or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › SKYFALL Post-Release
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SKYFALL Post-Release - Page 2

post #51 of 1198
For those who have seen it, without spoiling anything what do you think of Daniel Kleinman's Skyfall title sequence?
post #52 of 1198

Okay. It won't be on any best of lists. It was a bit non-traditional - very 3 dimensional, with the camera tracking forward, rather than having a flatter look. The purists won't like the serious lack of naked women in silhouette. I imagine the consensus will be it was one of the poorer sequences.

post #53 of 1198

 

 

post #54 of 1198
Quote:
Originally Posted by leederick View Post

Okay. It won't be on any best of lists. It was a bit non-traditional - very 3 dimensional, with the camera tracking forward, rather than having a flatter look. The purists won't like the serious lack of naked women in silhouette. I imagine the consensus will be it was one of the poorer sequences.

Agreed. I understand the reasoning behind the visuals but the sequence is a little lacklustre.
post #55 of 1198

Wow. I LOVED the Skyfall title sequence! It was one of my favorites from the entire Bond franchise!

post #56 of 1198
Seen it. Have Imax tickets in ten days but didn't fancy the wait.

I'll let it sink in some more but first impressions are that it's solid. Good performance from Craig and Drench, and the supporting characters. Story is okay if a bit ill defined. I didn't like the Bond is back conceit and the villain motivation felt a bit borrowed and uninspired. Making the stakes personal seemed a bit off somehow almost making it feel strangely small scale. Also, it felt like a bit of a tease setting up classic Bond for the next film. Almost like it's one film too many doing that. Great set pieces, though.

Bardem is good, but found certain aspects of his characterisation a bit, well, outdated. Which given they haven't been explicit with anything along these lines before might seem an odd conclusion. Almost felt Fleming-esque, but not in a good way.

Also, hated the DB5 bits. Oddly incoherent given the pains they went to in rebooting him only two films ago. The sort of thing that probably won't bother people but really wound me up. Also the last scenes bugged me. It's fan service, in a way and that's fine but I didn't buy the reset. Maybe I'm just a grouch.

I've been oblique on spoilers. How are we treating them given the US hasn't seen it yet?
post #57 of 1198
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhp1608 View Post


I've been oblique on spoilers. How are we treating them given the US hasn't seen it yet?

 

As long as they don't appear in the section of your post where they can be viewed on the main forum screen, spoilers are good here.

post #58 of 1198

Watched this for a second time last night, with a much larger audience than before and it was a riot. The movie stands up to repeated viewings and the audience were very vocal in their approval (lots of laughs in the right places for example, and a few people clapping at the end). I still think Casino Royale is the better movie but I’m looking forward to adding this to my collection when it’s available for home viewing.

post #59 of 1198

Saw it last night and... I'm sorry to say... I didn't love it. Don't know if it was the unanimous BEST BOND EVAR I've been hearing, or the less serious CASINO ROYALE tone but it was de

 

LIKES:

 * Undoubtedly the prettiest Bond flick. Rodger Deakins knocks every out of the fucking park - some of the shots were draw dropping (Bond falling into the ice for one stands out)

 * Bardem - I wanted more of him. More of his physical deformity , more of him turning the screw on M, more of his games with Bond on that island

 * The opening mission - gripping throughout. Craigs "cuff straightenning" might have been overplayed in the trailers but it's still great.

 * the overly long London stop aside, the movie moves at such a pace you barely notice its running time.

 

DISLIKES:

 * dropped plot threads - the NOC list (or whatever) gets released on youtube then... nothing? Bond totally flubs his physical and then... he's back to his best? Whats the deal with the shrapnel in his shoulder – did I miss something or did they go from “I knifed metal crap from my shoulder” to “the radiation of the metal crap in my shoulder means we must find this random terrorist who looks like the guy I fought earlier”?

 * tedious foreshadowing - M doesn’t care about whatshisface getting shot - guess what happens!

 * finale stupidity – I like the idea of a penned in Bond going STRAW DOGS, but do they have to establish the underground tunnel and not do anything with it until it’s time to outrun a fireball? Hey M – two things: keep your torch off if you’re running away from madmen at night, and you probably can’t walk off a gunshot if you’ve spent the previous 90 minutes talking about retirement

 

That sounds rantier than I was hoping. I did enjoy the movie, it’s definitely worth checking out. Blame it on unrealistic expectations I guess…

post #60 of 1198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Allen View Post

Saw it last night and... I'm sorry to say... I didn't love it. Don't know if it was the unanimous BEST BOND EVAR I've been hearing, or the less serious CASINO ROYALE tone but it was de

 

LIKES:

 * Undoubtedly the prettiest Bond flick. Rodger Deakins knocks every out of the fucking park - some of the shots were draw dropping (Bond falling into the ice for one stands out)

 * Bardem - I wanted more of him. More of his physical deformity , more of him turning the screw on M, more of his games with Bond on that island

 * The opening mission - gripping throughout. Craigs "cuff straightenning" might have been overplayed in the trailers but it's still great.

