SKYFALL Post-Release - Page 7

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCD 

 

And not only that, but the stakes were laughably low, as the movie itself demonstrates. The one thing Bond was trying to prevent from happening, happened. And everything turned out fine in the end anyway. 

 

Think about that for a second. 

 

James Bond failed in his mission. And there were no real consequences. 

I'm on record in the "Best of Bond" thread for disliking QUATUM OF SOLACE partly because of the lack of grandiosity in Quantum's master plan. And, broken down to its basest element, Silva's plot isn't much better-- simple revenge on M.

But the elaborate nature of Silva and his plan are actually the redeeming qualities in SKYFALL, as far as I'm concerned... Sure, the stakes are relatively low, but the methods by which the villain pursues his objective are in the world-beating category. I do wish they'd mined more drama out of the ramifications of a steady leak of NATO agents' identities, but they didn't. 

I also noted a few posts above that SKYFALL is the first Bond picture in which he fails at his basic mission. I actually find that to be an interesting twist on the Bond formula.

He fails, and still he has a job at the end of the movie. So do Q, and Tanner, and Mallory, despite the fact that they were all in on Bond's scheme... As for why there were no real consequences for Bond's failure (outside of M's death)-- my guess is that, since they were trying to push M out of the job anyway, her death saved HMG a lot of trouble.

Better to sweep it all under the rug and get on with the work of the Secret Service. 

Wow. I hate to be put in the same company as Gabe and Duke Fleed(well not so much Duke actually) but I thought this was dogshit. I can't say I'm too surprised though. I've hated every single film I've seen in theaters this year, so maybe I'm just going to have to accept the problem is me at this point. Even so I'm finding it hard to reconcile with the idea that grown adults think Bardem's performance is somehow scary or chilling or anything other than laughable. I mean...wow. Fuck. He was awful. 

I would have left at the half way point if I hadn't gone with friends. 

I recently went through the entire "Best of Bond" thread so it might just be me but did anyone else have a hard time getting Chud poster Paul Mccartney out of their head while watching this? During several instances it was hard to think of anything else.

Specifically:

-the many yellow/blue tinted scenes. 

-the added screen time for Judi Dench who he hates. 

-tons of self-serious "granny" dialogue

-the fact that Bardem is basically a rip-off of Ledger's Joker, which he again hates

-the Nolan-y sound ques

-the abysmal Hannibal Lecter/Joker Lite mind game scenes

I mean, the film seems to have been made specifically to troll him. If that's the case I have a feeling they're going to succeed 100%. There were times when I wondered if Purvis and Wade actually read these boards and were angry at some comment he made about them or something. If he doesn't go on a killing spree after seeing it I'd love for him to come back just to shred the film to pieces. The praise for it is already becoming a bit insufferable. I can only hope it's contained mostly in this thread in the days ahead. 

I don't know who this "Paul Mccartney" is but I doubt he and I would get along. Even if he is named after the guy who wrote one of the best Bond theme tunes of all time in (allegedly) twenty minutes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

The comparisons to THE DARK KNIGHT RISES are really apt; there's a lot of similarities going on here, though SKYFALL really does execute them so much better. It's interesting that this broken hero coming out of retirement thing seems to be part of the zeitgeist right now. As an aging dude I appreciate it. 

There is a Bond film that The Dark Knight Rises shares a TON of similarities with, but it isn't Skyfall.  It is Brosnan's The World Is Not Enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Swoosh 

My other thought, and this may put people off, is that she's there for Idris Elba's run as 007.  Full disclosure, I'm black, so....

I wouldn't put any stock in those rumors.  While the producers muse on the idea of a Black Bond someday (Colin Salmon was mentioned in the late 90s), they will never do it.  Wrong or not, it just won't happen.  If Elba has met with the producers, it is far likelier that they are interested in him being the big baddie (or another main role) for Bond 24, which they started scripting back in June and will shoot in the latter half of next year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by felix 

Surprised that they revealed "M"s real name here.

Funnily enough, Dench's Craig-era M is the only one that we DON'T have a real name for.

