SKYFALL vs. CASINO ROYALE on Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic & IMDB [update 23.8.2016, with QOS & SP]

24

Comments

  • edited August 2013 Posts: 1,068
    Totally agree - it's all driven by Bond's decision making and just seems totally amateur - even where it seemed like they could trust nobody. Surely with Mallory and Q in the loop the day (and M) would be saved. Yet apparently, let's lose all common sense and bolt to Scotland on a half baked plan...
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,447
    andmcit wrote:
    Totally agree - it's all driven by Bond's decision making and just seems totally amateur - even where it seemed like they could trust nobody. Surely with Mallory and Q in the loop the day (and M) would be saved. Yet apparently, let's lose all common sense and bolt to Scotland on a half baked plan...

    Even in chaos - M was nearly killed, they're trying to get out of London and to Skyfall as fast as possible - they should have thought for one moment to get better gear or be slightly more prepared for what they were about to endure. That was a long car ride, I know they didn't spend it in pure silence.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    andmcit wrote:
    Surely with Mallory and Q in the loop the day (and M) would be saved.
    This is the part that bothers me the most to be honest. Mallory just blindly goes along with this plan and lets M fend for herself with only Bond to protect her from a small army. Not only that but Silva is the most wanted man in the country at this point and he now knows where he is going to be and does nothing about it. I understand M's speech about terrorists hiding in the shadows and that's how we have to fight back at them but come on. In the interest of national security, apprehending and/or killing Silva would be the top priority here.

  • edited August 2013 Posts: 1,068
    I realise it can be too easy to be critical and pick away at flaws in any film depending on your particular viewpoint. My key problem with SF is in the nonsensical writing for the latter stages of the film which lets down badly for me a very entertaining film. If all NATO's deep cover operatives are still in danger due to Silva having the list, it would be extremely negligent for Mallory to do nothing or keep other countries' key agencies involved as well as his own.

    It's purely a vehicle to kill off a key character actress in the series whom everyone has the utmost respect for and it's a rather weak one at that. If the whole of the British Intelligence agency (including Bond) can't lay a trap for Silva then they are not fit for purpose and totally incompetent. It wouldn't be beyond Q's guile surely to lay that fake trail of M to Scotland for Silva as bait, then ship her out to Gibraltar or similar heavily armoured Brit Garrison etc under deep cover until they have his head on a stick! He would after all be the World's most wanted at Bin Laden levels after killing agents and attempting to kill a government minister and heads of agencies...

    In SF, the acting and the action are fine, it's just the writing isn't.even when you say 'it's only really fictional entertainment'. I expect better within this deeply loved franchise.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 1,068
    Maybe because QOS felt such a step down from CR, SF was always going to have a feel good element about it, depending of course on whether it could actually get worse rather than better), but I just can't understand how the whole world went ape about SF and even believing it bettered CR. I feel because CR was such an impressive jolt to the senses for Bond, time will show it to be the film that is seen as better than SF in the long run.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 11,119
    Another comparison guys. 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall' still have very similar ratings now on Rotten Tomatoes. It is quite hard to say IMO that 'Casino Royale' is better than 'Skyfall'. But please note that these review results are from both critics ánd cinema audiences, and nót just from Bond fans. Let's see the situation as of Monday August 26th 2013:

    CASINO ROYALE:
    Tomatometer:
    95% out of 100%
    7.8 out of 10.0 ----> Average rating
    220
    > Reviews counted
    208
    > Rated Fresh
    012
    > Rated Rotten
    Audience:
    87% liked it
    3.9 out of 5.0 ----> Average rating
    692,407
    > Number of user ratings counted

    SKYFALL
    Tomatometer:
    92% out of 100%
    8.2 out of 10.0 ----> Average rating
    294
    > Reviews counted
    271
    > Rated Fresh
    023
    > Rated Rotten
    Audience:
    85% liked it
    4.1 out of 5.0 ----> Average rating
    323,229
    > Number of user ratings counted


    Also interesting are the ratings on Metacritic as of December 4th 2012. Really makes it harder to say which of these two is better no?:

    CASINO ROYALE
    Metascore:
    81 out of 100, based on 38 critics
    37 ----> Positive reviews
    01 ----> Mixed reviews
    00 ----> Negative reviews
    User Score:
    7.9, based on 726 ratings
    617 ----> Positive
    027 ----> Mixed
    082 ----> Negative

    SKYFALL
    Metascore:
    81 out of 100, based on 43 critics
    36 ----> Positive reviews
    07 ----> Mixed reviews
    00 ----> Negative reviews
    User Score:
    7.6, based on 1155 ratings
    956 ----> Positive
    084 ----> Mixed
    115 ----> Negative


