SKYFALL: FANS' REACTIONS - GUARANTEED SPOILERS

1636466686999

Comments

  • OligarchOligarch Banned
    Posts: 110
    I suggest a movie called, "I'll sleep when I'm dead" starring Clive Owen. He is very Bondian in it at times. Its a very underrated movie and is a bit dark. I guarantee you'll like it
  • hoppimikehoppimike Kent, UK
    Posts: 290
    hm, awesome I'll keep that on my radar and watch soon!

    I finally checked out Bourne Identity recently and that was alright but not a patch on CR or QoS IMO. Die Hard is alright but lacks the class of Bond!

    Ah well, I know this is a bit off-topic! But those of us who didn't like Skyfall need to keep our options open haha :)
  • Posts: 11,425
    JBFan626 wrote:
    I suppose I am in the minority here, but I did NOT particularly care for CR and QOS, more so CR even surprisingly. SF was a refreshing balance of the darker, grittier qualities of Craig, but with some humorous moments sprinkled that were lacking in the previous two films. I'm baffled by those who say it hearkens back to a Roger Moore film. I didn't see any raised eyebrows, double taking animalia, sexual innuendos, one liners at every turn. Rog nailed all the qualities he brought to Bond, and nobody has done it better the way he did it. DC has his own take on the character, and I would say it's his most comfortable portrayal of the role yet, kind of reminds me of Brosnan in TWINE. DC still seems akward in the love scenes and still falls a bit flat on the delivery of humorous lines, but he's getting better at the balance. But a Rog' film? No way! DC's was short of at least a half dozen women to bed to compare to Rog.

    I also thought the references to past films were subtle and tasteful. The Fields reference to Jill Masterson in QOS was fare worse IMO.

    I agree - SF reminded me a lot of TWINE. But for me that's a bad thing! Overlong, boring and pretentious without any real depth OR entertainment value.
  • Posts: 11,425
    hoppimike wrote:
    Oligarch wrote:
    Exactly , couldn't have said it better myself. Finally somebody on here who I actually agree with.

    HopiMike is right, skyfall was full of cheap gimmicks and was a typical cliched action movie with no substance at all.

    I don't want to flame on anybody who enjoyed the movie, by all means you have every god given right to enjoy it. But it amazes me how nobody on here hardly mentions the drastic change of Daniel Craig's portrayal of Bond from QoS to SF. What happened to the serious, hardened Bond from CR and QoS. The half-monk half-hitman that strangled a man in a bathroom stall with blood everywhere on his hands?

    Sorry to quote an older post, just missed a couple of things!

    Firstly - I'm glad to find somebody on here who agrees with me too! And am glad to finally provide you with a similar opinion as I can see you are somewhat outnumbered!

    Weird thing is I think many people did dislike Skyfall (they're reasonably common on IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes and so on as well as this thread) but maybe they just don't want to stick around on the forums as much.

    The only way I can make sense of Skyfall is a sloppy attempt to celebrate the 50 year anniversary that will give way to more standard films in future. Hopefully :)

    I think some interviews suggest that they had something like this in mind even after QoS, but the recession probably just led to fewer foreign locations.

    I too miss the old DC Bond from CR and QoS, but he said in 2008 that QoS would probably be the last film with that style.

    Ultimately, a lot of this is simply personal preference. I didn't like the morbid feeling of the opening credits/song for example, but I realize that is subjective and many people probably really liked it.

    My personal opinion of SF is very negative (I'll still give it a rewatch anyway) but if (most of) these long series teach us anything, it's that they can change dramatically in only about 5 years. So if we don't like one version of it, give it 5 years and it'll aaaall be different!

    So perhaps we should try not to fret! Casino Royale and QoS will always exist, after all ^^

    Interesting point about IMDB and Rotten Toms. I too noticed that there were a lot of nagative fan reviews on those sites. I was one of the first on here to openly say I didn't like SF and got a right kicking from a few hardcore craigites (fortunately things have normalised since then). I do think the response to SF is more mixed than some people are prepared to admit. There's no arguing with the box office but I've never seen that as the best barometer of whether a film is any good or not. Avatar grossed an insane amount but is garbage. A proper balanced assessment of SF won't be possible for a few years when the dust has all settled.
  • hoppimikehoppimike Kent, UK
    Posts: 290
    Yeah very true.