Bernard Lee's M is Sir Miles Messervy, a name which exists not only in the original novels, but it uttered in at least one of the Moore films.  Robert Brown's Admiral Hargreaves was his replacement, promoted once Messervy retired (aka Lee passed away).  Dench's M from the Brosnan-era is Barbara Mawdsley, a name given in the books at the time and novelizations.  While never uttered on film, it's still pretty much accepted canon.

We were never give her Craig-era character's name, but either her first or last name also coincidentally begins with an "M"....judging from Bond's comments in Casino Royale.  If you recall, Bond almost says her name outloud, but she threatens to have him killed if he finishes the sentence.  Perhaps Emma is her real first name after all?

Of course, Gareth Mallory is our new "M".  That leaves Brown's Hargreaves as the only head of the organization to date that doesn't have the letter beginning his last name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCD 

 

Every action beat that happened in between the release of the undercover agent's identities and Silva trying to kill M at the hearing was completely superfluous. None of that had to happen. M should have been dead the moment her disgrace went public. Silva didn't need to wait for Bond to arrive at his island (while strangely trying to kill him in the process), get captured, escape, and then try to kill M. He could have easily killed her anytime before all of that. 

 

If the argument is that dumb, pointless action ruins the integrity of the movie, then those making that argument need to reconcile it with the colossal idiocy of Silva's plan.

 

If the argument is that stupid villain plots are just part of the Bond tradition, then those making that argument need to reconcile it with the dearth of action spectacle, also a Bond tradition. 

 

You can't have it both ways. 

Superfluous with the meaning that stuff wasn't added to an action scene over what already had to be there. Take Shanghai for example. Bond tracks an assassin, fights him, action over. There didn't just "happen" top be some extra baddies around to spice up the scene.

Or at the beggining. Three or four extra cars with bad guys didn't just appear as usual to make the chase more "exciting."

There is action that organically flows from the story the movie tells and there's action that happens because someone involved wanted to spice things up. 

Oh, what's the deal with the orange/teal blue/yellow complaints? Are we gonna complain when the DP follows color theory now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slim 

 

I'm on record in the "Best of Bond" thread for disliking QUATUM OF SOLACE partly because of the lack of grandiosity in Quantum's master plan. And, broken down to its basest element, Silva's plot isn't much better-- simple revenge on M.

 

But the elaborate nature of Silva and his plan are actually the redeeming qualities in SKYFALL, as far as I'm concerned... Sure, the stakes are relatively low, but the methods by which the villain pursues his objective are in the world-beating category. I do wish they'd mined more drama out of the ramifications of a steady leak of NATO agents' identities, but they didn't. 

 

I also noted a few posts above that SKYFALL is the first Bond picture in which he fails at his basic mission. I actually find that to be an interesting twist on the Bond formula.

 

He fails, and still he has a job at the end of the movie. So do Q, and Tanner, and Mallory, despite the fact that they were all in on Bond's scheme... As for why there were no real consequences for Bond's failure (outside of M's death)-- my guess is that, since they were trying to push M out of the job anyway, her death saved HMG a lot of trouble.

 

Better to sweep it all under the rug and get on with the work of the Secret Service. 

That the stakes were ultimately inconsequential is a basic failure of the movie. Drama is inherent in story-telling. Conflict is inherent in drama. And you can't have real conflict if nothing is at stake. When the driving force of a movie is "We must save this character!", and then that character ends up dying and everything is still okay, the movie is basically now saying "Hey, that thing I said earlier? Never mind. It didn't really matter". The heart of the conflict - and thus the conflict itself - has been stripped away. And now we're just left with some explosions and a bunch of people chasing each other around for no particular reason. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

 

Superfluous with the meaning that stuff wasn't added to an action scene over what already had to be there. Take Shanghai for example. Bond tracks an assassin, fights him, action over. There didn't just "happen" top be some extra baddies around to spice up the scene.

 

Or at the beggining. Three or four extra cars with bad guys didn't just appear as usual to make the chase more "exciting."

