SKYFALL: FANS' REACTIONS - GUARANTEED SPOILERS

1181921232499

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,559
    Our American friends will respond swiftly, no worries. ;-)
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 4,813
    Trust me- we're all still busy seeing it multiple times a day ;)

    Me personally, I saw it with my girlfriend opening day and then was busy with work. I intend to see it one more time with my dad this coming week and will have a review then.
    Spoiler- it's gonna be a damn great review!
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited November 2012 Posts: 3,497
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Our American friends will respond swiftly, no worries. ;-)

    Perhaps they're just out of practice. ;)
  • After reading this review of Skyfall and agreeing with many of the negative aspects of the film I was curious as to what the rest of you think. Could another Skyfall potentially destroy the series?

    http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Skyfall-review-M-is-for-mommy-figure-4020528.php
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,331
    Saw it Yesterday Afternoon and I was blown away and captivated at the same time. Since I had the GB spoiled for me, which was good because I didn't mind. The entire movie was excellent. It was full of twists and turns and wonderful surprises. It had lots of good subtle humor. It's the true sequel to Casino Royale. The title sequence was amazing. It's the first Bond movie to bring me to tears. Not the best James Bond film, but it sure beats the hell out of QoS and DAD. However, my one gripe is lack of character development for Patrice and Silva. I think they needed a little more attention. But other than that, It was a masterpiece.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,559
    Bisslebork wrote:
    After reading this review of Skyfall and agreeing with many of the negative aspects of the film I was curious as to what the rest of you think. Could another Skyfall potentially destroy the series?

    http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Skyfall-review-M-is-for-mommy-figure-4020528.php

    Seeing that SF is taking the BO by storm, I sincerely doubt this one will destroy the series.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    fanbond123 wrote:
    "Craig's Bond is a snappy dresser and enjoys his creature comforts (eg he refuses Fields' choice of hotels), he is as adept on a motrocycle as he is piloting a plane (as all Bonds have proved) but so far hasn't shown himself to be a font of wisdom in all things. (witness Bond's showing off about sherry vintages in DAF). I'm sure that will come."

    LOL How long does it take to arrive? We've had three films of Craig's Bond and you're saying "it will come" Heck, why not just start out with Bond having all the traits we admire? It's all rather sad for fans to see the Craig Bond films and say "well, the gun barrel will be back at the start of the next film" and guess what, when it's not back at the start, people say "it will be back in the next film!" And it's EXACTLY the same with Craig's interpretation of Bond. "Don't worry, he'll have more panache or charm or less angst in the next film." For God's sake, he's made THREE JAMES BOND FILMS! That's more than what Lazenby and Dalton did during their tenure as Bond.

    What makes Craig so special he has an extended honeymoon period as a rookie (or jaded rookie) or unsophisticated Bond? If you hire someone to play James Bond, shouldn't he play the role (sort of) the way it was done since 1962? What makes Craig so special he can wait until his fourth James Bond film to become the rounded, assured non-angst version Cubby Broccoli/Harry Saltzman created back in Dr No?

    It's a pity Skyfall is a huge hit because there is ZERO INCENTIVE for Eon to change their approach. Why do a Craig Thunderball/Goldfinger/Spy Who Loved Me type fantasy FUN James Bond film when the general public prefer a more dour angst-ridden 'M dies/Vesper dies/someone else close to Bond dies Bond film? Skyfall's success has killed off any chance of the classic Bond persona - the man you want to be, the man women love to bed - and the classic Bond FUN film ever returning. Of course if you love the new Craig era you'll say "I like the change." Fair enough, but some fans might want some of the original Bond back! I dunno, perhaps a bit more flair or coolness.

    i think this post perfectly sums up the point of view of certain people - and the problem that that creates with the Craig films..

    if you are waiting for "classic Bond" to arrive - don't hold your breath..

    people seem to be awaiting this triumphant return to form, as if Craig is suddenly going to casually strut through a room and start delivering lines and raising an eyebrow like Connery, or delivering rapid fire quips and oneliners like Roger Moore... and that is not going to happen - at all through Craig's run.. SF might indeed be the closest we come to ever reaching that threshold... and if it hasn't happened now, it ain't gonna..

    the truth is, the Bond that the producers and Craig have recreated since Casino Royale, is a Bond that IS flawed - a Bond that IS beaten down a bit - a Bond that IS grounded - and more importantly, a Bond that IS human - very much in the vein of what Fleming created.. he's a man who is impacted mentally and emotionally by the choices he makes, and after a while those stress lines will eventually show themselves... both Craig, and Dalton way back when realized this when reading the Fleming books - and if you listen to both their interviews about the Fleming Bond, they pretty much are both dead on mirror interviews.. they get the essence of the character, and vigorously try to bring that out in their portrayals - and that Bond IS NOT a Superman.. he's a very real, and very tired and beaten man..... Craig's Bond (Dalton aside) is probably the closest to the Fleming roots as there has been, and in this day and age in the world we live - it works..... Craig's performance does in fact retain the cool confident swagger that Bond needs to possess - but he also accurately conveys the aura of danger and deadliness to the character as well, which IS Fleming's Bond..

