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 15

post #701 of 1166

Anyone hoping for an extended cut of Skyfall should calm themselves down.  Quantum of Solace apparently has 30+ minutes of deleted footage, most of which will likely never see the light of day.  We have yet to be given an extended cut of any Bond film and I doubt they'll start now.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post

For the record, Bond did shed several tears when M died.  Weird that you missed that. 

 

Liquid running down his checks?  Of course.  But much (and possibly all) of it originated from the top of his head.  I paid more attention on my second viewing and most of it runs down his forehead before crossing his cheeks.  I'm not saying that some of it couldn't be tears as well, but most of it was obviously from him being soaked to do running into "deep water".

 

Was Bond crying?  Absolutely.  Were there tears?  I honestly don't know.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WendellEverett View Post

I don't dare go into the "Best of bond Let's Get This Over With" thread because if I said the "Goldeneye" is horrible and "Tomorrow Never Dies" is fantastic on that thread, I could be banned from the entire site for life. Oh, wait, those same guys are reading this?  Oh Nooooooeeeeeesssssss.

 

No one is going to attack you.  Like the B-Action Thread, it is one of the friendliest places in the forums.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post

Just got back from my second viewing. Really, it just WORKS for me. Only two Bond films I absolutely loved were FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and GOLDFINGER. You can now count three.

 

My top three as well!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post

Does Lauren hate Roger Moore?  Wait...  Let me try that again.  Does anybody like Roger Moore?  I always thought the 50 year old hitting on the young babes was pretty creepy. 

 

I still like ole Roger.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by littlenomad View Post

If I remember correctly, I came across a snippet of a review on Rotten Tomatoes which said there was a tremendous case of "been there, done that" with Skyfall......

 

  • MI6 Agent turns rogue and creates mayhem?  Goldeneye.  
  • MI6 Agent is abandoned and tortured for months on end, and this causes resentment towards the people who didn't rescue him?  Die Another Day.  
  • MI6 Agent has to undergo tests and prove self to MI6 before they'll let him back on the job?  Die Another Day.  
  • Baddie with personal vendetta against M attacks MI6 Headquarters, complete with part of the building blowing up?  The World Is Not Enough.  
  • MI6 has to relocate to classical, low-tech setting since their main headquarters was attacked?  The World Is Not Enough.
  • Baddie with personal vendetta against M sets up elaborate plot to humiliate her and then kill her?  The World Is Not Enough.
  • A significant person Bond cares about dies, yet this causes Bond to dedicate himself even more to the job at hand?  Casino Royale.
  • Okay, it's the end of the movie and all this crap went down and you lost your girlfriend and you don't follow orders yet you get the job done...Bond, are you sure you're ready to be part of the team?  Quantum of Solace.
  • Resetting Bond to a more hardcore, gadget-less, classic formula?  Casino Royale.

 

I wonder if the folks at RT are fans of The Dark Knight Rises, because that film has a LOT in common with The World Is Not Enough.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post

You know what just realized? This thread is sorely lacking in running neck snap appreciation.

 

You are not wrong.  That was fantastic.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Phibes View Post

 

Actually, the quoting goes as far back as 1967 with You Only Live Twice.  It takes the basic plot of Dr No and remakes it on a massive scale, copying elements like Fiona Volpe along the way.  And TSWLM is really just a remake of YOLT.

 

Want another connection between You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me, and Moonraker?  All three were directed by Lewis Gilbert.

post #702 of 1166
Thread Starter 
I used to hate Roger Moore. I am positive if you went to the Bond thread and looked back a couple of years you'll find a lot of rantings by me about my hatred of Moore, ranking him as the worst of all the Bonds and the worst thing to happen.

But then I chilled the fuck out and learned to love the spy in the banana colored ski suit. I like Rog, not my preferred Bond but I admire him a lot more now.
post #703 of 1166

I'm a huge fan of Moore's run as Bond. TSWLM was my favorite Bond till CR. His faults are his last two Bond films. Octopussy gets too silly and he is just too old in AVTAK.

 

I would rank Craig over Connery.

post #704 of 1166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

 


What's interesting is that I noted most of those points while watching Skyfall, but it didn't bother me and in fact somehow still felt fresh. Also, most of the Brosnan films have left my memory with nary a trace.