 

There is action that organically flows from the story the movie tells and there's action that happens because someone involved wanted to spice things up. 

I feel like you're splitting hairs now. You're saying that the action scenes themselves were organic in that they weren't anymore than they needed to be, while ignoring the glaringly obvious fact that their very existence was completely unnecessary. I'd rather have logic-defying action sequences that are at least fun to watch than subdued, economical ones born of a ridiculous narrative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCD 

I feel like you're splitting hairs now. You're saying that the action scenes themselves were organic in that they weren't anymore than they needed to be, while ignoring the glaringly obvious fact that their very existence was completely unnecessary. I'd rather have logic-defying action sequences that are at least fun to watch than subdued, economical ones born of a ridiculous narrative.

The film's plot is the film's plot. Your problems are with the plot then not the action.

Still, if that's your opinion I guess we disagree completely. I'd rather a film follow its story and rules even if they're bad than insert "cool" action that breaks with them. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCD 

 

That the stakes were ultimately inconsequential is a basic failure of the movie. Drama is inherent in story-telling. Conflict is inherent in drama. And you can't have real conflict if nothing is at stake. When the driving force of a movie is "We must save this character!", and then that character ends up dying and everything is still okay, the movie is basically now saying "Hey, that thing I said earlier? Never mind. It didn't really matter". The heart of the conflict - and thus the conflict itself - has been stripped away. And now we're just left with some explosions and a bunch of people chasing each other around for no particular reason. 

No. I'm not saying the stakes involved in SKYFALL are inconsequential, or ought to be. They have consequence-- certainly for M, since she ends up dead.

That conflict, that drama is there. Your gauge seems to be whether there's a clock ticking down to  total world destruction, or some such.

The fact that the world goes on, despite her death and despite Bond's failure-- and that the Secret Service still needs men like him-- does not negate the events that have come before, at all. That's practically the fucking thesis of the whole picture.

Thought it was fantastic until they actually get to Skyfall. "Every NATO agent in the World is in danger, and its up to M, Mr Bond and an elderly groundskeeper to save the day with whacky hijinx!" Yeah, scope got zeroed in waaaay too much.

China looked amazing and unsettling futuristic, with the best action scene. JMW Turner, thats my dawg. Saw the film with a real live Englishman, he quite enjoyed everything set in the Tubes.


 

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

 

Funnily enough, Dench's Craig-era M is the only one that we DON'T have a real name for.

 

Bernard Lee's M is Sir Miles Messervy, a name which exists not only in the original novels, but it uttered in at least one of the Moore films.  Robert Brown's Admiral Hargreaves was his replacement, promoted once Messervy retired (aka Lee passed away).  Dench's M from the Brosnan-era is Barbara Mawdsley, a name given in the books at the time and novelizations.  While never uttered on film, it's still pretty much accepted canon.

 

We were never give her Craig-era character's name, but either her first or last name also coincidentally begins with an "M"....judging from Bond's comments in Casino Royale.  If you recall, Bond almost says her name outloud, but she threatens to have him killed if he finishes the sentence.  Perhaps Emma is her real first name after all?

I was toying with that same idea. I'd forgotten that they gave Judi Dench's M of the 90s a name in the novels (in the Benson ones, I'm guessing). And of course the Judi Dench of the Craig era doesn't have to be the same character at all... Confusing!

I wonder at the difficulty the real-life Secret Intelligence Service would have if they had to find a succession of chiefs with a "C" in their name somewhere.

I love Albert Finney, but it's a shame they couldn't have convinced Sean Connery to come out of retirement to cameo as Kincade.

Liked it but didn't love it.

I'm with the detractors who state that

- the plot is a simple revenge scheme that is poorly thought out and does not hold up to the slightest scrutiny.

- the film is too long for what it's trying to achieve

- the film needs more action

However, it's a quality film.  The acting is superb, the cinematography is amazing, and the action scenes that ARE present are exceptionally well done (the Shanghai fistfight was a cinematic orgasm of the highest degree).

