New Bond Film: Skyfall (1 Viewer)

[Tommy R]

Saw it last night, and count me in on the "loved it" crowd. It's always been hard to rank the films, because they're all so different and from film eras sapnning 50 years, but I'd loosely rank it among my top 3 along with From Russia With Love and On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I love how legitimately deep this was. We've been having "this time it's personal" type Bond films since 1995 with varying degrees of sucess (GE and Craig's first two living up well to that moniker), but this one goes way beyond anything we've seen before in Bond films. I agree that Craig's 3 movies form a great emotional trilogy of sorts (I actually sorta liked QoS, just think it's a bit flawed and that it could've benifited greatly by a re-write and more post-production time for the director).

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

I really liked how well they stuck to what Fleming DID write about Bond's childhood and his family (as someone mentioned the obituary in You Only Live Twice), although this movie expands on it, it doesn't contradict ANYTHING Fleming had written.

All together an AMAZING film. I look forward GREATLY to see what's next.

 

[Sam Posten]

My review:
Best
Bond
Ever

 

[Tino]

I was disappointed. It was good but I was expecting great.
Generic plot ( disgruntled ex agent, stolen list of agents) uninspired action, a bit slow.
But...I still liked it. Liked the nods to the old films, the performances were good, although Bardem I thought was a bit one note.
Better than Quantum Of Solace but not as good as Casino Royale.
:star::star::star:

 

[Kenneth_C]

Just saw it this afternoon. I honestly can't recall the last time a film I was enjoying so much fell apart so fast.
Once we actually get to Skyfall, it becomes a different -- and much sillier -- movie. If I'm sitting there thinking that James Bond could take lessons from Dustin Hoffman in Straw Dogs, then I think there's a problem. Thoroughly enjoyed it up to then, however.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I had only seen a handful of Bond movies until this year when I went through all of them leading up to this. I watched the last entry just last night and thought it was pretty bland and ugly so this was a refreshing turn. I'm not going to call it the best film in the series and I'm not sure I'd put it on the same level as CR but it's still very good. Yes, like most Bond's it was a bit too long and the ending was a littlle too much STRAW DOGS for its own good but I still thought the picture looked wonderful, the performances were excellent and the action scenes were very good. I wish they had used Bardem a bit more as well. Still, overall I'd still give it *** 1/2 (out of 4) and I'm looking forward to the next one.

 

[Patrick H.]

Saw this at the IMAX this morning. I'm a bit torn...I thought it was a good standalone film, expertly crafted and played, but I'm uncertain of its merits as a Bond film. Dramatically, the only other one I can really relate it to is 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service,' which had similar broad scope, winding story, and emotional punch. However, that one was still infused with the typical Bond humor and overall spirit of adventure...this one was just bleak. It seemed like a long downward spiral, and it left me feeling worn-out and mildly depressed. There have been a lot of 'Dark Knight' comparisons going around, but even that ended with a note of redemption snatched from the jaws of despair (as did 'Casino Royale' for that matter). Bond just seems pretty run-down by the end here. I'm not nearly as old as this series, but do I remember back to when women wanted Bond, and men wanted to be him. Now any woman he's involved with is guaranteed a torturous death, and I sure as hell don't want to be this James Bond...he has a horrible, horrible life.

 

[andrew markworthy]

I know folks look back to the old Bonds with nostalgic affection, but I suspect that a large part of it is just that - nostalgia. I've been watching some of the older Bonds recently with my 17 year old daughter and trying to see them through her eyes. From this regard, Connery's Bond is little more than a male chauvenist pig dressed up in nice clothes (can anyone look at the scene where he dismisses a woman with the phrase 'man talk' without wincing?). Roger Moore is plain embarrassing - you imagine him going back to a home decorated in browns and oranges and every bit of 70s kitsch. Yes, of course there are exciting fight sequences, stunts, etc, and Ken Adams's sets are of course magnificent. But the films' attitudes are just *dated*. Ironically, the only one that appears vaguely modern is On Her Majesty's Secret Service.
What I'm trying to say with this is that if the writers tried to make Daniel Craig like the 60s or 70s Bond, it would immediately shriek out 'WRONG!'. The world has moved on. To get away with the laconic Bond of the sixties (e.g. the 'shocking, simply shocking' line) in more recent films you have to look to the Arnie films. But there Arnie is largely sexless for most of his films - he only gets the girl once the job is done. Or the Bourne films - and again, the girl is the reward at the end of the film. Modern sensibilities do not allow for sex and violence to co-exist in an adventure film - it's got to be one THEN the other, not both intermingling. I think that is why Bond having fun has been toned down in the last few Bond movies. It would be better still if Bond took a vow of celibacy and concentrated purely on espionage.

 

[Steve_Pannell]

It would be better still if Bond took a vow of celibacy and concentrated purely on espionage.

There are good and bad things one could say about all the Bond movies but that's just wrong!

