SKYFALL Post-Release

I liked Kim Newman on Facebook, so I know he was at a screening of it a few days ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan 
I don't know too much of the spoilers except one bit which is the gunbarrel appearing at the end instead of the beginning, just like QOS. That is most annoying.

Goddammit, stop doing this!

Just to be on the safe non-spoiler side, I stop reading a few paragraphs in. However I do like the term serious romp.

Interesting.  I get this to an extent, but ultimately, it frustrates me when a director says that.  If it isn't written, how do they have any clue that they have exhausted ideas?  Either way, I don't mind if they move on and find a new director regardless of Mendes' successes.

Well whatever else you can say about Mendes, he's not particularly a guy who repeats himself. It's hardly surprising that he wouldn't want to get sidelined into making sequels to something he already made, especially given that he's not generally an action/thriller guy.

I didn't know where to put this but here goes.  EW just released their Bond edition on the iPad this morning so I ended up getting it and reading the piece.  At the very end of the article, Craig says something really freaking interesting:

"Everyone always moans, 'Where's Bond gone?  Where's all the jokes?'"  Craig says.  "Well, give us time!"  As he says this, he picks up an apple and takes a Richard Kiel-size bite out of it.  "I always had a plan in the back of my head that the third movie-if I ever got there-it would be time to take the gloves off and bring the gags back in.  That's why we have the Aston Martin DB5 from Goldfinger and the classic Bond theme in the new one.  That's what people come to see.  So that villain with the cat on his lap, let's bring him back!  Mike Myers took him, and we have to reclaim him."

A joke or a slip of the tongue of what they might do with Bond 24?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Swoosh 

I didn't know where to put this but here goes.  EW just released their Bond edition on the iPad this morning so I ended up getting it and reading the piece.  At the very end of the article, Craig says something really freaking interesting:

 

"Everyone always moans, 'Where's Bond gone?  Where's all the jokes?'"  Craig says.  "Well, give us time!"  As he says this, he picks up an apple and takes a Richard Kiel-size bite out of it.  "I always had a plan in the back of my head that the third movie-if I ever got there-it would be time to take the gloves off and bring the gags back in.  That's why we have the Aston Martin DB5 from Goldfinger and the classic Bond theme in the new one.  That's what people come to see.  So that villain with the cat on his lap, let's bring him back!  Mike Myers took him, and we have to reclaim him."

 

A joke or a slip of the tongue of what they might do with Bond 24?

It sounds like a jab against people constantly bitching about how the franchise should go back to the tone of the originally films. 

Spoiler Space...

I thought it really worked. The things that stopped it being brilliant were the winks at the audience, which just grate, and the way everything de-escalated throughout the film. It starts with an incredible action sequence and very high stakes, and by the end it's degenerated into Home Alone territory. You get a great start, and some good set pieces - I loved the China stuff and the Island stuff - but then it just collapses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leederick 

Spoiler Space...

 

and by the end it's degenerated into Home Alone territory. You get a great start, and some good set pieces - I loved the China stuff and the Island stuff - but then it just collapses.

Yeah that was really bizarre, like Bond does Straw Dogs. I think it does kind of fall apart as it goes on, then the final couple of scenes are designed to send you out thinking you saw the greatest thing ever. 

Naomie Harris is unbelievable though, and I love the new Q. 

Oh boy, don't say that.  I was afraid of this.  Like you, I'm not a huge Bond fan.  I was introduced via the Brosnan films in high school but wasn't over the moon about them.  I liked him more than anything else. But, Craig's portrayal has flipped me more and more towards the franchise.  With the buzz about the film and Bond 50 advertising every where you go, I've been tempted to get that box set.  If I have the same reaction to Skyfall as you and to the end credits, money will be spent ASAP.

