Bond 23 - "Skyfall" *spoilers from post 595*

Paudie223

Its important to mention that I thought many of Brosnan's and Moores films were good Bond movies but they just went way too silly and outlandish.

fluke

Saw this last night. For the moment I won't get into comparisons with the older films too much cos I want to judge it on it's own merits. Although it's funny how this film contrasts so much in look and duration with QoS.

I've mixed feelings about it. It starts well and some of the set pieces are good but it's a long film, it feels like a long film and some bits definitely could be edited out. It could've done without Albert Finney's character. Actually I was kinda disappointed that

they got rid of Bérénice Marlohe so early on, she was nice to look at.

Loved Silva's introduction. Best bit of the film.

Still need to get my head around this one fully. More later.

Boo Radley

Beefy78 wrote: »

It's OTT because there's not this sudden jump between the two which you're portraying the characterisation as having suffered. The womanising is in there which is due to him getting burnt by getting involved with Vesper in CR. Bond is still moody and angry, he's just also older and more relaxed about things. It happens to a lot of us.

I disagree, I think there is a very clear change in his character but if you think a 3 month holiday and a few Heinekens is enough to change a man's character from what it was to almost flippant at times, you're intitled to that belief. I'm also glad you're more relaxed than you used to be

Sleepy

And he wasn't flippant in Casino Royale?

Now the whole world's gonna know that you died scratching my balls!

Boo Radley

Sleepy wrote: »

And he wasn't flippant in Casino Royale?

I think it's fair to say the tone was pretty different in that scene than scenes in Skyfall. Dark humour when he might actually die versus flippant puns after

stabbing a man in the back and pulling a cheeky smile as he delivers it.

Boo Radley

Paudie223 wrote: »

I don't understand how you think this movie is a return to form of old?

Skyfall is different to any Bond film we have seen before, much different to any of Roger Moore's or Brosnan's Bond movies. Frankly I hope they never go back to that silliness.

They have to keep changing things, complacency in the movie business means failure. Skyfall had some very good bits of humour but was a also a very serious film. A Bond we had never seen before.

When I say a return to old I was referring to the gimmicks and clichés that most of the other Bond's have such as

The Aston Martin, the deadly animals in a pit type scenario, the cheeky flippant puns, the utterly bizarre sex scenes such as casually arriving naked and walking into the shower, the move towards light humour, the move towards the gadgets etc.

I think there is plenty in this film that harks back to Bond of old unlike the previous two which were more focused on story (granted QoS was a bit of a mess for various reasons) and the development of Bond's character rather than satisfying the desires of fans to see the same hackneyed elements in every film.

When you say there was a balance between humour and seriousness this is precisely one of the things I think was an issue. It just didn't work in my opinion unlike the dark humour referred to earlier where Bond was displaying his bravado in the face of almost certain death in CR.

I went in expecting a continuation of theme and tone from the previous two (which I don't think was unreasonable) but got this odd mash-up instead.

LordSutch

I think Clive Owen would have made a good Bond.

Agricola

Not sure what I thought of this film. One thing struck me about it though. I can see why it was so well received, one of the major reasons being it was so straight forward plot wise. I remember seeing the last 2 installments in the cinema and I just zoned out since I found the stories a bit convoluted. This was as simple as "crazy ex employee with a grudge wants to kill Bond's boss"

Being the anniversary, its understandable Mendes would want to drop the new Bourne style hard edge of Casino Royale and hark back more to the older films but I thought it was weaker for it. We've established that Bond is a hard bastard and hes built for bone crunching fight scenes,so reverting back to slightly campy happy slapping fights atop trains is abit jarring. I agree with the poster that said it gives Craigs portrayal a consistency problem. Its notably different from the previous films. But anniversary or not, I suppose you're going to get that from different directors anyway.

Enjoyed Bardem in it though.

The whole idea of going back to Bond's house in Scotland for a final showdown between him, M and some aul fella and whole army of mercenaries was a ridiculous as anything in any Bond film

, but again it made for a more meaty finale that you could get behind if you put its craziness aside.

Worse ways to spend 2 plus hours.

Elessar

Saw this last night. Overall I was underwhelmed. The story started off good but then halfway through it's like it becomes a different movie. I got the feeling it wasn't entirely sure of itself.

Aswell as that, the entire movie was basically a love letter to Chris Nolan. There were so many scenes reminiscent of The Dark Knight it was comical. Even the music was similar. You can tell Mendes wanted it to be another Dark Knight. So many similar things...the story, the shots, the sets. It gushed Nolan movies. Did anyone else notice this??

