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

1356745

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Craig has not gotten any better material since CR.

    Have to agree on that score. I'm fond of SF and I'll happily watch QoS, although I'm ambivalent about it on the whole; it's a real disappointment.

    While I think the production value of the Craig era has been a step up, I am constantly reminded of my feeling post CR, my excitement levels were sky high, but disappointingly the trajectory I envisaged hasn't quite panned out.

    If you'd told me in 2006 that CR would still be the best of the Craig era in 2014, I'd have laughed. CR teed up the tenure and I expected it to continue, but somehow they haven't quite hit it out of the park. I really hope 24 can do it.

    I think I'd be more optimistic with a new director, but I'm happy to see what we get.

    As for SF - it's still a film I enjoy, quite a unique and memorable entry, but it's biggest problems lie in the schizophrenic direction from Mendes. If he'd cut the nostalgia and binned some of the pseudo-hacking nonsense it would be a lot better IMO.


  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 21,988
    I too consider CR so far to be the peak of the Craig Bonds. I remember my initial response to SF in 2012: GOOD FILM! ... but I still think CR is better. ;-) I guess it has something to do with how I experienced CR in 2006. Apart from my more objective appreciation of CR's many achievements, it's also the first Bond film I've invested so much fan love in since GE.

    QOS was a serious let-down given my naive hopes it might at least match the quality of CR, but the film has grown on me since. It's like olives: at first I couldn't stand the taste of them but now I'm happy to eat a few. :-)

    SF is a beautifully shot, well acted film with a fascinating script. I say fascinating because it has these sinister undercurrents which I find intriguing yet I'm not quite sure I'm ready to accept it as a piece of flawless writing yet. It feels perforated: the overall story is good, though not as original as I think it could have been, but it has some holes. I wonder if these holes were deliberate (i.e. artistic arrogance) or clumsy: I don't know.

    I haven't lost my faith in Mendes, however. I really think the man can make a decent film. We tend to overlook some of the evident flaws in for example the Hamilton, Gilbert or Glen Bonds, simply because we consider them the charming classics and because our nostalgia takes over pretty quickly. It's like having fun with sweet grandpa singing like a drunken sailor, while young Lucy is told to practice some more because of one false note.

    SF is a character driven movie while older Bonds tended to care less about the characters and more about adventurous and exciting situations. Granted, there's a reason why people enjoy those less complex, more innocent Bond films so much. But the Craig era, as it is, seems to be defined by a heavy reliance on characters and audiences generally seem to swallow this stuff. It's almost a paradigm shift in our Bondian sensibilities. That's where Mendes comes in as an asset IMO. The man understands characters.

    I'm still hoping for a Craig GF or TB but I doubt Sam Mendes will give us that. However, if he gives us an OHMSS for Craig, I'll throw myself at his feet and kiss them. ;-)
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    Posts: 12,436
    I liked Mendes' direction of Skyfall. I'm happy he is making one more because I know he'll go for something a tad different this time, and I think he will aim for quality in every area. He is a very detailed director, from what I understand.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 21,988
    I also like Mendes' eloquence. I like to hear him talk about his Bond film(s). He takes this thing seriously yet in an amusing way.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Mendes is an intelligent and decent director. But I wasn't over the moon when he was chosen for SF. The film fulfilled my worst fears. However it is Mendes' very hit and miss record that gives me hope that the next one will be okay. For some reason I think the plot is going to be a lot stronger this time. I am glad a director is making two in a row as well. First time since Glen. Bodes we'll.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,284
    Getafix wrote: »
    Mendes is an intelligent and decent director.
    It helps if the script is written by one person (or one team) as opposed to being tossed about just before filming by many...
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    Posts: 12,436
    I actually think it helps a film to have one main writer and one other writer at least, at some point during the writing process; not just one. Or the director taking a part in the story if said director is a good writer/storyteller him- or herself.

    I think Mendes is more than competent. Skyfall fulfilled my wishes, complete opposite of your feelings, Getafix. Which happens often enough; people see the same thing and just have a different reaction.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited November 2014 Posts: 4,399
    (deleted)
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    Posts: 12,436
    I was not let down with Skyfall. All the talk of plot holes ... well, there were some, sure, but none were big enough or distracting to me where it took me out of the film or lessened my enjoyment of the whole film.

