Skyfall: 1 year later

2456

Comments

  • It's interesting how things change. A year ago we were all raving about it, now it seems to have more of a mixed reception.

    I imagine the same thing happened with CR. Some people are simply contrarians. Others can't be happy unless they're finding fault, even where it doesn't exist.

  • It's still popular in general but I do think on this site it's gotten more mixed over the last year. When it came out most of the site had it in their top 5 at least and there were tons of "best Bond ever" comments. I remember it winning a poll for best Craig film when it was released but now more people seem to think CR was better.

    That seems to happen a lot actually. Things that are popular normally (Brosnan, TSWLM, GF) get a mixed reaction on this site.

    The composition of posters changes over time. Many of those praising SF when it appeared, probably don't post as much now, while many newer posters never praised SF to begin with.

  • Posts: 6,396
    I still love SF about as much as I did a year ago. The third act in particular is just brilliant. And after the massive disappointment with QoS I was relieved to have come out of the cinema having seen a film worthy of the 50th Anniversary.
  • Posts: 12,526
    I have watched it a few times, last time was a number of months ago. Cannot say that I have changed my mind on anything regarding my thoughts and enjoyment of the film. Perhaps it may next time around? I don't know? :-?
  • Posts: 1,817
    1 year after my opinion hasn't changed. It's one of the best of the whole series and I rank it 4th after FRWL, CR and OHMSS only for two reasons. It ain't a Fleming story and that makes a difference, and the latter films mentions have the best plots in my opinion, the double-crossing drama of FRWL, the idea of breaking a villain playing cards and the fascinating chapter of facing Blofeld and losing his wife because of that. SF has a great story but not as good as my top 3, from my point of view. The second reason is that it hasn't reached the "classic" status of FRWL and OHMSS, or even CR (which is surprising given the fact that is a recent release).
    Bottom line, I love it in the theater and I still love it know. The quality is above many other outings and it's the best performance by Craig. And on the whole I rank it higher than 19 Bond films!
  • edited October 2013 Posts: 4,619
    Skyfall is no Casino Royale but still it's one of the five best Bond films ever. It didn't get those 5 Oscar nominations for no reason. There are only two reasons the movie is not impeccable: the script could be stronger (even though it's way better than at least half of the Bond screenplays) and they could have used more outdoor locations and less sets.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,115
    One thing I've noticed over the past year is that SF has a high replay value for me. I can watch it again and again and again and neither grow tired of it nor feel bored watching it. In fact, I'd say SF is very easy on the eye, largely because of the great photography and because of Craig who, surprise - surprise, keeps amazing me as Bond.

    SF certainly has flaws. I never claimed it was perfect, not even right after its release. But most Bond films have flaws and I can easily overlook those because they are compensated by many good things. Such is the case with SF as well.

    My impression of SF, post 10 or so viewings, has remained more or less the same. I consider it a great Bond film, trailing slightly behind CR but being a vast improvement over QOS.
  • Posts: 6,396
    DarthDimi wrote:
    One thing I've noticed over the past year is that SF has a high replay value for me. I can watch it again and again and again and neither grow tired of it nor feel bored watching it. In fact, I'd say SF is very easy on the eye, largely because of the great photography and because of Craig who, surprise - surprise, keeps amazing me as Bond.

    SF certainly has flaws. I never claimed it was perfect, not even right after its release. But most Bond films have flaws and I can easily overlook those because they are compensated by many good things. Such is the case with SF as well.

    My impression of SF, post 10 or so viewings, has remained more or less the same. I consider it a great Bond film, trailing slightly behind CR but being a vast improvement over QOS.

    You said it better than I did. Agree totally.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,788
    If you can't handle farfetched plots, it's hard to imagine you being a Bond fan

    Farfetched plots can grow on me, but when I go "What?" too many times in a movie I just can't see it as being 'great'.
    1. M tells her to take the shot. WHAT?
    2. Someone who is not a professional sniper is taking a precision shot like that. WHAT?
    3. Bond survives the fall. I'll let that pass.
    4. Bond drops out of sight. WHAT? Why? Hurt feewings?
    5. No search can find Bond. WHAT? We can find Bin Laden but not a drunk dude that plays scorpion games in PUBLIC?
    6. no, I could go on and on, and no one's even gonna read past 10.

    Basically, play it straight & give me actual reasons & motivations, or give me a bit of the cheeky tongue to make the gaps in logic more palatable.

    Now back to the Mythbusters James Bond specials...
  • Posts: 1,817
    chrisisall wrote:
    If you can't handle farfetched plots, it's hard to imagine you being a Bond fan

    Farfetched plots can grow on me, but when I go "What?" too many times in a movie I just can't see it as being 'great'.
    1. M tells her to take the shot. WHAT?
    2. Someone who is not a professional sniper is taking a precision shot like that. WHAT?
    3. Bond survives the fall. I'll let that pass.
    4. Bond drops out of sight. WHAT? Why? Hurt feewings?
    5. No search can find Bond. WHAT? We can find Bin Laden but not a drunk dude that plays scorpion games in PUBLIC?
    6. no, I could go on and on, and no one's even gonna read past 10.