 * the overly long London stop aside, the movie moves at such a pace you barely notice its running time.

 

DISLIKES:

 * dropped plot threads - the NOC list (or whatever) gets released on youtube then... nothing? Bond totally flubs his physical and then... he's back to his best? Whats the deal with the shrapnel in his shoulder – did I miss something or did they go from “I knifed metal crap from my shoulder” to “the radiation of the metal crap in my shoulder means we must find this random terrorist who looks like the guy I fought earlier”?

 * tedious foreshadowing - M doesn’t care about whatshisface getting shot - guess what happens!

 * finale stupidity – I like the idea of a penned in Bond going STRAW DOGS, but do they have to establish the underground tunnel and not do anything with it until it’s time to outrun a fireball? Hey M – two things: keep your torch off if you’re running away from madmen at night, and you probably can’t walk off a gunshot if you’ve spent the previous 90 minutes talking about retirement

 

That sounds rantier than I was hoping. I did enjoy the movie, it’s definitely worth checking out. Blame it on unrealistic expectations I guess…

 

Yeah, the hype may sour it for some people.

 

Most of your dislikes are hard to argue with, though for me they are only really apparent after the fact.

 

Bond being "past his prime" probably shouldn't have been a plot point to begin with. Twenty minutes later he is fucking folk up.

post #61 of 1198

Here's another plot point I feel they could have fleshed out and actually used a bit more... They certainly seemed to be building to something with it:

 

- The film starts with Bond having to leave another agent to die on orders from M

- Bond himself then gets shot when M orders Moneypenny to take the shot

- Bond is rightfully bitter when confronting M after returning to active duty

- During his initial conversation with Bond, Silva points out how M sent Bond to catch him well knowing that he failed all the tests and likely wasn't up for the task (this is really just M showing Bond faith, but Silva spins it as M sending Bond to be killed)

- When captured, Silva then reveals that his anger/psychosis is a result of M betraying him and leaving him to rot in captivity and torture for 2 years

 

Oooooh, I guess Bond is going to have his loyalty towards M and MI6 really be tested, right? Nope, right after Silva's reveal, M just tells Bond that Silva was starting to go rogue, so she exchanged him for 6 other agents in captivity. Oh. I guess everything's alright then. Bond certainly seems to just accept this explanation and a possible major conflict is completely dropped.

 

@Paul Allen: Bond was shot by the dude in the opening action sequence. He dug out the bullet shrapnel which they then CSI'd.

post #62 of 1198

I do worry that this movie is going to suffer because of the unnecessary hype heaped upon it. It’s a great movie, and a very good Bond movie, but it’s not the best Bond movie (and nobody is going to be able to convince me otherwise). That title should never have been heaped upon it. It’s a ball and chain around this movie’s legs.

post #63 of 1198

I think it's a great Bond movie and a very good movie. The reason all these things annoy me is because I feel they're keeping it from also being a great movie.

post #64 of 1198

Bond fighting in the komodo dragon pit must have been a Purvis/Wade thing, right?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrknudsen View Post
@Paul Allen: Bond was shot by the dude in the opening action sequence. He dug out the bullet shrapnel which they then CSI'd.

 

Ay, I got that. But didn't Eve also shoot him in the shoulder? And wasn't the shooting the dude (Patrice?)  shooting some automatic pistol that would have turned Bond into swiss cheese? And wasn't the line of thinking "Analyse this fragment I was keeping quiet about during my physical and have been carrying for weeks/months inside me but have just dug out of myself with a knife -> it's radioactive -> only these three people we know use radioactive ammo -> it's that guy -> we somehow know he's going to be Shanghai -> go to shanghai -> go to the airport"

 

I know, I know, thats no more convoluted than any other Bond plot... but it just stood out as overly flukey while watching

post #65 of 1198

I honestly don't remember where Eve shot him. And wasn't Bond shot by Patrice while somewhat in cover inside the excavator? I suppose that explains why he was only hit by a single bullet. But, yeah, everything else is pretty ludicrous. It has the feeling of the writers not really knowing how to get Bond back on the guy's tail, so they just have him analyze the bullet stuck in his shoulder when the script needed it.

post #66 of 1198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Allen View Post

Bond fighting in the komodo dragon pit must have been a Purvis/Wade thing, right?

