one of my all-time favourite Bond moments. In Goldfinger, the usage of the machine-guns had little relative impact on Bond's situation; yet in 'Skyfall' the machine-guns levelled the playing-field a little more in Bond's favour. The writer that imagined the scene should be proud of it.

 

The 'torch' thing was a clumsy plot device to get Silva to the church (on time). And why was Bond not shot, on the spot, on the ice with two guns trained on him!? To go all-out to kill Bond by bullet, bomb and incendiary yet stop to have a chin-wag at such a dramatically critical time is utterly preposterous. The writer's should never have put Bond in that situation.

 

"I hope that wasn't for me". "No, but this is". Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrggggggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Following the first viewing of each Bond film, my long-term opinion of it often changes from that of my initial reaction; but after several days and much reflection, 'Skyfall' still leaves me cold. Another missed opportunity that renders the apparent popularity and respect the film has garnered among Bond fans, and cinema-goers in general, a genuinely perplexing outcome.

 

"What do you think of it so far?" "Ruggish".



#126 Grard Bond

Grard Bond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 518 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:39 PM

For me Skyfall was a dissapointmend. My hopes were high, especialy thrue all the cheering from fans and the critics alike.

 

I can see it is beautifull shot, it has an exellent cast, a great villian,a great title song and titlesequence and it shows a kind of class, but.....

for me it's not entertaining enough (and overlong).

 

Where are the big actionpieces? The great stunts, the excitement? The reasons I go to a Bondmovie and why I became a fan in 1981.

Every Bond movie, how bad a film it sometimes was, had at least one great, unforgettable action scene or stunt.

 

This one has nothing at all. Ok, you 've got the teaser, but that's all and then you 've got more then two houres to go....

And even the teaser is not very original: motorcycle on a roof  (TND) and fighting on the roof of a train (Octopussy) is already done and better. That would not be a problem, if the rest of the movie had at least one big action scene, but for the rest of the movie you only see Bond running, shooting and in one or two short fighting scene's.

I can't remember one great scene, which I will remember twenty years later as unforgettable.

 

Ok, the DB5 was a nice touch, but use it then for a great scene (blowing up and shooting it to little pieces is not what I mean).

Never I got the real Bond feel, only for the last scene with the new M etc, i got a YES-feeling. That is too little for 144 minutes.

And the climax in Schotland... pffff!

Bond together with two seniorcitizen against a helicopter full of assasins..... what a drag.

What about the old big Skyfall house? I didn't know Bond was from such a wealty family. Can't remember reading this somewhere...?

Oh and I must believe when a extremely dangerous terrorist is on the loose and want to kill the head of the Brittish secret service that they not send special troupes to Schotland to protect her? No, just one man... well... he failed, didn't he?

 

But the biggest problem and most strange thing for me is:

two movies (CR and QoS) we have heard this is not the Bond we all know and love, he is at the beginning of his career, he is a rookie and has to learn a lot.....

but suddenly in this third Craig Bondmovie he is potrayed as too old and wasted... What?! So we just skip the Craig Bond when he was in his best years?! Is that logical?

 

Last but not least... the music of Newman realy is the worst score of all the Bond movies. Watching the movie, the music sounds not great and has in no way a Bond sound, but when you listen the cd at home, it realy is a torture!

 

So, no! This is not my favorite Bondmovie.



#127 A Kristatos

A Kristatos

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:18 PM

What is it with this vocal, but small minority of viewers who are trashing "Skyfall" all of the sudden?!  I have no issue if someone does not like the movie, but it seems like there are about a dozen or so posters who are saying that "Skyfall" is a universally overrated film, all while coming up with some of the silliest reasons for not liking this film ( "Craig is not Bond", "He looks too old", "Saluting the old Bond films does not contribute to the proper continuity of the Craig films", There's not enough action, stunts and excitment!").  Where is all of this coming from all of the sudden?!!

 

Why don't these people just admit it.  They don't like this film because it doesn't contain enough explosions, invisible cars, cartoonish villians, ditzy women, toothpaste explosives, spaceships and Bond dressed up as clowns!  It never ends, no matter what type of Bond film is made!  :wacko:  :blink:


Edited by A Kristatos, 23 January 2013 - 07:52 PM.


#128 FutureJamesBond

FutureJamesBond

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 126 posts
  • Location:Skyfall Manor

Posted 23 January 2013 - 11:01 PM

To me, it was everything that a James Bond movie should be. Honestly. Skyfall's like my ideal Bond film.



#129 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 23 January 2013 - 11:53 PM

What is it with this vocal, but small minority of viewers who are trashing "Skyfall" all of the sudden?!  I have no issue if someone does not like the movie, but it seems like there are about a dozen or so posters who are saying that "Skyfall" is a universally overrated film, all while coming up with some of the silliest reasons for not liking this film ( "Craig is not Bond", "He looks too old", "Saluting the old Bond films does not contribute to the proper continuity of the Craig films", There's not enough action, stunts and excitment!").  Where is all of this coming from all of the sudden?!!