    I also found the name of Skyfall a bit misleading... it made me think of something awesome like a drop from a plane or something or... something of great magnitude along the lines of the GoldenEye satellite! But all we actually got was a drop from a bridge and an old, large house in Scotland. Just seems a bit anticlimactic...
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited February 2013 Posts: 28,694
    hoppimike wrote:
    Yeah very true.

    I also found the name of Skyfall a bit misleading... it made me think of something awesome like a drop from a plane or something or... something of great magnitude along the lines of the GoldenEye satellite! But all we actually got was a drop from a bridge and an old, large house in Scotland. Just seems a bit anticlimactic...

    The film explored Bond's past, it's the perfect title! You must find Bond's past anti-climatic? It's never been done before and I sure want more.
  • Was I the only one who found that James Bond's ancestral home had never before been mentioned in any of the previous 22 releases until this year ?
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 6,601
    tomatometer
    All Critics,Top Critics
    92
    Average Rating: 8.2/10
    Reviews Counted: 285
    Fresh: 262 | Rotten: 23


    audience
    88

    liked it
    Average Rating: 4.2/5
    User Ratings: 123,594

    IMDB=8.0

    Yeah, a lot of hidden haters there. The numbers can tell :))
    But - forgot - the bad ones are ALL for real, whereas the good ones are from people, who didn't even see the film LOL
  • Posts: 3,197
    hoppimike wrote:
    hm, awesome I'll keep that on my radar and watch soon!

    I finally checked out Bourne Identity recently and that was alright but not a patch on CR or QoS IMO. Die Hard is alright but lacks the class of Bond!

    Ah well, I know this is a bit off-topic! But those of us who didn't like Skyfall need to keep our options open haha :)

    I suggest you follow another franchise now, because Bond 24 will probably deliver more of the same that we had in the excellent Skyfall.

    Close your door on the way out.....

    :-h
  • Posts: 3,197
    hoppimike wrote:
    I was very, very disappointed by Skyfall.
    I also watched Goldfinger through for the first time.
    These 2 comments say it all.
    :-O
  • Posts: 3,197
    DarthDimi wrote:
    hoppimike wrote:
    Skyfall was quite clearly designed to appeal to casual movie-goers who are easily wowed by cheap tricks and jokes. I barely even consider it a real movie.

    Actually, this takes away your credibility. After all, since the post you agree with doesn't talk about acting, cinematography, music, ... but only about jokes and action, I'd say cheap tricks and jokes is the about the most sophisticated level to which the both of you judge a film.

    Sorry pal. I like SF but that doesn't give you the right to look down on me. Oh, and nor does it give you the right to look down on 98 % of our forum members.
    Well said Dimi. Finally some sanity on here.

  • hoppimikehoppimike Kent, UK
    edited February 2013 Posts: 290
    hoppimike wrote:
    Yeah very true.

    I also found the name of Skyfall a bit misleading... it made me think of something awesome like a drop from a plane or something or... something of great magnitude along the lines of the GoldenEye satellite! But all we actually got was a drop from a bridge and an old, large house in Scotland. Just seems a bit anticlimactic...

    The film explored Bond's past, it's the perfect title! You must find Bond's past anti-climatic? It's never been done before and I sure want more.

    I just thought it was a bit too simple. I found all of the concepts and ideas comically simplistic and again, it felt like a parody. The Vesper background story seemed infinitely more complex and intelligent than what was explored in Skyfall (I agree with @Oligarch again there). After the intelligence of CR and QoS, I was half expecting Austin Powers to cameo at the end of Skyfall (which would have improved it no end lol).

    I dunno. I guess I was very used to the new (CR/QoS) style.

    Obviously it's all subjective and it's down to what the individual wants and looks for in a movie.

