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

13

Comments

  • Posts: 11,425
    We'll said. Good point about cost as we'll. it looks and feels like a bigger budget production than QoS or SF
  • Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    But CR is still better.

    clearly

    I am still making up my mind. ;)

    Like me ;-)
  • Getafix wrote: »
    We'll said. Good point about cost as we'll. it looks and feels like a bigger budget production than QoS or SF

    Perhaps it has to do with the more exotic locations and production design. For instance the interior of both the Bahamas Casino and Casino Royale were dropdead georgeous. Expensive looking. And very comparable to the casino's in TB and OHMSS.

    Macau, Bond's hotel in Macau and its casino looked perhaps more "colonial", less "classic". Also, Scotland and London aren't exactly the must sunny places on the globe.

    Still, production-wise, both SF and CR to me look equally expensive. And not only that. The clear and crisp digital cinematography of Roger Deakins actually made look Turkey, London, China, Macau and Scotland quite "exotical" and breath-taking.

    No, for me, SF and CR are like twin brothers, in both style and substance. Now what do we say when we bring in QOS? That movie for me looks like a cheap Jack Reacher or Jason Bourne rip-off......compared to both SF and CR.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 11,425
    I think QoS looks pretty good generally, but I don't think you see all the money up on the screen. It feels like a smaller, lower budget movie than CR or SF, ironically, given the cash they threw at it. I'm not blown away by the production design on any of the recent Bond movies to be honest. It's been a very long time - basically since Ken Adam - that you can say Bond movies have done anything particularly interesting on that front. With that in mind, I'd say the look and feel of most of the Bond films has been pretty generic for a long time. I don't think EON has had the ambition to really go for it on that front. May be they've been afraid of going OTT or looking naff, as with DAD.

    QoS certainly has lots in common with Bourne. Not a bad thing in and of itself. Bond has always copied/borrowed from the latest trend and it would have been odd if one of the Bond films hadn't referenced Bourne. In a sense, all the DC Bond movies are in response to the Bourne movies. I'm pretty sure Babs and MGW have said as much. SF was a response to the Nolan Batman trilogy and it will be interesting to see what Mendes is riffing off of on B24.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Hopefully something with insane visceral fisticuffs and they're already off to a brilliant start with Olivier Schnieder as the fight choreographer.
  • Posts: 1,507
    Bond has always copied/borrowed from the latest trend…...

    For me, therein lies the rub. Through OHMSS, all seemed original to me. DAF opened the door to silliness, copying, parody, and the Moore series of films walked right through that door.

    The series has always been at its best when it believed in itself rather than sniffing about for the latest trend. Of late the series has felt as if the writers spent a lot of time studying the Bourne films, but the Bourne films were hardly original. One could argue they were influenced by the early Bond films, especially FRWL.

    CR & OHMSS now top my list of favorite Bond films. These are the two that stand up after repeated viewings. For me, it's about story and character, not explosions and caricature.

    I like Skyfall, but not anywhere near as much as CR. A primary consideration is the fallibility of LeChiffre. He's smart, but makes mistakes. He's not a hundred moves ahead of everyone like Silva. I really dislike the genius villain who knows how everyone thinks, knows what they'll do, knows precisely when Bond will slide down a ladder in time to be surprised by a careening tube train.

    My least favorite part of CR is the airport sequence. It's "the we need a really intense action sequence here" part of the film that somehow always feels more video game than film. In SF, it's the crashing tube train that--pardon the pun--derails that part of the film.

    Throughout CR & OHMSS, I feel a continual connection with Vesper and Tracy. Severine is too distant and we're really not that connected to M until the final part of the film.

    While CR is definitely at the top of my top 10, SF just squeezes in to the top 10.
  • Posts: 7,653
    The real value of the Craig era will be seen a few years away from any Craig movie with a new actor already well into his reign.

    As for IMDB, the voting there is manipulated by fanboys and as such rarely to be taken serious.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    SaintMark wrote: »
    The real value of the Craig era will be seen a few years away from any Craig movie with a new actor already well into his reign.