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Even DAD didn't do that.

    In a way.
  • I'm an American and I saw it Friday afternoon (took the day off work!!). Overall I loved it. My only big gripe was the Eve-is-Moneypenny thing, but they hinted at it from the beginning so I was expecting it.
    As for the other "spoilers" that I knew of, they still shocked me because I never believe spoilers 100%. M's death actually me by surprise. That was a very bold move and I'm impressed by it, as she could have easily retired instead. (First Vesper, then Mathis, then M? And another booty-call turned corpse? Craig's Bond really IS cursed!)
    Speaking of, I liked Severine but her character was way underused. I don't know why the escalator scene was cut, I think another scene with her would've been a big improvement. And Eve was barely there at all. My friend who I went to see the movie with made a good point- M is the main female character in this rather than a "Bond girl".
    Bardem's villain didn't disappoint. He was a great combination of genius and insane. And he was unpredictable. Loved his backstory. It made him human at the same time as being over the top.
    I'll write more after I see it again, which I definitely will be doing!!
  • Bisslebork wrote:
    After reading this review of Skyfall and agreeing with many of the negative aspects of the film I was curious as to what the rest of you think. Could another Skyfall potentially destroy the series?

    http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Skyfall-review-M-is-for-mommy-figure-4020528.php

    Not even Moonraker
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Bisslebork wrote:
    After reading this review of Skyfall and agreeing with many of the negative aspects of the film I was curious as to what the rest of you think. Could another Skyfall potentially destroy the series?

    http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Skyfall-review-M-is-for-mommy-figure-4020528.php
    [/quote]

    when his review basically regarded Dalton in a non-favorable fashion, i lost interest....

    another reviewer that does not know Fleming - only the screen Bond...

    while i do agree that Craig's Bond does need a little levity - there was plenty of it in Skyfall - maybe Bond 24 could end on an upbeat note instead of the downer trend that has placated Craig's run thus far - not that they are all downer endings in that they are somber and sad, but they are heavy endings - not in similar fashion to the Bonds of old - THAT i can agree with..... but turning Craig into Roger Moore? Um.. no thanks.. we had that with Brosnan, and it didn't work out so well..

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 12,837
    HASEROT wrote:
    maybe Bond 24 could end on an upbeat note instead of the downer trend that has placated Craig's run thus far - not that they are all downer endings in that they are somber and sad, but they are heavy endings - not in similar fashion to the Bonds of old - THAT i can agree with

    I definetly think Bond 24 needs a proper happy ending.
    HASEROT wrote:
    but turning Craig into Roger Moore? Um.. no thanks.. we had that with Brosnan, and it didn't work out so well..

    Brosnan was different to Moore. He had some things that were similar but at the end of the day they were playing the same character. Besides, Craig has similarities with Dalton and Lazenby was pretty similar to Connery but nobody bashes them for that.
  • Brosnan had a much harder edge than Moore
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    @thelivingroyale

    sorry, but towards the end of Brozzer's run, i felt him being too much like a Roger clone, only worse - couldn't look passed it..
  • HASEROT wrote:
    @thelivingroyale

    sorry, but towards the end of Brozzer's run, i felt him being too much like a Roger clone, only worse - couldn't look passed it..

    Your opinion and everything but I don't see how he was a Moore clone. Yes he had gadgets and one liners but I can't see Moore doing a scene like killing Elektra or a Moore film being as personal as GE or DAD. I think he was more like Connery than anyone else.
  • This is something of an "Alistair Cook" review, in that I am English, but have lived in the US for many years. My wife and I went to see the movie with an American couple, and I debriefed them over dinner. My friend, though highly intelligent, tries very hard to be a redneck. They have both seen a couple of Bond movies each in the past.

    The cinema was only two-thirds full, but the majority of the audience, I would say, were early twenties.