    Writer and director working together is crucial, yes. I don't mind the delay; it was not overly long and it showed that he was paying close attention to the script.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I was not let down with Skyfall. All the talk of plot holes ... well, there were some, sure, but none were big enough or distracting to me where it took me out of the film or lessened my enjoyment of the whole film.

    Writer and director working together is crucial, yes. I don't mind the delay; it was not overly long and it showed that he was paying close attention to the script.

    They need to bring the mechanics of the story up to scratch. Thematically SF was very accomplished, but the internal logic is awry at times. I'm not one to harp on about plot holes, they're difficult to eradicate, but you can put work into making the plot, a) coherent and b) practical (ie. believable, even if only in the context of the film and it's world).
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 11,425
    @RC7 as you say, internal coherency is all I ask for - that the plot and story makes sense and has a bit of rigour. I was going to compare the SF plot to a TV plot but that's being unfair to TV, where the standard of writing is actually very high these days.
  • Would have liked to see a good car chase in the old Aston, with a built in machine gun taking out a car along the way. Maybe a flashback to bonds parents. But overall very good.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,284
    M's comment about the ejector seat was worth the price of the DVD.
  • Posts: 11,175
    chrisisall wrote: »
    M's comment about the ejector seat was worth the price of the DVD.

    Indeed it was. Very funny.
  • Love the movie,my only bad part is Silva's first scene grinds the film to a halt and is pointless
    I agree. It was painful to watch. He was sufficiently sinister when Bond was trying to follow him in the subway but I did not like any other thing he did. I don't blame Bardem. He didn't write the part.

    The rest of the film I loved. It is probably the best of them all. I was surprised by M's death as I wasn't reading any news about the production. Craig was brilliant as usual.

  • edited September 2014 Posts: 11,175
    I will say that Craig's acting when Dench dies is some of the best in the whole series - perhaps even better than Lazenby at the end of OHMSS. After my own loss last week I can't help but find it even more moving. Newman's score is also very understated.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Loved Skyfall. Fantastic cinematography and lighting, even enjoyed the soundtrack, although I'm a David Arnold fan. Enjoyed the introduction of a little more humour, not too much ( I never want to return to the Silliness of some of the Moore films ).
    I'm hoping with the next film we get more of the same.
  • Posts: 7,653
    The plot is not overcomplicated it lacks logic and some serious plotholes including the stupidity of a 007 and M.
  • Posts: 11,425
    SaintMark wrote: »
    The plot is not overcomplicated it lacks logic and some serious plotholes including the stupidity of a 007 and M.

    It's not so much overcomplicated, as incoherent. And characters do things (a lot of things) that just don't make any sense.

    M orders the 'bloody shot' even though her top agent is in the process of getting the disk back; Moneypenny misses but doesn't take a second shot to take out Patrice; Bond gets shot twice, falls 200m unconscious into a river and miraculously survices; all sorts of impossible to follow nonsense happens in London with lots of lazily plotted computer stuff; Bond inexplicably kidnaps M and takes her to her almost certain death by using her as bait to draw in some blond loony to an abandoned old house in the middle or nowhere; Bond gets the head of MI6 killed and is welcomed back as the all conquering hero.

    Is there any coincidence that Malory seems intent on getting M's job all the way through the film, and then lends his support when Bond drags her off to die in Scotland?

    The hillarious thing about SF is that there is almost a parallel plot going on - one of internal MI6 shenanigans and official incompetence - but the film almost seems oblivious to all this. Everyone basically contrives to get rid of the old bat (understandable, since she's become a total liability) and get her killed.

    I supposed it's quite funny seen from a certain angle.
  • Posts: 7,653
    You forgot to mention how a fully armed military helicopter is permitted in these days to fly over the British isles without getting attacked by the RAF. But I guess mendes wanted to honour Coppola's Apocalypse Now..
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 11,425
    SaintMark wrote: »
    You forgot to mention how a fully armed military helicopter is permitted in these days to fly over the British isles without getting attacked by the RAF. But I guess mendes wanted to honour Coppola's Apocalypse Now..

