New Bond Film: Skyfall (1 Viewer)

[Jim*Tod]

Patrick---Thanks for the info!

 

[Richard--W]

Here's an interview with Deakins and shooting Skyfall: http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/dv/feature/skyfall-double-agents-data-recording-roger-deakins/60751

Thanks for posting the link. Roger Deakin's work is the only reason I'm going to see this film theatrically. The only reason.
It grieves me that he has been seduced by the digital side of the force.
Judging by the spoiler thread at another forum, James Bond is still a henpecked wuss who keeps screwing up. Daniel Craig still plays anti-Bond. Judi Dench is still the main Bond girl -- a geriatric Bond girl -- right up to the end

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

when she is murdered by Javier Bardem. Bond's failures lead to her death. Now maybe the horse she rode in will expire along with Judi Dench's casting. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

. Perhaps now the series can return to normal.

 

[Simon Massey]

Actually Richard your spoilers are wrong and Judi Dench is excellent in this film. I'm also not sure who has the idea that Bond keeps screwing up in this film - he doesn't

 

[andrew markworthy]

No UK Bond fans here?

Yes.
I have to say that I think Skyfall is one of the best in the entire canon. For once, people are acting, and the direction is slick and assured. I've thought Daniel Craig has been superb in all his three films as Bond, but he was horribly mis-served by the scripts in the first two (Casino Royale lacked coherent pace, and the less said about that dimwitted movie about hoarding water, the better). In this movie, you realise that for Bond, the secret service is basically his family.
But you don't see a Bond film for a detailed psychological study, and there are enough action sequences to satisfy viewers. The opening chase is brilliantly done (and watch for the moment where after a particularly hair raising stunt, Daniel Craig casually adjusts the cuffs of his shirt - it's done in the blink of an eye, but it is totally perfect). There are also enough references to earlier Bond films to keep fans happy. I nearly yelped with delight when THE Bond car made its reappearance, but there are plenty of more subtle back-references as well. Adele delivers a perfectly competent Bond song. It's not the best of the canon, but far from awful, and given that the Bond franchise is in its fiftieth year, it was suitably backward-looking in its style to capture the mood of the great sixties Bond songs.
Worth going to see, without any doubt whatsoever.

 

[JonZ]

I just read 2 reveiws in a row, AICNs Nordling, and James B, both saying this is the best looking Bond film ever. Both raving about the cinematograhy.

The reviews have been overwhelmingly favorable.

Looking foward to seeing it.

 

[Southpaw]

Wow. Just wow. Imax presentation was stellar.
Anytime I go into a movie with high expectations and those expectations are exceeded, I am blown away. Best Bond ever. No doubt.
Incredible bookend sequences. And a perfect ending. Perfect.
I am beside myself and can't wait to see it again with the wife this weekend.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Overall, I thought "Skyfall" was a little too long in the set-up section, needed some trimming as I felt I was ahead of the story unfolding once the antagonist finally shows up, but it does pick up steam in the mid-section, but seemed to drag out with less sense of menace from the bad guy and the finale lacked punch for me (sure, some decent pyro-technics, but I wanted character fireworks, but the film didn't really get there).
The lighting by Roger Deakins is nice in that it usually looks like it's being lit with ambient lighting, so scenes look quite natural. Sam Mendes does a good job directing, just wished I liked the script more in terms of plot, plus I didn't really "feel" Javier Bardem's presence as the bad guy as powerful as his Oscar turn in "No Country for Old Men". Seems to me, Daniel Craig's getting a bit old to be running around as James Bond, a point that the film hammers home, perhaps he's got 1-2 more 007 films in him, and it's on to the next incarnation.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.

 

[MattAlbie60]

I completely agree with those saying that SKYFALL is too long up front. After the opening, there was a decent-sized section where I kept going "... uh oh, am I going to be the only person on the planet who doesn't like this movie?" but thankfully it recovers pretty hardcore. Once Bardem shows up, all doubts are gone.
Liked the third act. It was like James Bond meets STRAW DOGS.

 

[Richard--W]

Judi Dench's movie:
http://io9.com/5959082/skyfall-unquestionably-belongs-to-dame-judi-dench

 

[Sam Favate]

Good movie, not great, and not in a league with Casino Royale. It was relentlessly grim, and I'm frankly tired of seeing Bond's movies be so personal for him. Bond was at his best when he was detached. After seven movies of Dench's M (and she's been terrific), we get it! She and Bond have an attachment. Enough already. The location shooting was nice, but it was nearly all at night and not much of it was very exotic. The action sequences were mostly destruction, without a lot for Bond to do. Not much dialogue for Bond either, so the quips he did make were good, but could have been more. It wasn't until the very end when Bond was asked if he was ready to get back to work that it felt like a Bond movie. I feel like the revenge thriller has been done before (Licence to Kill, Goldeneye) and it's never a very effective vehicle for 007. I will certainly see it again, and maybe my opinion will change, but I don't get the effusive praise the movie has been receiving. The theme song was outstanding though, and the performances were all top notch. No Bond movie has ever had actors at the top of their game like this. Sadly, the writing is what left me cold. I guess I'm not much of a fan of John Logan.

 

[Zack Gibbs]

Skyfall was good, but ultimately a notch or two below Casino Royale. The plot was thread bare, nowhere near enough to carry the character work they put into it.
And I'm sorry but at what point are we meant to believe Bond and MI6 have redeemed themselves? I'm having a hard time seeing them as anything but total failures, pitted against a bad guy who beat them at every step and ultimately got everything he wanted.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

And a perfect ending. Perfect.

This was what I came away with, too. Even though Skyfall is a standalone story as opposed to the way Quantum of Solace was sort of a coda to Casino Royale, I felt like it completed a thematic trilogy. Each movie brought more of the pieces of the character back, and then at the end we feel like, "ah... we're home again."