    And lastly, the ratings on IMDB:

    CASINO ROYALE
    7.9 out of 10.0 from 311,636 users

    SKYFALL:
    7.8 out of 10.0 from 329,392 users
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Even putting aside the writing, CR is a better made, better directed and more sophisticatedly made movie. Scenes in CR felt less rushed and glossed over and were allowed to linger and breathe just enough to absorb a real sense of atmosphere without overstaying its welcome.
    SF is a good movie but it pales in comparison on all fronts.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 11,119
    doubleoego wrote:
    Even putting aside the writing, CR is a better made, better directed and more sophisticatedly made movie. Scenes in CR felt less rushed and glossed over and were allowed to linger and breathe just enough to absorb a real sense of atmosphere without overstaying its welcome.
    SF is a good movie but it pales in comparison on all fronts.

    That's your opinion off course :-). But how is it possible then that I don't see that opinion reflected in the ratings from IMDB, Metacritic, Moviefone and RottenTomatoes? I'm curious if there's an explanation for this.

    My personal opinion is this: Both SF and CR are of similar quality. That is that both films were skillfully crafted by an excellent crew, both were thoughtfully directed by top notch directors and both films were oozing the 1960's Terence Young/Ian Fleming-esque British class and sophistication. Not to mention the fact that both SF and CR are among the best with the way older classics FRWL, TB and OHMSS.

    So...my ranking as of today would be:

    Top quality films!!!:
    01 --> 9.5/10 --> 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service'
    02 --> 9.3/10 --> 'From Russia With Love'
    03 --> 9.0/10 --> 'Skyfall'
    04 --> 8.7/10 --> 'Casino Royale'
    05 --> 8.3/10 --> 'Thunderball'
    06 --> 8.0/10 --> 'For Your Eyes Only'


    Good films!:
    07 --> 7.6/10 --> 'Doctor No'
    08 --> 7.5/10 --> 'Octopussy'
    09 --> 7.4/10 --> 'The Living Daylights'
    10 --> 7.1/10 --> 'Licence To Kill'
    11 --> 7.0/10 --> 'Goldfinger'


    Average films:
    12 --> 6.7/10 --> 'The World Is Not Enough'
    13 --> 6.4/10 --> 'Quantum Of Solace'
    14 --> 6.2/10 --> 'The Man With The Golden Gun'
    15 --> 6.0/10 --> 'Never Say Never Again' (non-EON)
    16 --> 6.0/10 --> 'Live And Let Die'


    Fun stuff for Bond nerds, but as a standalone film bad and sometimes even groce!:
    17 --> 5.6/10 --> 'The Spy Who Loved Me'
    18 --> 5.3/10 --> 'Diamonds Are Forever'
    19 --> 5.0/10 --> 'Moonraker'
    20 --> 4.8/10 --> 'Tomorrow Never Dies'
    21 --> 4.5/10 --> 'You Only Live Twice'
    22 --> 4.2/10 --> 'GoldenEye'
    23 --> 3.4/10 --> 'A View To A Kill'
    24 --> 2.8/10 --> 'Die Another Day'
    25 --> 1.0/10 --> 'Casino Royale' (non-EON)
  • Posts: 1,068
    [quote="Gustav_Graves"oMy personal opinion is this: Both SF and CR are of similar quality. That is that both films were skillfully crafted by an excellent crew, both were thoughtfully directed by top notch directors and both films were oozing the 1960's Terence Young/Ian Fleming-esque British class and sophistication. Not to mention the fact that both SF and CR are among the best with the way older classics FRWL, TB and OHMSS.[/quote]

    I can't disagree with anything you say above as both films are truly great and raise the bar considerably for Bond. This thread questions if one is better than the other (which isn't really the question that springs to mind or really needs to be asked!),

    Each have strengths that can be subjectively given as better than the other though, and or me, the plot/writing is the biggest flaw in SF where CR doesn't suffer so much (I felt the Venetian building sinking was silly) - for me, it's the writing that's the fundamental difference in the two films.
  • Posts: 11,119
    andmcit wrote:
    oMy personal opinion is this: Both SF and CR are of similar quality. That is that both films were skillfully crafted by an excellent crew, both were thoughtfully directed by top notch directors and both films were oozing the 1960's Terence Young/Ian Fleming-esque British class and sophistication. Not to mention the fact that both SF and CR are among the best with the way older classics FRWL, TB and OHMSS.