Agricola

Elessar wrote: »

Saw this last night. Overall I was underwhelmed. The story started off good but then halfway through it's like it becomes a different movie. I got the feeling it wasn't entirely sure of itself.

Aswell as that, the entire movie was basically a love letter to Chris Nolan. There were so many scenes reminiscent of The Dark Knight it was comical. Even the music was similar. You can tell Mendes wanted it to be another Dark Knight. So many similar things...the story, the shots, the sets. It gushed Nolan movies. Did anyone else notice this??

Yeah, I remember that scene near the end where it just went into complete Dark Knight soundtrack mode!

johnny_ultimate

Enjoyed it, although moderately so. Despite several bombastic setpieces in the first half it just felt, well, dull. The cinematography was nice and all - the China sequences were basically half an hour of 24 pretty images per second - but it just took a long time portraying setup that could have been handled more efficiently. And boy did Bérénice Marlohe get a seriously underwritten role, even by Bond girl standards. Actually felt uncomfortable at the way

she was routinely dispatched with barely an acknowledgement from Bond

.

Luckily, things pick up considerably when Bardem makes his (surprisingly belated) appearance. A great villain, toeing that fine line between camp and threat - perfect for a Bond film. The extended second act London sequences are tightly directed, suspenseful and exciting. Thoroughly enjoyable stuff, despite some small missteps. And the last hour does a great job at making Bond an interesting protagonist with an actual arc -

particularly liked how the ice lake descent visually echoed the opening credit sequence to remind us of Bond's frame of mind and psychological depths

- and his relationship with M was compelling throughout.

A few stray observations. They could have made more out of the Bond's supposed physical and mental exhaustion - seemed like a curiously underexplored idea despite being frequently referenced. Certainly didn't buy how quickly he became a

master shotgunner again

. The Dark Knight similarities are indeed glaring, which is a shame.

The 'epilogue' stuff where it's all revealed to be a sort of prequel was handled a bit too 'wink, wink, nudge, nudge' for my liking. To me that kind of stuff sucks me straight out of the film - hardly a gamechanger during the last thirty seconds, but an inelegant conclusion nonetheless.

Also have to admit the product placement was nowhere near as obnoxious as some critics suggested - it's still there, but I remember being much more annoyed at the bluntness of the advertising in previous films.

Still, I'd easily call it the best of the Craig outings. It was enjoyable fluff while still having an engaging story - a solid mix of silliness and seriousness. Mendes directs confidently if not exactly brilliantly - hardly his masterpiece, but his collaboration with Roger Deakins is at least fruitful in a visual sense, and the film has well-considered momentum after its sluggish opening hour. It's all just another Bond movie at the end of the day, for better and worse, but this is the most competent of the more modern entries.

ricero

Just back from it now and overall it was a very good bond movie I thought. A Great memorable villian which has being missing since sean beans performance in goldeneye. Craig was very good you can see hes enjoying himself and the action was quality in parts especially the end battle.

Goldstein

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Also have to admit the product placement was nowhere near as obnoxious as some critics suggested - it's still there, but I remember being much more annoyed at the bluntness of the advertising in previous films.

Maybe the people being critical of Skyfall's (by Bond standards reasonably contained) product placement missed Buy Another Day and Omega Royale?

Dempsey

it will go down as one of the better bonds but not without its faults.

bond was spot on for me, m was good too, as was

moneypenny

. silver could have been abit more 'eccentric' and a cold dull dark final standoff on a

scotland moor in a estate

nobody in their right mind would live in isnt that rememerable tbh. felt like the picked that sort of house so they could use the helicopter.

Q connecting the mainframe to silvers exceptionally encypted laptop was a schoolboy error in terms of dealing with a known dangerous hacker or one of his programs. considering Q apparently created the encryption that is so advanced, only 6 people could decrypt makes it even more ridiculous that he would make that mistake.

the major theme being transition from cold war to modern terrorism in terms of why bond is still relevant was abit overdone but important for the franchise going forward and i got a great laugh out of m saying 'press the eject button, see if i care!' scene.

Daniel Craig might be worried by the old and haggered bond theme, will he even see out the next 2 films considering the way they have his story going?

delighted to see the old db5 but when did it have scatter guns on the front, they always were fixed position /pedantic

Grimebox

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Enjoyed it, although moderately so. Despite several bombastic setpieces in the first half it just felt, well, dull. The cinematography was nice and all - the China sequences were basically half an hour of 24 pretty images per second - but it just took a long time portraying setup that could have been handled more efficiently. And boy did Bérénice Marlohe get a seriously underwritten role, even by Bond girl standards. Actually felt uncomfortable at the way

she was routinely dispatched with barely an acknowledgement from Bond

.

