Skyfall: 1 year later

1246

Comments

  • Posts: 11,189
    @DarthDimi.

    Regarding that "you burned me" scene, I realised not long ago that M says pretty much the same line in SF that was in DAD

    "What did you expect an apology?"
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,568
    Thank you for reminding me I'm another year older. I could seriously do without these kind of threads.
    ;-)

    I like SF more than I did a year ago. Not much more, but more nontheless. I still flick it on when it appears on Sky Movies (which is all the time) because I find it quite easy on the eye.
  • 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...

    I also like QoS which is in the middle of my current bond ranking but not to the point it's better than CR or SF. It's has this entertaining action movie film element. The problem is the exposition after Bond escapes from the bar. Again, If the writers' strike didn't happen, QoS would have been in my top 7.

    the more i watch SF, more i find it too glamorous to be seen as action. I see it as a box-office friendly thriller. I hope Mendes will change the treatment of Bond 24 rather like SF's pre-title in Turkey.

  • Posts: 6,396
    Always nice to see @Matt_Helm pop up on a Skyfall thread to spout off the same trite nonsense.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,777
    Always nice to see @Matt_Helm pop up on a Skyfall thread to spout off the same trite nonsense.

    Is it?
  • Posts: 6,396
    Sarcasm Draggers, sarcasm.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,777
    Sarcasm Draggers, sarcasm.

    Of course!
  • Posts: 14,816
    Perdogg wrote:
    0013 wrote:
    Perdogg wrote:

    4. What is the purpose of the Double-0 program any way in the 21st century? Obviously Bond is not a spy, he is not even a counter-spy. He not an assassin. Why is there even a Double-0 program?

    So on your account there's no sense on having James Bond movies today...

    I apologize for not providing context for that statement. The double-0 program, in my opinion, should have never been coupled with MI6. I once wrote an unpublished opinion regarding this.

    Every secret service has a section with operatives going on missions that can include murder or manslaughter, akin to the 00 section, a special branch. In fiction you find them too, even in the most accurate and realistic depiction of espionage. In the Sandbaggers it is the Sandbaggers, in Queen and Country it is the Minders. Such section would be under the control of MI6 in the UK.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Sarcasm Draggers, sarcasm.

    No just you being rude about somebody who does not seem to agree with you.
  • edited October 2013 Posts: 3,494
    Perdogg wrote:

    2. Bond-women: The revictimization of Severine was unfortunate to the extent I could understand the critics about her.

    How was a user of men (Silva to get out of prostitution, Bond to get away from Silva) victimized exactly? Are we back to taking out the violin that poor Severine had no self control nor esteem and didn't know what she was doing?
    Perdogg wrote:

    7. A poor villain. His antics made him look silly rather than evil.

    Again you are missing the bigger picture and just concentrating on one single aspect of the overall performance.
    Always nice to see @Matt_Helm pop up on a Skyfall thread to spout off the same trite nonsense.

    Some posters are better off left to play the same old broken record ;) Someone who doesn't buy how Patrice was logically identified and located by a service with vast resources like MI6 can't be reasoned with.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,447
    In the end, a year later or not, the film has sunk in for all of us and we either like it or don't. I went from feeling underwhelmed with it to having a great appreciation for it and loving it. Let's not start attacking one another or trashing each other's opinions over it. No need to be nasty, as some have become.
  • Posts: 908
    Always nice to see @Matt_Helm pop up on a Skyfall thread to spout off the same trite nonsense.

    So why don't you provide me with ANYTHING that makes sense in over 140 minutes of SF?
  • Posts: 908
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Always nice to see @Matt_Helm pop up on a Skyfall thread to spout off the same trite nonsense.

    Is it?
    Feel yourself invited as well.
  • Posts: 14,816
    Matt_Helm, why don't you prove us that anything makes sense in Hamlet, starting with the ghost? Or in Othello, starting with an African captain of a Venetian fleet? Not saying Skyfall is Shakespeare, but you'd have some credibility if you didn't ask for an unreasonable burden of proof. Oh and do you have issues with Q drinking earl grey too?
  • edited October 2013 Posts: 6,396
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Always nice to see @Matt_Helm pop up on a Skyfall thread to spout off the same trite nonsense.

    So why don't you provide me with ANYTHING that makes sense in over 140 minutes of SF?

    Kinda just proved my point there!
    SaintMark wrote:
    Sarcasm Draggers, sarcasm.

    No just you being rude about somebody who does not seem to agree with you.

    No, and I don't think I'm alone here, just getting fed up of someone who has only one rhetoric and presents his opinions as FACTS and refuses to listen to what anyone else has to say because his is FACT.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited October 2013 Posts: 40,447
    I think my only real complaints are some of the forced comedic lines, some of the action scenes (mainly the Macau casino fight scene, as it feels nothing like Craig's Bond whatsoever), and Silva's escape scene. His escape just delivers too many questions and irritations that I can't get over, but it's still a fantastic sequence.

