It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Exactly, Mendes puts his rather mundane 'thematic' interests before and above story. Not clever and not very entertaining IMO.
The Tennyson poem is the low point for me - it's like being shot in the face with 'thematically-modified' sawn-off.
Ha ha.
http://atthebuzzershow.com/2012/11/30/why-casino-royale-is-better-than-skyfall/
The only person saying SF is better in the comments has 7 thumbs down.
I think that without the box office dollars in some people's eyes, the SF vs CR debate would even be less a matter...
I also think the words 'Oscar' and 'Multi-layered' have a lot to answer for.
Only time will tell if people still consider it a classic in 30 years time.
SF has some similarities with TB on this front. TB was the biggest grossing Bond film until SF, and is still regarded by many as a classic. But I much prefer the first three Connery movies. TB always seems to me one that doesn't quite justify the status it has. As with SF, there's quite a lot that's good, but it's still somehow less than the sum of its parts (as someone else said about SF above).
I'd still rather watch TB than SF though!
Your circle of friends are very special indeed ;-). By the way, I'm saying " "CR" and "SF" basically get the exact same kind of praise from ordinary movie lovers (people who are NOT Bond fans), journalists and critics ". I am not saying that all these people find SF better than CR.
3:-O
SF is beautiful to look at too, but is far more modern, glossy & on the surface. It's difficult to explain, but although the characterizations are excellent (thanks to Mendes) & it is superb looking (thanks to Deakins), SF seems more for the "ADD/ADHD" mobile device crowd imho. Ironic given its overriding theme about the 'old' ways being best. I
CR on the other hand is much slower, more deliberate, & almost has a classic 60's/70's style pace to it at times, while still appearing contemporary & classy - a more difficult feat to pull off, and more reflective of the 'old' ways of story telling than SF.
At the end of the day, I like both films equally, but CR is the better one imho due to the depth of storytelling (much of it from the book).
For me, it's like a documentary vs. a music video - both can be equally entertaining but one is more profound than the other.
But on the while, on average, as you can see in the graph I made down below, I do find the Craig-films superior to those of Brosnan:
And, the premiere of "SPECTRE" this year will most definitely change views on this. It could definitely turn the Craig films into a higher quality category than those of Brosnan.
I disagree with this view completely. Casino Royale is Craig's best so far, however unlike with the Brosnan era, I think that the series is going in the right direction. I really like Skyfall, although like all films it has flaws, and I really really like what's happening with Spectre. I think that Spectre has a decent chance of being better than CR, and possibly even the best overall, but we will have to wait and see about that.
SF on the other hand, despite its plot holes, is a bona fide Bond film, and an excellent one at that - although not quite up to the benchmark standard of CR (CR is one of the best Bond movies of the past 50 yrs in my estimation so that's no shame).
However, I agree that both Brosnan and Craig had their best performances arguably in their debuts. For Brosnan this is debatable (I thought he was quite good in DAD, despite the movie's justified poor reputation) but Craig was undeniably best to date in CR imho.
I'm hoping he can top his CR debut in SP. He needs a worthy and meaty script with good dialogue to be able to do it though. As I've said elsewhere, I saw him on Broadway in 2013 in Betrayal and he was absolutely amazing on stage - so undeniably he can turn it up when the script is worthy.
Sy the above graph I made. Curious what you think of it.
I think TWINE is a far, far better film than Skyfall.Better Bond, better action, better villain, better Bond girl/villainess, and it doesnt take itself TOO seriously unlike Skyfall.
This articulates my view on things nearly 100%.
I think Craig is terrific in CR and the performance has more range to it but as far as being Bond and exuding that feel for me his SF performance is the best yet.
CR has some real cringe worthy dialogue in it and that Miami sequence is quite generic.
Don't get me wrong it's no. 3 for me but I just enjoy SF more all over because aside from the plot holes I have no problem with the film.
Though as much as I like Bardem's Silva, it's still Mads all the way in the Craig era. I think he's one of the best villains of the series.
I don't see what is wrong with the dialogue is SF it's a good deal better than many entries and it certainly doesn't have anything as bad as some of the lines in CR, involving fingers and Omega's.
CR certainly has it's flaws too, SF seems to have become the most flawed film of the series for some, in fact every Bond film has flaws including my favourite OHMSS.
Also as for the question of the thread once again no it's hasn't lost it's gloss or appeal, just feel I should pop in now and then to defend it, though not every other bloody page like some poster who's hard on for critique of this film must be incredibly satisfying.
"Everyone needs a hobby"
"What's yours?"
"Slagging off Skyfall"
I don't think this is true at all. CR was far far more overanalyzed, due to it being Craig's first and a new direction in the series.
If you believe that the plots of CR and QoS are as thin and full of holes as SF why not share a few?
I generally agree, but Brosnans films except for DAD should each be a bit higher, and QOS lower
To me, Skyfall has not lost any of its gloss and appeal. It's easily the most beautiful looking film in the series and it's matched by defining performances from Craig, Dench, and Bardem. While the script is simple and linear, that is part of the beauty of Skyfall for critics and fans alike because it was a way of saying, "We can make a good film without the superfluous attractions." In that regard, and all of its other strengths, Skyfall has not wavered over time. This may seem like a bold statement, but I think in a few decades Skyfall will be remembered along with the likes of Goldfinger as being the standard future films are measured and receive elements from. Note that this statement is not suggesting I think Skyfall is better than Casino Royale, which is stronger in large part because of the available source material and clever adaptation. However, in terms of popular response and overall meaning to the franchise, I stand by my statement until it is proven false.
I can not agree more with you. I am curious what you think of my opening post in this topic: http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/10853/why-criticism-on-skyfall-never-truly-gained-ground-but-flourishes-in-small-fan-circles#latest
My too, obviously this topic is channeling those feelings. Still, that's mostly happening on the Bond forums. I think it's slightly different outside of these forums. See my article above:
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/10853/why-criticism-on-skyfall-never-truly-gained-ground-but-flourishes-in-small-fan-circles#latest
The Bond producers and studio are going to look at Skyfall, much like they did for Goldfinger, and extract elements for future films. As much as Casino Royale (and aspects of Quantum of Solace) eclipse Skyfall from a critical standpoint, the two films combined marginally beat out Skyfall at the worldwide box office. The series hasn't had this level of mainstream success and attention since the early films and the powers that be know it. They were deliberate in waiting another year to get Sam Mendes back, ultimately shortening Craig's tenure as Bond, just to have a worthy follow-up with the same creative vision. They caught lightning in a bottle and don't want to misuse the opportunity to bring about a renaissance in the franchise. They will always attempt to include classic elements from both Fleming's work and the original films, but they now have a new generation of movie-goers numbering in the millions that have Skyfall as the benchmark for what a Bond film should be. And that is something they have to live up to with each new release.