SKYFALL: Is this the best Bond film?

14142434446

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    BT3366 wrote: »

    Does anybody else find the action in SF the most underwhelming of Craig's era?
    The PTS was well done. The action in the rest of the movie was just okay. Following the amazing QOS did it no favours, either. It was kind of standard thriller-level action. SP was much better in this regard IMO.

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited November 2021 Posts: 3,154
    Agreed. The hand to hand stuff in SF was a big drop off from CR and QOS. I get that Patrice is also an elite killer so Bond's not going to just steamroller him, but so was Slate and that fight was really well done. In Shanghai, ok, he's been shot, he's failed his physical and he's had an irradiated bullet in him for three months, so he's not at the top of his game, but the bit in the casino where Dan's got his fists up in the komodo pit are a bit too 1940s Boy's Own 'who wants to fight me?'
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited November 2021 Posts: 8,190
    “Deadly serious”? I don’t think so.

    And the action is SO MUCH BETTER than the nonsense in QOS.
  • Posts: 1,921
    Venutius wrote: »
    Agreed. The hand to hand stuff in SF was a big drop off from CR and QOS. I get that Patrice is also an elite killer so Bond's not going to just steamroller him, but so was Slate and that fight was really well done. In Shanghai, ok, he's been shot, he's failed his physical and he's had an irradiated bullet in him for three months, so he's not at the top of his game, but the bit in the casino where Dan's got his fists up in the komodo pit are a bit too 1940s Boy's Own 'who wants to fight me?'
    That actually presents another problem just like in TWINE with Bond's injured shoulder -- by mid-film, he's back to form, his previous problems are conveniently forgotten and it's on with business.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited December 2021 Posts: 3,154
    Yes. I get that it was the reduced uranium bullet that was causing his problems, not his age, but he recovered a bit too sharpish once he'd dug it out. Guess the lingering side effects were swept aside by the mighty crushing force of CraigBond's T-levels! I do wish they'd kept the footage from the trailer of Bond trying and failing to run for very long in Regents Park - it was an obvious counterpoint to the later shots of him running flat out down the street to M's hearing. The contrast between the two running scenes would've really emphasised that only then was Bond back to his best. The run through the streets moreorless did, anyway, but it would've really underlined it if the earlier scene had survived and it would've stopped it looking like he was totally fine as soon as the shrapnel was out.
  • Posts: 1,394
    chrisisall wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »

    Does anybody else find the action in SF the most underwhelming of Craig's era?
    The PTS was well done. The action in the rest of the movie was just okay. Following the amazing QOS did it no favours, either. It was kind of standard thriller-level action. SP was much better in this regard IMO.

    Well calling QOS “ amazing “ is a but controversial,but that’s for another thread.

    The PTS was very well done,but Bond getting shot ( Twice! ) towards the end of it was where believability went out the window.Fixing your cuffs while jumping from one train carriage to another may be very “ Bond “ but after you are seriously shot? All that and he manages a knock drag out fight with Patrice right after.And let’s not get started on Bond surviving getting shot by Moneypenny,surviving that massive fall and apparent drowning.

    If after the opening credits they had shown how he had survived,that would be something.But no,we just ignore that and rejoin him after the credits shagging some hottie on a beach.

    There are many other scenes where the film just got too silly for me.I can’t spend all day chatting here about them,but here are some “ highlights “

    The hard drive plot being forgotten about.

    Silvas plan making absolutely no sense ( Good thing Q didn’t plug in that laptop during his interrogation eh? ).

    M quoting a poem to a packed enquiry instead of ordering the building locked down knowing Silva is on the loose.

    Bond taking M to a house in an isolated part of Scotland with no back up gives them “ an advantage “.

    A waste of Berenice Marhlohe as a potentially great Bond girl.

    Bonds plan ending up getting M killed.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,190
    Really? The hard drive again? When are many of you going to learn that the film isn’t even about the hard drive? It’s just a minor plot device. The real story has always been about Silva coming back to kill M. Why does the hard drive matter so much to some folks?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »

    Does anybody else find the action in SF the most underwhelming of Craig's era?
    The PTS was well done. The action in the rest of the movie was just okay. Following the amazing QOS did it no favours, either. It was kind of standard thriller-level action. SP was much better in this regard IMO.

    Well calling QOS “ amazing “ is a but controversial,but that’s for another thread.

    The PTS was very well done,but Bond getting shot ( Twice! ) towards the end of it was where believability went out the window.Fixing your cuffs while jumping from one train carriage to another may be very “ Bond “ but after you are seriously shot? All that and he manages a knock drag out fight with Patrice right after.And let’s not get started on Bond surviving getting shot by Moneypenny,surviving that massive fall and apparent drowning.

