Bond 23 - Skyfall
- Thread starter Batutta
- Start date
it's cool that you realized something was off "IMO needed and I enjoyed it anyway so I don't care", but kept going anyway.
so your saying they needed 3 movies to go back to the old formula(normally when you plan a trip/process, you have a goal to change the output from the current state/want to achieve a certain result/different state).
maybe that's a decision made more recently in the 3rd movie to go back to the old formula after the 2nd movie disaster. and not well planned from the start. i was talking about the first 2 movies and all the posts in the thread before the movie was released.
The best Bond film ever is Thunderball.
[SPOILERS!!!!]
First, the positives. Mendes handles action way better than Marc Forster (Quantum). Deakins does a great job, the locations are great, and even Thomas Newman's score worked better than I thought it would in the film (still miss Arnold though) and Adele's title song was very good (along with the visuals too). It was great seeing the new Q, and I felt Ben Whishaw did a great job in the role. Bérénice Marlohe is incredibly lovely, Naomi Harris was solid, and it was great seeing Ralph Fiennes added to the cast.
I have some quibbles with Mendes as I feel he lets some shots go on for too long. The opening sequence should have been halved (I would have greatly shortened the car/motorcylce chase sequence and gotten to the train as quickly as possible) and I would have trimmed the opening Shanghai establishing shots (felt like a travelogue) and the shot of Bond on the boat as it heads to the casino (though the long shot of Bardem's entrance is very nice).
This film has some structural problems, and I lay a lot of what I don't like about it solely at the feet of John Logan, because a lot of what he does here was done previously in Star Trek: Nemesis as well. It takes a long time to find out who the villain is (even though anyone who kept up anything with the film knew it was Bardem), and I felt like the tension that Logan creates by doing this is not paid off ultimately. I felt like Silva's motivation was very weak (probably would have been stronger if he sought to destabilize the world's intelligence community instead of just getting even with M) and he had a Joker-like (from The Dark Knight) tendency to plan out exactly what his opposition is going to do. Seriously, enough of this "he wanted to get caught!" nonsense. On that note, Silva's actions felt very similar to the Joker from The Dark Knight. He's also supposed to be this computer geek/field agent combination, which seems odd to me, but whatever. Of course, we're always just told this, but never see him do anything that shows him being a genius. The moment where he reveals his disfigurement is interesting, but it never figures into the story except for a simple gross-out moment, nor is his shown obsession over the use of his real name ever really explained or resolved beyond M informing Bond of what Silva's real name is. Problematic to is using "cyber warfare" as a plot point. It's visually uninteresting enough, and it always has to be glamorized way above and beyond what it looks like in real life to even begin to be somewhat intriguing, which comes off as goofy. Plus, Live Free or Die Hard already tread in that territory.
Similarly, Skyfall is never mentioned until almost the very end. The payoff wasn't worth the setup in my opinion. It would have made more sense if there had been a house fire and Bond's parents had perished in that, but I don't see why he has such a negative reaction to the manor outside of something like that (and the movie makes it clear that Bond was at home when his parents died, so the home had nothing to do with it). Even so, the distance between the setup (the constant repeating of the word in Adele's lyrics, the title of the film, and Bond's reaction to it during examination) and the reveal is such a gulf that it fell flat for me.
Logan has a frustrating tendency to just rip of plot elements from other movies, or previous films in the franchise. M in peril / female associate of the villain being terrified of the villain / an explosion at Mi6? The World is Not Enough. A former agent gone rogue with his inside knowledge? Goldeneye (complete with facial disfigurement from an operation gone bad). Bond going on retirement from Mi6? Casino Royale. This one bothered me the most because he's constantly "quitting". In fact, the movie could have been greatly sped up if the whole "Bond is dead, no he's just living on his own a 'la The Bourne Supremacy" sequence was cut entirely at the script level. It didn't add anything to the storyline. It seems like stealing from Die Another Day (having Bond languish in a foreign prison) would have made more sense. Instead, he tries to have the connection between Bond and Silva being that M lied to him about being fit for duty. That's like being told your boss lied to you about your significant raise being because you were a hard worker when the truth was that he just liked you personally. Is that really the kind of lie that would keep you up at night? On top of that, Bond (as a character in the franchise as a whole) is pretty well shown to never be fit for duty on paper. That's the whole point...he bucks the system and that's what makes him effective. Plus, being "unfit" for duty has already been seen in Thunderball, Never Say Never Again (granted a Thunderball remake), Licence to Kill, The World is Not Enough, and Die Another Day.