    Always in play is the future...

    CR is Craig's GE, QoS is Craig's LTK, and SF is Craig's TWINE.
    It's all good. ;)
  • CrabKey wrote: »
    I like Skyfall, but not anywhere near as much as CR. A primary consideration is the fallibility of LeChiffre. He's smart, but makes mistakes. He's not a hundred moves ahead of everyone like Silva. I really dislike the genius villain who knows how everyone thinks, knows what they'll do, knows precisely when Bond will slide down a ladder in time to be surprised by a careening tube train.

    It's for me a choice between:
    A) Creating a real threatening villain, making his actions sometimes lack good explanation, BUT the actions in itself are deadly, horrific and really dangerous?
    B) Creating a villain with flaws, some mistakes, as if he's an equal to Bond, making the villain sometimes bit boring too, but resulting in better explanations for his actions.

    For me, saying the "Best Bond Villain" needs to be like Le Chiffre, is merely a matter of taste. I am very happy that after many years of "forced equals to Bond" -from GE to DAD, perhaps QOS included too-, Bond got to fight a real psychotic menace. I really think, and that is my opinion, that Silva has been the best Bond villain from the past 7 Bond films. Yes, he's a genius. But so where Blofeld (the 'masked' one in FRWL and TB and the revealed one in OHMSS), Goldfinger, Scaramanga, Stromberg and Zorin. I think Silva can be added to that list as well.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    In SF, it's the crashing tube train that--pardon the pun--derails that part of the film.

    The crashing tube for me meant "real danger". Like Bond chasing the atomic bombs in TB, OP & CR, I equally found that a gripping peace of believable terror in a Bond film. In case you forget -and we don't see it- perhaps all people in the metro were smashed down on the floor, with many of them severely injured or killed. It's not just a "cheesy" scene for me.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Throughout CR & OHMSS, I feel a continual connection with Vesper and Tracy. Severine is too distant and we're really not that connected to M until the final part of the film.

    Yeah well, I find the comparisons between Tracy/Vesper on one hand and Severine on the other a bit unfair. Severine was written as a small part, in the veins of -let's say- Scaramanga's mistress Andrea Anders. Tracy and Vesper were written as big character roles.

    You can not ask Severine to be a new Vesper or Tracy. I personally think that she was as afraid as Vesper. Just remember the "tatoo on your wrist" scene. Wunderful, enigmatic and very believable. If Vesper gets the Oscar for "Best leading Actress", then Severine deserved the Oscar for "Best Supporting/Small Role".
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Agree with all above but I thought the tube train was vacant deliberately .....like from an abandoned part of the.tube ...or part being repaired?
  • mcdonbb wrote: »
    Agree with all above but I thought the tube train was vacant deliberately .....like from an abandoned part of the.tube ...or part being repaired?

    And that's the nice thing of "Skyfall". We don't know that 100%. We can not say for sure, because it's not part of the story. The same thing with the policemen helping Silva. Apparently, there must have been quite a crisis within the Metropolitan police. In a similar fashion to events in 'The Dark Knight'.

    Does it make Skyfall's story bad? No, we only wish these kind of elements were explained better to us. But for me it doesn't matter. The fact that you can start guessing can be sometimes an asset to a movie too.

    Saying that "it's impossible that Silva could have done that" is too easy. We can not confirm nor debuke these things. The thing is, we fans, sometimes want too much explained to our Bond-plate. Leave some stuff over for your imagination. It only enhances creativity and makes a movie more exciting for me.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,524
    I can say that CR, IMO, is a better film than SF in almost every respect including acting, story, OT and even music. Only in terms of the Theme Song (Adele's song is superb) and photography do I rate SF higher. Phil Méheux did a tremendous job on CR but Shanghai and Macao top everything in my book.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 11,119
    Another comparison guys. 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall' still have very similar ratings now on Rotten Tomatoes. On IMDB however, 'Casino Royale' has now risen 1 percentage point back to 8.0 on IMDB.