 

Bond films started quoting from each other in the 70's. Moonraker is practically a remake of Spy Who Loved Me, with a better villain and plan, and sore lack of Caroline Munro. (And really, why couldn't her character have survived being penetrated by Bond's missile, and deciding to hook up with Team Drax?).

Yes, I know this isn't the first time.  Basically, Lewis Gilbert directed the same Bond film three times.  But there have been glimpses of greater maturity in recent years, sans Christmas Jones and CGI windsurfing.  And there are quite a few old plots all stacked together this time.  Overall, I think what gets me is that the rebooting should be over by now...yet this movie does it all over again.  Yet treats Bond as an old man, even though this is only his 3rd (filmed) adventure.  As I suggested before, I've been a fan so long and have so much invested, it's sometimes hard for me to enjoy a new Bond movie upon first viewing.  

 

One thing I will say, though, and on this I think most of us can agree...these past 6 years have been an absolute heyday for the classic, ruthless, gadget-less Fleming Bond.  And audiences are eating it up...which is wonderful.  If only Timothy Dalton had gotten such props back in the day.  

post #705 of 1166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMulder View Post

You know, in that article's defense, it would've been nice if Bond appeared at all perturbed by Severine's death. I know the "waste of good scotch" thing isn't just some careless quip, and that it's part of a psychological con game he's playing with Silva, but still -- because we get no other reaction than that from Bond, the viewer (and the writer of that article) is pretty much free to make either reading. Even the merciless Bond of Quantum wanted Fields to get mentioned for "true bravery" in M's "report," and obviously Vesper's death drives an entire movie's worth of revenge. There's no doubt Marlohe's death is treated pretty callously by the film, and personally I find it a little disappointing (especially since I thought she was pretty damn excellent in the role).

 

I dunno, his stance as he slowly realized the game Silva was about to make him play kind of said it all about how fucked he thought the situation was. It was subtle but there.

post #706 of 1166

I really like that the pre-title sequence feels like it was the END to a Bond movie ... which would then mean when the whole 'take the shot!' debacle came up, it would have ordinarily ended like every other Bond movie where she takes the shot, hits the bad guy, Bond gets the hard-drive and foils the bad guy's plot!

 

Instead, for the first time in a Bond movie, the bad guy wins at the end of THAT movie, then we see all the rammifications in THIS movie (post credits). Agents worldwide are found out and murdered, Mi6 gets bombed, M. gets fired, and by the end they're so fucking strapped for ideas Bond drags her to his family estate and she gets fucking killed!

 

It took me two viewings to realize this, but with that in mind, its pretty fucking ballsy to do the Bond movie that shows what would happen if he failed a mission. Pretty cool if you look at it like that.

post #707 of 1166
Thread Starter 
I remember in 2009 there was a leak about Peter Morgan's "hook" and that it was rumored to be about Bond going up against a villain who had already won. Looks like that was true afterall.
post #708 of 1166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swahili View Post

I really like that the pre-title sequence feels like it was the END to a Bond movie ... which would then mean when the whole 'take the shot!' debacle came up, it would have ordinarily ended like every other Bond movie where she takes the shot, hits the bad guy, Bond gets the hard-drive and foils the bad guy's plot!

 

Instead, for the first time in a Bond movie, the bad guy wins at the end of THAT movie, then we see all the rammifications in THIS movie (post credits). Agents worldwide are found out and murdered, Mi6 gets bombed, M. gets fired, and by the end they're so fucking strapped for ideas Bond drags her to his family estate and she gets fucking killed!

 

It took me two viewings to realize this, but with that in mind, its pretty fucking ballsy to do the Bond movie that shows what would happen if he failed a mission. Pretty cool if you look at it like that.

Yes, I do realize Skyfall is kind of an anti-Bond movie in that respect.  The series was probably overdue for a "Bond loses" entry.  I'm going to see it again, and maybe things will hit me differently.  

 

Off topic, but I'm watching Quantum of Solace right now...I loved it in the theatre, and I've loved it since.  Maybe that's one some of you need to give another chance.  Is it top 5 material?  No, but it's still a damned good Bond film.  

post #709 of 1166

Yeah, nomad, I can tell you the first time I came out of Skyfall I was a little bewildered on what to think because of the drastic shift in the storytelling.