Naming Ralph Fienne's character "Mallory" so that he can be the new M? Casino Royale already established that it was a code name (like Q) when Bond jokes to M about the fact that her name also starts with an 'M'.
Moneypenny deciding to become a glorified secretary because she's not suitable for field work? Since when? She's clearly not terribly upset about having shot Bond, as she jokes to him about it throughout the movie and is very sure of herself when she picks up a gun to help defend M during the attack in the government building. That felt very shoehorned in and awkward to suddenly be like, "Well, no more field agent cool stuff for me! Let me just sit behind this desk right here!" Maybe if she was only shown as a field agent in the opening and thereafter very upset over having shot Bond it would have made sense.
The story is a mess all over the place, but even so, I'll probably see it again, this time in iMax. I saw it in Sony 4K projection at an Alamo Drafthouse and thought it looked fantastic. Apparently, Deakins is pleased with the iMax blow-up so I might check that out as well.
[SPOILERS!!!!]
First, the positives. Mendes handles action way better than Marc Forster (Quantum). Deakins does a great job, the locations are great, and even Thomas Newman's score worked better than I thought it would in the film (still miss Arnold though) and Adele's title song was very good (along with the visuals too). It was great seeing the new Q, and I felt Ben Whishaw did a great job in the role. Bérénice Marlohe is incredibly lovely, Naomi Harris was solid, and it was great seeing Ralph Fiennes added to the cast.
I have some quibbles with Mendes as I feel he lets some shots go on for too long. The opening sequence should have been halved (I would have greatly shortened the car/motorcylce chase sequence and gotten to the train as quickly as possible) and I would have trimmed the opening Shanghai establishing shots (felt like a travelogue) and the shot of Bond on the boat as it heads to the casino (though the long shot of Bardem's entrance is very nice).
This film has some structural problems, and I lay a lot of what I don't like about it solely at the feet of John Logan, because a lot of what he does here was done previously in Star Trek: Nemesis as well. It takes a long time to find out who the villain is (even though anyone who kept up anything with the film knew it was Bardem), and I felt like the tension that Logan creates by doing this is not paid off ultimately. I felt like Silva's motivation was very weak (probably would have been stronger if he sought to destabilize the world's intelligence community instead of just getting even with M) and he had a Joker-like (from The Dark Knight) tendency to plan out exactly what his opposition is going to do. Seriously, enough of this "he wanted to get caught!" nonsense. On that note, Silva's actions felt very similar to the Joker from The Dark Knight. He's also supposed to be this computer geek/field agent combination, which seems odd to me, but whatever. Of course, we're always just told this, but never see him do anything that shows him being a genius. The moment where he reveals his disfigurement is interesting, but it never figures into the story except for a simple gross-out moment, nor is his shown obsession over the use of his real name ever really explained or resolved beyond M informing Bond of what Silva's real name is. Problematic to is using "cyber warfare" as a plot point. It's visually uninteresting enough, and it always has to be glamorized way above and beyond what it looks like in real life to even begin to be somewhat intriguing, which comes off as goofy. Plus, Live Free or Die Hard already tread in that territory.
Similarly, Skyfall is never mentioned until almost the very end. The payoff wasn't worth the setup in my opinion. It would have made more sense if there had been a house fire and Bond's parents had perished in that, but I don't see why he has such a negative reaction to the manor outside of something like that (and the movie makes it clear that Bond was at home when his parents died, so the home had nothing to do with it). Even so, the distance between the setup (the constant repeating of the word in Adele's lyrics, the title of the film, and Bond's reaction to it during examination) and the reveal is such a gulf that it fell flat for me.