    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 September 13th 2014:

    CASINO ROYALE:
    Tomatometer:
    95% out of 100%
    7.8 out of 10.0 ----> Average rating
    222
    > Reviews counted
    210
    > Rated Fresh
    012
    > Rated Rotten
    Audience:
    89% liked it
    3.9 out of 5.0 ----> Average rating
    696,865
    > Number of user ratings counted

    SKYFALL
    Tomatometer:
    92% out of 100%
    8.2 out of 10.0 ----> Average rating
    295
    > Reviews counted
    272
    > Rated Fresh
    023
    > Rated Rotten
    Audience:
    86% liked it
    4.1 out of 5.0 ----> Average rating
    364,646
    > Number of user ratings counted


    Also interesting are the ratings on Metacritic as of September 13th 2014. 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:
    8.0, based on 0787 ratings
    0676 ----> Positive
    0029 ----> Mixed
    0082 ----> Negative

    SKYFALL
    Metascore:
    81 out of 100, based on 43 critics
    36 ----> Positive reviews
    07 ----> Mixed reviews
    00 ----> Negative reviews
    User Score:
    7.5, based on 1296 ratings
    1078 ----> Positive
    0092 ----> Mixed
    0126 ----> Negative


    And lastly, the ratings on IMDB:

    CASINO ROYALE
    8.0 out of 10.0 from 360,314 users

    SKYFALL:
    7.8 out of 10.0 from 403,812 users
  • Well, first it's very weird to use these figures to judge movies. But when you realize that CR is above SF for each of these figures, to conclude that you can't say CR is above SF is even weirder :) What's the point then ? I think even on this forum CR is clearly above SF now.
  • Well, first it's very weird to use these figures to judge movies. But when you realize that CR is above SF for each of these figures, to conclude that you can't say CR is above SF is even weirder :) What's the point then ? I think even on this forum CR is clearly above SF now.

    Well, I think you are exagerating. But then again, you love me ( :x ), so usually that's resulting in counteracting everything I'm stating with my arguments by your remarks. Something I'm used too though ;-). Anyway, let's have a look at 'Quantum Of Solace':
    The ratings for 'Quantum Of Solace' on RottenTomatoes:
    QUANTUM OF SOLACE:
    Tomatometer:
    64% out of 100%
    6.1 out of 10.0 ----> Average rating
    244
    > Reviews counted
    157
    > Rated Fresh
    087
    > Rated Rotten
    Audience:
    59% liked it
    3.4 out of 5.0 ----> Average rating
    428,767
    > Number of user ratings counted


    The ratings for 'Quantum Of Solace' on MetaCritic:
    QUANTUM OF SOLACE
    Metascore:
    58 out of 100, based on 38 critics
    20 ----> Positive reviews
    16 ----> Mixed reviews
    02 ----> Negative reviews
    User Score:
    6.4, based on 0461 ratings
    0321 ----> Positive
    0070 ----> Mixed
    0070 ----> Negative


    And lastly, the ratings on IMDB:
    QUANTUM OF SOLACE
    6.7 out of 10.0 from 252,681 users

    So your opinion holds better if you compare either 'Skyfall' or 'Casino Royale' with 'Quantum Of Solace'. Yes, looking purely at the numbers, even 'Casino Royale' scores better than 'Skyfall'. But the percentage-point differences in ratings on RottenTomatoes, Metacritic and IMDB is neglibile.

    So what's the point? Well, the point here is that you are slightly overreacting :-). On the whole reviewers from newspapers and other media sources ánd those movie watchers who are rating on RT, MC and IMDB think that 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall' are of similar quality.

    Perhaps the greatest difference in ratings between 'Skyfall' and 'Casino Royale' solely exists among the real Bond fans, the die-hard Bond fans who have profiles on Bond forums like MI6community :-). Including you @Suivez_ce_parachute.

    But please know that I still love you :-P.
  • Posts: 1,146
    Two fantastic stories, sandwiching QoS, a flawed but fun film. THe Bond series feels like it's thriving these days.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Two fantastic stories, sandwiching QoS, a flawed but fun film. THe Bond series feels like it's thriving these days.