    If after the opening credits they had shown how he had survived,that would be something.But no,we just ignore that and rejoin him after the credits shagging some hottie on a beach.

    There are many other scenes where the film just got too silly for me.I can’t spend all day chatting here about them,but here are some “ highlights “

    The hard drive plot being forgotten about.

    Silvas plan making absolutely no sense ( Good thing Q didn’t plug in that laptop during his interrogation eh? ).

    M quoting a poem to a packed enquiry instead of ordering the building locked down knowing Silva is on the loose.

    Bond taking M to a house in an isolated part of Scotland with no back up gives them “ an advantage “.

    A waste of Berenice Marhlohe as a potentially great Bond girl.

    Bonds plan ending up getting M killed.

    I agree with every bit of this, AL.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    Interesting list here. Most of the films in this top 10 are in my own...and of course, I agree with #1.

    https://collider.com/james-bond-movies-almost-perfect/
  • Posts: 2,006
    TripAces wrote: »
    Interesting list here. Most of the films in this top 10 are in my own...and of course, I agree with #1.

    https://collider.com/james-bond-movies-almost-perfect/

    There is a lot to like about Skyfall, but it is not the best Bond film. Nor is it on my top ten list. And it does not compare to an Alfred Hitchcock film. Silva's cyanide mouth is unbelievable as is his "I know every move Bond will make after he chases me."

    TSWLM number 3? "The dynamic between Moore’s Bond and Barbara Bach as the Soviet Union spy XXX is compelling because they both realize that they are in inherently lonely professions, and any connection between them may be fleeting." How that relationship was written in the script may have been compelling, but what we saw on screen was not. I don't know why this film is praised. Replete with a henchman right out of a Roadrunner cartoon.
  • edited August 31 Posts: 4,205
    Honestly, it’s all subjective and I think everyone gets different things out of certain films. And we’re in the realm of Bond here anyway - a franchise known for its edge of unbelievability and plot contrivances.

    I wouldn’t call SF a perfect film, but I don’t think any film can be perfect, nor am I sure what one would look like if it hypothetically were. I can only go from how I feel about a film, and for me SF’s easily one of the best Bond movies because of what I get out of it.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,190
    SF has risen second place for me. FRWL is still #1.
  • Posts: 1,633
    SF up there but is it even the best among just Daniel Craig's Bond films ? Hmm....Isn't CR a better film ?
  • Posts: 1,633
    BTW on the flip side, sort of, I always have found QOS to be excellent. It is quick, full of action, and MOVES. For one thing, in particular, the opera sequence, including the chase, fight and getaway at the end of it is elegant.
  • Posts: 4,205
    I’ve grown more fond of QOS recently despite my issues with it. And I’m a big fan of CR. But I’d personally say SF is better. CR sometimes has some ropey dialogue which distracts me a bit (SF on the other hand has some exceptionally well written scenes such as Silva’s rat speech). I think it’s got a much tighter pace too, and I personally get a bit more out of SF’s story.

    But both CR and SF are top tier Bond films. QOS has its flaws but it’s a film I get a lot out of rewatches.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,190
    I used to have a more generous opinion on QOS back when it came out, but that’s because I wanted to like it more than I actually did. Now it’s my least favorite of Craig’s.
  • Posts: 4,617
    Revisted Skyfall last week, gets better IMHO. One observation. There are several key scenes where literally, one character talks to another. (art museums, M's flat, intro to Silva, Casino bar). The directing, acting, lighting, pace and, of course, dialogue are pretty much perfect IMHO. For many, it's these scenes that make movies great. You can have as many stunts and gadgets as you like but, you need to invest in character for people to invest and, IMHO, Skyfall does this better than any other Bond movie. PS you can also see this in MI: Fallout. (Hunt and Ilsa in the park)
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited November 5 Posts: 428
    I think the best Bond film should be one with a "happy ending", because I believe that's what Movie Bond was designed to be, positive and hopeful, good winning out over evil in the end. Which could be pretty much anything pre Daniel Craig (except OHMSS)

    I don't think anything from the Craig era meets those parameters, a sign of our cynical times? Does no-one have any hope anymore?

    Craig-Bond's personal angst always overshadows any other outcomes

    James Bond has been around a long time, so it's good that other aspects of the character have been developed and explored, but in the end I would always pick one with an upbeat ending for the title of being The Best.

    When movie James Bond started out in the 1960s, the UK was finally shaking off the post WW2 / post Empire blues and getting ready to swing.

    Kruschev was banging his shoe at the UN, the Berlin border confrontation and Wall, the Bay of Pigs and Cuba missle crisis, yet somehow there was positivity and hope in the air, despite the looming threat of extinction by nuclear war.