Logan has a frustrating tendency to just rip of plot elements from other movies, or previous films in the franchise. M in peril / female associate of the villain being terrified of the villain / an explosion at Mi6? The World is Not Enough. A former agent gone rogue with his inside knowledge? Goldeneye (complete with facial disfigurement from an operation gone bad). Bond going on retirement from Mi6? Casino Royale. This one bothered me the most because he's constantly "quitting". In fact, the movie could have been greatly sped up if the whole "Bond is dead, no he's just living on his own a 'la The Bourne Supremacy" sequence was cut entirely at the script level. It didn't add anything to the storyline. It seems like stealing from Die Another Day (having Bond languish in a foreign prison) would have made more sense. Instead, he tries to have the connection between Bond and Silva being that M lied to him about being fit for duty. That's like being told your boss lied to you about your significant raise being because you were a hard worker when the truth was that he just liked you personally. Is that really the kind of lie that would keep you up at night? On top of that, Bond (as a character in the franchise as a whole) is pretty well shown to never be fit for duty on paper. That's the whole point...he bucks the system and that's what makes him effective. Plus, being "unfit" for duty has already been seen in Thunderball, Never Say Never Again (granted a Thunderball remake), Licence to Kill, The World is Not Enough, and Die Another Day.
Naming Ralph Fienne's character "Mallory" so that he can be the new M? Casino Royale already established that it was a code name (like Q) when Bond jokes to M about the fact that her name also starts with an 'M'.
Moneypenny deciding to become a glorified secretary because she's not suitable for field work? Since when? She's clearly not terribly upset about having shot Bond, as she jokes to him about it throughout the movie and is very sure of herself when she picks up a gun to help defend M during the attack in the government building. That felt very shoehorned in and awkward to suddenly be like, "Well, no more field agent cool stuff for me! Let me just sit behind this desk right here!" Maybe if she was only shown as a field agent in the opening and thereafter very upset over having shot Bond it would have made sense.
The story is a mess all over the place, but even so, I'll probably see it again, this time in iMax. I saw it in Sony 4K projection at an Alamo Drafthouse and thought it looked fantastic. Apparently, Deakins is pleased with the iMax blow-up so I might check that out as well.
Last edited:
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
Thunderball doesn't even make my top five, but we're all entitled to our opinions.
I wasn't saying anything about your choice, just letting it be known what my stance was on the franchise.
BTW, I completely realize you can pick apart the story in any Bond movie. but my criticisms stem from one viewing (last night) and was what I picked up on while watching the movie itself, which is never a good thing in my opinion (i.e. like Silva telling Bond about how M lied...I was immediately like, "That's it?").
Batutta
Major Contributor
A lot of good points Gary. The biggest weakness for me is that there was never any emotional jeopardy for Bond, even though they had put the pieces in position. The logical place for them to have gone the way they set it up is to get Bond to a place where he doesn't trust M, just as Silva lost trust in her and became the monster he did. That's what should have been at stake, to the point where the audience isn't really sure wether Bond is even going to save M. Also building the entire climax around Silva wanting to kill M and nothing else felt small, and ultimately anticlimactic since....
SPOILER
...she dies anyway. They could have easily combined that motivation and desire with a bigger 3rd act scheme that needed thwarting.
[SPOILERS!!!!]
I think the third act would have been stronger if Silva had been able to kill M during the assault on the government building. Bond is out of commission, Mallory dives and takes a bullet, but there's still a lot of time left for Silva to take out M before everyone else shows up, showing the power of his plan over the ability of Bond and Co. to thwart it (for the time being at least). I think it would have been far more shocking than what we got, and Silva could have been done with that tick on his bucket list and gone on to a much bigger scheme that Bond has to thwart, along with taking revenge for the death of M.
The film really felt like it was about to go there, but then pulled back at the list second. Shame. At least they didn't have M live but retire to Scottland with Kincade. I was worried they were going to go that route for a moment.