    Lots of gasps in the PTS, then a few polite laughs at some of the one-liners.

    Despite this being a long movie, and Americans not being famed for their concentration spans, not one person left the theatre during the whole movie (unlike TDK). Also unlike Batman, there was warm applause at the end of the performance.

    I overheard several comments as we were leaving, and talked to our friends afterwards, and it became clear that most of them went to see a kiss kiss, bang bang Bond movie, and ended up seeing a great film by mistake. Whatever the similarities to TDK, that was too science fiction. This was more real to them. Believable characters, an all too plausible story line, and a (beautifully photographed) real world. There seemed to be a collective feeling that they had all witnessed something unexpected, unusual and special.

    I spoke to my 70 year old mother about the film. Living in England, she had seen the film 2 weeks prior. She didn't get that vibe from the English audience, but remembered the same phenomenon when she went to see Straw Dogs many years ago. There are some strong parallels with that film, but it is probably largely unknown to the generation that was in the cinema for Skyfall.

    A good deal of the significance to true Bond fans was lost on our friends. The DB5 and Moneypenny didn't mean anything to them, but certainly didn't reduce their enjoyment of the film. They were particularly taken with the British locations, and thought Glencoe was breathtaking (we live in one of the most beautiful parts of the NE, so that is quite a compliment).

    One of my issues was that in parts the movie appeared rushed. My American friends surprisingly agreed. They were a bit shocked when they saw how late it was when we left.

    My male friend and I are the same age as DC, and the loss of physical prowess, and questioning of what we are doing with our lives touched a raw nerve, but Bond's journey, his reaffirmation of belief, was uplifting. I probably had more genuine human empathy with Bond than ever before.

    Personal disappointments? Gin Wigmore's song for the Heiniken ad was considerably more original and the lyrics more insightful than the Adele cliché. Some of the CGI was a bit crap. I would have liked to have seen a new Aston (so, I suspect, would the Americans), and there were lots to choose from- One-77, New Vanquish, or best, the Vantage Zagato (a re-imaging of the DB4GT Zagato). You could still have fitted the ejector seat and machine guns (more new dog, old tricks).

    I also thought Naomi Harris was a big disappointment - a bit wooden, and zero chemistry between her and DC. Kelly Reilly doing the shaving scene could have been one of cinema's all time erotic moments.

    So I would say that most of us on opening night in the US had a very pleasant shock. A very human Bond, a very believable plot, a story arc that made people care about the fabulously acted characters, with gorgeous cinematography, that made 3D quite unnecessary.

    I think that once the US audiences have thought about their Friday night experiences over the weekend, they will be imploring their friends to go and see it.

    Only problem is- it was so good, where does Bond go from here?
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    HASEROT wrote:
    @thelivingroyale

    sorry, but towards the end of Brozzer's run, i felt him being too much like a Roger clone, only worse - couldn't look passed it..

    Your opinion and everything but I don't see how he was a Moore clone. Yes he had gadgets and one liners but I can't see Moore doing a scene like killing Elektra or a Moore film being as personal as GE or DAD. I think he was more like Connery than anyone else.

    Brosnan had TOO many gadgets, TOO many one-liners, that sounded & looked like they were put there just because "fans" expected it.

    Moore's tenure was at times incredibly silly & over the top, but it never felt "just for the sake of it".

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,559
    craigrules wrote:
    Brosnan had a much harder edge than Moore

    Brosnan's Bond may have been a little edgier than Moore's, but not all that much I'd say. Firstly, Brosnan wasn't a particularly tough Bond and secondly, Moore wasn't all that soft. People seem to forget about a number of moments during which the Moore Bond displayed a darker side too. They may have come fairly isolated, but that was the case with Brosnan too, at least IMO. ;-)
  • Posts: 1,407
    Will be seeing it again this afternoon. I'll post thoughts after. But let me tell you, the response here in America (at least in Chicago, where I am) is very positive. People are loving this film (and then hating on the few who didn't like it) :)
  • DarthDimi wrote:
    craigrules wrote:
    Brosnan had a much harder edge than Moore

    Brosnan's Bond may have been a little edgier than Moore's, but not all that much I'd say. Firstly, Brosnan wasn't a particularly tough Bond and secondly, Moore wasn't all that soft. People seem to forget about a number of moments during which the Moore Bond displayed a darker side too. They may have come fairly isolated, but that was the case with Brosnan too, at least IMO. ;-)

    Yes but you didn't get the silly costumes,cartoon sound FX etc with Brozzer.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    bondsum wrote:
    I'm surprised by the lack of feedback from our American fan base. Yes, I know @haserot, @Creasy47 and @kerim are Americans but for such a large country I'd have thought there would be considerably more reactions than what we're currently getting.