 

Bond movies were never sentimental about the characters or actors or even history. And its been so long in setting up that facet of the franchise that I personally have rather come to enjoy it. The same way luxury cars get blown up left, right and centre, along with most anything else of material worth. Terry Gilliam once mentioned how he appreciated the Bond movies for that reason, their utter lack of remorse for material possessions. And that also extended to the cast of characters.

 

Up til Judi Dench, the biggest callback we had to an actor was Cleese referring to Llewelyn's Q in passing and a picture of Bernard Lee on the wall, albeit out of focus, Brosnan ducking the 'loved one' question in TWINE or Roger Moore laying flowers at Tracy's grave.

 

To all of a sudden have pretty thorough examinations of Bond's past/childhood, to have M firing handguns (!) and setting up boobytraps, dying in Bond's arms while he sheds a tear is a pretty big shift. I'm still not sure if I like that, but in a way I think its nice the producers finally got to flex some muscle with Bond's past, as its always one movie away from going right back to business as usual.

 

But watching Skyfall a second time, and seeing how the pre-title sequence is that big 'What if?' of Bond failing a mission, it kind of excuses the rest of the movie for being so different. Its really the ramifications of if one of those high stakes missions backfired, and the whole rest of the movie kind of feels like scenes any Bond fan would love to finally see if they had the chance to make one of these movies.

post #710 of 1166
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlenomad View Post

Yes, I do realize Skyfall is kind of an anti-Bond movie in that respect.  The series was probably overdue for a "Bond loses" entry.  I'm going to see it again, and maybe things will hit me differently.  

Off topic, but I'm watching Quantum of Solace right now...I loved it in the theatre, and I've loved it since.  Maybe that's one some of you need to give another chance.  Is it top 5 material?  No, but it's still a damned good Bond film.  

I've been in the "it's not so bad" group since the day it premiered, as that's how I felt for a long time. It was as high as #8 on my rankings for awhile. But as years went by it become less and less favorable to me and with my recent viewing I'm often thinking of all the mistakes and what could have been fixed instead of being engaged by it. I don't think it's one of the worst Bond films, but like Licence to Kill it feels very compromised. I think it has a good premise with Bond trying to find solace in Vesper's death, but with my last viewing I think Dominic Greene should have been the Algerian boyfriend that way the whole thing with Bond going up against him feels like it matters. In reality though Bond is only after Greene because he has information he wants. It's like the first act of a Bond film extended to a feature length, and the second and third acts crammed into the final five minutes with Bond confronting Yusef. The ending of QOS is really the only thing I can say I really like because I love the idea of Bond trying to balance his sense of duty with his quest for vengeance. There should have been more emphasis on that, as the whole deal with the Bolivian water felt very detached.

I don't hate QOS, there's stuff I like but for the most part I find it frustrating because the story is way too thin and there's too much action. As I said before, James Bond works better as an adventure as opposed to non-stop action like the Brosnan films suffered for. Marc Forster's bullet speed approach just feels wrong for the story about Bond on his quest for vengeance.
post #711 of 1166

Coming back to the Patrice assassination thing:

 

I think the film made clear that Patrice thinks there may be someone, Bond hestitates, Patrice relaxes, assassinates the guy, meanwhile Bond has entered the room, approaches him, Patrice notices this and they fight.

My problem with the sequence is that Patrice is a hired killer on some mission three months after Istanbul. It makes sense that Bond wants to question him about Istanbul. But it is a very convenient coincidence that this art-buying job is also connected to Silva via Severine. Not impossible, but it felt lazy to me.

 

And these skyscrapers stood very close together :)
 

post #712 of 1166
Thread Starter 
It was likely set up that way by Silva, his way of leaving breadcrumbs for Bond to follow, including the chip for the casino in Macau. Whether Patrice was in the know isn't clear.
post #713 of 1166

Supposedly there's a deleted bit that better illustrates the connection in terms of what in the hell is going on in Shanghai that night.

post #714 of 1166
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlenomad View Post

Off topic, but I'm watching Quantum of Solace right now...I loved it in the theatre, and I've loved it since.  Maybe that's one some of you need to give another chance.  Is it top 5 material?  No, but it's still a damned good Bond film.  