 

That entire sequence was worth it for the way Craig sort of wide eyedly points at the Komodo Dragon like a little boy for a couple of seconds. I'm actually really looking forward to watching it again because I know it's great, but it took me a while to get on board with the pace of the movie. As such I didn't really settle into it until Silva showed up. I really loved Bardem as Silva, he's probably my favourite Bond villain since Alec Trevaleyn and he feels frustratingly underused at points. But when he's onscreen Bardem is magnetic.

post #67 of 1198

Hi all. Long time reader, first time poster here. I figured new Bond movie-thread would be a good place for first post.

I must say that I'm not a big fan of Craig's first two Bonds. So I went in expecting more of the same but came out loving this. They got the most important thing right:they put the FUN back in Bond.

Komodo dragons are exactly what this series needed.

 

Skyfall is stunningly beautiful to look at and Bardem is a great deranged villain. It has it's problems but overall this might be my favourite Bond since the 80's.
 

post #68 of 1198
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr Majestyk View Post

Komodo dragons are exactly what this series needed.

 

They're what every series needs. Let's get them in the new Star Wars movie too.

post #69 of 1198
Thread Starter 

It's nice to know there are critters in this entry, it has been way too long for the Bond series since the last time there were any. I think it was Licence to Kill, with the shark tank and Sanchez's pet iguana.

post #70 of 1198

I think we should just go ahead and get Herzog to create a Bond title sequence entirely from Iguana POV shots. Maybe throw in some Albino Alligators as well.

post #71 of 1198

Spoilers

 

 

...

 

 

 

I feel like a complete grouch not liking this film that much. It's a tremendous technical achievement - really. It's the best looking Bond since OHMSS and the acting in 90% of cases is top notch. But there were really strange choices made with the story and humour that kept taking me out of the film, and when taken together really killed the buzz for me by the time the film ended.

 

Stuff like the abandoned operatives list plot (why did he steal it?) or the fact that the most interesting thing about Bardem's villain was his ability to manipulate the shit out of global affairs, which is then relegated to a background set up.

 

Oh, and how come he was still able to play Neuromancer when his island retreat had been compromised by us Brits? And if he didn't need it to be able to keep one step ahead of everybody after being captured, why did he have it in the first place? And why would a country that has abandoned an island because of a "chemical spill" not double check it had actually happened, go back to check the damage, conduct satellite surveillance...

 

Speaking of the island sequence, did no-one think of patting Bond down and checking whether the really obvious mini-radio was cunningly hidden...in a pocket?

 

And why would the head of MI6 trade an apparently awesome agent to the Chinese, in return for anyone else? Even if he had been doing some unauthorised work, I find it impossible that we'd sacrifice one of our own. What, we haven't got any Chinese agents spare? Somewhere I feel there was a discarded plot point that he was actually working for the Chinese. Would have made the idea that he could make his way out of Chinese detention, set himself up as a super-hacker and make his priority to kill the head of MI6 somehow more believable. Would also have explained the "abandoned island" base more reasonably and would have been more topical given the general concern about Chinese cyber-warfare now.

 

Why did Silva need to be captured? Why couldn't he have just smuggled himself into London, changed into a police outfit, and ambushed the inquiry? Seems like he chose a really roundabout way to go about achieving his primary objective, and exposed himself to risks he needn't have done. The better Bond villains didn't do that, a flaw magnified by the fact that he is set up as some kind of technology-manipulating omniscient.

 

That couple remarking "I guess he's in a rush" was only just this side of double-taking pigeons.

 

And the "Yeah! Bond's back" at the end felt really unearned to me on a story level. Bond's story here is of him fundamentally screwing up. Seriously. First he loses a really, really important bit of intelligence. Then he fails to recover it. Then he fails to protect his boss, somewhat suggesting that his whole "going off the reservation/taking a trip down memory lane" wasn't such a good idea after all. Because making your last stand in a remote, isolated country house without any kind of counter-intel, surveillance systems or back up whatsoever is totally the way to deal with a mortal threat.

 

Plus, the CIA and other NATO countries must be going absolutely fucking ballistic that the agent list existed in the first place - on a laptop hard drive? all in one place? really? - but there's zero indication of fall out bar the off hand remark that, hey, some of our closest allies are going to be really pissed about us losing a list we should never have had in the first place. Ah fuck it - Moneypenny? M in an office straight out of the 1960s (like they've been preserving Bernard Lee's old gaff like a grief stricken parent just in case someone blows up the new HQ)? dang-diggly-dang-dang...