Luckily, things pick up considerably when Bardem makes his (surprisingly belated) appearance. A great villain, toeing that fine line between camp and threat - perfect for a Bond film. The extended second act London sequences are tightly directed, suspenseful and exciting. Thoroughly enjoyable stuff, despite some small missteps. And the last hour does a great job at making Bond an interesting protagonist with an actual arc -

particularly liked how the ice lake descent visually echoed the opening credit sequence to remind us of Bond's frame of mind and psychological depths

- and his relationship with M was compelling throughout.

A few stray observations. They could have made more out of the Bond's supposed physical and mental exhaustion - seemed like a curiously underexplored idea despite being frequently referenced. Certainly didn't buy how quickly he became a

master shotgunner again

. The Dark Knight similarities are indeed glaring, which is a shame.

The 'epilogue' stuff where it's all revealed to be a sort of prequel was handled a bit too 'wink, wink, nudge, nudge' for my liking. To me that kind of stuff sucks me straight out of the film - hardly a gamechanger during the last thirty seconds, but an inelegant conclusion nonetheless.

Also have to admit the product placement was nowhere near as obnoxious as some critics suggested - it's still there, but I remember being much more annoyed at the bluntness of the advertising in previous films.

Still, I'd easily call it the best of the Craig outings. It was enjoyable fluff while still having an engaging story - a solid mix of silliness and seriousness. Mendes directs confidently if not exactly brilliantly - hardly his masterpiece, but his collaboration with Roger Deakins is at least fruitful in a visual sense, and the film has well-considered momentum after its sluggish opening hour. It's all just another Bond movie at the end of the day, for better and worse, but this is the most competent of the more modern entries.

Casino Royale?

johnny_ultimate

Grimebox wrote: »

Casino Royale?

Left me underwhelmed. I thought its over-serious, Bourne-emulating tone clashed with the inherent ludicrousness of the franchise. Skyfall was not afraid to embrace the camp or absurd when required, while still retaining some sense of general seriousness. Tonally, narratively, directorially etc..., Skyfall was on the whole superior to its immediate predecessors.

Grimebox

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Left me underwhelmed. I thought its over-serious, Bourne-emulating tone clashed with the inherent ludicrousness of the franchise. Skyfall was not afraid to embrace the camp or absurd when required, while still retaining some sense of general seriousness. Tonally, narratively, directorially etc..., Skyfall was on the whole superior to its immediate predecessors.

As I said before, everyones opinion of this film falls into two camps

Grimebox wrote: »

In this thread:

People who enjoy the return of an older style bond film.

People who are annoyed at the departure from the Casino Royale style bond film.

I thought Casino Royale was the best thing to ever happen to the series. I have never been a huge fan of Bond in general though, too over the top and ridiculous most of the time. After the credits rolled on Skyfall, I was thinking this is probably the last Bond film I'll be seeing in the cinema. Casino Royale was just a flash in the pan it seems. While everything you say makes perfect sense, we simply have different tastes.

johnny_ultimate

Grimebox wrote: »

I thought Casino Royale was the best thing to ever happen to the series. I have never been a huge fan of Bond in general though, too over the top and ridiculous most of the time. After the credits rolled on Skyfall, I was thinking this is probably the last Bond film I'll be seeing in the cinema. Casino Royale was just a flash in the pan it seems. While everything you say makes perfect sense, we simply have different tastes.

The one thing I will agree with is that I'm not a huge fan of Bond - in fact depending on my mood I would go as far as 'actively disliking' the series in general. Pretty much all of them are disposable nonsense - some of them are just better disposable nonsense than others

Orizio

Thought it was an excellent film full stop. Looked incredible. Surprised at a lot of the negativity in this thread, and don't particular see how it is that much different or worse than Casino Royale.

In saying that, I can't really see how they can top this. Might need a new Bond.

lukin

Saw it last night; I have a question for Bond fanatics; at the end

when M says "I f***ed this up didn't I?"

Is this the first use of the f-word in a Bond movie?

Paudie223

lukin wrote: »

Saw it last night; I have a question for Bond fanatics; at the end

when M says "I f***ed this up didn't I?"

Is this the first use of the f-word in a Bond movie?

Most likely, can't recall anyone dropping the F Bomb in previous films.

lukin

Paudie223 wrote: »

Most likely, can't recall anyone dropping the F Bomb in previous films.