I think the third act would have been stronger if Silva had been able to kill M during the assault on the government building. Bond is out of commission, Mallory dives and takes a bullet, but there's still a lot of time left for Silva to take out M before everyone else shows up, showing the power of his plan over the ability of Bond and Co. to thwart it (for the time being at least). I think it would have been far more shocking than what we got, and Silva could have been done with that tick on his bucket list and gone on to a much bigger scheme that Bond has to thwart, along with taking revenge for the death of M.
The film really felt like it was about to go there, but then pulled back at the list second. Shame. At least they didn't have M live but retire to Scottland with Kincade. I was worried they were going to go that route for a moment.
Yep, agreed. Summing up: Mediocre story, entertaining set pieces, great acting, fantastic cinematography and score. Best cinematography in a Bond film ever, in my opinion. For this point and the great acting, I put it in my Bond top 10 list. Not top 3, but definitely top 10. I still like the "Cheese" of the Roger Moore films 
Liked it; didn't love it.
***SPOILERS***
The scale of the action scenes seemed to go the opposite of what it should, going from the biggest action scenes to the smallest, and ending with a very anti-climactic finale. For all of Silva's supposed brilliance and years of planning, his scheme pretty much just involved barging into a government building guns-blazing. If that's all he had to do to get at M, why did he bother with everything else before that? That said, I though Bardem's performance was effectively creepy and terrifying.
I liked the exploding pen joke, but I felt that the Aston Martin with machine guns and ejector seat was too much and didn't fit the Daniel Craig Bond world.
Overall, I thought the performances were great and the film was more emotional than most Bond films, but I would have liked to have seen a stronger climax and a more dastardly plot from Silva.
***SPOILERS***
The scale of the action scenes seemed to go the opposite of what it should, going from the biggest action scenes to the smallest, and ending with a very anti-climactic finale. For all of Silva's supposed brilliance and years of planning, his scheme pretty much just involved barging into a government building guns-blazing. If that's all he had to do to get at M, why did he bother with everything else before that? That said, I though Bardem's performance was effectively creepy and terrifying.
I liked the exploding pen joke, but I felt that the Aston Martin with machine guns and ejector seat was too much and didn't fit the Daniel Craig Bond world.
Overall, I thought the performances were great and the film was more emotional than most Bond films, but I would have liked to have seen a stronger climax and a more dastardly plot from Silva.
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Wife and I both enjoyed the hell out of it.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
I saw it this weekend in Digital IMAX, and really liked it. I really do think that it is one of the better Bond films ever made. Now that is a bold statement, I know, but I think that "Skyfall" really brings the franchise up a notch. Of course, this is an issue with any Bond film; after 50 years, no Bond movie stands alone and is always considered in light of all of the other films. For the record, I grew up with Sean Connery as Bond, and that is my point of reference. To me the Trifecta of the Connery Bond films are "Goldfinger", "Thunderball" and "You Only Live Twice". I dig those flicks. I also have a soft place in my heart for Roger Moore's first outing as Bond in "To Live and Let Die" but it was different; much lighter. I thought that the franchise went way off track, and to almost parody after that and I kind of tuned out. The Dalton and Brosnan Bonds didn't do anything for me. When I saw Daniel Craig in "Casino Royal" I was truly impressed. I had also read several of the Ian Fleming James Bond books over the years and liked them, and I thought that Craig really took Bond back to the books and was able to pull off that suave, cultured, but totally cold blooded thug and killer that was the Bond of Fleming's writings. Connery had that physicality and attitude, the duality of character, that set the standard, and I think that it was lost with Moore, Dalton and Brosnan. Craig brought it back, and I think upped the game in "Skyfall". I didn't get a chance to see "Quantum of Solace", so I can't comment on that.