 

Why don't these people just admit it.  They don't like this film because it doesn't contain enough explosions, invisible cars, cartoonish villians, ditzy women, toothpaste explosives, spaceships and Bond dressed up as clowns!  It never ends, no matter what type of Bond film is made!  :wacko:  :blink:

I think it is because Skyfall is on course to make a small fortune, to put it mildly, but it is an "atypical" Bond film, for some. It doesn't contain enough "explosions, invisible cars, cartoonish villains" and so on. What strikes me about all three Craig Bond films is that they are, in my opinion, Bond films for "grown ups". Certainly, you can take your kids to see them, and there's more than enough to engage them. But they are not sold to the public as spoofs of themselves, which even the classic 1960s Bond movies were, to an extent.



#130 delfloria

delfloria

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:16 AM

I'm still waiting for a Craig Bond that has that "MAGICAL Bond feeling" from beginning to end. I felt that Django actually had more Bondesque energy than SKYFALL. That said I've still seen SKYFALL about 11 times  so that I can enjoy the singular Bond moments that I enjoy in SKYFALL like the DB5 reveal and the introduction of the new M.

 

BTW don't get me started on why Silva didn't take away the transmitter radio in Bond's pocket or why Bond didn't think he was being set up because Silva let him keep it in his pocket. This is not a thinking persons Bond film. And Q giving Bond a gun in the middle of a museum or is the DB5 from Goldfinger or won in the Bahamas.......... etc, etc, etc.



#131 Germanlady

Germanlady

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1381 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 28 January 2013 - 09:21 PM

You saw it 11 times and are still complaining? WOW...How many times do you see films you like?



#132 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 29 January 2013 - 12:43 PM

This is not a thinking persons Bond film.

 

Correction:

 

"This is not an anal retentive's Bond film."



#133 seawolfnyy

seawolfnyy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4763 posts
  • Location:La Rioja

Posted 02 February 2013 - 05:30 AM

This is not a thinking persons Bond film.

 

Correction:

 

"This is not an anal retentive's Bond film."

Couldn't have said it better myself.



#134 delfloria

delfloria

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 09:19 AM

 

This is not a thinking persons Bond film.

 

Correction:

 

"This is not an anal retentive's Bond film."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

OK, point taken but at the same time I don't like to have to put my brain in neutral. I couldn't help but think, what is going to happen to Eve after Bond tells her to put it all on red and leaves the casino. They just tried to kill Bond for the money how can he assume they won't do the same to her. In it's favor SKYFALL is still nowhere close to YOLT, MR or TND in regards these kinds of things.

 

Yes 11 times, I never watch Bond films on DVD, only in movie theaters to get the whole theatrical experience. I see them as many times as I can first run before they show up at revival festivals.



#135 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 03 February 2013 - 10:30 PM

I'm still waiting for a Craig Bond that has that "MAGICAL Bond feeling" from beginning to end.

For me, that film was Casino Royale; different strokes, and all.

 

BTW don't get me started on why Silva didn't take away the transmitter radio in Bond's pocket or why Bond didn't think he was being set up because Silva let him keep it in his pocket.

Actually, I thought this was addressed in Silva's "frisky frisking" of Bond while he was tied to the chair. Silva thought he had the upper hand in his comments to Bond (while he was feeling him over for anything hidden), but Bond caught him off-guard with his "What makes you think this is my first time?" reply. I got the sense Silva was startled, and so distracted that he didn't continue his search, which meant that Bond had managed to keep the transmitter safely hidden away.



#136 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 February 2013 - 11:53 PM

Re the radio and Silva's overlooking of it. He either missed it, or more likely deliberately overlooked it. Silva wanted to be captured by Bond. It is as if - to be flippant for a moment - Silva had watched every Bond movie, hatched a plan,and carried it out knowing that M would send Bond after him. His whole masterplan was dependant on 007 getting him to the heart of MI6.

 

As M said herself - "Whoever is behind this, whoever's doing it, he knows us. He's one of us. He comes from the same place as Bond, a place you say doesn't exist. He comes from the shadows."



#137 Iceskater101

Iceskater101

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2398 posts
  • Location:Midwest, MN

Posted 05 February 2013 - 03:17 AM

I am so proud to be a Bond fan. I mean this film does justice to why I enjoy the franchise. I love that the character changes with the passing actors and years. This movie was outstanding in my opinion and I cannot wait to do a midnight showing of the next Bond film.



#138 sharpshooter

sharpshooter

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8996 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 11:25 AM

Every time I see Skyfall my opinion just strengthens. I like Casino Royale a lot, but I do prefer Skyfall.  Timothy Dalton put it best:

 

"On almost every level this Bond movie is right at the forefront of what cinema is capable of. Skyfall is an absolutely modern James Bond, a movie truly of its time. Daniel Craig is fantastic and it feels very real."