I thought so too. I suppose there hasn't been swearing in Bond films before because they think these films are so iconic they shouldn't have to stoop to that level (I kind of agree with that). Maybe they should move with the times and introduce a bit more swearing?
I know another reason the keep it out is to do with revenue and reaching as wide an audience as possible (swearing means a higher age certificate).
I remember Timoth Dalton saying "piss off" in one of his films but that was as far as it went.

humanji

Gratuitous swearing would only take away from it. I think M swearing here fitted in with the whole story. In all her other appearances she's a professional and somewhat in control. But

in this she's facing the consequences of her actions throughout her career and has no control over the situation at all. She's lost her job and her legacy is the dismantlement of the secret service as it is, along with the deaths of many undercover agents. She's always had a certain restraint and sense of decorum, but she lost it when everything came crumbling down.

johnny_ultimate

Have added a spoiler warning to the thread title so no need for tags from here on!

mada999

Grimebox wrote: »

You people are crazy. This film was awful. We got lucky with Casino Royale it seems. James Bond has completely returned to derivative nonsense with this and Quantum of Solace. I went not expecting much going in but I was shocked to be disappointed further. So much money getting poured into this and they can't hire some half decent writers. I cringed at the ending and thought that this is the last time I will see James Bond in the cinema. Not for me

Have to agree, thought it was very average...not a patch on Casino Royale or QoS

norrie rugger

Why is there love for QoS all of a sudden. It was the most ineptly made, badly edited, weak storied and forgettable Bond flick ever

Paudie223

mada999 wrote: »

Have to agree, thought it was very average...not a patch on Casino Royale or QoS

I don't think QOS is a bad movie it was badly affected by the writers strike in 2007. Craig even mentioned himself that they improvised huge parts of that script during filming and you can see this in the movie.

But I have to disagree with you, I do think that Skyfall is 10 times the movie QOS was. Better plot, better dialogue, better set pieces, better villain, better cast, overall a much better production.

I think we have to put things into perspective. Skyfall (along with CR) is one of best made Bond films we have seen. More so than any Bond films in the recent past. It had a great sense of realism but at the same time is also had the element of escapism. I think it shows that when the producers put the right talent in place it can make a huge difference.

My only worry right now is that Skyfall could be hard to top. It had an apocalyptic feel to it with MI6 being attacked, not sure where they can go plot wise from here.

ricero

Paudie223 wrote: »

I don't think QOS is a bad movie it was badly affected by the writers strike in 2007. Craig even mentioned himself that they improvised huge parts of that script during filming and you can see this in the movie.

But I have to disagree with you, I do think that Skyfall is 10 times the movie QOS was. Better plot, better dialogue, better set pieces, better villain, better cast, overall a much better production.

I think we have to put things into perspective. Skyfall (along with CR) is one of best made Bond films we have seen. More so than any Bond films in the recent past. It had a great sense of realism but at the same time is also had the element of escapism. I think it shows that when the producers put the right talent in place it can make a huge difference.

My only worry right now is that Skyfall could be hard to top. It had an apocalyptic feel to it with MI6 being attacked, not sure where they can go plot wise from here.

id love to see a return of spectre or quantem or whatever they call it now to the series. iwould also love to see a return of mr. Blofeld and his pussycat

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Enjoyed it, although moderately so. Despite several bombastic setpieces in the first half it just felt, well, dull. The cinematography was nice and all - the China sequences were basically half an hour of 24 pretty images per second - but it just took a long time portraying setup that could have been handled more efficiently. And boy did Bérénice Marlohe get a seriously underwritten role, even by Bond girl standards. Actually felt uncomfortable at the way she was routinely dispatched with barely an acknowledgement from Bond.

I felt the same, it went from a menacing scene to a quip instantly and was jarring, the "waste of good scotch" line was fairly misogynistic, which was probably the point I suppose.

aliveandkicking

lukin wrote: »

I thought so too. I suppose there hasn't been swearing in Bond films before because they think these films are so iconic they shouldn't have to stoop to that level (I kind of agree with that). Maybe they should move with the times and introduce a bit more swearing?
I know another reason the keep it out is to do with revenue and reaching as wide an audience as possible (swearing means a higher age certificate).
I remember Timoth Dalton saying "piss off" in one of his films but that was as far as it went.

Dalton called Sanchez a bas***d in Licence to Kill. Moore told a snake to piss off in Octopussy.

I must say I thoroughly enjoyed Skyfall, it's right up there with Casino Royale. Beautifully acted, beautifully shot and not too over the top with silliness. I felt Bond was dead after Die Another Day but Craig has completely rejuvinated the franchise.