    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 is also American. But yeah I thought we'd be getting more feedback than this.

    Thanks for reminding me... :((
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,559
    craigrules wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    craigrules wrote:
    Brosnan had a much harder edge than Moore

    Brosnan's Bond may have been a little edgier than Moore's, but not all that much I'd say. Firstly, Brosnan wasn't a particularly tough Bond and secondly, Moore wasn't all that soft. People seem to forget about a number of moments during which the Moore Bond displayed a darker side too. They may have come fairly isolated, but that was the case with Brosnan too, at least IMO. ;-)

    Yes but you didn't get the silly costumes,cartoon sound FX etc with Brozzer.

    That is correct, however one might ask if Moore in that sense wasn't simply a victim of the day and age in which his Bonds were filmed, rather than of his own abilities as an actor. ;-)
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 624
    I'm American, and here's my review even though I've never been very good at writing reviews.

    I saw it twice this opening weekend and I plan on seeing it at least 2 more times before it leaves the cinema.

    I don't know what to say other than I loved it. I have no idea where it ranks on my list yet, but I do know Daniel Craig is now solidly in 2nd place behind Connery. I liked it better than QoS, and I'm pretty sure I liked it better than CR. Is it better than Connery's worst?

    PTS- I loved it, especially the end. When Bond gets killed.

    Titles- Quite possibly my favorite moment of the entire damn film! I loved the song the second I heard it a month ago, and hearing it in surround sound just made it better. The song went so well with the visuals. It was such a beautiful sequence that almost brought a tear to my eye.
    (I lied. I did shed a tear.)

    London, Pt 1.- I liked the whole sequence where Bond returns to M's flat. It was funny. The explosion made me jump out of my seat even though I knew it was coming. Q was a nice chap, but I still can't get Desmond Llewelyn out of my head. Sorry, Ben.

    Shanghai- The whole sequence was beautifully shot, and I loved Adele's theme as performed by Thomas Neumann playing at Bond's arrival at Macau.

    Silva's Island- I loved the Dueling scene, but Silva groping Bond made me cringe beyond belief. I wish they would have left that on the cutting room floor.

    London, Pt. 2.- This is where I starting LOVING the film. M's monologue was bone chilling. God, I sure will miss her. The whole courtroom scene was one of my favorites of the film. The DB5's entrance was the best DB5 scene in the entire series by far.

    Scotland- It was a great climax, Home Alone style. I never thought I'd see M fire a gun. I loved the references to Bond's childhood, straight from Ian Fleming's typewriter to the silver screen.

    M and Penny are back- This is no doubt, the most Connery-esque scene of Craig's era.

    Gunbarrel- I was disappointed the first time that the music was out of sync. (Hello, David Arnold.) The second viewing made me realize that it wasn't too bad. The design was fine, although I was almost willing to bet that it was gonna be Brosnan style. It wasn't as fast as QoS, so it was good in that aspect. The blood though, was blink and you miss it. They're lucky I liked it as much as I did. Back at the beginning for 24, or else.

    1.) Goldfinger
    2.) Diamonds are Forever
    3.) You Only Live Twice
    4.) From Russia with Love
    5.) Dr. No
    6.) Thunderball
    7.) Casino Royale
    8.) Goldeneye
    ...and so on.

    Skyfall will go somewhere from 2nd to 7th. I'll make up my mind where later when I see it again.

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,494
    I heard the "where are all our cousins" from Dimi and others so never fear, Sir Henry has returned and man did I ever miss everyone! I have a lot to read and catch up on. Below are my thoughts after catching the Saturday matinee yesterday and chewing on what I saw. I'll be seeing it again next weekend for sure so my opinion may and likely will further evolve, and this is the best I can recall for the moment.

    - The PTS was on the long side but the best one since LTK and the Dalton era. Beats every one of Brosnan's short of TWINE's with "considerable ease", and just felt more fulfilling than TWINE in general. It added depth to why Eve Moneypenny would opt for desk duty later on as well as establishing Patrice as a legit tough guy. Some have ventured how he was rescued but a hand is clearly shown grabbing his just as the titles kick in- my bet is that it was Sotiropoulou's character hence why he was with her for some months before hearing MI6 was under attack and deciding he was needed. Pay attention and you won't miss the little things.