 

If it had been me, he'd have been fired.

 

And the Goldfinger car? Having just spent 20 minutes in a previous film setting up why this incarnation would have a fifty year old car in the first place. After further emphasising the fact it wasn't a company car.

 

The homosexuality, bad wigs and repressed Oedipal feelings felt really outdated to me. Silva was great in theory, and Bardem is an actor I find ordinarily compelling, but the execution made him some kind of Wint & Kidd-style character with all of Fleming's bigotry dialled up to 11.

 

I know, I know...it's a Bond film. Grow a sense of fun. But Christ, they did so well re-establishing this franchise in a relatively believable universe with Casino Royale (honestly there is very little about that film which is fundamentally unbelievable or doesn't hold up to a decent amount of scrutiny - Mathis aside). Quantum also wasn't such a mis-step that they couldn't have dived straight into the "Bond is back" story they signalled at the end of that film...instead we get this weird mash up of TDK/TDKR, Goldeneye, and TWINE.

 

Sorry - rant over. No doubt those who did like it can rightly accuse me to criticising it for not being the film I wanted. Maybe I'll warm up on this film and forget about its flaws on subsequent viewings, but having squandered the promise of Casino Royale for the second time, it's hovering around mid-table FYEO territory of relative quality for me.

post #72 of 1198

I just have one question when is Craigs going to star in the remake of Zardoz?

post #73 of 1198

Whilst I don't have the necessary time to answer all of your questions (and i will admit that some don't have an answer - or at least I'm not able to answer them) as I'm running late for something, i thought I'd quickly answer this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhp1608 View Post

Why did Silva need to be captured? Why couldn't he have just smuggled himself into London, changed into a police outfit, and ambushed the inquiry? Seems like he chose a really roundabout way to go about achieving his primary objective, and exposed himself to risks he needn't have done. The better Bond villains didn't do that, a flaw magnified by the fact that he is set up as some kind of technology-manipulating omniscient.

 

Silver does tell M that he wanted to look upon her face one more time and show her what she did to him. I don't remember the exact wording but it's whilst he's imprisoned and before the escape occurs. In that context, his plan makes a little more sense.

post #74 of 1198

That was one deeply fucking odd, strange, plain.damn.weird film.

I know there was a thing a couple of years back for film journos complaining that all the studios wanted to Dark Knight up every franchise they had after it proved to be a box office juggernaut but I didn't think there was any real truth to it. Until now anyway because that was Nolaned right up the arse all right. The moody skyscrapers, the bizarre charismatic nutter antagonist, creepy country manors, broken and angry orphans with kindly old duffers trying to steer them right, and ultimately a pained hero who loses as much as he wins. I felt like I'd walked in on the wrong film, which screen was Bond on again?

I mean, there were some genuinely great moments littered throughout and it was beautifully, stunningly shot but it comes crashing to a halt when it reaches the island and never really recovers. The sight of Bond tearing through rush hour on the District Line somehow manages to be jarring and immersion breaking as fuck and seeing a parliamentary inquiry turn into a mad shoot out with Bond, Mallory and the others, while staged well, felt so very, very wrong.

Come the end of it, it really came across like the producers were saying, okay, experiment's over, here you go, we promise to stop, normal service will be resumed next time out. And while I generally loathe the status quo being restored in various forms of ongoing fiction, after this outing, I'm not going to complain if it helps ensure the next entry doesn't feel as off as this one did.

If anything, it was Judy Dench's film, she was brilliant throughout (and gets the best, most random and unexpected F-bomb in a film possibly ever), and I appreciate that they tried to do something different with her and the film but if I'm honest, it's not really what I look for in the series. M's job is to bark at Bond, pour some scotch and pat him on the back after a job well done, not be haunted by past mistakes, get humiliated at every turn and ultimately fucking die!

Bardem was fine enough, though Sean Bean still reigns supreme in the pissed off ex-agent stakes. Berenice Marlohe was outstanding in her limited screen time (seriously, that conversation with Bond at the bar was probably my favourite scene of the entire film, her face and expressions were incredible). Oh and I can't believe they're wasting Naomie Harris with *that* role. Still, I guess her, Fiennes and that other chap have a nice little earner sorted for the next couple of decades at least. As for Craig himself, HOLY FUCK he looks so old he's practically a fucking lich or something, the skin's stretched so tight over his skull. Ah well, I guess it went well with the all pervasive sense of death I suppose...