    My list is missing a lot of stuff! Funny how some stuff doesn't bother me though. I mean, I did wonder where the local constabulary were when Silva turns up with his army of goons, but the chopper itself passed my by.

    I totally accept you have to suspend your disbelief a little when going to the cinema, and am usually happy to do so, if overall it makes sense, but there's just so much daftness in SF that the cumulative effect was to make me switch off and just sit back, thinking 'what on earth is all this cr*p?'

    I think what really bugged me by the end were that the character actions and motivations just didn't seem to make sense to me. People just do crazy inexplicable stuff for no apparent reason. And I also thought the whole return to Skyfall was a bit lame in the end. I didn't really feel that they 'did' anything with it in terms of the Bond character. Perhaps they wanted to avoid the risks of oversentimentalisation, but it just seemed a bit of cop out.

  • Posts: 11,175
    Those nits are really being picked at ;)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2014 Posts: 23,883
    "BAIN123 wrote:
    Those nits are really being picked at ;)

    I'd contend that the flaws were a little more than nits. They were glaring plot holes.

    However, the strength of the cast, the excellent production values, cinematography, and (this may be controversial) superb score glossed over it, so it was not so consciously apparent to many. If any of these cover up points were weaker, I'd suggest that SF would be being lambasted on this thread, not praised, as the flaws would have been much more obvious.
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Those nits are really being picked at ;)

    Fair comment. But I think that's the purpose of the thread, partly.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    How many times did I hear this before? We all know there are plotholes in SF. Guess what? There are plotholes in every film. Even life is full of plotholes!
    For me the biggest incoherence going on here is as to why is the SF appreciation thread being used for something that has nothing to do with appreciation... yet again! Oh, if only this ammount of energy were expended in more useful ways :-w
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    "Sandy wrote:
    .....why is the SF appreciation thread being used for something that has nothing to do with appreciation... yet again! Oh, if only this ammount of energy were expended in more useful ways :-w

    There was plenty of appreciation in my earlier post, tempered with some realism. I think it's important to be balanced, even in an appreciation thread. I get your point about the thread's premise though, so let me be clear:

    SF is a very entertaining James Bond movie. One of the most entertaining in years. It had excellent production values, a superb cast, & a very good score (in my humble opinion) along with a 'kick a'..title song. It also was the last time we will see Judi Dench's M, for which I'm particularly appreciative.

    Hopefully we're all happy now.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Not directed at you at all @bondjames ;)
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    "Sandy wrote:
    .....why is the SF appreciation thread being used for something that has nothing to do with appreciation... yet again! Oh, if only this ammount of energy were expended in more useful ways :-w

    There was plenty of appreciation in my earlier post, tempered with some realism. I think it's important to be balanced, even in an appreciation thread. I get your point about the thread's premise though, so let me be clear:

    SF is a very entertaining James Bond movie. One of the most entertaining in years. It had excellent production values, a superb cast, & a very good score (in my humble opinion) along with a 'kick a'..title song. It also was the last time we will see Judi Dench's M, for which I'm particularly appreciative.

    Hopefully we're all happy now.

    I think she means me ;)

    Couldn't agree with you more with that bit about Dench. She should have left after DAD IMO. ;)
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 7,424
    Sandy wrote: »
    How many times did I hear this before? We all know there are plotholes in SF. Guess what? There are plotholes in every film. Even life is full of plotholes!
    For me the biggest incoherence going on here is as to why is the SF appreciation thread being used for something that has nothing to do with appreciation... yet again! Oh, if only this ammount of energy were expended in more useful ways :-w

    Amen to that!

    @Getafix

    You are not by any chance related to the Havelocks' parrot are you? Because you do have a tendency to repeat yourself over and over again, you know… ;) I'm sure Maggie Thatcher is blushing somewhere...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    "Getafix wrote:
    Do you mean that bit about Dench in the way I mean it? I.e. not before time?

    Yes, most definitely. I am deeply appreciative (and relieved) that she has been put to pasture. Silva deserves credit for this. She should have taken the pension Mallory offered her and left with dignity. Either way, thank god.
Sign In or Register to comment.