    - The theme song and titles worked really well together, this may be Kleinman's best work to date and what was shown really fit the theme of the movie.

    Craig's performance was top shelf, from start to finish. But one of two parts due to the script. I was expecting him to get all his old skills back before he did considering it was only a few months as opposed to years, it made his Bond still feel a bit too "rookie" and made the film feel it was still a bit of an extension of CR/QOS minus QUANTUM and Vesper references. But he progressively got it all back after he removed the bullet fragments and had it all when it counted. My thoughts now are that I feel his Bond is going to mirror the style of classic Connery more than anyone else. Which is the best possible scenario as far as I am concerned. I didn't think I saw enough of it consistently to be convinced 100% of this, but there is no question in my mind that he's tied with Dalton for #2 and now equally great in my book. If the next one is even more classic type of Bond start to finish, I can see him taking #2 entirely and maybe even challenging Connery for the top spot more than Dalton. His final scene with M was incredible, his tears and face were stoic without revealing the level of emotion or shock we'd seen in CR and OHMSS. And the bulldog she left him in her will and his reaction to it was priceless.

    Bardem was simply amazing, an incredibly classic yet uniquely modern villain. And just the right amount of screen time. The physical deformity with his teeth (I still wondered how old that molar cyanide must have been and had trouble believing it didn't kill him) was classic, the homoerotic element was unique and well conceived with Craig displaying just the right amount of uncomfortability. His menace was in making you believe that if he could outwit Q, M and Bond were far from safe. He didn't need a big punch up to establish that, for that we had Ola Rapace who was physically plenty tough enough in the fight sequences and a worthy adversary. As far as villains go, which includes his silent thugs and Severine, it was all as good as I'd hoped.

    The women were not at a premium here due to the focus on M and our new Moneypenny as the lead females. I agree with thoughts that Marlohe should have had more screen time and thought she was needlessly killed off. Why did Silva do it is a question. Was it because she brought Bond to his HQ, or because she was his woman? I got the latter impression. Not having a girl in the end was disappointing and lent to my earlier thought that we weren't seeing the fully finished product, as did the scenes with our new M. But for what screen time she did have, Marlohe was all that and a bag of chips. She had a background, she's gorgeous, dresses well. Letting her smoke the way she does made her all the hotter to me, just a perfect and classic Bond girl in general short of her not being in his arms in the end as the distressed damsel he rescues. Was also disappointed that we didn't see more of Tonia Sotiropoulou past a brief shot of her in bed with Bond. The good part- between her and Severine we know he shagged more than one girl so that was an improvement, as a guy I want to see this way more often than not.

    Those who think Craig can't deliver the humor and has a stone face need not reply and need to reconsider that. This movie only solifidied for me that this prior criticism is both unwarranted and less credible than it was before. The postcard bit to M, the threat of using the ejector seat on her, the "good luck with that" when Silva's Chinese henchman tried to use the signature gun, the "I always hated this place" in reference to Skyfall while it was being blown to smithereens, "last rat standing", etc, everything he did with the new regulars was classic repartee, it was all funny and got laughs in the theater and struck a near perfect balance.

    All the action scenes were fine, no complaints with anything done to this point. My brother noted that Craig didn't seem quite as physical as he had been and I agree, because now he is using his wits and experience in a more classic manner.

    The locations and cinematography were fantastic, particularly in Shanghai. Top, top marks, it really felt like a classic Bond movie all the way around and if I were English I'd have been very proud to see my homeland so properly featured.

    Gadgets were kept to a minimum. The mini location transmitter was a strong part of the narrative. The signature gun and Aston Martin never added much and just seemed to be tribute type of stuff. Horrified to say the least that the old AM got blown up. More of this in my thoughts about Q.

    That leads me to the supporting cast, which was such a strong part of the overall effort and due to the changing of the guard, needed the appropriate focus it got.

    Judi Dench- we all knew she was done and for me it was obvious she would either die or be forced to retire. It was her finest performance to date in the role, by far. And well, well, well, it was just like I said, she wasn't Bond or Silva's mother as some had this irrational fear of her being. I saw a real boss as opposed to the mother figure of the last 2 films, wanting her best man on the job even if she had to lie about it. Much more reminiscent of her Brosnan era work. But I could see why Silva wanted her dead, she was quite ruthless but made one bad decision too many over the years and this time it cost her more than just her career and pension. I really laughed when she told Bond about his flat being sold, his belongings in storage, and that she wasn't putting him up. The only reference to "mommy issues" was when he rightly told her that she needed to trust he would have won the fight with Patrice and retrieved the hard drive, therefore he wasn't taking the blame for this one.

