SKYFALL. -HOW DO YOU SEE IT NOW?

24

Comments

  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Birdleson wrote: »
    That stated, here are the results as best I can figure:
    DN: 5 Originals, 19 Total
    FRWL: 5 Originals, 19 total
    GF: 5 Originals, 19 total
    TB: 4 Originals, 12 total
    YOLT: 1 Original, 12 total
    OHMSS: 4 Originals, 18 total
    DAF: 1 total
    LALD: 2 Originals, 8 total
    TMWTGG: 2 total
    TSWLM: 3 Originals, 13 total
    MR: 2 total
    OP: 4 total
    FYEO: 3 Originals, 8 totals
    AVTAK: 1 total
    TLD: 2 Originals, 4 total
    LTK: 1 Original, 6 total
    GE: 5 Originals, 15 total
    TND: 1 total
    TWINE & DAD: No nominations.
    CR: 5 Originals, 19 total
    QoS: 2 total
    SF: 3 Originals, 11 total
    SP: 2 total

    DN: 19, FRWL: 19, GF: 19, CR: 19, OHMSS: 18, GE: 15, TSWLM, 13, TB: 12, YOLT: 12, SF: 11. That's 10 films receiving nominations from more than half of the respondents (counting @CR's friends as one unit.) I'm willing to let these 10 stand as our list of Classic Bond films. Any dissenters? Can I get a vodka martini over here?[/i]

    Really, though it isn't one of my favorites, TLD deserves to be up there, it's stature continues to grow. And I still say that LALD had enough cultural impact (and it stands out over time) to be included.

    A fair assessment, including the point totals. While LALD doesn't have the same credentials / production values as the others, it's almost like a cult classic and has some iconic imagery that is repeated in every bond related article.

    As much as I hate to say it (TLD is my no 1) I can't say the same for TLD, and I have to say Glen is largely to blame for this. I do love his movies but he doesn't have the flair to make an iconic Bond movie
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,967
    I've gained a reluctant respect for Skyfall in the intervening years since its release. I think SP helped with this immensely. It showed the difference between a movie with something to say, and one which is desperately looking for something to say and never finding it. I still have no idea what SP was a about, but SF is relatively clear and purposeful by comparison.

    SF is still not what I look for in a Bond film, but I give it credit for being well executed, and articulate of its themes. I think this is the best performance and most natural performance that we could ever coax out of Craig, so it's another point in the films favour.
  • Posts: 684
    I walked out of the theater in '12 saying to myself that SF was somewhere in the top ten. Today I've got it at #10. I've come to really enjoy the underlying themes, the way it evokes Fleming, and the way it plays with the idea of a Bond film. I also like that they dialed back the emphasis on action. On the other hand, I think its TDK influences show through a little too much, and the central idea for the plot (former agent seeks revenge on M) is not very interesting to me. (Maybe because it feels similar to TWINE.)

    I went through a period of disillusionment (considered it lower half), fueled mostly by the same thing I felt on that first watch: it's not a Bond film as much as a film about Bond. That was the main item which was holding me back on it, and I eventually came to terms with it. If each of my #1 - #9 films were all erased from history, I'd move SF back a few notches from the new front. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of it representing what a Bond film should be -- it relies on the form and history the others bring.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Haven’t really seen it since 2012. Has no rewatch value to me. Just lacks that entertainment factor that would make me return to it. Well intentioned but slightly incoherent and dull is how I see it.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,548
    Getafix wrote: »
    Haven’t really seen it since 2012. Has no rewatch value to me. Just lacks that entertainment factor that would make me return to it. Well intentioned but slightly incoherent and dull is how I see it.

    That's a shame @Getafix . But to each their own.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I think I saw some of it on TV once a year or so after I saw it at the cinema. Not my cup of tea. Life’s too short to rewatch films you didn’t enjoy first time round.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I thought it was great when I first saw it, probably because I was at the royal premiere. It's a good film but nowhere near as great as people make it out to be. Definitely overrated and a lack of authenticity when it comes to the foreign locations outside of the PTS. Judi Dench is the best thing about the film and the film nose dives hard for me once Scotland comes into place.

    Still, it's MUCH better than the disgraceful embarrassment that is SP.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    SaintMark wrote: »
    I feel that Craig never bettered his role as 007 after CR. After that movie it went gradually downhill.
    I agree. It was a film written with him in mind and there's no doubt he gave it his all, which he should be credited for. For me the film really only comes alive in the scenes with Green's Vesper and Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre. Both make that film by giving Craig someone worthy to bounce off of. The interplay is what makes it work and CR is his best performance from my perspective as well.

    In terms of SF, this is a film which I continue to enjoy and which continues to move up my rankings, while CR declines. I wouldn't be surprised if, in time, I view it as the best Bond film of the Craig era (as opposed to the best Craig performance as Bond).
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    I feel it's because of the way Martin directs the actors - it's the same in goldeneye. The extras and minor characters feel part of the story rather than filling in the background
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    w2bond wrote: »
    I feel it's because of the way Martin directs the actors - it's the same in goldeneye. The extras and minor characters feel part of the story rather than filling in the background
    Very much agreed. The supporting characters are all excellent in his two Bond films and feel organic and integrated into the story. They enliven the narrative and in some instances stand out more than Bond in both films. One almost awaits their scenes.
  • Posts: 17,241
    Getafix wrote: »
    Haven’t really seen it since 2012. Has no rewatch value to me. Just lacks that entertainment factor that would make me return to it. Well intentioned but slightly incoherent and dull is how I see it.