I don't find it to be successful as a BOND film, but I do find it incredibly successful as a BOND ORIGIN film.  On that level, it's great and I'd highly recommend it to anyone.

Final thought: Javier Bardem is an amazing actor, but he should never be filmed from a low angle again.  I ended up staring at his nose for 90% of the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draco Senior 

I love Albert Finney, but it's a shame they couldn't have convinced Sean Connery to come out of retirement to cameo as Kincade.

That would have been genius. Especially if they could have kept it quiet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draco Senior 

I love Albert Finney, but it's a shame they couldn't have convinced Sean Connery to come out of retirement to cameo as Kincade.

I'm sure it was discussed. And I'm sure Connery said, "Go fuck yourshelve."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draco Senior 

I love Albert Finney, but it's a shame they couldn't have convinced Sean Connery to come out of retirement to cameo as Kincade.

I'm glad this didn't happen. I actually agree with what Sam Mendes said about considering Connery for that role.

I'm still processing it.  It's definitely the best looking Bond movie, given that they decided to hire an Oscar-winning director of photography.  The Shanghai scenes were beautiful.

My one complaint, unfortunately, is that I think Strike Back does the "talk in ear and guide" thing better than this movie.  For some reason, all I could think of was that.  In ear communication doesn't feel very Bond to me.

Overall, it was great.  I'm glad that Bond is being given a surrogate family.  These loner types don't get much dramatic mileage unless they have a surrogate family.

I kind of love the fact that you just referenced Strike Back in this thread, Spook.

Philip Winchester for the next Bond!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judas Booth 

 

I don't find it to be successful as a BOND film, but I do find it incredibly successful as a BOND ORIGIN film.  On that level, it's great and I'd highly recommend it to anyone.

This here is my main problem with SKYFALL. Six years and three movies into Craig's run and we're still doing "Bond Begins". If something like SKYFALL had come on the heels of CASINO ROYALE, I'd be a lot happier with it-- instead I'm just more irritated by what a waste of goddamn time QUANTUM OF SOLACE is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSaxon 

I kind of love the fact that you just referenced Strike Back in this thread, Spook.

 

Philip Winchester for the next Bond!

Strike Back is God's gift to us all.

You can totally predict when the backlash of a good movie starts on these boards. Right around page 7. It's like clockwork. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 


Disagree, because the role is so clearly written for Connery. Craig's first line upon seeing Kincade: "Good God, are you still alive?". "Are you ready for this?" "I've been ready for this since before you were born, son."
The character is distracting as is because he's so clearly supposed to be Sean Connery. At least go all the way and make it thrilling.

Don't forget "Welcome to Scotland".  Why not have an actual Scot deliver that one?

Given the direction of the all-out Skyfall scenes, I don't think Connery would've really been all that distracting.

Connery's been happily retired for years now and probably was never going to do the movie. The fact that he's not Kincade shouldn't be distracting to anybody.

Also some of you guys are just super-fucking-weird about these movies.

Having Connery in there would have been wrong.  The temptation would have been too strong to include 'I was doing this before you were born' and 'the old ways are better' jokes.  

Which they did anyways.

They weren't going to get Connery.

The fact that Kincaid was supposed to be Connery is apparently so obvious that it didn't even occur to me while I was watching the movie.

He's gruff and old and says shit like "I was born ready!" SO IT HAS TO BE CONNERY ACCORDING TO BOND CODE!

Yeah, it didn't occur to me at all either.

My thoughts went: "Hey, it's Albert Finney!" and "He sure doesn't sound very Scottish." Not: "Why the hell didn't they get Connery for this?"

Holy Christ, I'm glad they didn't try to stick Connery in there. I was talking about how the damned Goldfinger DB5 took me out of the movie...

It might have been for the fact that Albert Finney, even at his youngest and most handsome, is just about the last person I picture as James Bond. 

I have to agree with Lauren. There's some weird weirdness going on. How the hell was Kincaid supposed to be Connery? Other than him being old?

And now, to not-bury Caesar...

