"Did i overcomplicate the plot ?" - Skyfall Appreciation & Discussion

191012141543

Comments

  • Posts: 19,339
    Damn right.....and tbh they have been valid ..
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Damn right.....and tbh they have been valid ..

    Aren't you watching it at the moment..?!!
  • Posts: 19,339
    Yep,Bond is about ,oops he has,dropped Patrice off the Shanghai sky-skraper..
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Yep,Bond is about ,oops he has,dropped Patrice off the Shanghai sky-skraper..

    Lovely shot that follows in behind Bond goes over his head and looks down at that drop as Patrice hangs on for his life! All in one take.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Im on the casino scene,very Bondian..
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Skyfall is in a league of its own when it comes to photo. Others are good, but cannot really compete. It is the one thing that really stood out. Thank you, Mr Deakins.
  • Posts: 19,339
    M and Bond are just entering Skyfall now...
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    Skyfall is in a league of its own when it comes to photo. Others are good, but cannot really compete. It is the one thing that really stood out. Thank you, Mr Deakins.

    I've come to realise this, too.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I agree. Deakins is as important to SF as Adam and Barry were to Bond films of yore. The Shanghai sequences in particular are absolutely outstanding and intensely atmospheric. My favourite parts of that film.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    The whole middle section of the film, from the point we see Bond in Turkey to the moment Silva is captured, is nothing short of brilliant. All of it. There is little action (only the Patrice fight), but it's nonetheless compelling: some of the best characterization in any Bond film: Q, Moneypenny, Mallory, Severine, Patrice. Even M and Bond are well written here. And add to this, the aforementioned photography. SF is simply a beautiful film.

    CR is a better written film, overall, and we have Fleming to thank for that. He gave us the foundation. But CR also suffers from a few missteps that knock it down a notch for me: 1. Two chase scenes (the Mollaka foot chase and the Carlos airport sequence) just go on and on. The Miami runway scene is especially exhausting. 2. The awful Ford commercial in the Bahamas (you know what I'm talking about). 3. A poor (and rather laughable) job of using Prague to double as Miami.

    I love both SF and CR, have them as 1-2 in my overall rankings at the moment. But SF gets the slight edge.

  • Posts: 11,425
    TripAces wrote: »
    The whole middle section of the film, from the point we see Bond in Turkey to the moment Silva is captured, is nothing short of brilliant. All of it. There is little action (only the Patrice fight), but it's nonetheless compelling: some of the best characterization in any Bond film: Q, Moneypenny, Mallory, Severine, Patrice. Even M and Bond are well written here. And add to this, the aforementioned photography. SF is simply a beautiful film.

    CR is a better written film, overall, and we have Fleming to thank for that. He gave us the foundation. But CR also suffers from a few missteps that knock it down a notch for me: 1. Two chase scenes (the Mollaka foot chase and the Carlos airport sequence) just go on and on. The Miami runway scene is especially exhausting. 2. The awful Ford commercial in the Bahamas (you know what I'm talking about). 3. A poor (and rather laughable) job of using Prague to double as Miami.

    I love both SF and CR, have them as 1-2 in my overall rankings at the moment. But SF gets the slight edge.

    I find the PTS in SF very weak. However, it really improves from the point Bond appears in M's flat and then up until the choppers appear over the island. That sequence is quite well done and I remember thinking it wa going pretty well when I was watching it the first time. Then, for me, it just falls apart from the moment it moves back to London onwards.

    SF will always be highly overrated IMO as long as it is regarded as a classic.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    Getafix wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    The whole middle section of the film, from the point we see Bond in Turkey to the moment Silva is captured, is nothing short of brilliant. All of it. There is little action (only the Patrice fight), but it's nonetheless compelling: some of the best characterization in any Bond film: Q, Moneypenny, Mallory, Severine, Patrice. Even M and Bond are well written here. And add to this, the aforementioned photography. SF is simply a beautiful film.

    CR is a better written film, overall, and we have Fleming to thank for that. He gave us the foundation. But CR also suffers from a few missteps that knock it down a notch for me: 1. Two chase scenes (the Mollaka foot chase and the Carlos airport sequence) just go on and on. The Miami runway scene is especially exhausting. 2. The awful Ford commercial in the Bahamas (you know what I'm talking about). 3. A poor (and rather laughable) job of using Prague to double as Miami.

    I love both SF and CR, have them as 1-2 in my overall rankings at the moment. But SF gets the slight edge.

    I find the PTS in SF very weak. However, it really improves from the point Bond appears in M's flat and then up until the choppers appear over the island. That sequence is quite well done and I remember thinking it wa going pretty well when I was watching it the first time. Then, for me, it just falls apart from the moment it moves back to London onwards.

    SF will always be highly overrated IMO as long as it is regarded as a classic.

    Ooops: This was supposed to read, "...some of the best characterization in any Bond film: Q, Moneypenny, Mallory, Severine, Silva."