    But it seems like the USA has never got over Watergate and Vietnam. Trust in authority disappeared and has never really returned.

    The anti-hero rules and action movies these days are either about righteous rebels, who fight "bad actors" from within their own government organisations as much as villains, or actual assassins and criminals, who we are supposed to root for merely because they are are fighting even worse assassins and criminals.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,190
    If Connery had been in OHMSS and was at the top of his game, that would have easily been #1.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 428
    If Connery had been in OHMSS and was at the top of his game, that would have easily been #1.

    So you'd pick only only pre-Craig movie with a downer ending?

    It's interesting how human beings minds work sometimes, the preference of many for a tragic ending over a happy one (not that I don't enjoy a good tear jerker once in a while)
  • Easier if you evaluate it this way :

    QOS is something of a disaster. It will always be Craig's weakest entry, in fact it's a mess, and NTTD for reasons already stated doesn't really come into it which leaves only two others.

    CR is superb. Was never really in favor of the reboot idea but Brosnan couldn't continue in the role by that stage and they needed someone other for the role. Craig's debut (after initial skepticism) turned out to be an outstanding success and you can award it the highest of plaudits but somehow it can't quite match Skyfall in terms of overall terms of suspense, thrills and viewing satisfaction.

    Javier Bardem doesn't provide the most memorable villain of the entire series but still commands a strong screen presence. The opening sequence in Turkey is real fun then you got a strong theme song in Adele and from there the action never really lets up. Great climax in Scotland where we learn the movie or film title originates from Bond's ancestral home and Dench's M provides a very poignant moment. I must rate it highest from a personal perspective due to time of release. Maybe it's clouding my judgment over Casino Royale such is the case as to which is ideally better but I made a decision, and stuck with it.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,226
    I have some quibbles with SF, making age an issue at this point in Bond’s career, as well as too many conveniences and lapses of plausibility in Silva’s plot, but I have to say that I find SF one of the most re-watchable films of the entire franchise
  • Posts: 2,006
    Seve wrote: »
    If Connery had been in OHMSS and was at the top of his game, that would have easily been #1.

    So you'd pick only only pre-Craig movie with a downer ending?

    It's interesting how human beings minds work sometimes, the preference of many for a tragic ending over a happy one (not that I don't enjoy a good tear jerker once in a while)

    The tragic ending is not the appeal of OHMSS. It's the story, the characters, and the most fully evolved Bond heroine we'd seen until CR.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited November 6 Posts: 428
    CrabKey wrote: »

    The tragic ending is not the appeal of OHMSS. It's the story, the characters, and the most fully evolved Bond heroine we'd seen until CR.

    Is the story really that good?
    The Tracy half is fine, I agree, but I would argue the Blofeld half is very weak

    The heraldry and allegies angle, the brainwashing and frolicking with beautiful girls in a clinic on top of a mountain, is more like the material for a James Bond spoof, rather than a legit Bond movie.

    And Blofeld threatening to destroy humanity unless he gets a pardon and an aristocaratic title seems completely disproportionate to me.

    Give me "From Russia With Love" any day
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 6 Posts: 16,469
    I'd say Blofeld's plan is also extremely underdeveloped: his toxin or whatever it is (I've seen it loads of times and I can't actually remember!) isn't even demonstrated onscreen. And yeah, sending out the lovelies to spread it is pretty ridiculous.
    I'd say the tragic ending is absolutely part of the appeal, or rather why it's so remembered. And generally it's remembered in a positive light.

    CR is superb. Was never really in favor of the reboot idea but Brosnan couldn't continue in the role by that stage and they needed someone other for the role. Craig's debut (after initial skepticism) turned out to be an outstanding success and you can award it the highest of plaudits but somehow it can't quite match Skyfall in terms of overall terms of suspense, thrills and viewing satisfaction.

    Javier Bardem doesn't provide the most memorable villain of the entire series but still commands a strong screen presence. The opening sequence in Turkey is real fun then you got a strong theme song in Adele and from there the action never really lets up. Great climax in Scotland where we learn the movie or film title originates from Bond's ancestral home and Dench's M provides a very poignant moment. I must rate it highest from a personal perspective due to time of release. Maybe it's clouding my judgment over Casino Royale such is the case as to which is ideally better but I made a decision, and stuck with it.

    I think that's fair. Maybe a bit harsh on Bardem: he's not far off the most memorable Bond villain. I'd say he's certainly way up there and the best one, in, I dunno: probably 40 years. Mads is right up there too though.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 428
    mtm wrote: »

    Javier Bardem doesn't provide the most memorable villain of the entire series but still commands a strong screen presence.