    Basically, play it straight & give me actual reasons & motivations, or give me a bit of the cheeky tongue to make the gaps in logic more palatable.

    Now back to the Mythbusters James Bond specials...

    But you can find was many or more unanswered questions in the other Bond movies.
  • Posts: 1,970
    I still haven't seen it a 2nd time. I want to buy it but im still waiting to see if they are going to release a special edition/ ultimate edition dvd of Skyfall
  • edited October 2013 Posts: 6,396
    0013 wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    If you can't handle farfetched plots, it's hard to imagine you being a Bond fan

    Farfetched plots can grow on me, but when I go "What?" too many times in a movie I just can't see it as being 'great'.
    1. M tells her to take the shot. WHAT?
    2. Someone who is not a professional sniper is taking a precision shot like that. WHAT?
    3. Bond survives the fall. I'll let that pass.
    4. Bond drops out of sight. WHAT? Why? Hurt feewings?
    5. No search can find Bond. WHAT? We can find Bin Laden but not a drunk dude that plays scorpion games in PUBLIC?
    6. no, I could go on and on, and no one's even gonna read past 10.

    Basically, play it straight & give me actual reasons & motivations, or give me a bit of the cheeky tongue to make the gaps in logic more palatable.

    Now back to the Mythbusters James Bond specials...

    But you can find was many or more unanswered questions in the other Bond movies.

    In QoS Bond survives a fall when the parachute is opened at terminal velocity from aprrox. 50ft above the ground. WHAT?
    M travels from London to Bolivia in no time at all it would seem. WHAT?
    An assassin from QUANTUM finds Greene in the middle of a desert. WHAT?
    The first 30 minutes of the film. WHAT? WHAT? WHAT?

    We can all trawl through all 23 films to pick out flaws and plots holes so I don't know why you've singled out SF for criticism.
  • Posts: 7,653
    chrisisall wrote:
    I got no real sense of betrayal from Bond

    You can see all of the anger and bitterness in Bond in the brilliant scene in M's apartment.

    And it was amazing how he could enter the appartment of the head of MI6 just after an attack on her office. It is amazing that M did not get killed within the 1st hour so dreadfull was her security for the whole movie. It is bloody surprising that the villain took plus 2 hours to finaly kill her. ;)
  • Posts: 7,653
    chrisisall wrote:
    5. No search can find Bond. WHAT? We can find Bin Laden but not a drunk dude that plays scorpion games in PUBLIC?

    To be honest finding Bin Laden took close to a decade, Bond was not missing that long. They had some time left.

    ;)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,788
    0013 wrote:
    But you can find was many or more unanswered questions in the other Bond movies.
    Yeah, but the whole of SF hinges on the first WHAT? It's the first WHAT? that I find rather stupid and insulting, and sets up M for her last reel redemption in death (of course). When I saw the trailer for SF I knew I'd really seen the whole movie. Then I saw the whole movie- no real surprises. When writers start with, "Hey- let's have (select something the audience couldn't possibly have seen coming), then we can really explore our character!" that's when my eyes roll. Mendes made the most of a flimsy obvious script, though.
  • edited October 2013 Posts: 418
    I saw it 3 times at the Cinema, and for me, it just got better everytime i watched it. After the first time, i couldn't wait to go back and see it again the following evening. I absolutely love everything about it, and since i got the DVD, i've actually lost count how many times i've watched it at home. Two hours plus just fly by..It's been in my top 6 Bond films since day 1, and it's very unlikely to change..
  • Posts: 1,817
    chrisisall wrote:
    0013 wrote:
    But you can find was many or more unanswered questions in the other Bond movies.
    Yeah, but the whole of SF hinges on the first WHAT? It's the first WHAT? that I find rather stupid and insulting, and sets up M for her last reel redemption in death (of course). When I saw the trailer for SF I knew I'd really seen the whole movie. Then I saw the whole movie- no real surprises. When writers start with, "Hey- let's have (select something the audience couldn't possibly have seen coming), then we can really explore our character!" that's when my eyes roll. Mendes made the most of a flimsy obvious script, though.

    The thing is that even Bond himself made the same "what?" when he confronts M and she explains her decision: "it was the possibility of losing you against the certainty of losing other agents". It was a rationalized decision and the power of the film lies in the fact that even if M ruled against Bond, he takes out his pride and tries to save her. The things he does for England...
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Creasy47 wrote:
    plot holes/irritations and lackluster action sequences, it's my third favorite Craig film.

    So Silva's plot being a little out there and the action not being to you liking, for those reasons alone it's third? You're harsh.
  • Posts: 686
    There are some technical aspects of the movie I like, but overall my opinion of it has not changed - still the bottom of my list.

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,235
    Perdogg wrote:
    There are some technical aspects of the movie I like, but overall my opinion of it has not changed - still the bottom of my list.