The action is great. Good mix of Bond spectacle (the villain THROWS A SUBWAY TRAIN AT BOND) and action you're not used to from a Bond movie. And I count three action setpieces. The opening, the race to save M (tense subway sequence to foot chase to shoot-out), and the final battle.

Naomie Harris is great as Moneypenny, awesome chemistry with Craig even if the character as written is a little mystifying. I'm cool with the new dynamic being them as fuckbuddies, or ex-lovers who are keeping it in their pants now that they're co-workers. Could've been fleshed out more, but that's not on the actress. I think she's technically the "Bond girl" here, so I wonder why Severin got the nod when she was more of a one-off. I hope there isn't some icky racial subtext there; there was no subterfuge in Halle Berry being the Bond Girl instead of Rosamund Pike back with Die Another Day, but then, Halle Berry's literally considered to be the most attractive African-American woman in the world.

Silva's a great villain. I don't mind his motivation being to kill M, just the harebrained way he goes about it in the courthouse sequence. But I love how old-school he is with the flamboyant mannerisms, the PRIVATE ISLAND, the physical deformity, while the obsession with M is new and interesting. I mean, what was the deal with the guy from QoS? He loved the environment but not really? Yawn.

Daniel Craig as Bond. Always great.

Ben Whislaw as Q. Okay, I guess. A little annoyed with the dismissal of the exploding pens, since that makes him just another guy chattering in Bond's earpiece (as I said, we've got four of those now). So now his character is just a walking app store. Like, c'mon guy, would it kill you to put Bond's radio in a tie clip so the bad guys not finding it isn't down to them being totally incompetent? But, good actor, interesting new dynamic, I'm game.

Severin. Looked great in a backless dress, even if the script pretty much gave her the middle finger. I would not be surprised to hear that she had a bigger part before the actress ran over Barbara Broccoli's dog or something.

Ralph Fiennes as M. Cool, cool, cool. I wonder if there'll be a long game of him turning out to be a bad guy. Probably never happen, but it would be so cool to have one or two movies of Bond taking orders from Voldemort and then realizing, as was rumored for this movie, that this is a story where the Bond villain has won.

This movie gave me a few Harry Potter-ish flashes.

First, it had Voldemort telling Narcissa Malfoy to shut the fuck up and let M speak.

Then all of Skyfall Manor had that kind of semi-gothic imagery (along with the tombstone of Bond's parents) that recalled images from some of the prettier Potter movies.

Then there's the title SKYFALL itself.  It's brought up early in the film like something super mysterious and then it just turns out to be something relatively mundane.

It ends up feeling like JAMES BOND and the HALF-BLOOD PRINCE.

"Oh, that's it?  Alright..."

Apropos of nothing just discussed: My wife is evidently in love with Bardem's performance as Silva, because she hasn't stopped talking about it since we saw the movie. It's kinda weirding me out...

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega 

 

1. I don't like Severine's death, but then again I find the tradition of "one Bond girl dies" to be wince inducing. Though at least she's wasted less than Gemma Arterton in Quantum of Solace.

I also wanted to go back to Lauren's point on this. I'm not a man of overly-delicate sensibilities on this stuff-- particularly since the brutal death of the secondary Bond Girl is pretty routine in this series-- but Severine's exit struck me as especially harsh. (Having recently watched it, though, Drax setting his dogs on his female helicopter pilot in the otherwise-lighthearted MOONRAKER is pretty disturbing too).

I thought Severine's murder alone warranted a more personal and equally brutal comeuppance for Silva, rather than the knife in the back that he got. As much as I crap on QOS, at least Bond dispensed with Dominic Greene in an fittingly cruel manner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slim 
As much as I crap on QOS, at least Bond dispensed with Dominic Greene in an fittingly cruel manner.

Oh yeah... that WAS pretty sweet.  Thanks for reminding me of that.

Marlohe was so good that I was hoping her character would break the "Bond meets girl, shags her and she's killed off" pattern.  Bit of a waste.