    I think that's fair. Maybe a bit harsh on Bardem: he's not far off the most memorable Bond villain. I'd say he's certainly way up there and the best one, in, I dunno: probably 40 years. Mads is right up there too though.

    Yes, I'd rate Bardem my favourite Craig era villain, just ahead of Mads, then bit of a gap back to Remi, a huge gap further back to Waltz, with Amalric so far back he gets lapped by the field.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited November 6 Posts: 4,585
    Easier if you evaluate it this way :

    QOS is something of a disaster. It will always be Craig's weakest entry, in fact it's a mess, and NTTD for reasons already stated doesn't really come into it which leaves only two others.

    CR is superb. Was never really in favor of the reboot idea but Brosnan couldn't continue in the role by that stage and they needed someone other for the role. Craig's debut (after initial skepticism) turned out to be an outstanding success and you can award it the highest of plaudits but somehow it can't quite match Skyfall in terms of overall terms of suspense, thrills and viewing satisfaction.

    Javier Bardem doesn't provide the most memorable villain of the entire series but still commands a strong screen presence. The opening sequence in Turkey is real fun then you got a strong theme song in Adele and from there the action never really lets up. Great climax in Scotland where we learn the movie or film title originates from Bond's ancestral home and Dench's M provides a very poignant moment. I must rate it highest from a personal perspective due to time of release. Maybe it's clouding my judgment over Casino Royale such is the case as to which is ideally better but I made a decision, and stuck with it.

    I get that John Logan's scripts are hit and miss, but he got SF right, and this is mostly because he got the villain right. Silva is one of the most fully-realized, fully-developed villains in the franchise, and he works on two levels.

    1. Logan gave him agency and ability. Once it's established that Silva is a point-and-click villain who can "persuade" people to think/act as he wants, everything becomes possible. This is why the story of the deserted island is important: Silva can program and bend people to his will. A major criticism of SF is that Silva's plan was all "pre-planned" but was it? Or is that just what Silva wants people to think? It's brilliant. Nevertheless, Silva just needed to create the right algorithms and then let the computer (AI, in its earlier forms) do the rest. It's not that Silva predicted MI6's moved weeks or months in advance; he didn't have to. He created the programming to adjust to what MI6 did.

    2. Logan also gave Silva a significant fatal flaw. In this case, it's an obsessive desire to embarrass M and then make his killing of her deeply personal. This goes against what he says he wants: missions in which he isn't "running around." He prefers the pointing and the clicking. But there's the rub. None of that is ever satisfying (see the Bond/Q scene in the museum). He could have killed M in the MI6 explosion. But that simply wasn't enough. The irony, of course, is that being "in the field" is not Silva's strength: it's Bond's. And Silva fails (yes, yes, he does) to accomplish his goal, ultimately killed by the oldest of weapons: a frickin' knife. Again: brilliant.

    Is SF the best Bond film? Yes. For the above reasons and more. And it's not close. I have TB, GF, CR, and FRWL in spots 2-5, and there's not much separation between them. But SF offers just a bit more and stands head and shoulders above all others.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,190
    Seve wrote: »
    If Connery had been in OHMSS and was at the top of his game, that would have easily been #1.

    So you'd pick only only pre-Craig movie with a downer ending?

    It's interesting how human beings minds work sometimes, the preference of many for a tragic ending over a happy one (not that I don't enjoy a good tear jerker once in a while)

    It’s not the ending that makes the film. As things are, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is at #1. OHMSS is IMO a stronger film, only let down by the actor playing Bond.
  • Posts: 1,387
    Seve wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »

    The tragic ending is not the appeal of OHMSS. It's the story, the characters, and the most fully evolved Bond heroine we'd seen until CR.

    Is the story really that good?
    The Tracy half is fine, I agree, but I would argue the Blofeld half is very weak

    The heraldry and allegies angle, the brainwashing and frolicking with beautiful girls in a clinic on top of a mountain, is more like the material for a James Bond spoof, rather than a legit Bond movie.

    And Blofeld threatening to destroy humanity unless he gets a pardon and an aristocaratic title seems completely disproportionate to me.

    Give me "From Russia With Love" any day

    The ending is quite important in this movie. If she had died in DAF the movie would not be the same.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited November 7 Posts: 2,114
    I have to say...it took me a while to get to liking SF. Because it showed Craig's Bond in a very different light. I was expecting more of his CR & QoS Bond, so I was initially let down. But over the years, I've come to like SF. Although, I still don't like Craig's haircut...especially in the first half of the film. I think a haircut like that suits a Bond like Brosnan more. Because he's got really dark hair and good hairline, plus his slight widow's peak.
Sign In or Register to comment.