Honestly, I don't remember much about Quantum of Solace except that me and my friend left that theater feeling really fucking angry. I'm willing to accept the fact that, if regarded in a vacuum, the movie probably isn't that bad at all.

post #715 of 1166

I have a soft spot for Quantum Of Solace. It's definitely not in the same league as Skyfall or CR but the awesome opening (specifically the sequence which sees Bond caught in a rope by his ankle and trying to retrieve his weapon) and the conclusion set amongst a developing inferno raise it above several other Bond movies for me. I wish Amalric's Greene had been given more screen time as I love the black-eyed stares he gives Bond (and kind of dig his squealing axe-swinging maniac in the finale) but there are enough strengths in the movie for me to see past the flaws. 

post #716 of 1166
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post

I have a soft spot for Quantum Of Solace. It's definitely not in the same league as Skyfall or CR but the awesome opening (specifically the sequence which sees Bond caught in a rope by his ankle and trying to retrieve his weapon) and the conclusion set amongst a developing inferno raise it above several other Bond movies for me. I wish Amalric's Greene had been given more screen time as I love the black-eyed stares he gives Bond (and kind of dig his squealing axe-swinging maniac in the finale) but there are enough strengths in the movie for me to see past the flaws. 

 

I agree with this. The Tosca sequence including the chase and kill at the end puts it well above some of the more egregious entries - my favourite sequence of nu-Bond and one of my favourites of the whole series. That and Mr White make me want to see more of Quantum, even if it is a relatively pale copy of SPECTRE.

 

I'm warming up to Skyfall. It still feels like a Bond film made by people who don't much like Bond - or at least the interpretation of him on film - but the confidence and technical skill with which it was made, and its preparedness to mine thematic elements that have been played with before and take them to a conclusion, are standing out more now. What I don't like remains - villain using convoluted means to a mundane end, diminishing stakes matched with melodrama, dodgy banter, the unearned ending - but every Bond film bar Goldfinger and Casino Royale is a mixed bag, and it's more successful overall than many.

 

I still hate the fucking tweaked DB5 though.

post #717 of 1166
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post

I have a soft spot for Quantum Of Solace. It's definitely not in the same league as Skyfall or CR but the awesome opening (specifically the sequence which sees Bond caught in a rope by his ankle and trying to retrieve his weapon) and the conclusion set amongst a developing inferno raise it above several other Bond movies for me. I wish Amalric's Greene had been given more screen time as I love the black-eyed stares he gives Bond (and kind of dig his squealing axe-swinging maniac in the finale) but there are enough strengths in the movie for me to see past the flaws. I

I love Quantum. It's not brilliant like Skyfall or CR, but it's extremely solid with many wonderful elements.

post #718 of 1166

Random thought about Skyfall:  I don't think any henchmen or bad guys in general (other than Silva of course) in the entire film utter a single word.  Can anyone confirm this?  My rule is if henchmen have nothing interesting to say, then keep them silent, and I like that Skyfall apparently follows this rule.

post #719 of 1166

You're right! I like to think it's because Silva cut out all of his henchmen's tongues and made a necklace out of them.

 

Crazy ol' Silva!

post #720 of 1166

In Quantum of Solace, doesn't Bond start a boat chase that kills a dozen people because a hot chick he's known for five seconds is about to get killed? Weird double standard, that.

 

QoS Bond: A woman in trouble! I must save her!

 

SF Bond: A random businessman and innocent security guards in trouble! Eh, let's see how this plays out.

 

I know, I know, deleted scenes, but the sequence as stands is basically incomprehensible. So how much leeway are we willing to give a movie on plot holes that are explained elsewhere? Is it okay for Star Trek to have Nero float in space for twenty years because a deleted scene says he was in a Klingon prison? Or for Lost to give out answers in the form of an ARG instead of in a series that ran for a hundred hours? Or for Southland Tales to force you to buy six comic books if you want to understand the movie? Or for 2001 to not make sense unless you've read the book?

post #721 of 1166
Quote:
Originally Posted by avian View Post

In Quantum of Solace, doesn't Bond start a boat chase that kills a dozen people because a hot chick he's known for five seconds is about to get killed? Weird double standard, that.

 

QoS Bond: A woman in trouble! I must save her!

 

SF Bond: A random businessman and innocent security guards in trouble! Eh, let's see how this plays out.

 

I know, I know, deleted scenes, but the sequence as stands is basically incomprehensible. So how much leeway are we willing to give a movie on plot holes that are explained elsewhere? Is it okay for Star Trek to have Nero float in space for twenty years because a deleted scene says he was in a Klingon prison? Or for Lost to give out answers in the form of an ARG instead of in a series that ran for a hundred hours? Or for Southland Tales to force you to buy six comic books if you want to understand the movie? Or for 2001 to not make sense unless you've read the book?

