Bond 23 - Skyfall

Gary Huff said:
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.
Click to expand...

Keep it in mind when you watch it again, particularly when Silva sees the parents' headstone.

I think it's a terrible idea, and I would reject it even if I knew flat out that they meant it that way, but I think it's possible they were hinting at it. It's similar to what some have said about the interrogation scene, where they saw hints that Bond was alluding to being bisexual -- which, of course, doesn't fit the character in the slightest and has very easy alternate explanations.

I'm sure it's going to be one of those "fan theories" which goes around.
 
David Jimerson said:
It's similar to what some have said about the interrogation scene, where they saw hints that Bond was alluding to being bisexual -- which, of course, doesn't fit the character in the slightest and has very easy alternate explanations.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what I mostly took away from that was that Bond is straight, and not homophobic, and Silva's attempt to make him uncomfortable (without resorting to physical torture) didn't work.
 
Just noodled around looking to see if anyone else saw what I did, and yeah, it's out there. In fact, it was pointed out that the musical theme for M and M's death is called "Mother."

Again, I reject it, as adamantly as I reject Deckard being a replicant, but I'm not the only one who saw it.
 
Isn't is consistant for Bond to play with people verbally anyway? If a guy he knows is a d-bag wants to make him uncomfortable the way Silva was trying to, it makes sense that he would almost play with it...to give him the finger basically. I don't think there was a single thing going on there that had a thing to do with Bond's sexuality or trying to hint at it.
 
KyleProhaska said:
Isn't is consistant for Bond to play with people verbally anyway? If a guy he knows is a d-bag wants to make him uncomfortable the way Silva was trying to, it makes sense that he would almost play with it...to give him the finger basically. I don't think there was a single thing going on there that had a thing to do with Bond's sexuality or trying to hint at it.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. I thought it was actually a very clever moment. If you think about it, it makes some sense. Silva was in the service back in the 80s, and I'm sure homophobia was far more rampent among the ranks. He thinks he can get at Bond by bringing that up, but it's now a different time and Bond throws it back in his face.
 
David Jimerson said:
Yeah, it could have been an allusion to that. But people are treating it as something more, like they always do.
Click to expand...

Because people are soaked in vomit worthy political correctness and sensitivity by a culture who is always trying to find something to turn into something it was never meant to be.

**thinking about the days when the whole gay thing wasn't so prominent**
 
Skyfall seems very divisive, but I loved it. Best new film I've seen this year.

Although, I'm not a Bond purist or a huge fan of the more over-the-top Bond films of the past. I like that the Bond series is now playing a bit with the darker style espionage/thriller angle that Bourne did so well.

I think it is also that Skyfall reminded me a bit of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. The whole M as "mum" thing sorta reminded me of how Indy was running around on an adventure with his pops. In a weird way, the Daniel Craig Bond films feel like they form a bit of a trilogy in the way that the original three Indiana Jones films did (rousing first film everyone loves, not so great sequel that goes in a different direction, and then third film that offers some sort of conclusion that hints at the hero's origins). Not a Star Wars or Matrix trilogy that tells one giant story, but a serial trilogy where each film attempts to stand on its own. Well, except maybe Quantum of Solace. That one feels a bit like it is too reliant on Casino Royale.

Not that I want this to be the end of the Daniel Craig version of James Bond. I'd love to see him do at least one more, although technically it would work if they had to recast a new 007 for the next film.
 
Saw it last night. It was pretty good. Visually arresting and overall it was an enjoyable experience, but it wasn't as great as I was anticipating. The story was came across as rather flat and lifeless, and the villain was pretty weak I thought. And it didn't feel anything like a Bond film, which is both positive and negative I guess. I am glad I saw it in the cinema though because this was probably Deakins' finest work yet.
 
Saw it yesterday (at least up to the point with the burning house, where I got thrown out of the theater - but that's an other story) and as much as I admire Deakins work (his lighting in Skyfall was excellent) I got distracted more than once by a unstable camera.
I don't mean some sloppy shoulder or steadicam work, but while on a tripod or dolly.
In some scenes the camera moves around (not much) more like reframing during the shot without any reason.
The first 10 frames in the museum scene looks like someone is was bumping into the dolly.
I mean, this is a multi million $$$ production, how can they oversee something like that?


Frank
 
Huh, I saw it on an huge IMAX screen and did not notice that. I mean there was some obvious handheld work, which I am pretty ambivalent about actually, but did not notice any jumps or jars. I don't think Mendes really cares about that actually. I have seen a lot of articles and interviews with Deakins lately and one thing that I thought was interesting is that he mentions that he and Mendes approached "Skyfall" much in the way that they did "Jarhead". I didn't see that in the film at all. "Jarhead, IMHO, has a lot of "Slop" in the camera work, but it works for that flick. I did not see much "Slop" at all in "Skyfall".

Here is a pretty good interview with Deakins:



 
Saw this the other day. I actually enjoyed the cinemetography more than the actual movie. The movie was still entertaining, nothing special but the cinematography was so enjoyable. And I actually liked Bordem as the villian.
 
Saw the movie Friday night, and thought it was pretty good. Loved the cinematography -- Deakins is a lighting god -- but the editing irritated me. At least the first 20 minutes were just sloppy as hell, and then after that it was okay, except for a cut here and there. It just took me out of the picture for a long time, though; I was kinda disappointed.

Other than that, not much to say. It was fun, and gorgeous without a doubt, but it fell short in a lot of scenes where it could really have capitalized. I was tired when I watched it, though, so maybe I'm just being picky. <grin>

-EMB
 
Took me about 9 days (post-screening) to sieve through Skyfall internally. Here were my thoughts after things settled...

(via http://callaghanisms.com/2012/11/22/skyfall/)

Mama always said,

“Sometimes old-fashioned simple is what we’re missING.”

At least that’s what the damned li’l tropological Forrest Gump kept wotting on me, during my SKYFALL screening. Now how in the F-ing world (short for “Fleming” world”, of course) could that possibly be a negative? Aren’t I the one ever playing the purist card? Who is that jergoff, again, opining constantly to anyone who’ll listen, and kvetching to everyone else, of the need for a cinerevival? Just how many rhetorical questions are one too many?

As more than a few of you are aware, I am that guy. And, as said that guy, I should have leapt from my theatrical pew, raving at the celestial projectionist heavens, “There’s hope! There’s hope!! All is not lost!!!”

But I couldn’t, and I didn’t.

Sure, as is the tradition with any Bond film worth it’s 00saline, much is foreshadowed during the saucy OTC sequence. And yes, this is absolus the case with Skyfall (layered most masterfully underneath Adele’s aria)…with its winks toward the back-to-basics bits yet to come. So I was prepared. Or at least I thought I was.

From the reintroduction of Q, the Aston Martin, the Walther PPK and a certain —- ———- to the upfront climax that mantles us with a James Bond wee lang time nae see backstory, it all seemed a bit heavy. Reflex-wise, it was easier to spit than swallow this level of exp(l)osition.

Then I saw. Then it hit me…but softly, like a subtile Javier Bardem villain. Not violently like a Bardem-delivered no country for old heavies.

Isn’t that the way with good medicine? Isn’t that how a necessary tonic elixir should be? It shouldn’t go down too easy. For that’s what Skyfall is; good, nasty, uncomfortable, necessary medicine. Well done, Nurse Mendes. Looks like Mama knew best all along…
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top