    I'm keen to rewatch it now after all of these opinions have been shared, but last time I saw it I expected it to be totally great and was very disappointed. This time I'll expect it to suck so I wonder what will happen lol
  • Posts: 3,197
    hoppimike wrote:
    After the intelligence of CR and QoS, I was half expecting Austin Powers to cameo at the end of Skyfall (which would have improved it no end lol).

    I dunno. I guess I was very used to the new (CR/QoS) style.
    I find your comments truly baffling. To me, CR and SF are cut from the same cloth, QoS is the oddity in the Craig films, but fits in more or less with the framework established in CR, only chops it up a bit with silly direction and bad editing. Mendes brings it back on track again.

    The script dialogue in both CR and QoS were the weakest points, and this is where SF was actually far superior to the other films. I'd go as far as saying SF has the strongest dialogue script in the entire franchise.

    As for Austin Powers parody, have you ever seen the Moore and Brosnan films? There is parody for you. SF is far from parody. I'd say it is the most intelligent Bond film in the franchise, with CR running a close second.

    Maybe you watched a different film to the rest of us?
  • There's nothing baffling about hopimike's comment, Jetsetwilly (are you the same JSW on ajb?) It's been made by plenty others, that SF is a slightly different genre to Craig's first two, though you can say the same of GF and TSWLM, imo those two were an improvement of sorts, and SF isn't. IMO.

    There are all manner of plotholes in SF, as someone said you can drive a truck thru them sideways. What is baffling is how the pro lobby jump down your throat if you're a non-believer. I mean, I love GF but is someone doesn't I can see where they're coming from.
  • Posts: 1,497
    There's nothing baffling about hopimike's comment, Jetsetwilly (are you the same JSW on ajb?) It's been made by plenty others, that SF is a slightly different genre to Craig's first two, though you can say the same of GF and TSWLM, imo those two were an improvement of sorts, and SF isn't. IMO.

    There are all manner of plotholes in SF, as someone said you can drive a truck thru them sideways. What is baffling is how the pro lobby jump down your throat if you're a non-believer. I mean, I love GF but is someone doesn't I can see where they're coming from.

    I agree with this. CR and QOS were much more closer in tone than SF. CR and QOS had much grittier, violent action scenes, the humour was toned down a lot more, featured a generally more serious and hard edged Craig, didn't feature any gadgets (save for maybe the heart fibulator if you want to call that a gadget), and featured a continuation of principle characters: Felix, Mathis, and Mr. White. I'm not saying SF is far stretch from CR/QOS either though...quite the opposite: nothing like a Moore film as I mentioned above. But SF is the first of the Craig films to pull a little back to center between the super-serious and the light-heartedness. So in that sense SF is unique from the first two
  • Ta. Also, I can see Brozzer in SF, but I can't see him in CR or QoS. SF is generic Bond.

    That said, the whole M being sad at Bond's death after all their time together, all the 'you're getting old' stuff, would have made more sense with Brozzer in, say a 5th film.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 3,197
    There's nothing baffling about hopimike's comment, Jetsetwilly (are you the same JSW on ajb?) It's been made by plenty others, that SF is a slightly different genre to Craig's first two, though you can say the same of GF and TSWLM, imo those two were an improvement of sorts, and SF isn't. IMO.

    There are all manner of plotholes in SF, as someone said you can drive a truck thru them sideways. What is baffling is how the pro lobby jump down your throat if you're a non-believer. I mean, I love GF but is someone doesn't I can see where they're coming from.

    Sorry but I just don't see it. CR and SF to me are very similar, and QoS is the odd one out. Fair enough if you don't like SF, I have no issues with that, but to state it is very different to CR is bizarre.

    If a person didn't like SF as they don't like the new Craig direction, that I understand and respect. But to state SF is not like the other Craig films is strange to say the least.

    The humour levels? The gadgets? Did I miss something here? There was the same amount of humour in SF as there was in the last 2 Craig films - ie. kept to a bare minimum. I found parts of SF to be just as dark (if not darker) than both CR and QoS.