I've literally just returned from watching this. It was very good indeed and I didn't feel the running time at all (which is always a good indicator to me that I've enjoyed a movie). Do I think that it's the best James Bond movie ever? No. Personally, I don't even think that it's the best Daniel Craig Bond movie (I would place Casino Royale marginally higher on the list) but it contained enough of the things that I wanted to see in order to send me away happy. Whilst I do agree that nothing really tops the opening action sequence, I do still love the lower key ending set in a location with more personal ties to Bond. Bardem lived up to the hype and was absolutely fantastic (the final scene where he is literally seething with rage was absolutely terrifying!) and Craig was fantastic too (although there was no doubt that he would be). All of the supporting players are equally wonderful (special praise goes to Naomie Harris) and I'm extremely glad that Ralph Fiennes ends up where he does. Oh and it would be remiss of me not to mention the beautiful cinematography (the silhouette fight mentioned earlier in this thread is a particular highlight) and possibly my favourite Bond title sequence (which goes very well with Adele's title track).

I believe it's the fourth best Bond movie and also the second best movie I've seen in the theatre this year (after The Avengers).

Mr. Saxon just wrote a lot of what I was going to write! Just returned from seeing this, liked it a lot, still like Casino Royale better, the cinematography in this one is amazing...

But as much as I like Skyfall, I couldn't shake off this nagging feeling throughout that it was cribbing heavily from other films, and it made it feel like bit of a Frankenstein's monster to me. It started with a minor thing: Bond commandeering a construction machine in the opening sequence. Just like Casino Royale. But then we have a villain that's physically deformed around the mouth, clearly psychotic, has a weird smirk or smile on his lips most of the time, and allows himself to be captured as part of a very elaborate plan. I was often getting a serious Joker vibe from Silva -- probably not helped by Mendes' recent praise of Nolan and The Dark Knight. And to stay on Silva and Bardem a bit, the film's running theme is old men trying to cope with and fit in a new age... No Country For Old Men? Heh. And the final confrontation at the Skyfall estate kept bringing me back to the final confrontation in the first Bourne. Also in the countryside with hunting rifles, if I remember correctly.

I know nothing's original and everything's inspired by something else... and this stuff usually doesn't annoy me this much, but it almost became too much for me during Skyfall. Which is doubly annoying as I felt the film got so much else right. I love that the villain had a very personal objective. I love that the film in general felt quite personal, digging deeper into both M and Bond as characters. I love how it tied their mother/son relationship into Bond's (and agents in general, it would seem) status as an orphan and put an extra bow on that tie with M's death near Bond's parents grave in the end. I also love that after seeing the movie, the theme song basically describes the final confrontation. And, again, the cinematography is fucking amazing in this film!

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrknudsen 

Mr. Saxon just wrote a lot of what I was going to write! Just returned from seeing this, liked it a lot, still like Casino Royale better, the cinematography in this one is amazing...

 

But as much as I like Skyfall, I couldn't shake off this nagging feeling throughout that it was cripping heavily from other films, and it made it feel like bit of a Frankenstein's monster to me. It started with a minor thing: Bond commandeering a construction machine in the opening sequence. Just like Casino Royale. But then we have a villain that's physically deformed around the mouth, clearly psychotic, has a weird smirk or smile on his lips most of the time, and allows himself to be captured as part of a very elaborate plan. I was often getting a serious Joker vibe from Silva -- probably not helped by Mendes' recent praise of Nolan and The Dark Knight. And to stay on Silva and Bardem a bit, the film's running theme is old men trying to cope with and fit in a new age... No Country For Old Men? Heh. And the final confrontation at the Skyfall estate kept bringing me back to the final confrontation in the first Bourne. Also in the countryside with hunting rifles, if I remember correctly.

 

Heh, that's fair. In fact,

spoilers... spoilers... spoilers... spoilers... spoilers... spoilers... spoilers... spoilers... spoilers... spoilers... spoilers... spoilers... spoilers... spoilers... spoilers... spoilers... spoilers... spoilers...

Honest to god, when M was crushing the lightbulbs I was seriously expecting them to glue the glass to a ladder, or strategically place it in front of a window or at the top of some stairs.

Yeah - I loved pretty much love everything up to Severine getting shot in the head. It kinda falls apart from there.