    I plan on spending some free time watching all three films in a row soon have a better idea of what I prefer, QoS or SF, but I know that neither beat CR.
  • Posts: 908
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Always nice to see @Matt_Helm pop up on a Skyfall thread to spout off the same trite nonsense.

    So why don't you provide me with ANYTHING that makes sense in over 140 minutes of SF?

    Kinda just proved my point there!
    SaintMark wrote:
    Sarcasm Draggers, sarcasm.

    No just you being rude about somebody who does not seem to agree with you.

    No, and I don't think I'm alone here, just getting fed up of someone who has only one rhetoric and presents his opinions as FACTS and refuses to listen to what anyone else has to say because his is FACT.

    You see,if they weren't (kind of) facts you ( and probably a few others here on this forum) would gladly take the chance and prove me wrong,especially since I months ago have offered to NEVER EVER post here again, if somebody provide me with anything in this movie that doesn't defy logic, exept steering wheels on the right side of the cars that is. But tellingly enough, you don't.
  • Posts: 14,816
    Matt you cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you, is SF is as absurd as you say.
  • RC7RC7
    edited October 2013 Posts: 10,512
    Some interesting points here, as always.

    A year on and SF inherits the same space it did on first viewing. I don't rank the films, only usually compare those of an era, but I would consider SF a solid entry with moments of brilliance and a distinctive tone. On leaving the Albert Hall, my better half and I had similar feelings - a vast improvement on QoS, but fell slightly short of CR.

    It is a strange beast and a film that has garnered bucket loads of attention, both positive and negative. This alone suggests to me that it’s an important entry in the canon. The negative aspects are, to all extents and purposes, largely borne of the weight of expectation there is on 21st century Bond. This again can be seen as a positive. The producers have attempted to raise their game, considerably. I don’t say this in the context of the series, but in a general film making sense. If an individual likes DAD, or DAF, or AVTAK, more than SF, that’s their prerogative, I can understand it, but in the context of film making in 2012, SF is bang up to date from a production perspective. You’d be hard pushed to find a blockbuster from last year that offers the level of technical work on show in SF, and I include Nolan’s TDKR in that.

    I think the early Babs and MGW efforts were a mixed bag, technically. For me, again this is purely personal, the slickest production was TND. GE had its share of decent scenes, but is let down by a couple of visual cheats – the pre-titles sky dive, the model shots of Severnaya, the fake jungle etc. TWINE drifts into TV Production territory and DAD, CGI aside, is a mixed bag which on more than a few occasions falls well short of the required levels of a Bond – the terrible 2D icebergs, the haphazard and inconsistent grading and an unmistakable sense that you are ‘on set’ rather than location. CR – SF don’t suffer any of these problems (minus the odd and I mean very odd shot) they are confident productions and show a graduation in EON’s efforts to offer high-end blockbuster cinema.

    This is, ironically, where a couple of problems arise, IMO. With EON having shifted the goal-posts, so to speak, the level of expectation is elevated. They’re now working in a different era and on a different level to the films of old and as such, all the component parts must be top notch to deliver a satisfying whole. EON is selecting the best talent on offer, both behind and in front of the camera, apart from one area - Screenwriting. This is of course a very difficult thing to crack, no script can be set in stone - it’s in constant flux due to external influences beyond the control of the production and creative choices that arise throughout the production period. There are also the risks of inherent and inevitable collaboration between writers, producers and the director. However, locking down a cohesive, logical story is something they need to, and can, put into practice.

    In a strange way it’s the sub-plots and thematic content of SF that are the most successful, while the central narrative remains a little muddled. It’s not incoherent, as some would suggest, just inconsistent IMO. I don’t think the leaps of logic are unforgivable, just avoidable with a little creativity and ingenuity. They simply need to raise their game to the levels of the cinematography, production design and direction, which brings me neatly on to the main reason SF gets away with it IMO – it’s because Mendes made a film which is in essence a romanticist piece, rather than a classicist piece, and it shows. It values heart over mind, and feeling over rationalisation. Mendes delivers this aspect tremendously well. Where Forster supplied what I would consider a cold film, generally bereft of feeling and reverence, Mendes constructs something that you feel is loved - I feel he cared in a way Forster didn’t. Forster delivered a beautiful looking film, but one that felt superficial - only Craig added any emotional depth to the piece - where I feel Mendes created something rich across the board. It feels like a weighty film, where QOS feels paper thin.