    As for gadgets? Are we referring to the signature gun, or the old guns found on the 1964 Aston Martin, because to me these do not count as `gadgets' when compared to the rest of the Bond films. Again, gadgets have been kept to a bare minimum.

    And no, I'm not the same JSW on AJB, but I'm the same Sweeney on DCINB...... ;)
  • Posts: 3,197
    JBFan626 wrote:
    There's nothing baffling about hopimike's comment, Jetsetwilly (are you the same JSW on ajb?) It's been made by plenty others, that SF is a slightly different genre to Craig's first two, though you can say the same of GF and TSWLM, imo those two were an improvement of sorts, and SF isn't. IMO.

    There are all manner of plotholes in SF, as someone said you can drive a truck thru them sideways. What is baffling is how the pro lobby jump down your throat if you're a non-believer. I mean, I love GF but is someone doesn't I can see where they're coming from.

    I agree with this. CR and QOS were much more closer in tone than SF. CR and QOS had much grittier, violent action scenes, the humour was toned down a lot more, featured a generally more serious and hard edged Craig, didn't feature any gadgets (save for maybe the heart fibulator if you want to call that a gadget), and featured a continuation of principle characters: Felix, Mathis, and Mr. White. I'm not saying SF is far stretch from CR/QOS either though...quite the opposite: nothing like a Moore film as I mentioned above. But SF is the first of the Craig films to pull a little back to center between the super-serious and the light-heartedness. So in that sense SF is unique from the first two

    I see the Craig Bond in QoS very different to the Bond in CR and SF. This Bond jumped around from building to building like Super Mario Bros, and freefalled and landed with just a minor scratch, and showed no signs of physical pain.

    Craig's Bond in SF was human again. He was out of breath at times, showed the strains, showed fear like he did in CR. We sadly never saw this in QoS, despite the splatters of blood on his shirt.
  • Well, everything is on a different scale. In the opener of CR, Bond goes after the runner with a digger; a bit daft imo as the runner would be 50m away while Bond gets into the seat, but still... In this film, Bond drives a digger along a train, smashing up Beetle cars. Okay, it's symbolic, he is wiping out the memory of the car driven by the one Bond girl he didn't get a shag out of, I get that, but even so....

    The CGI dragons, okay, not as silly as the CGI plane in QoS now I think about it.

    I like Craig more in this generally, but you might almost say you see Bond looking out of shape in YOLT so it's the same... I think it's the sheer scale of the movie that seems more on a par with OP than Craig's first two, and also frankly some of the silly plot holes. Jokes about he's in a hurry in the rush hour, I just dropped in the water (near the end, can't remember), the Aston ejector seat gag, and also some not bad gags too (Day? Wasted) make for certainly more humour, though that ain't difficult.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 12,792
    The humour levels? The gadgets? Did I miss something here? There was the same amount of humour in SF as there was in the last 2 Craig films - ie. kept to a bare minimum.

    I thought SF had more humour than the last two Craig films put together. Lots more one liners (especially in the casino bit), and there was the old couple on the platform, the bit with M in the DB5, Kincade calling Bond a jumped up little sh*t, etc.
  • Posts: 3,197
    The humour levels? The gadgets? Did I miss something here? There was the same amount of humour in SF as there was in the last 2 Craig films - ie. kept to a bare minimum.

    I thought SF had more humour than the last two Craig films put together. Lots more one liners (especially in the casino bit), and there was the old couple on the platform, the bit with M in the DB5, Kincade calling Bond a jumped up little sh*t, etc.
    I'm dead against humour in Bond films, but I have to say my Austin Powers parody detector didn't go off once with any of these light relief moments in SF. I thought the level was just right.

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Shardlake wrote:
    I know everyone who is a fan of SF or might think SF is one of best entries is a foolish sheep following rest of the flock and OP is some long lost gem am I right?

    There is nothing like a new acclaimed film to get disagreeable fans spouting about cheesy sub standard entries being much better. Only a Bond fan would argue OP is now better yes a cliche ridden effort with an over hill Bond, the film is utter junk save the score.