 

[WinstonCely]

I know folks look back to the old Bonds with nostalgic affection, but I suspect that a large part of it is just that - nostalgia. I've been watching some of the older Bonds recently with my 17 year old daughter and trying to see them through her eyes. From this regard, Connery's Bond is little more than a male chauvenist pig dressed up in nice clothes (can anyone look at the scene where he dismisses a woman with the phrase 'man talk' without wincing?). Roger Moore is plain embarrassing - you imagine him going back to a home decorated in browns and oranges and every bit of 70s kitsch. Yes, of course there are exciting fight sequences, stunts, etc, and Ken Adams's sets are of course magnificent. But the films' attitudes are just *dated*. Ironically, the only one that appears vaguely modern is On Her Majesty's Secret Service.
What I'm trying to say with this is that if the writers tried to make Daniel Craig like the 60s or 70s Bond, it would immediately shriek out 'WRONG!'. The world has moved on. To get away with the laconic Bond of the sixties (e.g. the 'shocking, simply shocking' line) in more recent films you have to look to the Arnie films. But there Arnie is largely sexless for most of his films - he only gets the girl once the job is done. Or the Bourne films - and again, the girl is the reward at the end of the film. Modern sensibilities do not allow for sex and violence to co-exist in an adventure film - it's got to be one THEN the other, not both intermingling. I think that is why Bond having fun has been toned down in the last few Bond movies. It would be better still if Bond took a vow of celibacy and concentrated purely on espionage.

I agree, although Skyfall did seem to have more scenes of Bond about to, or just did "it" scenes than his previous and even some of Brosnan's.
I was blown away. I had already been dying to see it, but over the years I've learned that even with the films I want to see, I should temper my anticipation with the realization that they "just don't make 'em like they used to;" i.e. lower the hell out of my expectations. I did so with this film (or least I'm telling myself I did) and they were far exceeded. All the key elements that I look for in a bond film were there: Bond kicking ass, quick wit and witty banter, lack of silly gadgets, lots of great locations, modern situations and characters, and (this is probably going to loose me some credit) extremely gorgeous women. What this movie delivered beyond that were incredible editing, top-notch cinematography, fluid direction, great acting, and well written script. I was caught up enough that I never felt bored or that the film was going too long, the acting even from minor characters was engaging (no women cast just for their looks - they could actually act) and an awesomely crazy bad guy.
Maybe Casino Royale is a better film (I can't say that without watching this film again) but this one is certainly on par with it for me as of this one viewing. Although I like Quantum of Solace as an extended epilogue to Casino Royale, I knew right away it is the lesser of (the now three) Craig Bond films.

 

[Ken Chan]

(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)

No need. That (would-have-been-great) moment was spoiled by the weasels that make the commercials.

 

[Trentrunner]

I was disappointed. From the Metacritic index, and other general buzz, I was expecting Casino-Royale-level.
The opening was spectacular. I could practically hear Mendes saying "Let's top The Last Crusade, shall we?" as they choreographed all the transitions and reversals.
I thought the huge flaw was Bardem's villain. Cartoonish, Hannibal Lecterish bad guys stand out strangely in this new Craig hyper-real Bond world. (And what's with the retrograde homophobia? Note to writers: It's still homophobic, even if you have your hero make a saucy bi-curious comeback.) I thought the villain in CR-QOS was perfectly modulated and believable for this new Bond world; Bardem is a throwback that just doesn't work.
By the time we get to Skyfall, it's all just silly, mainly because it's hard to understand Bardem's motivation for his revenge. ("Look at this subpar dental work! DIE!!") I mean, sure, he wants to kill M, but how did he convince literally dozens of men to die for him in this quest to avenge an ill-fitting bridge? (See my point above about old-school Bond psycho-villains not working in the new real Bond world.)
The best news for me is that Skyfall looks to do boffo b.o., which guarantees we'll have another Bond movie relatively soon. Can't wait to be pleasantly surprised.

 

[WinstonCely]

By the time we get to Skyfall, it's all just silly, mainly because it's hard to understand Bardem's motivation for his revenge. ("Look at this subpar dental work! DIE!!") I mean, sure, he wants to kill M, but how did he convince literally dozens of men to die for him in this quest to avenge an ill-fitting bridge? (See my point above about old-school Bond psycho-villains not working in the new real Bond world.)

I felt it was implied that even though he's not really interested in ruling the world, he surely can through cyber terrorism, but he wants his revenge first. So, he convinces his henchmen, "Hey, first help me kill this crazy tart that "made me" mutilate myself, and then I'll help us rule the world." Not that big a leap considering we spend the entire first half of the movie watching Silva successfully execute his plan. Just the way I saw it.

 

[Trentrunner]

I felt it was implied that even though he's not really interested in ruling the world, he surely can through cyber terrorism, but he wants his revenge first. So, he convinces his henchmen, "Hey, first help me kill this crazy tart that "made me" mutilate myself, and then I'll help us rule the world." Not that big a leap considering we spend the entire first half of the movie watching Silva successfully execute his plan. Just the way I saw it.