    In any case, I agree about the PTS. The film dips somewhat in London, too, but I really like the Scotland scenes.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    edited October 2016 Posts: 732
    Coming from QoS I did sooo much appreciate the PTS of Skyfall since I was able to follow it :-) But still: I like it a lot - it's suspenseful and well done and can't understand what's wrong with it. Yes, there's that obvious VW product placement but I just don't care ;-)
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited October 2016 Posts: 4,043
    The PTS in SF knocks SP into a cocked hat, no need for dodgy overblown CGI apart from that ill advised Grand Bazaar bike chase bit.

    SF though opens brilliantly, ok not having the GB is not ideal and Mendes excuse is wearing a little thin but that opening PTS will be one of the iconic moments. I've given Sam plenty flak for SP but his Russian doll approach with the PTS is a stroke of genius and I find the PTS utterly thrilling.

    VW product placement granted but Bond didn't all of a sudden start this with the Craig era they've been doing it for decades, it's not like the Craig era kicked all this off.

    CR overall is a better film and Craig has more to get his teeth into and to prove which is why from a dramatic and character point of view will most likely be his best work in the series, despite him not actually being Bond full on till the closing moment with that superb sign off but it has its issues.

    I can't see anything wrong with Molloka chase, that is the crowning achievement of the Craig era when it comes to action, no action sequence in Craig's time matches it from the moment he's spotted him and starts the pursuit to the point he shoots him and blows up the building as a diversion to get away.

    The gulf between this sequence and the generic 90's action guff we got with Pierce is vast but that Miami sequence is not good at all.

    It works as way to progress the plot but couldn't they have delivered something better than warmed over version of one of the most thrilling sequences committed to celluloid? I am of course referring to the Raiders truck chase.

    The dialogue while at times some of the best of the series is cringeworthy on occasion, Omega plugging and of course my little finger so no it's not perfect but as a whole it's an incredibly strong film and the Venice sequence that seems to be so devisive is still the best climax of the Craig era and I'd argue one of the best of the series.

    CR was the first time since OHMSS when we got an actual adaptation of a Fleming novel that bore a resemblance, rather than just taking the title then fashioning a story around like so many of the entries did with the exception of some of the earlier films notably OHMSS.

    I think that is why some judge it quite severely because we are messing with the holy grail for some of Fleming's writing. Anyone expecting a straight adaptation and ending the film with Vesper commiting suicide off camera was off their rocker.

    The venice sequence was something I'd never seen done before, it was like the parkour chase at the beginning something where it felt Bond was doing something unique and it's great the film is bookended like this.

    Yes some of the filling in between is questionable but the PTS is my favourite of the series full stop.

    Getting back to SF yes the it has holes but everything up to Silva being bought to London is going fine for me, Silva yes can't help but echo the Joker in his scheme and getaway and Mendes is clearly influenced by Nolan but for me it's not a problem.

    The dumb dialogue of Q claiming Silva had planned this does the film a disservice but when you compare to some the crimes in it's follow up to me it's mild at least this doesn't shat all over the series present and before it's just a chink in the plot in comparrison.

    Though Mendes, Craig, cast and crew carry it all off with such confidence, some hate the Tennison moment but it still puts hairs on the back of my neck. I really wish though Arnold had scored this, I think it might have been his finest moment coming off the back of his extremely promising QOS score.

    Also the Straw Dog/Home Alone climax in Scotland for me is thrilling and moving, no DC cracking that deep water joke should have been dropped but the way Silva is dispatched and the look on his face is entirely in keeping with his character. Logan comes in for plenty flak but the pay off Silva's rat speech in his iconic intro, I love it.

    It's contemporary but all so echoes back to the great memorable moments from the series, like a riff on Goldfinger's Lazer table and Connery hitting it out the park along with Frobe (despite being dubbed).

    The way we return to it and Craig's last words "last rat standing" just sums up their relationship perfectly.

    No a joke before Craig's and Dench's final moment was ill advised but both do such fine work here that it can almost be forgiven.

    CR is a Bond fans film but SF was a Bond film for everyone and this I think maybe the rub with some. Yes it was released on the 50th and we had the London Olympics with DC involved but if it had been SPECTRE I certainly don't think that film would have struck the cord that SF did.

    Adele's theme had its role to play, the global smash it was, although Newman's score has it's moments, something more celebratory would have made all the difference. So with some asides and an acknowledgement that it isn't perfect or a masterpeice by any stretch of the imagination, it did the anniversary proud.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    Mendes' excuse for the gunbarrel was perfectly reasonable. You can't shoehorn it into the beginning and then have the iris open up to the corridor, where Bond is waiting to make yet another introduction. It doesn't work.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,492
    jake24 wrote: »
    Mendes' excuse for the gunbarrel was perfectly reasonable. You can't shoehorn it into the beginning and then have the iris open up to the corridor, where Bond is waiting to make yet another introduction. It doesn't work.