He knows that she has information on Greene, information he needs. 

post #722 of 1166

Plus you know, Quantum of Solace is kind of a rushed movie with a lot of internal problems.

post #723 of 1166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

He knows that she has information on Greene, information he needs. 

 

And how does he know business dude doesn't have, say, the disarming codes to the nuclear warheads Silva just stole and that's why he's being eliminated?

 

It's a pretty safe assumption that the guy the villain is trying to kill could somehow hurt the villain's operation.

post #724 of 1166
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhp1608 View Post

It still feels like a Bond film made by people who don't much like Bond

What?? If that's true of SKYFALL (which I don't get from it at all, but for the sake of conversation) then isn't it like 10x more true of CASINO ROYALE?
post #725 of 1166
Quote:
Originally Posted by avian View Post

 

And how does he know business dude doesn't have, say, the disarming codes to the nuclear warheads Silva just stole and that's why he's being eliminated?

 

It's a pretty safe assumption that the guy the villain is trying to kill could somehow hurt the villain's operation.


Because he was in the car with the girl and knows there was a plan to kill her, ETC. That business man buying the stolen painting? Because that's what that was about, a famous painting being sold behind closed doors. Bond had no reason to think he was connected to Silva. Patrice was a hitman, not a henchman.

post #726 of 1166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post


Because he was in the car with the girl and knows there was a plan to kill her, ETC. That business man buying the stolen painting? Because that's what that was about, a famous painting being sold behind closed doors. Bond had no reason to think he was connected to Silva. Patrice was a hitman, not a henchman.

 

Not to be tedious, but Patrice had a chip to Silva's casino in his possession and was apparently working with Severin. The film pretty much treats him as a henchman who leads Bond to his "boss". Maybe there's a perfectly logical reason for that in the deleted scenes, but the pressing issue to me is that Bond acts out-of-character (even in reboot continuity) by letting the assassination go ahead, which draws me out of the story far more than a classic car popping up. And this behavior isn't criticized by the film or endorsed by it or factor into a character arc. It's just kinda... there.

post #727 of 1166

What's this about nuclear warheads? There are no nukes in Skyfall. People are taking the whole "it's just like World is Not Enough" comparisons a few notches too far and just straight up blending the two.

post #728 of 1166
Quote:
Maybe there's a perfectly logical reason for that in the deleted scenes, but the pressing issue to me is that Bond acts out-of-character (even in reboot continuity) by letting the assassination go ahead, which draws me out of the story far more than a classic car popping up. And this behavior isn't criticized by the film or endorsed by it or factor into a character arc. It's just kinda... there.

 

 

You know, I didn't actually have a problem with the scene when I watched it. For me, the movie seemed to be showing that Bond had hardened since we last met him. His first actions involve a dying man and, when told to discard him in favor of pursuing Patrice, he does as he is ordered and places the mission above the survival of Ronson. Later, in Shanghai, he places the mission above the victim of the assassination by deliberately waiting, despite the cost, until he is in position before attempting to capture Patrice. When Severine is murdered in front of him, he holds back his emotions regarding the incident in order to take Silva and his henchmen by surprise. I saw the final third of the movie as Bond beginning to open himself up - and it's telling that he does this with M once she is endangered. He shows her his car, he introduces her to his childhood home and then, as she lies dying in his arms, Bond weeps for her. I'm not saying this is correct, but it's the way I viewed it.


Edited by MrSaxon - 11/13/12 at 2:31pm
post #729 of 1166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post

What's this about nuclear warheads? There are no nukes in Skyfall. People are taking the whole "it's just like World is Not Enough" comparisons a few notches too far and just straight up blending the two.