    I can't disagree with anything you say above as both films are truly great and raise the bar considerably for Bond. This thread questions if one is better than the other (which isn't really the question that springs to mind or really needs to be asked!),

    Each have strengths that can be subjectively given as better than the other though, and or me, the plot/writing is the biggest flaw in SF where CR doesn't suffer so much (I felt the Venetian building sinking was silly) - for me, it's the writing that's the fundamental difference in the two films.

    On the other hand, I think 'Skyfall' has more, better researched, multi-layered themes interwoven in the story. The actual poem citings by 'M', the porcelain bulldog, Bardem being the Manning/Assange of our times, the cinematography, the difficult task of visiting Bond's past as an orphan for the very first time, mother-son relationships, espionage on the whole in today's cyber society full of social media.

    Do not forget: 'Casino Royale' had a certain build-in advantage over 'Skyfall', as the first one was based on a novel, thus making the actual screenplay writing a bit more easier. From all the 'original screenplay' Bond films, I think 'Skyfall' is the best now. From all 'adapted screenplay' Bond films, I think 'Casino Royale' is among one of the best.

    I do agree with you though, that 'Casino Royale' had the slightly better story and plot. Allthough that one was quite simple in essence too. Fleming's novel 'Casino Royale' was one of the shortest and IMO it sometimes felt like reading a short story.
  • Posts: 2,483
    doubleoego wrote:
    Even putting aside the writing, CR is a better made, better directed and more sophisticatedly made movie. Scenes in CR felt less rushed and glossed over and were allowed to linger and breathe just enough to absorb a real sense of atmosphere without overstaying its welcome.
    SF is a good movie but it pales in comparison on all fronts.

    This view is obviously not shared by the critics, the fans, and even the posters on MI6. Personally, I consider them to be very evenly matched films.



  • Posts: 2,483
    andmcit wrote:
    [quote="Gustav_Graves"oMy personal opinion is this: Both SF and CR are of similar quality. That is that both films were skillfully crafted by an excellent crew, both were thoughtfully directed by top notch directors and both films were oozing the 1960's Terence Young/Ian Fleming-esque British class and sophistication. Not to mention the fact that both SF and CR are among the best with the way older classics FRWL, TB and OHMSS.

    I can't disagree with anything you say above as both films are truly great and raise the bar considerably for Bond. This thread questions if one is better than the other (which isn't really the question that springs to mind or really needs to be asked!),

    Each have strengths that can be subjectively given as better than the other though, and or me, the plot/writing is the biggest flaw in SF where CR doesn't suffer so much (I felt the Venetian building sinking was silly) - for me, it's the writing that's the fundamental difference in the two films.
    [/quote]

    The schlocky dialogue following Bond's torture in CR is far worse than anything in SF, IMO. Similarly, I'm not wild about the dialogue between Vesper and Bond on the train in Montenegro. Strikes me as rather forced and unnatural for the most part. Conversely, the dialogue in SF sparkles throughout.

    I will grant that CR may have a slightly better plot, but plot arguably, is not one of the most important elements in Bond films.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited August 2013 Posts: 11,139
    doubleoego wrote:
    Even putting aside the writing, CR is a better made, better directed and more sophisticatedly made movie. Scenes in CR felt less rushed and glossed over and were allowed to linger and breathe just enough to absorb a real sense of atmosphere without overstaying its welcome.
    SF is a good movie but it pales in comparison on all fronts.

    That's your opinion off course :-). But how is it possible then that I don't see that opinion reflected in the ratings from IMDB, Metacritic, Moviefone and RottenTomatoes? I'm curious if there's an explanation for this.

    Well, of course it's my opinion. I didn't specifically go out of my way to declare anything as fact. To answer your question, the reason you may not see my opinion reflected on review sites is, because I thank the good Lord for giving me a brain that I can use to formulate my own opinions, decisions and tastes and not feel the need to be dependent or seek approval of my opinions by having to rely on the statistics and viewpoints of others. Maybe you should put into practise what @RC7 aptly suggested to you under your original post on the first page.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    doubleoego wrote:
    Even putting aside the writing, CR is a better made, better directed and more sophisticatedly made movie. Scenes in CR felt less rushed and glossed over and were allowed to linger and breathe just enough to absorb a real sense of atmosphere without overstaying its welcome.
    SF is a good movie but it pales in comparison on all fronts.

    This view is obviously not shared by the critics, the fans, and even the posters on MI6.


    And it doesn't have to be. OHMSS I believe ranks as your number one Bond movie, am I right? It's not an opinion shared by many fans here and hell, it's largely forgotten by the GP but it doesn't in anyway discredit what and how you feel about the film.