    Ralph Fiennes- Giving him a background as a man who knows how tough it is in the field gives him real creedence for the future when he gives orders, as opposed to a stuffy father figure who we don't know understands more than how to rise in the military. Great to see the old office back and him giving Bond a new assignment in the end, although it was never a focus of disappointment to me. Having it back when it was shown was another reason that made me think how I do, which was that the film was both an extension of the past yet a gradual return to the classic. I think he's going to be a fine M, and he sure doesn't come cheap so kudos to EON for spending the money.

    Ben Whishaw- A mixed feeling for me as the new Q. The "exploding pens are a thing of the past" bit was rather funny, he had a good and classic sense of dry English wit and interacted well with Bond. This Q is the ultimate computer geek. I do still hope to see more gadgets in the future, but the times have changed and computers make formidable weapons in the proper hands. Having Silva outwit him in the area where's he's supposed to be expert helped the villain but didn't inspire confidence, so I got the sense that the new quartermaster will be growing into the position. I would have liked to see him angry or frustrated or even shocked more than he was, after all he says he invented this technology. I always knew that replacing Desmond would be the toughest job of all, so I expected I'd be the most critical of this particular addition. But I think he has the right stuff as a whole to entertain us, and am willing to be patient.

    Naomie Harris- our new Moneypenny. While I was gone I happened to read that she, Fiennes, and Whishaw were scheduled to resign and return, so it was fairly obvious to me at that point that she would likely be who she turned out to be. And I must say what they did and how they did it met my expectations when it was revealed. What a relief too! No more smutty dialogue or virtual masturbation, the flirting was well done and CLASSY and never crossed the line. I think she and Craig worked very well together in establishing their on screen chemistry and professional relationship and how she came to be in her position. She wasn't overly competent as a field agent and her decision made sense. Loved the "don't touch your ear" and dropping his microphone in her drink, a great nod to CR but updated. As I said, what an improvement and as far as I can tell, he did not sleep with her which I would have found inappropriate.

    Albert Finney and Helen McCrory- We've probably seen the end of the "Potterites", but both were perfect in their roles as far as I was concerned and my son, who's an even bigger Potter fan than a Bond fan, enjoyed seeing them.

    The gunbarrel was nothing special- I feel it needs to be back in the beginning but I also see why it was again at the end due to the anniversary and the mixed tone. I don't know if it would have worked for me in the beginning with Craig being in the shadows at the end of a unfocused hallway, and then having them gradually focus like they did on his face. A minor sticking point.


    Thomas Newman- after hearing the music with the film, a job well done. I still think Barry is the man and that Arnold's TND soundtrack was superior. The romance bits can't remotely compare to the sheer emotion of what we heard in CR, which were at Barry's level and something the master acknowledged to a mutual friend, but I could let that go considering the way the women were used. Technically it was all fine and it didn't hurt the film in any way, but I wouldn't say at this time that it was demonstrably better than Arnold in the way of a Bondian feel.


    Overall, on one showing alone I am rather unsure where among the 23 films I would place it. That will take time and a few more viewings for me to define a position in my rankings, but based off of one showing, I would definitely say that Skyfall is great and definitely a top 10, perhaps even a top 5 type of film, that felt more like a Bond film than any since the early Brosnan era and was well worth the wait. My brother felt CR was a bit better, my son says SF is now his favorite. A great addition to the series and today I am very proud to be a fan and that EON worked hard to give us a great film to make up for the delay and for the prior entry. My complaints are very minor as opposed to the prior entry, which never got itself together until the latter half of the film. And I don't agree at all with the usual anti-Craig blowhards, whose reactions were both predictable and nonsensical as always. Go watch your tick the box, half assed, boringly predictable Brozzer films and have a good cry, time has passed you dinosaurs by. This one felt nearly complete all the way around, action augmented storyline, which in turn built depth of character and invested me in the film. I was so engrossed that it didn't seem as long as it's runtime, which for me was great because I'm one of those people who correctly notices too rushed or too long if a movie isn't done close to perfection, and I felt I got my monies worth. Will be recommending it highly to family, friends, and co-workers waiting to hear what I thought.

    Comments good and bad on what I wrote are welcomed.

  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    @SirHenryLeeChaChing you have no idea how much you were missed :D
    Loved your review.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 1,497
    This JBFan626 reporting from the states...