    Also, if you want the best experience of a "James Bond Trilogy", you could see DN, FRWL and TB in a row. Butttt, for the first time since the 1960's I must add CR, QOS and SF to that rare category of "James Bond Trilogy". Perhaps it's one of the reasons why you can also buy the "Trilogy" on BluRay.
  • Posts: 1,146
    Totally agree. Awesome first three by Craig, a fantastic, tough-guy Bond in the mold of Connery and Lazenby.
  • Totally agree. Awesome first three by Craig, a fantastic, tough-guy Bond in the mold of Connery and Lazenby.

    Also, "Casino Royale" is the first Bond film to hit a full 8.0 on IMDB. Not even "From Russia With Love" and "Goldfinger" managed to do that.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Also, "Casino Royale" is the first Bond film to hit a full 8.0 on IMDB. Not even "From Russia With Love" and "Goldfinger" managed to do that.
    More proof that Rotten Tomatoes is...rotten... :-?
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    Also, "Casino Royale" is the first Bond film to hit a full 8.0 on IMDB. Not even "From Russia With Love" and "Goldfinger" managed to do that.
    More proof that Rotten Tomatoes is...rotten... :-?

    Huh? Why do you say that. On RT Casino Royale gets even higher ratings among audiences, an 8.9. That's considerably higher than the audience rating on IMDB.

  • Posts: 11,425
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Also, "Casino Royale" is the first Bond film to hit a full 8.0 on IMDB. Not even "From Russia With Love" and "Goldfinger" managed to do that.
    More proof that Rotten Tomatoes is...rotten... :-?

    Huh? Why do you say that. On RT Casino Royale gets even higher ratings among audiences, an 8.9. That's considerably higher than the audience rating on IMDB.

    I think @chrisisall is referring to the fact FRWL and GF get less than 8.0. It shows the people who vote on these things are idiots.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Also, "Casino Royale" is the first Bond film to hit a full 8.0 on IMDB. Not even "From Russia With Love" and "Goldfinger" managed to do that.
    More proof that Rotten Tomatoes is...rotten... :-?

    Huh? Why do you say that. On RT Casino Royale gets even higher ratings among audiences, an 8.9. That's considerably higher than the audience rating on IMDB.

    I think @chrisisall is referring to the fact FRWL and GF get less than 8.0. It shows the people who vote on these things are idiots.

    You need to see things in perspective here I think. Nowadays, in the era of social media and internet, people simply tend to vote more online. The people who voted for GF and FRWL are mostly fans, whereas the newer Bond films, CR, QOS, and SF, have been rated heavily by every kind of movie lovers on the internet....non-Bond fans included. And those general movie audiences tend to vote much more with their hearts. Given that fact, it is even more remarkable that audiences vote CR and SF so high.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,026
    Getafix wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Also, "Casino Royale" is the first Bond film to hit a full 8.0 on IMDB. Not even "From Russia With Love" and "Goldfinger" managed to do that.
    More proof that Rotten Tomatoes is...rotten... :-?

    Huh? Why do you say that. On RT Casino Royale gets even higher ratings among audiences, an 8.9. That's considerably higher than the audience rating on IMDB.

    I think @chrisisall is referring to the fact FRWL and GF get less than 8.0. It shows the people who vote on these things are idiots.

    You need to see things in perspective here I think. Nowadays, in the era of social media and internet, people simply tend to vote more online. The people who voted for GF and FRWL are mostly fans, whereas the newer Bond films, CR, QOS, and SF, have been rated heavily by every kind of movie lovers on the internet....non-Bond fans included. And those general movie audiences tend to vote much more with their hearts. Given that fact, it is even more remarkable that audiences vote CR and SF so high.

    Well that would prove the point that websites like these are reliable in terms as statistics as there are several influences at play that have nothing to do with the film's quality. IMDb, in particular, has a serious studio plant problem that has yet to be addressed.

    All you need to do is look at the voting for Interstellar, which has a 9.2 rating yesterday with nearly 30,000 votes despite the fact it only came out today. If they're voting with their heart, then their heart is in the wrong place.