    Both are in my top 10, but I think SF might take it because of the stupid bits during the India section of OP.

    OP has much more going for it than just the score. The cold war stuff is really good and the finale is tense, there's some great action, great lines, a menacing henchman, a brilliant Bond girl, and Moore might've been pushing it a bit age wise but he still had some great lines, you'd have to be a bit of a miserable bugger not to enjoy Rog in this film.
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I'm a fan of both films but SF is the better film - that's just a fact! More grown up, less cheesey, better cinematography, better acting all round and (although I love Moore) a better Bond.

    But OP has a better score, a better Q, a better plot, arguably a better girl, a better henchman (Patrice was boring), better gunbarrel, funnier one liners, etc. SF is probably overall the better film but I think it's a closer contest than you make out.


    Sign me up as a miserable bugger then, I personally don't share your views on OP. Relieve it of that Barry score and most of the tension is gone, infact Barry goes long way to making those later RM films so Bondian, try and imagine them without.


    As for Q being better yes DL is the best all round he's the first the bench mark but his character by that time had been turned into a tired cliche, so no I actually prefer Wishaw's Q in SF as it's more refreshing. It all depends how you cling to the cliches I guess.

    As for Bond I'm sorry but I don't watch the films with rose tinted specs on so no I think Craig is a much better Bond personally. I couldn't say they are anywhere close to each other SF is top tier OP is right down the bottom.

    As I said take the Barry score away from allot of these substandard entries some of you cling on to for sentimental sake and we'll see how good they look, I've said it before to me Barry is more important to Bond overall than Connery ever was he made those films exciting like no actor or director could ever do, take that music away and see how well those films would fare with low grade Arnold instead.
  • Just because somebody doesn't share your views doesn't mean they're watching the films with rose tinted specs. Some people might just like different things to you? Ever think of that?

    Nobody will top Desmond as Q and I don't prefer the new computer whizz Q just because he's "fresher"
    The humour levels? The gadgets? Did I miss something here? There was the same amount of humour in SF as there was in the last 2 Craig films - ie. kept to a bare minimum.

    I thought SF had more humour than the last two Craig films put together. Lots more one liners (especially in the casino bit), and there was the old couple on the platform, the bit with M in the DB5, Kincade calling Bond a jumped up little sh*t, etc.
    I'm dead against humour in Bond films, but I have to say my Austin Powers parody detector didn't go off once with any of these light relief moments in SF. I thought the level was just right.

    I loved most of the humour but I thought the entire casino fight was at odds with the rest of the film. Would've been great in a Moore flick but in Skyfall, especially after the Severine bit just before (where she talked about her past as a prossy), it felt a bit jarring.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,138
    I was expecting a vicious fight akin to the fights in CR and QoS but the casino fight in SF did come off a little Moore-esque.
  • jka12002jka12002 Banned
    Posts: 188
    doubleoego wrote:
    I was expecting a vicious fight akin to the fights in CR and QoS but the casino fight in SF did come off a little Moore-esque.

    Bond even pointed to the lizard thing in the same manner Dr.Kananga did when he saw the shark, so i would say that scene was a nod to Roger Moore's era
  • Posts: 1,497
    Shardlake wrote:
    As I said take the Barry score away from allot of these substandard entries some of you cling on to for sentimental sake and we'll see how good they look, I've said it before to me Barry is more important to Bond overall than Connery ever was he made those films exciting like no actor or director could ever do, take that music away and see how well those films would fare with low grade Arnold instead.

    Barry is undoubtably a part of the great legacy of the Bond films. But it's very black and white to suggest that he is carrying the whole of the film (OP in this case) - and this was one of Barry's more subdued scores. Most importantly, there is a good story to be told first and foremost: a doube O agent is murdered leaving a clue of a faberge egg, which leads to a plot of a Soviet General and an exiled Afghan Prince to bomb a US airbase and destabilize East-West Cold War relations. There are great characters, great acting, and the other elements @thelivingroyale mentioned.