    DON'T READ THIS IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED
    Skyfall in Review

    I've been intentionally staying away from the community to avoid spoliers...finally got see Skyfall on Friday the 9th at the Arclight Dome in Hollywood. Here are my thoughts...

    All around I am very satisfied with this film. It took me about 20 or so minutes into the film to really get invested in the story, but quickly I was impressed. The movie had a very smooth story arc; something I think was missing from both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. Skyfall did what I think has been missing from Bond films as of late: building up a sense of mystery. For the first third of the film, we are on Bond's trail to discover who and what is behind the initial attack. Silva is not revealed or even identified until later on in the film. Dr. No did this exceptionally well and Skyfall does the same.

    But going back to the origins story, we see a Bond, tested throughout, losing his touch for the trigger, letting himself go a bit, hiding out, being offered the chance for retirement, questioning his role in the modern world. Bond is even psychoanalyzed in this. We see a Bond confront his past and be able to move on from it. We see a Bond experience loss: yes we've seen this before, but we've seen this Bond come out even more a stronger man, and more dedicated to Queen and Country, as evidenced in the second to last scene with Bond gazing across London, side to side with the Union Jack. Bond is truly humanized for the first time in a convincing way. All the dialogue in Casino Royale about the inner self of Bond, about him "being stripped of his armour" seemed so trite and soap opera to me. Goldeneye slightly touched on this theme in the beach scene, but the idea was not really played out at all in that film. Skyfall presents Bond as a man going through a range of experiences, and reacting as a man. He has pride, he has emotion, and some sentimentality, as we see in his facial expression of the
    explosion of the Aston Martin
    . With Skyfall, no Bond film ever dared talking about Bond's past to this degree, such as him
    being an orphan
    , which is a common trait among spies. Yet it is done without belittling or taking away from the archetype of Bond. For this I applaud the writers and director for tackling this theme.

    Speaking of themes, I really enjoyed how the film projected the theme of men in this business living (or lurking), in the shadows. This theme was presented not only well from a narrative perspective, but also visually - showing the true power that the film medium offers. The very opening shot of the film, shows Bond emerging from the shadows. The incredible fight scene atop the Shanghai hotel, shows only the silhoettes of two men fighting. Silva walks away from the burning estate only in shadow. The more I thought about this film, the more thematic approaches kept popping up in my head, such as the relevancy of Bond in the modern age, the idea of the sky falling, or the metaphorical old world coming to an end, the welcoming of the 'brave new world' with a breath-taking scene of the Shanghai night skyline, or the world literally ending for some characters, old war ships sailing off into the sun, but yet the embracing of the 'old', the 'classic', with the great scene of the Eve and Bond, and Bond returning to the classic office setting with a secretary and PAPER files - which in itself can be interpreted as 'new', as the now seemingly old computer and network technologies fail to work any longer. Silva, the villain, represented all of this scary technological world, while Bond represented the classic elements: somebody still needs to pull the trigger. I LOVED all of this; how Mendes, Deakins and Logan, were not afraid to dive deep into themes. Hat's off.

    Skyfall delivered on many levels: the action sequences worked well in the context of the story and were executed nicely. I still have the complaint, that Modern Bond films rely too much on having too many action scenes, and Skyfall does have maybe one action too many. There is an insane amount of gun fire in this film, such that it made my ears ring. But my favorite action scenes have to be the Shanghai fight and the Macau casino fight - two scenes that just so happen to rely more on hand to hand combat: EON take note.

    Roger Deakins, without question deserves to at least be nominated for an Oscar cinematograhy. Nearly every scene was a pleasure to look at, and as I said above, so many scenes told a story or presented a theme.

    Thomas Newman's score didn't really make an impression on me. I could definitely feel an improvement over David Arnold though. You can tell Newman is a seasoned vet, and knows how to pace a scene much better with music than Arnold. That being said though, the majority of the tracks just sounded like your typical modern action movie faire - nothing special. Definitely not a deal breaker, but I would call his score serviceable. Daniel Kleinman was also a welcome return; I would say his best work to date on a Bond film. I really felt like I was in for an epic Bond film.

    The only other thoughts, I would say is that, there were a lot of "Daniel Craig with his shirt off" scenes, and barely any, no scratch that, NO scenes of scantily clad women. Now ladies, before you call me mysoginist here, hear me out. Bond films always had a sex appeal for men, and the women certainly got it in SF, but the there was very little to found for the men. Again, this wasn't a deal breaker for me, more of a curious observation...Severine still looked stunning. My wife said of her, "She looks to be 50% Asian, 50% French, and 100% hot." So true.