    Late 2013/early 2014 here. That would be the third viewing.
    ______
    Like to add one thing to my comment on SF: didn't think much of it at the cinema, but thinking back, it really annoys me that Ola Rapace as Patrice didn't have any lines. He's a good actor, and the role just feels like a waste of an actor who could have brought something more to a villain role.
  • Posts: 4,599
    The whole family watched it again on ITV 2 last night. Unlike many of the series, it is enjoyable across the age groups. "Welcome to Scotland" brought cheers and laughter from all viewers. I know many dont like SF but I dont think our family is unique. It does hold a special place within the series IMHO.

    PS the first time I had watched it since the discussions of DC ageing etc and etc and it is weird how, more and more SF should have been scripted as his last.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,567
    Getafix wrote: »
    Haven’t really seen it since 2012. Has no rewatch value to me. Just lacks that entertainment factor that would make me return to it. Well intentioned but slightly incoherent and dull is how I see it.

    Well over the years you have written copious amounts of posts about it. You have dissected it, picked over every frame incessantly..and you are now admitting to not having seen it since it first came out?

    I'm disappointed ;)
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 11,425
    I have a photographic memory ;)

    Besides my dissecting was mostly done a while back. Don’t need to see it again to confirm what I already know.

  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,548
    I see something new in it all the time. I had not noticed until a recent viewing that DC's slide down the escalator is filmed to resemble Connery's slide in YOLT.
  • Posts: 613
    SaintMark wrote: »
    I feel that Craig never bettered his role as 007 after CR. After that movie it went gradually downhill.

    I liked his tougher approach in QOS but agree that Craig has never improved upon what he developed in CR. I disliked him so intensely in SF that I wondered if he had forgotten how to play Bond -- his "performance" (to me, at least) amounted to a series of shallow poses. There is nothing of the relaxed, down-to-earth character beats that he brought to his first two appearances, and he frequently resembles a constipated model in a magazine ad.
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 11,425
    Have to say I agree with this. I feel Mendes led Craig down a very different route that just didn’t work very well for Craig’s Bond. I prefer his take in CR and QOS as well. QOS in particular left me really up beat about where Craig Bond might be heading - it felt like Forster had suggested a refreshing new trajectory free of a lot of the tiresome old baggage. But what do I know - the box office says I’m completely wrong. Mendes took Bond back to its more familiar territory of cuff popping and ejector seats. And the audiences loved it.
  • Posts: 12,242
    Sort of. SP isn’t so beloved in general; most people seemed pretty lukewarm about it. It did make money, but it won’t have a long-term positive image like its predecessor.

    SF was a massive success with critics, audiences, and financially all at once. It may even go down as the most celebrated Craig Bond film. I suspect CR vs. SF will be the modern version of the FRWL vs. GF debate (ironically, I prefer CR to SF, but GF over FRWL). I think Craig did an awesome job in all of his first 3 Bond films, each a little different than the last. SF may be a little lighter and older than his first two, but Craig maintained his edge in it. With SP, it got over-the-top goofy and it was hard to take his Bond as seriously. To me, there is a very noticeable difference with how Bond is in SF and SP - and in SP it’s significantly weaker.

    I do predict the tone/style of Bond 25 will be something closer to CR/QOS - darker, smaller, and more suited to Craig’s strengths. I have confidence in Boyle to do well.
  • Posts: 17,241
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Sort of. SP isn’t so beloved in general; most people seemed pretty lukewarm about it. It did make money, but it won’t have a long-term positive image like its predecessor.

    SF was a massive success with critics, audiences, and financially all at once. It may even go down as the most celebrated Craig Bond film. I suspect CR vs. SF will be the modern version of the FRWL vs. GF debate (ironically, I prefer CR to SF, but GF over FRWL). I think Craig did an awesome job in all of his first 3 Bond films, each a little different than the last. SF may be a little lighter and older than his first two, but Craig maintained his edge in it. With SP, it got over-the-top goofy and it was hard to take his Bond as seriously. To me, there is a very noticeable difference with how Bond is in SF and SP - and in SP it’s significantly weaker.

    I do predict the tone/style of Bond 25 will be something closer to CR/QOS - darker, smaller, and more suited to Craig’s strengths. I have confidence in Boyle to do well.

    In Danny B we trust! :D
    giphy.gif
  • Posts: 12,242
    That’s the energy we need for the new one!!!!
  • Posts: 17,241
    FoxRox wrote: »
    That’s the energy we need for the new one!!!!