 

[Simon Massey]

MI6 may have had failures - Q was responsible for the security breach but I didnt think Bond himself made mistakes. In fact I thought the film was making the point that with Bond left to do his thing, he was far more effective, and M knew it.
And whilst I can understand that M and Bond have had a connection in the past seven films, this is the first to actually explore it in a bit of depth, perhaps with the exception of the occasional scene in the other films. The World is Not Enough and Casino Royale are the only other two I can think of where something is made of the relationship between the two characters.
Still I do feel Skyfall brings the Craig films to a point where Bond is now the Bond we all know from previous films and I agree with Adam that we have a trilogy that brings it to that point. I think the next film will reflect this, though I anticipate we may see a return of Quantum as a threat in the same way SPECTRE was.

 

[Pete-D]

I suspected that the Kincaid character (Scottish groundskeeper) was intended for Sean Connery and yeah a quick Google search confirmed that they were at least thinking about it for a time ...
http://ca.ign.com/articles/2012/11/07/sean-connery-skyfall-cameo-was-discussed
Even though the film had a dark/grim tone, the Shanghai sequences were definitely among the most visually impressive in the 007 series.

 

[Sandro]

I'm not an expert on the Bond movies by any means so cannot comment on that side of things. I found it a good film but a bit stodgy. The presentation is slick and some of the cinematography (particularly in the end sequence) is excellent. But the content is just average - the character relationships, which presumably are meant to draw us in, are just tedious. The action scenes are OK but I remember enjoying the opening scene of Casino Royale way more than this one. The plot had a good hook but ultimately was very simple. Just another overpraised new movie.

EDIT: Forgot to mention the opening titles which are great.

 

[MattAlbie60]

The plot had a good hook but ultimately was very simple. Just another overpraised new movie.  

That's exactly what I like about it. It's one of the biggest little movies ever. Despite the fact that it cost hundreds of millions of dollars, travels all over the world and features (seriously, you guys) the loudest explosion I've ever heard in a movie, it's still small. It's intimate. It's personal.
"Simple" doesn't always equal "bad." "Simple" can quite often be "Great." In SKYFALL, it's great. The story of SKYFALL: A dude is pissed at this lady, and James Bond likes the lady, so screw that guy and all his stupid friends.
There's no giant laser that controls the weather. There's no volcano lair. There's a smaller, more grounded story that is (very surprisingly) actually kind of character driven for a little while. Notice that I said "actually kind of," but even there that's huge for a James Bond movie.
James Bond and "good, compelling story" don't often get to overlap like that.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Good movie, not great, and not in a league with Casino Royale. It was relentlessly grim, and I'm frankly tired of seeing Bond's movies be so personal for him. Bond was at his best when he was detached. After seven movies of Dench's M (and she's been terrific), we get it! She and Bond have an attachment. Enough already. The location shooting was nice, but it was nearly all at night and not much of it was very exotic. The action sequences were mostly destruction, without a lot for Bond to do. Not much dialogue for Bond either, so the quips he did make were good, but could have been more. It wasn't until the very end when Bond was asked if he was ready to get back to work that it felt like a Bond movie. I feel like the revenge thriller has been done before (Licence to Kill, Goldeneye) and it's never a very effective vehicle for 007. I will certainly see it again, and maybe my opinion will change, but I don't get the effusive praise the movie has been receiving. The theme song was outstanding though, and the performances were all top notch. No Bond movie has ever had actors at the top of their game like this. Sadly, the writing is what left me cold. I guess I'm not much of a fan of John Logan.

Completely agree. It's a fair movie but I was pretty dissapointed. I don't even really know where to start.
Rote action sequences. The only thing in the entire film that felt creative was the very short bit with the backhoe and the train. Far, far short of that awesome opening sequence that Casino Royale offered up. Everything else was your standard fistfights/shootouts that you've seen a thousand times before (and better).
Cinematography. I don't understand the idolization of Roger Deakins. What I've seen from him looks OK but not really any different that what any other competent cinematographer can provide. And this movie pretty much looks like standard action movie fare for the last 12 years: digitally graded within an inch of its life...and ugly. There are scenes here, on a yacht amongst beautiful islands, the hilly countryside of Scotland, etc that could have been spectacularly beautiful. But they pretty much followed the moronic fad of draining the natural color and putting the uglyfilter (TM) over everything and making everything look as lifeless and grim and repugnant as possible. Even M's office at the end looked like a dungeon. I hate this shit and wish it would stop. They showed the trailer for A Good Day To Die Hard and it looked exactly the same.
It was very apparent this was shot digitally. Not a fan. At all.
On the good side, Adele's song and the opening credit sequence was great.

 

[mattCR]

Don't really know the right thing to say just yet. I caught the late show last night. It's good, the ending is very good.. the last 1/3 is pretty good. But the first 20 minutes.. Brutal. This bond film has more lulls and dead spots than any I can remember. This doesn't mean lacking action - it's OK to have real suspense, I mean moments where I kept thinking "is there anything happening here? Of any sort?" I left the theater thinking: this was good, but if it had been re-edited and was about 20 minutes shorter, it'd be better.

 

[JonZ]

After the last few more personal stories, Id really like to see Bond go up against a meglomaniacal supervillian again.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Not as good as Casino Royale, which boasted a better Bond girl. Skyfall boasted a better villain, and (gasp) just enough character development to pay off the series and the film both. I agree with Jon...lets lighten the mood just a bit, but keep the heightened realism and action as we go forward. I really enjoyed it, opening, song, and all. I think it runs a bit long, but nothing too exhausting. I thought it was wonderfully shot, although the action never quite returns to the heights of the opening sequence.
Good stuff.