Fair enough.
Now: Explain the believability of blowing a hole below a subway tunnel to divert a train into crashing--at the precise moment--to stop ONE MAN from pursuing Bardem.
I know, I know. EVERY movie has plot holes, especially big action movies, which rely on cascading improbabilities in order to maximize the tension and number of explosions/collisions.
But, really. REALLY? This is verging on Dr. Evil territory. There's a reason that category of character was a rich vein for comedy.

 

[joshEH]

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

Agreed. M basically set up the whole thing. Silva was right all along. Just look at that speech that she gives to the committee right before Javier Bardem bursts in. "I see the world differently. You want to cut all our funding. There are people in the shadows coming for us that we must hunt down. How safe do you feel?" And then he busts in, she stands up, and doesn't move. The only reason she doesn't get shot is because Mallory leaps the table.
She proves over and over again she does what is required for the mission. Always has. She needs 007 to come back, because she has no one else like him. She knows he isn't dead. The Silva-event is looming, and Parliament is about to yank all their support from the human intelligence side of the equation. She needs to prove to the outside world that they need MI6's human intelligence.
She was going to sacrifice herself, and a good number of civilians, right there in the committee room. She is making sure the job gets done. Now, everything after the committee-scene? That is M playing fast and loose, but notice the relish in her voice when Bond says it will just be him and her. She can limit the casualties.

 

[Brian Dobbs]

SPOILER ALERT
1) This film is more enjoyable than Quantum Of Solace, but not as good as Casino Royale.
2) Don't understand the hype about Roger Deakins either.
3) This film is not shot of film, and feels like it. Feels cheaper.
4) This film is very much TALK, and very little SHOW. Bardem's character is set up to be this really evil and intimidating character, but then basically does nothing except pulls a Loki, who pulled a Joker. Haven't we seen this before?
5) Subtle references? Try "disgustingly obvious." I'm paraphrasing here...
-- "Nice to meet you (comma) Q!"
-- "Yes sir (comma) M!"
-- "Eve. Eve (comma) Moneypenny" (just like they did with Robin in DKR)
Gee thanks, because I wasn't sure who they were! Also...
-- The Red Button. If you don't know it controls the ejector seat, this movie shouldn't have to TELL people who don't know by saying "Go ahead and eject me". Whatever happened to "inside" joke? DUMB
6) Let's move on from being 'personal' for Bond. Been there done that.
7) Also DUMB - Q plugging the laptop into the network? DUH! We're supposed to believe Q is so smart but he doesn't do anything smart.
8) Overt use of CGI in Craig's Bond movies? UGH! The giant lizards and the helicopters?

 

[TonyD]

I'm still waiting for Richard's review.
Wife and I saw it tonight. I loved it. 4/5 stars. The end made me want to see the next one right now.

 

[Vaughan Odendaal]

Fuck dude, have you ever heard of spoiler tags? It's not good enough to just put "spoiler alert" as everything is still on the page. You ruined the film for me now.

 

[Mdshawaan]

Hi,
San Francisco New Years Eve 2013. Best Dance Patti Popular New Happy Eve Dance,Best New Years Eve Party.The Most Exclusive California, USA. New Years Eve Party 2013
CLICK HERE
http://sfnewyears.blogspot.com/

 

[Jason Charlton]

Originally Posted by Vaughan Odendaal /t/289286/new-bond-film-skyfall/300#post_4001248
Fuck dude, have you ever heard of spoiler tags? It's not good enough to just put "spoiler alert" as everything is still on the page. You ruined the film for me now.

I would hardly consider any of the first three items on that list to be actual spoilers... and if you saw the word "spoiler" at the beginning of the post, and then actually GOT to NUMBER FIVE on the list... well, I don't think the blame should fall solely on Brian...

 

[Jason Charlton]

Originally Posted by Brian Dobbs /t/289286/new-bond-film-skyfall/300#post_4000861
1) This film is more enjoyable than Quantum Of Solace, but not as good as Casino Royale.
4) This film is very much TALK, and very little SHOW.

Lots of people have made these same comparisons between CR and Skyfall, and for me, personally, I have to disagree to some extent.

Each time I watch CR, I am floored by how the film grinds to a virtual halt during the seemingly ENDLESS game of poker in the middle. Sure, there's a fight halfway through it, but jeez... It seems to go on for ever. I also DESPISE the "play-by-play" dialog from Rene ("Look, it's his tell!"). This whole sequence, to me, is CR's weakest part and drags the movie on far longer than it needs to be.

In contrast, I never got bored watching Skyfall - yes, there are long spells between action setpieces, but the story seems to keep moving along in a much more fluid manner.

I think it's hard for me to decide which movie I liked better. Certainly, Skyfall can be seen as the "final step" in the reboot process of the James Bond franchise, so what you see in this movie more closely resembles the amalgam of the character that we've seen over the last 50 years. CR, on the other hand, was such a breath of fresh air after the disaster that was DAD, that its quality is elevated simply by it's proximity to what is arguably the franchise's nadir.

In the end, for me, at least, it's like trying to choose between a 10 and a 9.8. Both fun movies, both enjoyable, and both certainly worth owning and watching again.