    I can't understand why you dislike it so much, @Perdogg. I rank it second best to OHMSS.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,115
    I find it curious to see SF end up at the bottom of some people's list. This means such films as TMWTGG, DAD (!), TWINE and AVTAK are rated higher. With due respect, that's a bit of a stretch for me.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,235
    DarthDimi wrote:
    I find it curious to see SF end up at the bottom of some people's list. This means such films as TMWTGG, DAD (!), TWINE and AVTAK are rated higher. With due respect, that's a bit of a stretch for me.

    Indeed it is, but each to their own and all that...
  • DarthDimi wrote:
    TWINE

    I really like that one although I don't think Skyfall was better. Funnily enough I think SF is basically a Craig era version of TWINE, lots of similarities there.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    It's still in my top 3, each time I watch it I find new, interesting things. Lately, while re-reading The Count of Monte Cristo, I have found parallels between Edmond Dantes and Silva.
    Of course it is not a perfect film, there are no perfect films. At first I didn't like the title sequence at all, now I can appreciate it a bit more but still don't love it. I still think the CGI during the PTS chase is a bit sketchy and my major concern with the plot is something I pointed out in my review at the time but nobody else seems to notice: the cyanide capsule would never do that to Silva's face. But it wouldn't be a Bond film with some script inconsistencies (I think it should be mandatory :D).
    So, I repeat, it's a top 3 entry for me, tied with OHMSS in number 2. It's such a complex, multi-layered and complete film, just wonderful.
  • Posts: 15,049
    chrisisall wrote:
    Well, I guess I'm in a minority of one here in that I still like QOS better than SF (and CR, for that matter), although I've warmed to it since my initial dislike.
    I got no real sense of betrayal from Bond, as if he'd taken the hit, survived the fall, and saw this his opportunity to take an unexpected holiday (Ferris Bond's Day Off)...
    But wait, he sees on TV that he's NEEDED again! Okay, back to it then! Bye what's your name, nice shaggin' ya!
    And Silva with the hitherto flawless plans who didn't bring enough men or firepower for home-alone Bond? That's just silly.

    Yes, there is a lot to like about SF, but it's really not top shelf Bond IMO. It's a middling Bond for me, but I like it more now then at the beginning of the year...

    If you can't handle farfetched plots, it's hard to imagine you being a Bond fan, or even a fan of Fleming for the matter of it. But plot likelihood aside, SF mops the floor with QOS, and I'm not even a QOS-hater.

    I love SF and do not think the plot is far fetched (heck it is relatively small scale even), however at some point near the end the timing is very convenient for Silva.

    Back to the OP, in spite of its flaws (because it has flaws), it is one of the strongest Bond movie of the last twenty years. I find CR better, however I think SF comes second. It is also maybe the most Flemingesque movie not directly adapted from a novel of Fleming.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,788
    DarthDimi wrote:
    TWINE

    I really like that one although I don't think Skyfall was better. Funnily enough I think SF is basically a Craig era version of TWINE, lots of similarities there.
    Yes, same writers, same sense of something more complete & coherent could have been done with the story, although Mendes & Apted are different sorts of directors...
  • chrisisall wrote:
    If you can't handle farfetched plots, it's hard to imagine you being a Bond fan

    Farfetched plots can grow on me, but when I go "What?" too many times in a movie I just can't see it as being 'great'.
    1. M tells her to take the shot. WHAT?
    2. Someone who is not a professional sniper is taking a precision shot like that. WHAT?
    3. Bond survives the fall. I'll let that pass.
    4. Bond drops out of sight. WHAT? Why? Hurt feewings?
    5. No search can find Bond. WHAT? We can find Bin Laden but not a drunk dude that plays scorpion games in PUBLIC?
    6. no, I could go on and on, and no one's even gonna read past 10.

    Basically, play it straight & give me actual reasons & motivations, or give me a bit of the cheeky tongue to make the gaps in logic more palatable.

    Now back to the Mythbusters James Bond specials...

    Heh heh. None of those even cause me to bat an eye. Compared to the fantastical excess of the vast majority of Bond plots, those manufactured niggles are utterly inconsequential. When I see criticisms such as this, I'm apt to think the critic is searching desperately for reasons to dislike or hate the film in question.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,788
    When I see criticisms such as this, I'm apt to think the critic is searching desperately for reasons to dislike or hate the film in question.
    Problem is, I don't hate the movie, I already said it's middling for me- I only dislike two Bond movies, and it's not one of them, so that means I LIKE it.
    ;)
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,235
    chrisisall wrote:
    When I see criticisms such as this, I'm apt to think the critic is searching desperately for reasons to dislike or hate the film in question.
    Problem is, I don't hate the movie, I already said it's middling for me- I only dislike two Bond movies, and it's not one of them, so that means I LIKE it.
    ;)

    Pray tell, which two do you dislike, @chrisisall?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,903
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    plot holes/irritations and lackluster action sequences, it's my third favorite Craig film.

    So Silva's plot being a little out there and the action not being to you liking, for those reasons alone it's third? You're harsh.

    There's other reasons, I'm just with family for the weekend so I got a little time to post some comments on the threads, hence a quick reply. We've spoken on it before, and just because it's third doesn't mean I don't like it, because I find all three of Craig's Bond films to be absolutely fantastic.

This discussion has been closed.