  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    More proof that Rotten Tomatoes is...rotten... :-?
    It has its place I suppose but that place is not here. Just one man's opinion.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Also, "Casino Royale" is the first Bond film to hit a full 8.0 on IMDB. Not even "From Russia With Love" and "Goldfinger" managed to do that.
    More proof that Rotten Tomatoes is...rotten... :-?

    Huh? Why do you say that. On RT Casino Royale gets even higher ratings among audiences, an 8.9. That's considerably higher than the audience rating on IMDB.

    I think @chrisisall is referring to the fact FRWL and GF get less than 8.0. It shows the people who vote on these things are idiots.

    You need to see things in perspective here I think. Nowadays, in the era of social media and internet, people simply tend to vote more online. The people who voted for GF and FRWL are mostly fans, whereas the newer Bond films, CR, QOS, and SF, have been rated heavily by every kind of movie lovers on the internet....non-Bond fans included. And those general movie audiences tend to vote much more with their hearts. Given that fact, it is even more remarkable that audiences vote CR and SF so high.

    Well that would prove the point that websites like these are reliable in terms as statistics as there are several influences at play that have nothing to do with the film's quality. IMDb, in particular, has a serious studio plant problem that has yet to be addressed.

    All you need to do is look at the voting for Interstellar, which has a 9.2 rating yesterday with nearly 30,000 votes despite the fact it only came out today. If they're voting with their heart, then their heart is in the wrong place.

    Exactly. These sites tell us absolutely nothing about the quality of a film and @Gustav_Graves's arguments would come over much stronger if he didn't keep on making reference to them.

  • edited November 2014 Posts: 11,119
    Getafix wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Also, "Casino Royale" is the first Bond film to hit a full 8.0 on IMDB. Not even "From Russia With Love" and "Goldfinger" managed to do that.
    More proof that Rotten Tomatoes is...rotten... :-?

    Huh? Why do you say that. On RT Casino Royale gets even higher ratings among audiences, an 8.9. That's considerably higher than the audience rating on IMDB.
    I think @chrisisall is referring to the fact FRWL and GF get less than 8.0. It shows the people who vote on these things are idiots.

    You need to see things in perspective here I think. Nowadays, in the era of social media and internet, people simply tend to vote more online. The people who voted for GF and FRWL are mostly fans, whereas the newer Bond films, CR, QOS, and SF, have been rated heavily by every kind of movie lovers on the internet....non-Bond fans included. And those general movie audiences tend to vote much more with their hearts. Given that fact, it is even more remarkable that audiences vote CR and SF so high.

    Well that would prove the point that websites like these are reliable in terms as statistics as there are several influences at play that have nothing to do with the film's quality. IMDb, in particular, has a serious studio plant problem that has yet to be addressed.

    All you need to do is look at the voting for Interstellar, which has a 9.2 rating yesterday with nearly 30,000 votes despite the fact it only came out today. If they're voting with their heart, then their heart is in the wrong place.

    Exactly. These sites tell us absolutely nothing about the quality of a film and @Gustav_Graves's arguments would come over much stronger if he didn't keep on making reference to them.

    Wowow, easy now. You are twisting my words here a bit. I have not said that these rating sites tell us a lot about quality of the film. Those are your words.

    I just said that they are what they are: "RATINGS". People rate them. That's it. And certain people rate it high, certain people rate it lower. Directly it does off course not tell us about the quality. But it does tell us something about "what percentage of voters liked the film". And INDIRECTLY you can draw some mild conclusions on that. Even arguments that are about the subjective "quality".

    But please...be careful in what I'm saying @Getafix ;-). If my arguments come across as black-and-white justifications for quality, then I'm sorry to say but that's not the case.
  • Posts: 1,146
    The two films are rated over 90%
    how is that in any way inaccurate?
  • The two films are rated over 90%
    how is that in any way inaccurate?

    Tell me ;-).
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Not talking fan fav or quality but I wonder how they would rate with a random sample viewing? The sample on the sites is not random ...
Sign In or Register to comment.