Really. Fucking. Strange. If it were just an original spy film, I'd probably say it was aces, it's a really great piece of film making on its own terms but as a James Bond 007 film...um, yeah. Hmmmm.

post #75 of 1198

I just had to reply to this one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhp1608 View Post

Spoilers

 

 

 

The homosexuality, bad wigs and repressed Oedipal feelings felt really outdated to me. Silva was great in theory, and Bardem is an actor I find ordinarily compelling, but the execution made him some kind of Wint & Kidd-style character with all of Fleming's bigotry dialled up to 11.

 

 

Was Silva REALLY homosexual (or maybe I'm missinterpreting what you are saying).  That is not at all what I got from that scene.  Silva, to start with, has a mistress that we know about before that scene.  And after that we see how jealous he is with her.  He kills her since she slept with another man.  The man that he "hit on".  The flirting to me was showing how far both those men would go to get what they want.  It was about power, not sex.  I loved that Bond played along and hinted that he had gone all the way on that.   To me, that was actually quite modern.

 

The Oedipal bit my husband questioned, but I noted that considering he was her favourite in Hong Kong and he probably was an orphan like Bond (didn't she mention that the best agents are orphans) that he may have looked up to her like a mother.  To be betrayed so ruthlessly would be horrifying.  And then not being able to kill yourself when you desperately want to die.  Yeah, I could see going nuts on that one...Oedipal stuff is old-fashioned, but since those stories have been around at least 2,500 years, I suspect we'll continue to see them from time-to-time...

post #76 of 1198

Oh and just to add in general - holy shit that was a beautiful film.  If that is not nominated for cinematography at the Oscars, it would be a sin.  Even when the Home Alone bits got a bit, well, Home Alone, just watching that house on fire in the background.  Dear Lord.  And the shadow fight was worth the price of admission alone.  Beautiful. 

post #77 of 1198

Yeah, Deakins is the unsung hero of this movie. I could have watched an entire movie set amongst the flashing neon lights of Hong Kong.

post #78 of 1198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary H. View Post

I just had to reply to this one:

 

Was Silva REALLY homosexual (or maybe I'm missinterpreting what you are saying).  That is not at all what I got from that scene.  Silva, to start with, has a mistress that we know about before that scene.  And after that we see how jealous he is with her.  He kills her since she slept with another man.  The man that he "hit on".  The flirting to me was showing how far both those men would go to get what they want.  It was about power, not sex.  I loved that Bond played along and hinted that he had gone all the way on that.   To me, that was actually quite modern.

 

The Oedipal bit my husband questioned, but I noted that considering he was her favourite in Hong Kong and he probably was an orphan like Bond (didn't she mention that the best agents are orphans) that he may have looked up to her like a mother.  To be betrayed so ruthlessly would be horrifying.  And then not being able to kill yourself when you desperately want to die.  Yeah, I could see going nuts on that one...Oedipal stuff is old-fashioned, but since those stories have been around at least 2,500 years, I suspect we'll continue to see them from time-to-time...

 

I think I'd have bought your impression of the scene more if Bardem hadn't consistently characterised Silva as a deeply camp individual. The hair, the mincing, the strangely lispy accent. Sure, you could argue the scene with Bond is about him trying to get underneath Bond's skin, and in a sense it's a neat idea, but the whole presentation of the character suggested to me a rather old-fashioned idea that non-standard sexuality and emotional distress are bedfellows. I also don't remember if he explcitly explained his murder of Severine as revenge for her adultery - I thought it was a more straighforward punishment for betrayal.

 

It's a broad brushstroke character, and suits the film's melodramatic approach to emotional conflict, but I found it markedly distasteful in places. A bit like the idea that Scaramanga can't whistle indicates he may be gay, and hey, that's exactly the sort of character flaw we presume to see in a bad guy.

post #79 of 1198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel Red View Post

That was one deeply fucking odd, strange, plain.damn.weird film.

I know there was a thing a couple of years back for film journos complaining that all the studios wanted to Dark Knight up every franchise they had after it proved to be a box office juggernaut but I didn't think there was any real truth to it. Until now anyway because that was Nolaned right up the arse all right. The moody skyscrapers, the bizarre charismatic nutter antagonist, creepy country manors, broken and angry orphans with kindly old duffers trying to steer them right, and ultimately a pained hero who loses as much as he wins. I felt like I'd walked in on the wrong film, which screen was Bond on again?

I mean, there were some genuinely great moments littered throughout and it was beautifully, stunningly shot but it comes crashing to a halt when it reaches the island and never really recovers. The sight of Bond tearing through rush hour on the District Line somehow manages to be jarring and immersion breaking as fuck and seeing a parliamentary inquiry turn into a mad shoot out with Bond, Mallory and the others, while staged well, felt so very, very wrong.