First of all, "Skyfall" is a James Bond movie, so there is a certain amount of assumptions you have to buy into when you purchase the ticket to the show. Expecting a flick with a perfectly rational narrative is not something that any Bond film is going to provide. I mean for Pete's sake, would anyone REALLY try to corner the world's gold market by nuking Fort Knox, or build a secret rocket base in an abandoned island volcano? Of course not, but it makes for great fun, and gets the movie started (And gave production designer Ken Adams a great opportunity to build some great sets!). With that being said, I think that "Skyfall" was really able to subtly blend expected Bond conventions, while, I believe, moving the franchise forward, into a modern "Hyper Real" action flick, with a certain amount of relevancy, and still maintain a character driven piece that attempted to shine a light on some pretty startling decision making that nation states, and the people who serve them, must make.
Now, we know that if a British agent was to go on spree of mayhem in Istanbul as was depicted in the opening of "Skyfall", it would be an international incident and be a nightmare for the UK... well, welcome to a Bond film. However, we do know that we live in a strange time of Geopolitical conflict and that there are all kinds of secret, and sometimes not so secret, shenanigans going on in the world today. I couldn't help but be kind of impressed with the way that "Skyfall" was able to characterize a world wide terrorist, and his, albeit over the top, actions in ways that are somewhat consistent with images and stories we see in today's headlines without totally submitting to politically incorrect stereotypes. This relevancy really led to what I think is the best part of "Skyfall"; the questions of expandability, of sacrifice, and especially, of loyalty. The decisions that "M" makes early in the film; (SPOILERS), "...Leave him..." and "...Take the bloody shot...", really lead us to see the loyalty the Bond has. While he goes off to be dead, after feeling betrayed, as soon as MI6 is attacked, he reports back to duty. "M" responds in kind to his loyalty and sticks by him. This tie that "M" and Bond share, while just a little extra in an action film, I think adds quit a bit to the enjoyment, for me at least. I also think that Mendes, and Mr. Roger Deakins, of course, were then able to capture one of the most significant shots in the history of the franchise, and, I believe boil James Bond's loyalty and commitment down to a single image. When "M" and Bond escape London in the DB5 and head to Skyfall, there is a beautiful shot of Bond standing stoically looking at the awesome country side. It hit me, wow, why does Bond do what he does?... God, Queen and Country! "M" then asks him, "Is this where you are from?" Even with the darkness of this go around, and the flaws in Bond, he really is the classic movie hero, with classic motivations. I know that is sappy today, but I like it.
Ahh, the Aston-Martin DB5... and the ending of the film. It became pretty obvious early on that they were setting up a new re-boot of the franchise, and while some of it does not meet rational narrative sense (Like who the heck maintained the DB5, and why?), I loved it. I think going back to Bond's childhood home, in the DB5, and destroying them both, was a very cool way of taking the whole thing forward and it seems that they are telling us that the way forward is with much less baggage from the past. With Bond 24 and 25 already in the works, we know it is going forward. I look forward to the seeing them.
First of all, "Skyfall" is a James Bond movie, so there is a certain amount of assumptions you have to buy into when you purchase the ticket to the show. Expecting a flick with a perfectly rational narrative is not something that any Bond film is going to provide. I mean for Pete's sake, would anyone REALLY try to corner the world's gold market by nuking Fort Knox, or build a secret rocket base in an abandoned island volcano? Of course not, but it makes for great fun, and gets the movie started (And gave production designer Ken Adams a great opportunity to build some great sets!). With that being said, I think that "Skyfall" was really able to subtly blend expected Bond conventions, while, I believe, moving the franchise forward, into a modern "Hyper Real" action flick, with a certain amount of relevancy, and still maintain a character driven piece that attempted to shine a light on some pretty startling decision making that nation states, and the people who serve them, must make.