  • Posts: 11,119
    doubleoego wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Even putting aside the writing, CR is a better made, better directed and more sophisticatedly made movie. Scenes in CR felt less rushed and glossed over and were allowed to linger and breathe just enough to absorb a real sense of atmosphere without overstaying its welcome.
    SF is a good movie but it pales in comparison on all fronts.

    That's your opinion off course :-). But how is it possible then that I don't see that opinion reflected in the ratings from IMDB, Metacritic, Moviefone and RottenTomatoes? I'm curious if there's an explanation for this.

    Well, of course it's my opinion. I didn't specifically go out of my way to declare anything as fact. To answer your question, the reason you may not see my opinion reflected on review sites is, because I thank the good Lord for giving me a brain that I can use to formulate my own opinions, decisions and tastes and not feel the need to be dependent or seek approval of my opinions by having to rely on the statistics and viewpoints of others. Maybe you should put into practise what @RC7 aptly suggested to you under your original post on the first page.

    So you really think that's what the topic is about? I mean....I think at times a forum like MI6 is not that different from a review site like RottenTomatoes. On both movie fans express our opinions, write their reviews. Not necessarily because they wanna get some kind of twisted approval from others or because they have a narcistic nature. In my opinions it's because people simple feel the genuine need to write....and because people simply love movies and want them to be good.
  • Posts: 2,483
    doubleoego wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Even putting aside the writing, CR is a better made, better directed and more sophisticatedly made movie. Scenes in CR felt less rushed and glossed over and were allowed to linger and breathe just enough to absorb a real sense of atmosphere without overstaying its welcome.
    SF is a good movie but it pales in comparison on all fronts.

    This view is obviously not shared by the critics, the fans, and even the posters on MI6.


    And it doesn't have to be. OHMSS I believe ranks as your number one Bond movie, am I right? It's not an opinion shared by many fans here and hell, it's largely forgotten by the GP but it doesn't in anyway discredit what and how you feel about the film.

    I don't object to your opinion; I object to your categorical statement of the opinion. But no biggie.

  • edited November 2013 Posts: 2,598
    Why didn't Bond and M go to a safe house? Would they not have weapons there?

    Yes, I know that the audience had to get a chance to see Bond's home but I don't know why we couldn't just have Bond in a future film at the Skyfall manor having a look around and visiting his parent's grave. It's character movement. It doesn't always have to tie into the plot.

    I love the parts of Skyfall where we see Bond depressed and drinking in Turkey (albeit these scenes were too brief) and when he met Silva on that wonderful island. It's a good film and these two scenes were very Flemingsque but Casino Royale is still the better film for me. Overall, it's more of a traditional Flemingsque Bond adventure. SF had too much focus on M and politics.

    The way we found out at the end too how Eve was Moneypenny wasn't handled particularly well. I found it unnatural and on the corny side.
  • edited November 2013 Posts: 2,598
    andmcit wrote:
    [quote="Gustav_Graves"oMy personal opinion is this: Both SF and CR are of similar quality. That is that both films were skillfully crafted by an excellent crew, both were thoughtfully directed by top notch directors and both films were oozing the 1960's Terence Young/Ian Fleming-esque British class and sophistication. Not to mention the fact that both SF and CR are among the best with the way older classics FRWL, TB and OHMSS.

    I can't disagree with anything you say above as both films are truly great and raise the bar considerably for Bond. This thread questions if one is better than the other (which isn't really the question that springs to mind or really needs to be asked!),

    Each have strengths that can be subjectively given as better than the other though, and or me, the plot/writing is the biggest flaw in SF where CR doesn't suffer so much (I felt the Venetian building sinking was silly) - for me, it's the writing that's the fundamental difference in the two films.

    "The schlocky dialogue following Bond's torture in CR is far worse than anything in SF, IMO. Similarly, I'm not wild about the dialogue between Vesper and Bond on the train in Montenegro. Strikes me as rather forced and unnatural for the most part. Conversely, the dialogue in SF sparkles throughout."

    [/quote]

    I agree regarding the dialogue in these scenes in CR. There are some lines (fortunately only a few) in SF though that I think are worse though:

    * "not like this, not like him" (hated this)
    * "the circle of life"
    * "latest thing from Q branch, it's called a radio" (hated this)
    * "didn't need the other one either"
    * When Bond says: "I do hope that wasn't for me" it wasn't delivered wonderfully but the dialogue itself isn't too bad but then Silva says: "no, but this is". That dialogue is pretty lame.
    * "good luck with that" (just recently added. I definitely don't like this line)

    I wonder if now that Logan is writing and P & W are out that we might finally get a Bond film with humour that is without the cheese. Probably wishful thinking, but we'll see in two years time...
  • I think....it's the nice thing of this topic. We finally have two worthy Bond films -CR and SF- that will create ongoing discussions. There will perhaps never be consensus on the question 'Which is better: CR or SF?' That's only fantastic news no :-)?
  • edited November 2013 Posts: 2,598
    I think....it's the nice thing of this topic. We finally have two worthy Bond films -CR and SF- that will create ongoing discussions. There will perhaps never be consensus on the question 'Which is better: CR or SF?' That's only fantastic news no :-)?