Maybe I'm just sick of every other film doing this sort of ridiculous nods to the audience. If Naomie Harris had just sat down behind a desk I'd have been okay. Do we really Moneypenny line - wink, wink - do you see what we did audience. I can't stand that sort of fan-bait. Does it add anything? It just takes me out the film. And some of the jokes just undercut the tone, I think we were verging on Roger Moore territory in some places.

The cinematography was amazing - it just makes the China sequence. I also thought Berenice Marlohe was incredible, just the way her mask kept on slipping.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leederick 

 I also thought Berenice Marlohe was incredible, just the way her mask kept on slipping.

This, she did a considerable amount with what is essentially a damsel in distress role.

I feel the same way. While I understand wanting to have all these throwbacks and references -- especially with the whole 50 year anniversary thing -- I felt that Casino Royale did a better job of establishing a new Bond that is his own character. Sure, Skyfall brought more to the table with establishing Bond as a new character in giving us a big peek into his background, but it also kept pulling him back into the old character and that character's setting. It felt kinda weird like that, and that's maybe another thing that made the movie feel slightly disjointed and like a Frankenstein's monster to me. It was trying to have it both ways.

Okay, I'll be the odd man out and say that I actually liked those little nods to the audience and felt that they did add something. There were only around ten to fifteen people in my theatre (I went to the early morning showing) and there was still audible laughter and noises of approval from the audience when the Aston Martin from Goldfinger was introduced or when Moneypenny said her name. James Bond is one of the few franchises which can do things like that and the 50th anniversary is the perfect opportunity for it. I can understand why it might irk some people but, for this Bond fan, I appreciated those winks because they put a smile on my face. I'm looking forward to my father (who essentially introduced me to the Bond movies) watching Skyfall because I know he'll like those moments too.

The difference probably is that I'm more a Craig-as-Bond fan than a Bond fan...

As a "Craig-as-Bond fan rather than a Bond fan" (we'll have to think up a proper name for you people!), how did you find the humor, chrknudsen? Did you think it was "verging on Roger Moore territory" as leederick did?

I didn't mind the humor as much, since it mostly came naturally from the situations. What irked me about the references and throwbacks is probably that they didn't come naturally from the situations nor this take on the character -- they were simply there because that's how it was in the old films. Like the Aston Martin. It's an in-your-face meta reference that takes me out of the narrative a bit by highlighting the fictional nature of it all. Instead of thinking "Bond has an Aston Martin -- I guess he's a collector or something", I'm thinking "oh look, it's that car that the Bond played by another actor X decades ago drove around in". It's probably a bit corny, but a line of dialogue like Bond telling M he inherited the car from his dad or something would have made it easier to swallow for me, since that would be a reason for the car being there. If the movie wasn't trying so hard to create a real and believable Bond character, this probably wouldn't be such an issue for me, but the movie keeps reminding me that this is just some fictional dude that's been played by a bunch of actors.

spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers 

I was particularly thinking about the line on the underground - "he must be eager to get home", I think. Tense sequence, great stunt, and then you get this cut-away zoom and a naff gag which totally undermines it. Think there were a couple of other moments too, it just undercuts the tone. I can't see what it adds.

I liked the banter with Moneypenny - not sure it was appropriate in the middle of a life or death chase after seeing three dead colleagues and while one was bleeding to death.

EDIT: Chrknudsen's explanation about the the references and throwbacks puts what I feel very well. The fourth wall breaking just ruins the illusion the film's trying to create. It's not like it's just Bond, you get the same thing in every other franchise now.

spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers 

And what happens with the disk?!?

The opening half hour had me expecting all out war on MI6 - large scale exposure and executions, and rifts with NATO allies - the works. But there's a youtube video with 5 names, one guy gets shot off camera. And that's it really... it's just in there to give a story motivation for M being retired and replaced, and resetting everything to the Connery setup. Maybe it was my expectations that were wrong, I liked the rumors that this was a film that took place after the villain's plan had succeeded. But there's a decrypted list of agents that just seems to get forgotten about once Silva's captured - do they even verbally reference that it's been recovered, no copies were made, and the situation is contained? Things contract into an attack on M and the film loses scope.