Come the end of it, it really came across like the producers were saying, okay, experiment's over, here you go, we promise to stop, normal service will be resumed next time out. And while I generally loathe the status quo being restored in various forms of ongoing fiction, after this outing, I'm not going to complain if it helps ensure the next entry doesn't feel as off as this one did.

If anything, it was Judy Dench's film, she was brilliant throughout (and gets the best, most random and unexpected F-bomb in a film possibly ever), and I appreciate that they tried to do something different with her and the film but if I'm honest, it's not really what I look for in the series. M's job is to bark at Bond, pour some scotch and pat him on the back after a job well done, not be haunted by past mistakes, get humiliated at every turn and ultimately fucking die!

Bardem was fine enough, though Sean Bean still reigns supreme in the pissed off ex-agent stakes. Berenice Marlohe was outstanding in her limited screen time (seriously, that conversation with Bond at the bar was probably my favourite scene of the entire film, her face and expressions were incredible). Oh and I can't believe they're wasting Naomie Harris with *that* role. Still, I guess her, Fiennes and that other chap have a nice little earner sorted for the next couple of decades at least. As for Craig himself, HOLY FUCK he looks so old he's practically a fucking lich or something, the skin's stretched so tight over his skull. Ah well, I guess it went well with the all pervasive sense of death I suppose...

Really. Fucking. Strange. If it were just an original spy film, I'd probably say it was aces, it's a really great piece of film making on its own terms but as a James Bond 007 film...um, yeah. Hmmmm.

 

I'm sharing a carriage with this chap. And I like what Nolan did with the Bat-films. It just seemed a pecualiar direction to take Bond in, and it didn't take me along for the ride. I suspect some may argue it was closer to the Fleming conception of Bond's damaged fatalism, but to be honest it come over as an adaptaion of a John Gardner book than anything Fleming would have written.

post #80 of 1198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel Red View Post

The sight of Bond tearing through rush hour on the District Line somehow manages to be jarring and immersion breaking as fuck and seeing a parliamentary inquiry turn into a mad shoot out with Bond, Mallory and the others, while staged well, felt so very, very wrong.
 

 

Okay, now I'm curious. I'm interested to know why you felt the first sequence was "jarring" and the second was "so very, very wrong". I didn't find this to be the case at all. Is it because you're more used to Bond's chase sequences occuring outside of the UK and that MI5 is usually reduced to background material whilst Bond goes about his mission? A friend in a London office told me that he loved these sequences, specifically because they were set in his home city.

post #81 of 1198

Agreed, seeing Bond on the tube was so much fun

post #82 of 1198

Quote:

I mean, there were some genuinely great moments littered throughout and it was beautifully, stunningly shot but it comes crashing to a halt when it reaches the island and never really recovers
Quote:
Stuff like the abandoned operatives list plot (why did he steal it?) or the fact that the most interesting thing about Bardem's villain was his ability to manipulate the shit out of global affairs, which is then relegated to a background set up

 

Quote:

Oooooh, I guess Bond is going to have his loyalty towards M and MI6 really be tested, right? Nope, right after Silva's reveal, M just tells Bond that Silva was starting to go rogue, so she exchanged him for 6 other agents in captivity

 

I really agree with all of the above. There's so much good stuff in there, but it's like they shied away from making a really great movie in favor of resetting the continuity to the Connery era. I'd be really interested is seeing the drafts - what's Morgan, Purvis/Wade, and Logan. Skyfall's a good film, but it's disappointing it started so strongly and was going in one direction, then it suddenly seems like they then just gave up. 

 

 

Quote:

Okay, now I'm curious. I'm interested to know why you felt the [district line] sequence was "jarring" and the [committee shoot-out] was "so very, very wrong"

 

The committee shoot out is just plain weird. We're introduced to this incredible Bond villain, and then it turns out the grand plan is to burst into a meeting room with a pistol and shoot someone. It's not exactly Fort Knox or Nuclear blackmail. Not to mention, he fucks it up. It's just such a degeneration from the whole cyber-criminal, island lair set up. It'd be compelling enough for a low budget thriller or police procedural - but for a Bond film, and after what happened in the first half?

 

Also, this is a good case of someone's abilities fading in and out when they're needed for dramatic effect. For someone's who's a wreck, how many times does Bond get the jump on people with guns? The finale's strange, after the tunnel he jumps a guy and leaves the rifle - because it's important he can't shoot Silva when they meet on the ice - then when he needs to get away a random goon walks right up to him for no reason other than he needs a gun to shoot through the ice and escape.

post #83 of 1198
Quote:
Originally Posted by leederick View Post
I'd be really interested is seeing the drafts - what's Morgan, Purvis/Wade, and Logan.