    And from another perspective, Barry was absent in TSWLM and FYEO, and those films were great on their own merits: great Bond performance, supporting characters, plot, tension, action, locations, etc. Then there is a the case with AVTAK, where there are over-the-hill pricipal actors, weak Bond girls, bland direction, but still a decent plot with some neat Bond moments (breathing through the air in the tire for example): Barry does a lot for the film, but not enough to save it. Some would argue the same for Golden Gun. Barry is every bit a part of what made the Bond films through '87 exceptional, but he is one of many important personnel: Producer (Cubby), Writer (Richard Maibaum), Set Designers, Directors, cinematographers. So I can take off the "rose-colored lenses" and still see a quality Bond film.
  • hoppimikehoppimike Kent, UK
    Posts: 290
    I just rewatched the first... 2/3rds perhaps of GoldenEye. I agree that the later Brosnan films were quite tongue-in-cheek. I think GoldenEye strikes an absolutely perfect balance between tongue-in-cheek and realistic/gritty.

    Skyfall... I felt like it couldn't make its mind up. On the one hand, I felt that it was actually darker than Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, which I found quite bright and vibrant despite their (sometimes) violent content. On the other, it tried to inject humour into what I felt was a fundamentally dark and quite depressing movie.

    It just made no sense to me. Looking at the harsh black and white of the film's branding, that fits the film very well to me - an uncomfortable mix of attempted quite extreme light and dark with no careful blending or intelligent merging of the two. It was like "dramatic, dark scene -> cheesy joke -> dramatic, dark scene -> cheesy joke".

    Just not my style at all.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited February 2013 Posts: 11,138
    Um, I don't think you get it. The humour in SF was tonaly appropriate for what the film was. The use of humour isn't as black and White as you and others make it out to be. It's far more abstract than how it's been presented in past Bond movies and it works because the humour isn't intruding on the story or worse yet, driving the movie as a whole.
  • Posts: 3,197
    hoppimike wrote:
    I just rewatched the first... 2/3rds perhaps of GoldenEye. I agree that the later Brosnan films were quite tongue-in-cheek. I think GoldenEye strikes an absolutely perfect balance between tongue-in-cheek and realistic/gritty.

    Skyfall... I felt like it couldn't make its mind up. On the one hand, I felt that it was actually darker than Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, which I found quite bright and vibrant despite their (sometimes) violent content. On the other, it tried to inject humour into what I felt was a fundamentally dark and quite depressing movie.

    It just made no sense to me. Looking at the harsh black and white of the film's branding, that fits the film very well to me - an uncomfortable mix of attempted quite extreme light and dark with no careful blending or intelligent merging of the two. It was like "dramatic, dark scene -> cheesy joke -> dramatic, dark scene -> cheesy joke".

    Just not my style at all.

    How many of the Bond films have you seen now, as I'm guessing you haven't seen that many. Also, how many of the Fleming novels have you read?

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Just because somebody doesn't share your views doesn't mean they're watching the films with rose tinted specs. Some people might just like different things to you? Ever think of that?

    Nobody will top Desmond as Q and I don't prefer the new computer whizz Q just because he's "fresher"
    The humour levels? The gadgets? Did I miss something here? There was the same amount of humour in SF as there was in the last 2 Craig films - ie. kept to a bare minimum.

    I thought SF had more humour than the last two Craig films put together. Lots more one liners (especially in the casino bit), and there was the old couple on the platform, the bit with M in the DB5, Kincade calling Bond a jumped up little sh*t, etc.
    I'm dead against humour in Bond films, but I have to say my Austin Powers parody detector didn't go off once with any of these light relief moments in SF. I thought the level was just right.

    I loved most of the humour but I thought the entire casino fight was at odds with the rest of the film. Would've been great in a Moore flick but in Skyfall, especially after the Severine bit just before (where she talked about her past as a prossy), it felt a bit jarring.

    TLR you are just opinated and woud you apply the same logic to your beloved LTK?

    The Q sequences are just as if not more jarring to the overrall plot of the film infact that film far morr uneven than SF, it strikes far more of a better balance.
Sign In or Register to comment.