It will be interesting to see everyone's reaction to this. Already the tone of the film seems to be the divisive. Maybe it's just a mileage thing.

The "He's keen" line was the one that got closest to rolling my eyes but the film has just generated too much good will. For me the balance was perfect. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Harford 


I have not seen the movie, but Bond won the car in Casino Royale.

You're right. I completely forgot about that.

This one has the ejector seat and macine guns, though. Is that something Bond added since he won it? Also, M seems to know about the ejector seat, which makes it seem like this is a car that was used by MI6 back in the old days. I guess that just makes it an even better example of this film trying to go someplace new with Bond, but at the same time pulling him back to the old films. Is it a new car or isn't it? It's kinda muddled.

They're different cars. The car from Goldfinger and Skyfall is the DB5. In Casino Royale he wins a DBS V12.

I think he wins the DB5 in Royale. The DBS is just issued to him from MI6, isn't it?

http://www.jamesbondlifestyle.com/product/aston-martin-db5

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrknudsen 

 

You're right. I completely forgot about that.

 

This one has the ejector seat and macine guns, though. Is that something Bond added since he won it? Also, M seems to know about the ejector seat, which makes it seem like this is a car that was used by MI6 back in the old days. I guess that just makes it an even better example of this film trying to go someplace new with Bond, but at the same time pulling him back to the old films. Is it a new car or isn't it? It's kinda muddled.

Well, there's been six years between Quantum of Solace and Skyfall so who knows how many adventures Bond's had with it, how many tweaks he's done to it since he won it in Casino Royale.

Yeah you're right actually. Now I have a headache...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Swoosh 

Well, there's been six years between Quantum of Solace and Skyfall so who knows how many adventures Bond's had with it, how many tweaks he's done to it since he won it in Casino Royale.

I like to imagine that he's had no assignments from MI6 and has just spent all his time in the garage pimping his ride...

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrknudsen 

 

I like to imagine that he's had no assignments from MI6 and has just spent all his time in the garage pimping his ride...

Absolutely!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike's Pants 

Yeah you're right actually. Now I have a headache...

Sorry about that.  Still, it's an obvious call back to the past but in the context of Craig's tenure as Bond, we did see how he got the thing.  And since it's been six years, it's not out of the question he pimped this thing out...just waiting for the right time for it to be needed.

Heh, no worries. Of all the continuities to pick apart the Bond one is the most fun.

Spoilers....

A question for those who've seen it. What did you think of the peak into Bond's past? I thought it was fun seeing that he had his own 'Alfred'.

SPOILERS!!!!

Loved it.  Pierce  is still "my" Bond but damn that was a fun ride.  I said the same thing on Facebook but this film did a great job of striking the perfect balance between old and new.  

A couple of minor nitpicks.  The car is defiantly supposed to be the one from Royal as he makes a reference to all company cars being tagged (hence using his own).  So all the Goldfinger gadgetry was a bit confusing.  (Although like you guys I like to imagine he pimped it himself.)#

And I still hate the new Q.  He is far to much like Moss from the IT crowd for my liking.

However, Ralph Finnes as the new M is perfect.  

This film did a much better job of celebrating Bond than Die Another Day did.

Now I really want the screenwriters to explain in an interview about that car because I need a definitive answer, damnit.

I suppose the stuff Mendes has been saying about Skyfall ending up where Dr. No begins makes Skyfall a prequel, so the car isn't the car from Goldfinger. The car in Goldfinger is the car from Skyfall! I think Bond needs to end up with a time machine in the next outing for this chronology to make any sense.

Fuck it. Put Daniel Craig in X-Men: Days of Futures Past and we'll clear everything up. THE ANSWER WILL BE OURS!

I think if the car didn't play such a part in the climax it wouldn't even bug me, but it's still a nitpick nothing more.

I'm just waiting for the next film to state that James Bond is from the planet Zeist.  Fuck continuity.