    Yes, it's good that we can do this. Too bad about what happened with QOS. She's the middle of three sisters who some families supposedly overlook. It would have been nice to have three consecutive Craig films that are very praise worthy.

    I watched SF again the other night and another line I don't like in this film (not that there are many) is when Bond says "good luck with that" in the pit in reference to his signature gun. It just wasn't necessary and it's not even funny. I actually prefer the unnecessary "circle of life" line coming after "put it all on red" then "good luck with that".

    As much as I like SF, CR is the better film I think. The latter film was let down a bit by the sinking building scene though. An unnecessary action scene like all the ones that litter the horrible Brosnan era. I did like how Vesper died though but they should have set it up another way.
  • Bounine wrote: »
    I think....it's the nice thing of this topic. We finally have two worthy Bond films -CR and SF- that will create ongoing discussions. There will perhaps never be consensus on the question 'Which is better: CR or SF?' That's only fantastic news no :-)?

    Yes, it's good that we can do this. Too bad about what happened with QOS. She's the middle of three sisters who some families supposedly overlook. It would have been nice to have three consecutive Craig films that are very praise worthy.

    I watched SF again the other night and another line I don't like in this film (not that there are many) is when Bond says "good luck with that" in the pit in reference to his signature gun. It just wasn't necessary and it's not even funny. I actually prefer the unnecessary "circle of life" line coming after "put it all on red" then "good luck with that".

    As much as I like SF, CR is the better film I think. The latter film was let down a bit by the sinking building scene though. An unnecessary action scene like all the ones that litter the horrible Brosnan era. I did like how Vesper died though but they should have set it up another way.

    I think Bond should have said something like this: "You know......only I can handle guns". Or: "You know, insurance companies are really helpful these days....."
  • Posts: 11,425
    CR is the better movie on pretty much every level.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Getafix wrote: »
    CR is the better movie on pretty much every level.
    Yep.
  • True
  • If people say "CR is clearly a better Bond movie than SF", then I think they lack a bit of nuance. Yes, you can say "DAD is clearly better than SF", but come on.....it's less clear with CR and SF. Some moments I prefer SF, other moments I prefer CR. Story-wise, there are elements that perhaps aren't that good.

    But I see it as a necessity, to actually turn the Bond villain into a much more psychotic, dangerous villain. How on Earth could Silva then surprise so many with those dangerous deadly attacks on MI6, the Metro-tube and Westminster?? Le Chiffre however, allthough he's sinister, he lacks for me the grand, psychotic traits. Yes, he's good at torturing, but he does it because there's a lot of pressure on him. He is not much more than an instrument of QUANTUM.

    But on other moments, I quite love the heartfelt romance between Vesper and Bond. Vesper is the most complicated Bond girl since Tracy died. And SF has by no means such a complex woman.

    So, SF and CR are truly equally good for me: Both are intelligently written, multi-layered, Fleming-esque, at times complex, espionage thrillers. Both are much much more than the average Jack Reacher, Expandables or Mission Impossible-blockbusters.

    I admire both Skyfall and Casino Royale.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    But CR is still better.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote: »
    But CR is still better.

    clearly

  • I like Skyfall too. Casino Royale is my #1 and Skyfall #7
  • Getafix wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    But CR is still better.

    clearly

    I am still making up my mind. ;)
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    CR is better than SF for many reasons. For starters, CR 's best action set pieces aren't shown before the opening title credits. The movie has a much better and engaging script and although the stakes were high in SF, I never once felt that all encompassing sense of urgency to thwart Silva. Whereas in CR, Bond needed to win, he had to make sure Le Chiffre didn't smirk off into the sunset with his illgotten gains and vise versa for Le Chiffre, the urgency to win back the money he lost in order to save his own neck and reputation was crystal clear and compellingly executed.

    The action was better, the directing was better, the musical score was much better, the locations were more glamorous and although it's the cheapest of the Craig Bond movies production wise, it looks the mist expensive or at least the people involved knew where and how to spend the money.
Sign In or Register to comment.