    Indeed! Wonder if he was close to this excited when he pitched his big idea to EON!
  • Posts: 1,031
    On blu-ray.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,548
    Getafix wrote: »
    Have to say I agree with this. I feel Mendes led Craig down a very different route that just didn’t work very well for Craig’s Bond. I prefer his take in CR and QOS as well. QOS in particular left me really up beat about where Craig Bond might be heading - it felt like Forster had suggested a refreshing new trajectory free of a lot of the tiresome old baggage. But what do I know - the box office says I’m completely wrong. Mendes took Bond back to its more familiar territory of cuff popping and ejector seats. And the audiences loved it.

    SF effectively managed past/present Bond. At least, I thought so; many others might disagree. What the BO numbers suggest, when looked at more closely, is that SF appealed to older audiences.

    http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-skyfall-james-bond-box-office-20121111-story.html

    I knew this was true without reading the reports, just looking at the people in the theater. MY father hadn't seen a Bond film in decades and he not only saw SF, he went and saw it three times.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    TripAces wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Have to say I agree with this. I feel Mendes led Craig down a very different route that just didn’t work very well for Craig’s Bond. I prefer his take in CR and QOS as well. QOS in particular left me really up beat about where Craig Bond might be heading - it felt like Forster had suggested a refreshing new trajectory free of a lot of the tiresome old baggage. But what do I know - the box office says I’m completely wrong. Mendes took Bond back to its more familiar territory of cuff popping and ejector seats. And the audiences loved it.

    SF effectively managed past/present Bond. At least, I thought so; many others might disagree. What the BO numbers suggest, when looked at more closely, is that SF appealed to older audiences.

    http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-skyfall-james-bond-box-office-20121111-story.html

    I knew this was true without reading the reports, just looking at the people in the theater. MY father hadn't seen a Bond film in decades and he not only saw SF, he went and saw it three times.
    I quite agree and realized the same. Both my parents saw SF in the theatre with me (I think it was on my 2nd or 3rd viewing). It was the first Bond film they'd seen in the theatre since OP I think. They both loved it.

    QoS was too rapidly cut and edited for them. When I asked my dad what he thought of it after he saw it for the first time on blu ray his only comment to me was that it was 'all action'. He didn't say anything else about it but I could see he wasn't all that impressed.

    The trajectory that Craig Bond started on with Mendes was inevitable. He started as an edgy rookie in CR and they have been trying to take him more towards the traditional template Bond as his tenure progressed and as he's aged. I don't think it works for him (at all) but the strategy makes sense. He couldn't keep playing the CR/QoS style forever, just as Connery couldn't play the DN/FRWL Bond forever either. People age, and people change.
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 613
    bondjames wrote: »
    The trajectory that Craig Bond started on with Mendes was inevitable. He started as an edgy rookie in CR and they have been trying to take him more towards the traditional template Bond as his tenure progressed and as he's aged. I don't think it works for him (at all) but the strategy makes sense. He couldn't keep playing the CR/QoS style forever, just as Connery couldn't play the DN/FRWL Bond forever either. People age, and people change.

    I think the "strategy" (if you can call it that) is less about him aging and more about Craig playing Bond's iconic qualities rather than the (more interesting) human side. The Mendes era -- particularly SF -- is overloaded with superficial shots of Craig brooding and posing, as if we're meant to take some deeper meaning or significance from the character's threadbare adventures. I find it laughable.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,548
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The trajectory that Craig Bond started on with Mendes was inevitable. He started as an edgy rookie in CR and they have been trying to take him more towards the traditional template Bond as his tenure progressed and as he's aged. I don't think it works for him (at all) but the strategy makes sense. He couldn't keep playing the CR/QoS style forever, just as Connery couldn't play the DN/FRWL Bond forever either. People age, and people change.

    I think the "strategy" (if you can call it that) is less about him aging and more about Craig playing Bond's iconic qualities rather than the (more interesting) human side. The Mendes era -- particularly SF -- is overloaded with superficial shots of Craig brooding and posing, as if we're meant to take some deeper meaning or significance from the character's threadbare adventures. I find it laughable.

    Brooding and posing...Once, maybe, in the beach bar, early in the morning.
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 613
    TripAces wrote: »
    Brooding and posing...Once, maybe, in the beach bar, early in the morning.

    Once? It's all over the movie, the most laughable examples being in Scotland (right before Bond and M enter the Skyfall mansion) and in London near the end (the rooftop shot).
  • Posts: 4,599
    It's interesting, as soon as a writer tries to put some human qualities into the killer robot, they get stick from some fans. Re the rooftop scene, M has just died in his arms and he knows (as do we) that he shares some of the blame. For him to be seen alone considering this , to me, seems perfectly natural but for others. he is brooding.

    Can you imagine how the movie would have played out if that scene had been cut and we went directly to the new Ms office. It would have seemed really weired. One scene showing a transition from the death of M to the new mission was required and we got it.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,655
    Come on, @patb, why not let Bond have a chuckle over the death of the person probably closest to him? I mean, let him learn from LTK's Felix, all happy and his usual sunny self after losing both his wife and his leg in the end.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,417
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    Come on, @patb, why not let Bond have a chuckle over the death of the person probably closest to him? I mean, let him learn from LTK's Felix, all happy and his usual sunny self after losing both his wife and his leg in the end.

    Morphine is a hell of a drug.
Sign In or Register to comment.