    The reason I’ve nit-picked over this movie is not to play down its achievements, but rather because I feel like we’re in the midst of an exciting creative period in the Bond universe. I want to be able to discuss the deficiencies that I feel are avoidable in the future. I also don’t like the argument that these inconsistencies/deficiencies are ‘ok’ because loads of Bond films err on the side of ‘unreality’. Bond is a step removed from reality, naturally, but I’d much rather see a writer challenged to work themselves out of a corner in a creative way, rather than an easy way. Perhaps Logan will provide this much needed stardust that can blend emotional weight, great dialogue and seamless plotting, I certainly hope so.

    To sum up, I think SF is a film bursting with heart and if Logan can bring the brain up to speed with B24, we’ll have a cracker on our hands.

  • Matt_Helm wrote:
    Always nice to see @Matt_Helm pop up on a Skyfall thread to spout off the same trite nonsense.

    So why don't you provide me with ANYTHING that makes sense in over 140 minutes of SF?

    Kinda just proved my point there! I don't think I'm alone here, just getting fed up of someone who has only one rhetoric and presents his opinions as FACTS and refuses to listen to what anyone else has to say because his is FACT.

    Question- Haven't we been on this merry go round before?
    Answer- Yes we have. Myself and others have answered and defeated the above challenge numerous times. Just perform the Ian Fleming maneuver and ignore the ignorant, they go away when you don't fall into their attention seeking trap.
    Ludovico wrote:
    Matt you cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you, is SF is as absurd as you say.

    See the above.

  • Posts: 908
    Ludovico wrote:
    Matt you cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you, is SF is as absurd as you say.

    It certainly would, if any of SFs defenders would even dare to raise a point of which they can claim it makes sense. After all I (and many others as well) have made my point.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,524
    demo.gif

    Okay... #:-S That fire is killed now.

    So, fellas, let's return to some nice debate now, shall we? ;-)

    lg1%281%29.jpg

    Thank you!
  • edited October 2013 Posts: 3,494
    @Matt_Helm- how quickly we forget my challenge that you responded to and quickly left the minute you were proven wrong. I had sincerely hoped I would never hear from you again. That's the only time you'll ever prove me wrong.

    Flagged. When you can't tell your friends from your enemies, it's time to go. And if I have anything to say about it, you will be gone and very soon. Tired of your BS just like everyone else.
  • Posts: 1,548
    Nope. Not changed in the slightest. I still rate Skyfall in the top 4 or 5 Bond films of all time, just behind Casino Royale. All time classic but maybe I'm in the minority.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,447
    LeChiffre wrote:
    Nope. Not changed in the slightest. I still rate Skyfall in the top 4 or 5 Bond films of all time, just behind Casino Royale. All time classic but maybe I'm in the minority.

    I wouldn't say you're in the minority, as I'm sure many would agree with you.

  • Posts: 908
    @Matt_Helm- how quickly we forget my challenge that you responded to and quickly left the minute you were proven wrong.

    Yawn, again no substance but lots of hot air.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    @RC7, great write up.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    doubleoego wrote:
    @RC7, great write up.
    I totally agree, well done sir, very well done!
  • doubleoego wrote:
    @RC7, great write up.

    I agree. Here's a guy who sees the faults in the film, as do most of us who have never claimed the film doesn't have it's share of them, yet fairly acknowledges the good and doesn't nitpick on every little detail to make his point. People don't respond well when other people try to force feed their opinion to them as a fact. Leads to a whole lot of flagging ;)

  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited October 2013 Posts: 13,889
    SF was the first Bond film I followed the pre-production of- and boy did I follow it good! So much so, that when it came to watching it on the big screen, there was bugger all element of surprise left. Due to this, it was difficult to rate the film at first. However, I enjoyed myself more with the second viewing as I no longer had high expectations, and now that I've been able to watch it a couple more times on disc, I can honestly say I really love the film. No, it's not as rich with colour and action as CR, but it does have the bonus of seeing a more Bondian Craig do his thing, and yes, I do rate it considerably above QoS.

    The performances from all involved (especially Javier, who really brought Silva to life)... the fall of Bond- one finds themselves championing his rise back to the top to be the last rat standing... The PTS is amazing, the Macau/Shanghai scenes are striking, and the entire London sequence is highly immersing. Of course I also enjoy the scenes and cinematography of Scotland- I just find the first two acts more engaging, perhaps for pacing reasons.

    There are so many other great entries, that I have a hard time imagining SF ever creeping into my top 5 (I think it has been sitting at number 8 in my rankings since last November). But to answer the question of the thread- my opinion hasn't changed after a year, I still think it's a great film- even if the plot's flaws we're all familiar with now weren't apparent to me at first. Put it this way, if the crew can deliver the same quality for Bond24, I'll be very satisfied.
This discussion has been closed.