Now, we know that if a British agent was to go on spree of mayhem in Istanbul as was depicted in the opening of "Skyfall", it would be an international incident and be a nightmare for the UK... well, welcome to a Bond film. However, we do know that we live in a strange time of Geopolitical conflict and that there are all kinds of secret, and sometimes not so secret, shenanigans going on in the world today. I couldn't help but be kind of impressed with the way that "Skyfall" was able to characterize a world wide terrorist, and his, albeit over the top, actions in ways that are somewhat consistent with images and stories we see in today's headlines without totally submitting to politically incorrect stereotypes. This relevancy really led to what I think is the best part of "Skyfall"; the questions of expandability, of sacrifice, and especially, of loyalty. The decisions that "M" makes early in the film; (SPOILERS), "...Leave him..." and "...Take the bloody shot...", really lead us to see the loyalty the Bond has. While he goes off to be dead, after feeling betrayed, as soon as MI6 is attacked, he reports back to duty. "M" responds in kind to his loyalty and sticks by him. This tie that "M" and Bond share, while just a little extra in an action film, I think adds quit a bit to the enjoyment, for me at least. I also think that Mendes, and Mr. Roger Deakins, of course, were then able to capture one of the most significant shots in the history of the franchise, and, I believe boil James Bond's loyalty and commitment down to a single image. When "M" and Bond escape London in the DB5 and head to Skyfall, there is a beautiful shot of Bond standing stoically looking at the awesome country side. It hit me, wow, why does Bond do what he does?... God, Queen and Country! "M" then asks him, "Is this where you are from?" Even with the darkness of this go around, and the flaws in Bond, he really is the classic movie hero, with classic motivations. I know that is sappy today, but I like it.
Ahh, the Aston-Martin DB5... and the ending of the film. It became pretty obvious early on that they were setting up a new re-boot of the franchise, and while some of it does not meet rational narrative sense (Like who the heck maintained the DB5, and why?), I loved it. I think going back to Bond's childhood home, in the DB5, and destroying them both, was a very cool way of taking the whole thing forward and it seems that they are telling us that the way forward is with much less baggage from the past. With Bond 24 and 25 already in the works, we know it is going forward. I look forward to the seeing them.
MUCH better than the last one, though the setup at the end was a bit confusing.
But can John Logan write a script without stealing wholesale from other scripts, usually earlier entries in the franchise?
But can John Logan write a script without stealing wholesale from other scripts, usually earlier entries in the franchise?
No...he apparently has a genetic defect when it comes to differentiating homage from larceny.
Homage? Having Silva mention that he was working Hong Kong from '86-'94 and then having M tell Bond that her last act as station chief was turning Silva over to the Chinese. Larceny? Writing Skyfall as a remake of the love child of Goldeneye and The World is Not Enough.
Things were lifted directly out of those, also Die Another Day, Licence to Kill, You Only Live Twice . . .
To say nothing of the theft from (ahem, HOMAGE TO) The Dark Knight.
It wasn't quite as bad as Star Trek Nemesis being a poorly-camouflaged rewrite of The Wrath of Khan, or The Last Samurai being page-for-page Dances With Wolves, but lord, it was obvious enough.
That aside, it managed to work in its actual, intended bits of homage to the 50-year franchise subtly, without making it a farce, like Die Another Day was.
I give it a big thumbs-up.
I think you know the cinematography was good when the general public even takes notice and it becomes a point of interest >> http://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1375yd/skyfall_had_some_of_the_best_color_and_shadow_ive/
Despite it feeling a bit anti-climatic... the film while pretty decent overall, VERY much excelled in cinematography. It was beautiful. Specifically I thought bond running through the field lit by the fiery blaze was pretty amazing looking, among many other shots.
Despite it feeling a bit anti-climatic... the film while pretty decent overall, VERY much excelled in cinematography. It was beautiful. Specifically I thought bond running through the field lit by the fiery blaze was pretty amazing looking, among many other shots.
Well, that's running under the assumption that story was about saving M. Seems to me the story may have been about Bond's relationship with M, making the villain a bit more incidental. I'm not endorsing that, just raising the possibility. And it seems like there was some hinting that M was Bond's mother in reality, not just figuratively.
I did not get that impression at all. I would hope they weren't trying to establish that, because that's not a good idea in any way.
refocusedmedia
Veteran
That thread is the kind of thing that keeps my filmmaking dreams alive.
What's up with this? First 48fps antagonism and now a lackluster script being bolstered by cinematography? What happened to "content is king"?