    Final thought, I loved, loved, loved the final scene. Sure, it's the typical, 'set up the next sequel' scene, but it damn near brought tears to my eyes to see that leather panelled door, and the 'classic' office, and Ralph Fiennes as M!!! Finally Bond is back. The Gunbarrel was whatever...who cares, just glad it's in there. I'm not gonna sweat the little details.

    9/10 <b>The best Bond film since The Living Daylights</b> hands down...may be even better.

    I might even agree with Sir Roger Moore in saying it is "the best of all the Bonds", from a certain perspective. While, there is no touching OHMSS, Skyfall transcended what I thought a Bond film could be. Bond has to go places it has never gone before, while retaining the classic essentials that make a Bond film what it is. Skyfall did this with flying colors.

    <i>Initial reaction--still digesting the film, so I may have a slightly different opinion on second opinion, but overall, very, very enjoyable</i>
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    Really good read @SirHenryLeeChaChing. It only helps all ages of fans seem to be liking this film. I agree with nearly all your points. It's all there for the taking regarding the future, at least for the next one all the characters will be in place which should make for a smoother film.
  • Posts: 1,492
    But I could see why Silva wanted her dead, she was quite ruthless but made one bad decision too many over the years and this time it cost her more than just her career and pension.

    Excellent point. This was an M who kept on making wrong decisions all the way back to TWINE. It was a strong engine for the story having one of her 'bad calls' survive and go back after her.

    This film had one of the best villain motivations in the series.

  • DarthDimi wrote:
    That is correct, however one might ask if Moore in that sense wasn't simply a victim of the day and age in which his Bonds were filmed, rather than of his own abilities as an actor. ;-)

    I'd argue the reverse. Moore has always been VERY vocal about disliking any moment where his films become even slightly dark (kicking the car in FYEO, twisting Andrea's arm in MWTGG, Zorin gunning down henchmen in AVTAK). The '70s were a boom decade for terrific action movies like THE FRENCH CONNECTION and DIRTY HARRY. The Bond films could have easily gone a darker, more Dalton-esque direction. They made a conscious decision to go big and silly, and Roger was part of that decision.

    Brosnan, on the other hand, seems to have pushed to make his films more grounded, without success (wanting to shoot CR, explore Bond's advancing age, etc.). It seems like Moore, Dalton, and Craig all had a lot of input on the tone of their films and interpretation of Bond, whereas Brosnan basically went with the flow (either because he wasn't given a choice, or he just didn't push hard enough). Whatever your feelings on his films, he's not the guy to blame.

    It's interesting how hard people come down on Brosnan now, when there was hardly any dissent back when he was the incumbent (most people seemed to think he was the second coming of Connery). I still like him a lot, although I am glad the excesses of his era are behind us. I think DAD is his only film that's sillier than the Moore era.
  • Posts: 11,425
    DarthDimi wrote:
    That is correct, however one might ask if Moore in that sense wasn't simply a victim of the day and age in which his Bonds were filmed, rather than of his own abilities as an actor. ;-)

    I'd argue the reverse. Moore has always been VERY vocal about disliking any moment where his films become even slightly dark (kicking the car in FYEO, twisting Andrea's arm in MWTGG, Zorin gunning down henchmen in AVTAK). The '70s were a boom decade for terrific action movies like THE FRENCH CONNECTION and DIRTY HARRY. The Bond films could have easily gone a darker, more Dalton-esque direction. They made a conscious decision to go big and silly, and Roger was part of that decision.

    Brosnan, on the other hand, seems to have pushed to make his films more grounded, without success (wanting to shoot CR, explore Bond's advancing age, etc.). It seems like Moore, Dalton, and Craig all had a lot of input on the tone of their films and interpretation of Bond, whereas Brosnan basically went with the flow (either because he wasn't given a choice, or he just didn't push hard enough). Whatever your feelings on his films, he's not the guy to blame.

    It's interesting how hard people come down on Brosnan now, when there was hardly any dissent back when he was the incumbent (most people seemed to think he was the second coming of Connery). I still like him a lot, although I am glad the excesses of his era are behind us. I think DAD is his only film that's sillier than the Moore era.

    I was disappointed by poor old Brozza from his first appearance in GE in 1995. Despite a slight improvement with TND, he never won me over. I remember coming out of GE and my mates thought it was amazing and I was totally gutted because I thought it was such a step backwards after the Dalton era - it felt like we'd been watching different films.
Sign In or Register to comment.