 

Morgan only ever wrote a rough outline.  MGM went tits up before he could start an actual draft and he was otherwise occupied when pre-preproduction resumed after the bankruptcy problems had ended.

post #84 of 1198

I definitely liked it as a whole. The Bond stalking the Hitman scene in China was beautifully shot.

 

Which Bond girl did you prefer? Naomie Harris or Berenice Marlohe.

 

P.S- Was that a real Komodo Dragon?

post #85 of 1198

SPOLIERS!!!

 

Saw it a second time with the Mrs.  Still great but my nitpicks still remain (re the car).

 

Regarding the title sequence.   If you watch that again, it, along with the song actually tells you how the film is going to end - which is kind of cool.

post #86 of 1198
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken View Post

Morgan only ever wrote a rough outline.  MGM went tits up before he could start an actual draft and he was otherwise occupied when pre-preproduction resumed after the bankruptcy problems had ended.

It's probably a good thing too because he didn't really seem to care much for 007 at all: http://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/peter-morgan-007-fans-hardly-knew-ye/
post #87 of 1198
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post

Which Bond girl did you prefer? Naomie Harris or Berenice Marlohe.

 

Berenice for me. She can shake my martini any time.

 

M was the real Bond girl of this movie, though.

post #88 of 1198

I really felt for her here. She looked frightened and yet resigned at the end. A pity her screentime was so short.

post #89 of 1198

Definitely much better than Quantum Of Solace, in Casino Royale's class but not as good. These were my exact words coming out of the theater. But after a couple of hours I have to say it as good as CR. CR is a big favorite because it saved us from the evil of late Brossnan films. You take that out and Skyfall is just as good.

 

Mendes was always visually gifted. Being paired with a godlike entity like Roger Deakins would of course lead to shot after shot of glory.

 

Bardem fucking kills it. Absolutely kills it. Genuinely scary is not something I've ever called a Bond villain. He plays it crazy, but uncomfartable crazy, not movie cookoo crazy. The crowd can get a bit homophobic here in Greece but instead of bullshit jokes and uncomfortable laughs the theater was dead fucking silent when he started fucking with Bond. He was marvelous. I want someone to make Frankenstein again and have Brdem play the creature.

 

Dench's send off gave her the chance to play something more than the ice queen that deep inside cares for her people. M as a role has been fun but beneath her. Her reactions alone in her first scene with Bardem were more and better acting than she did in all her previous parts as M.

 

Whishaw is fun but forgetable.

 

Fiennes made me feel sorry for never getting the chance to be Bond himself.

 

Craig was as great as always. It is weird fun though, witnessing 15 year old girls audibly lusting after a 44 year old man. And I've realized something. I feel that his Bond as the "personification of British fortitude" that M called him in his obituary is a quite self reflective and willful comment on Britain and its history. He's suave and confident as hell but he's also a quite murderous and brutal thug. He's gone from "The empire where the sun never set" to "The empire where the sun never set and the blood never stopped flowing" as I've heard told.

 

Finally, screw the haters. The Goldfinger DB 5 accompanied by the theme was a great scene. And as an old-school Bond fan everything that came after seeing the coat rack gave me a MASSIVE erection.

post #90 of 1198

Wasn't surprised that this was Dench's send off here. She's been suffering some health problems this past year.

post #91 of 1198
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post

Bardem fucking kills it. Absolutely kills it. Genuinely scary is not something I've ever called a Bond villain. He plays it crazy, but uncomfartable crazy, not movie cookoo crazy. The crowd can get a bit homophobic here in Greece but instead of bullshit jokes and uncomfortable laughs the theater was dead fucking silent when he started fucking with Bond. He was marvelous. I want someone to make Frankenstein again and have Brdem play the creature.

 

This and this. I loved his entrance, he's incredibly magnetic as a presence at the best of times but he was mesmerising in this.

 

A friend of mine stated on Facebook that Skyfall was 'shite', when I asked why he said (I'm quoting here) "The villain feels him up and he was fine with it, it weirded me out". I just left it there.

post #92 of 1198

Probably more like, "The villain feels him up and he was fine with it, and I got a huge boner".

post #93 of 1198

Great write-up Stelios! Glad to see that you enjoyed it as much as I did (probably more, in fact, as I rate CR a tiny bit higher). I'm looking forward to seeing the reactions from everyone else when it's released in the U.S.A.

post #94 of 1198

Saw this last night.