    Then add in the gunbarrel where it belongs and kick things off a little differently. Or, remove the musical cue that accompanies his introduction in SF, and just have the gunbarrel pan to the hallway as he begins walking down.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited October 2016 Posts: 10,588
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Mendes' excuse for the gunbarrel was perfectly reasonable. You can't shoehorn it into the beginning and then have the iris open up to the corridor, where Bond is waiting to make yet another introduction. It doesn't work.

    Then add in the gunbarrel where it belongs and kick things off a little differently. Or, remove the musical cue that accompanies his introduction in SF, and just have the gunbarrel pan to the hallway as he begins walking down.
    Very true, it was his own fault for not setting up the sequence differently (though if you ask me, I much prefer it at the end coupled with the 50th anniversary logo in this case). However, the gunbarrel opening up to the hallway simply doesn't work. Bond would make an introduction to the film twice within a ten second frame.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,492
    Then yes, he should've gone with something - anything - different that would've allowed the gunbarrel in the start. There's nothing overly impressive with what we got, either, considering the GB was placed at the end of the movie for it.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,691
    Mendes' excuse may be understandable, but this was the 50th anniversary outing. It was already bad that they butched up the gunbarrel in DAD for the 40th with that stupid CGI bullet, so who on earth decided that for the next anniversary, the big 5-0 one, we still can't have a proper gunbarrel because it 'had to be' be at the end? I don't care even if the GB was at the end again in SP or in Bond 25 if Craig returns, but I find it insulting that for the main 5-0 event it wasn't at the right place.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    He could drop the gunbarrel or have a different opening shot. He chose the former. Fair enough.
  • Posts: 4,602
    I think, considering the massive box office and how well it did out there in the real World (outside of fandom), I think its an interesting question "Is SF a good film?" rather than "Is SF a good Bond film?". SF may have abandoned some of the formula and that leaves a bad taste in some fans mouths but , as a film, it is the best of the DC era by far IMHO. There is no such thing as a perfect film but, in terms of how the whole thing works, from Bond appearing from the shadow in the corridor to "with pleasure M, with pleasure", it just works as a crowd pleasing action film. Perhaps SF proves that there is "wiggle room" in expanding our expectations of what a Bond movie is? Do we have to have a Bond girl? Do we have to have the baddie's base being blow up? etc etc
    IMHO SF works as a great movie. Obvioulsy, fans can have their own opinions but there is tremendous goodwill for SF amongst jo public and that is not a fluke.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I agree @patb and you've framed the reason for SF's success well. The film is different and yet distinctly Bondian.

    The familiarity comes from the panache in the film making, the incredible visuals, the organic humour, and the supreme confidence of the cast/characterizations. Not from the tropes, of which there are surprisingly few (although some rather offensive, like the DB5). In this instance, dumping Arnold also works in its favour, because Newman's score is sufficiently different from what has come before to also seem fresh (at least to my ears).

    I recall thinking to myself after the first viewing:
    'now that was a unique Bond film, and somehow despite this I can't wait to get back and watch it again on IMAX'.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited October 2016 Posts: 15,691
    You could also argue that SF is the least Bondian film in the series, as there were so many examples of people who were never interested in Bond all jumped on the Bond wagon. The box office success of SF is so huge that there's bound to be a sizeable portion of the audience that were first timers to the franchise. So it's possible that this new fanbase was tempted towards SF for the precise reason that it was not a 'Bondian' film. Or maybe it was a new 'style' of Bond film that won the world over.

    Again, for me SF was very much Bondian (love the cinematography and style of the film), I was just offering a random idea.
  • edited October 2016 Posts: 4,602
    the irony to me is that the Bond cliches are not essential and, perhaps , get in the way. So with the DB5, if they had dumped that scene and we see Bond and M drive to Scotland in something else equally British and symbolic of the past (a Mini would be an obvious choice or a series 2 Land Rover ), it would still have been a great movie, perhaps even better ("go ahead, eject me" is one of the weakest lines in the movie IMHO), plus there is the scene where they stop in the highlands for seemingly no reason. Repairing the car would have provided a better context for banter (remember the scene in T2 where they are installing a new starter)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I adore the SF opening. The placement of the gunbarrel doesn't even come into it for me, as I just don't give a damn.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    I adore the SF opening. The placement of the gunbarrel doesn't even come into it for me, as I just don't give a damn.
    Same.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,492
    The only time I was fine with it being omitted was with CR. Seems odd to not appear in either QoS or SF. I suppose people don't really care about the gunbarrel's placement like I thought.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    The only time I was fine with it being omitted was with CR. Seems odd to not appear in either QoS or SF. I suppose people don't really care about the gunbarrel's placement like I thought.
    I just wish it were consistent. I much prefer it at the start from here on out.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Disturbs me when people are ambivalent about the gun barrel.
  • Posts: 4,602
    If I were to create a list of all the things it takes to make a decent Bond movie, the gun barrel would be very close to the bottom. There are so many factors IMHO more important but I do understand it is part of the Bond furniture
Sign In or Register to comment.