And yeah, I was expecting something more like how Greene was taken out in Solace, given how Silva killed Séverine.

The first thing I thought of when I saw Albert Finney as Kincaide was that he looks EXACTLY like my Father In Law. I turned to my wife and said "He looks like your Dad!" and she agreed.

Sleeping on it, I still love the film, but I do agree it needed more action set pieces. That's why I like Casino Royale better. However, I didn't mind it being a "small" film and giving us more information on Bond in one film than in the entire franchise.

It's not so much that I needed Severine revenged or anything.

It's just like I'm getting more than a little fatigued with this aspect of the Bond movies. I don't need every single female character absolutely protected, but it's been since License to Kill that both women made it out of the movie without being killed. And it feels weird.

That's like the ONLY real issue I had in the movie. Since all the complaints about scale and "the villain plot was too confusing!" just feels like whining.

This movie really had a general tone of disinterest towards collateral damage. 

Bond sees Patrice enter the building and doesn't even blink as he sees the guy kill the guards.  The movie doesn't care when Severin gets killed. 

The movie only really gives a shit when Silva has Bond's car blown up.  Complete with "NOW IT'S PERSONAL" music.

I mean, I know most action movies have a cavalier attitude towards collateral damage, but they usually put up SOME kind of front.  SKYFALL felt like it was actively trying to show that it didn't care.  Maybe to go with the way we're supposed to see M's 'professionalism?'  I dunno.  It was weird.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega 

It's not so much that I needed Severine revenged or anything.

 

It's just like I'm getting more than a little fatigued with this aspect of the Bond movies. I don't need every single female character absolutely protected, but it's been since License to Kill that both women made it out of the movie without being killed. And it feels weird.

 

 

 

That's like the ONLY real issue I had in the movie. Since all the complaints about scale and "the villain plot was too confusing!" just feels like whining.

What makes it especially irritating is that Severine was a really promising character played by one of the best BG actresses since Eva Green.

I liked her. I don't know if I liked her more than Gemma Arterton* but yeah.

Now if they did anything to dear sweet Naomie Harris? Revenge would be the only option.

*I still have a bone to pick with QOS for that.

The movies for a while have been really having a tricky time being able to balance the fact that Bond kills a whole lot of people and is supposed to be a generally ruthless sonofabitch. While also trying to keep him from coming across as an utter sociopath. It oftentimes can make things feel weird even in the best films of the series.

Sigh... Naomie Harris...

What about Olga Kurylenzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

Olga Kurylenko made more of an impression on me when she was mute in Centurion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega 

It's not so much that I needed Severine revenged or anything.

 

It's just like I'm getting more than a little fatigued with this aspect of the Bond movies. I don't need every single female character absolutely protected, but it's been since License to Kill that both women made it out of the movie without being killed. And it feels weird.

 

That's like the ONLY real issue I had in the movie. Since all the complaints about scale and "the villain plot was too confusing!" just feels like whining.

No, I agree with you, Lauren-- and not just from a protection/vengeance standpoint. It's just that a standard trope of the Bond series hits harder when it's presented in a certain way. If it happens on screen-- as in SKYFALL or MOONRAKER-- then I want it addressed, or redressed, on screen somehow. 

In CR, for instance, even though Solange is tortured and killed off screen, Bond's basic indifference to the fact is commented on: "But that's not your problem, is it, Bond?"

If this pattern is going to continue-- as I suspect it will, because the death of the secondary Bond Girl is too easy a plot device to abandon-- I think future entries could use more of the CR or QOS treatment. It's preferable to just forgetting, in the rush of the plot, that the death of a (relative) innocent like Severine happened at all.

Oh yeah! I can get behind that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slim 

I thought Severine's murder alone warranted a more personal and equally brutal comeuppance for Silva, rather than the knife in the back that he got. As much as I crap on QOS, at least Bond dispensed with Dominic Greene in an fittingly cruel manner.

Even Bardem's performace seemed to refect this.  Amidst the agony, he was offended too.  "A knife in the back?!?  After all this, a knife in the back?!?"