 

Agree with 99% of the write-ups on here but just a couple of thoughts...

 

  • Q - Ben Wishaw - I stated in another thread that I hated the fact that he was so young etc. Being honest, I liked his character but  - here's the thing, they styled him as a techno-nerd - all big hair, glasses and cardigans - but they never maxed out this angle, keeping him relativley grounded - raising the question, why style/cast him as such?
  • M - Judi Dench - thank fuck for that. Would have preferred her to fade away into the sunset/retirement but at least there's a line drawn under that bloody character.
  • Skyfall Lodge - all a bit predictable. We've seen that before form Home Alone to Death With 3 or 4 - was purely filler. Scene with the tunnel telegraphed from a 1000 miles away.
  • Craig - brought his A game as usual
  • Bardem - all been said - great character

 

Other than the above I thought it was OK. My only gripe was there was a complete lack of glamour and luxury throughout the film - to me Bond is as much about the luxurious lifestyle as he is about the DB5 etc.

 

Overall, Better than QoS and falls well short of CR.

post #95 of 1198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

For those who have seen it, without spoiling anything what do you think of Daniel Kleinman's Skyfall title sequence?

 

Sorry I missed that question. Not that great except for a small part. Unimaginative, except for said small part, and ill fitting to the song. A shame because there were a lot of great visual cues they could have taken from the movie. Casino Royale remains by far the best of the modern Bonds in this regard.

 

ETA: I can't believe how much the last few scenes still make me smile. I know that's what they were supposed to do but dammit they worked for me.

post #96 of 1198
More thoughts later...but I fucking loved it. Casino does the story aspects better, but this balances everything much more elegantly.

Booby trapped house for the win.
post #97 of 1198
Quote:
Finally, screw the haters. The Goldfinger DB 5 accompanied by the theme was a great scene. And as an old-school Bond fan everything that came after seeing the coat rack gave me a MASSIVE erection.

While I'll be seeing the film here in the US on Thursday night in glorious IMAX, I still had to comment on this.  Why is the car a problem?  It's not like we didn't see how Craig's Bond got the thing.  It's spelled out in Casino Royale.  Cut to six years later and a visit from Xzibit and his friends from "Pimp My Ride" and we know how this thing got tricked out....

 

What's the beef?

post #98 of 1198

OK - to be clear, this isn't the car from Casino Royale. They're both DB5s but not the same car.

 

Stop looking for continuity in the Bond franchise or you'll disappear up your own ass.

post #99 of 1198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

OK - to be clear, this isn't the car from Casino Royale. They're both DB5s but not the same car.

 

Stop looking for continuity in the Bond franchise or you'll disappear up your own ass.

 

I don't usually get bothered by it, but they bothered to make a point of how he got a remarkably notable classic sports car with a particular paint job in Casino Royale. Admittedly, it was fan service, but it fitted well into the scene-setting that this is not the same Bond as came before. There's no absolute need to maintain continuity, and I agree, Bond films are not historically slaves to it. It just grated with me how much the car being the one from Goldfinger wasn't (a) organic to the plot (b) necessary or (c) consistent with the the story about the very same character (and I mean Craig's Bond, not just Bond in general) that this film is very clearly meant to be about.

 

It wasn't my biggest beef (the dwindling stakes, melodrama and dodgy villain (yes, I'm that guy) were my main ones), but it was symptomatic of the film's problems as I see them. A lack of focus and to much attention paid to the meta-narrative. I love me some post-modernism but Casino achieved the same thing in a far more natural and effective way, at least IMHO.

 

Plus, as much as I like Craig as Bond, and would praise the majority of his performance, he is continuing the trend of "Blue Steel"-ing certain moments which he started in Quantum. The scenes where he is approaching X on a boat, for example, play way too broadly like I'm watching a moving picture version of a men's clothing catalogue. They jar with me, and remind me too much of the way Brosnan played the role before loosening up in DAD. Weirdly, Craig seems to be regressing (only in part, I grant you) from what was a much more naturalistic (and in my view, effective) performance in Casino.

post #100 of 1198

I simply see Bond films as a narrative where they can draw from a series of stock imagery/icons/set pieces/characters from the series. Whoever plays M, Q, Moneypenny etc are irrelevant to me provideing they're the stock characters. The DB5 is just part of this pool they can pluck things from to tell a James Bond story.

 

Which particular boat arrival scene were you referring to? The casino one or the other one? Because the casino one really stood out a WTF? poser moment.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › SKYFALL Post-Release