Just using it as an example. To put it differently, how does Bond know that the assassination target didn't just stash the list somewhere and is being killed so only Silva will know where it is?

post #730 of 1166

Can't speak for everyone but MY Bond has never been some paragon of virtue. He's a paid killer, after all, not a vigilante superhero. I know we're used to seeing him mope around for whole movies after someone pretty dies lately, but I'll refer you to the conversation he has with M over Solange's murdered body in CASINO ROYALE.

post #731 of 1166
After all, it IS a license to kill, not a license to... I wish there was a word that rhymed with kill and meant care/nurture/love
post #732 of 1166
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhp1608 View Post

 

It still feels like a Bond film made by people who don't much like Bond

 

To me, that statement applies to QOS, and SKYFALL is a major course correction. The quibble I have with SF is that -- with things like the car and the "exploding pen" line-- they actually went a little too far in the Bond fan-service department.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Benenson View Post

After all, it IS a license to kill, not a license to... I wish there was a word that rhymed with kill and meant care/nurture/love

 

License to feel, maybe? It's as close as I can get.

post #733 of 1166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Benenson View Post

After all, it IS a license to kill, not a license to... I wish there was a word that rhymed with kill and meant care/nurture/love

 

License to feel, perhaps?

post #734 of 1166
YES
post #735 of 1166

Great minds, stelios, etc., etc. :)

post #736 of 1166
"Let me remind you that you have a license to feel, 007, not to break the traffic laws."
post #737 of 1166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post

Can't speak for everyone but MY Bond has never been some paragon of virtue. He's a paid killer, after all, not a vigilante superhero. I know we're used to seeing him mope around for whole movies after someone pretty dies lately, but I'll refer you to the conversation he has with M over Solange's murdered body in CASINO ROYALE.

Even there, though, the movie was taking a moment to point out how fucked up Bond was in that instant and they were moving toward the larger point of Bond having a chance of redemption with Vesper and then losing it. 

 

MrSaxon said he saw this as being resolved with the trip to Skyfall. We'll just have to agree to disagree there. For me, that's a weak resolution to a plot thread that goes to such extreme lengths as having two people murdered in front of Both while he does nothing.

 

Simply put, I thought the moment with Solange built toward Bond changing, while the moments with the businessman and Severin didn't.

post #738 of 1166

After seeing this a second time it becomes very clear how "out of step" Bond has become and all of his actions reflect this. You really see it in Shanghai when he clings to the bottom of the elevator as it ascends. He doesn't think he's going to make it. The dude can barely save himself; he's not going to save anyone else. He's there to do the job. He lets Patrice take the shot because he doesn't think he can get the drop on him until Patrice is distracted. Severine dies because he can't shoot the shot glass without killing her. All these nitpicks about Bond's inconsistency of character are totally off by 180 degrees. He's very consistent. He can't do the job to his old standards. 

post #739 of 1166

No, we need to have Bond as an indestructible superhero who never falters or makes mistakes! 

post #740 of 1166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post

After seeing this a second time it becomes very clear how "out of step" Bond has become and all of his actions reflect this. You really see it in Shanghai when he clings to the bottom of the elevator as it ascends. He doesn't think he's going to make it.

 

 

I really like that moment. It was the sort of thing you see Ford do in an Indiana Jones movie-- taking a really impulsive action, then a moment of: "Oh shit. What'd I just do?" It's a routine kind of move in another Bond picture, but here it feels like real danger.

post #741 of 1166
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

He knows that she has information on Greene, information he needs. 

So, why does he hand her off to some stranger right after the boat chase?
post #742 of 1166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post

After seeing this a second time it becomes very clear how "out of step" Bond has become and all of his actions reflect this. You really see it in Shanghai when he clings to the bottom of the elevator as it ascends. He doesn't think he's going to make it. The dude can barely save himself; he's not going to save anyone else. He's there to do the job. He lets Patrice take the shot because he doesn't think he can get the drop on him until Patrice is distracted. Severine dies because he can't shoot the shot glass without killing her. All these nitpicks about Bond's inconsistency of character are totally off by 180 degrees. He's very consistent. He can't do the job to his old standards. 

 

Well, I don't want to go too much into "Yeah-huh!"/"Nuh-uh!" internet discussion, but the staging didn't do that for me. In both cases, Bond is supposedly not up to spec, yet moments later he's able to beat Patrice in hand to hand combat and take out Silva's whole goon squad at once. (And in Patrice's case, he had a gun and the drop on the guy. He can't just say "Hands up!"?) Maybe if with Severin, he himself had shot her and then used the moment of "WTF?" to attack everyone, or if the helicopters had arrived then and given the opening he needed. But as it played, with him waiting to kick everyone's ass until he had a suitable bon mot to drop, it seemed to me like he didn't give a shit, wasn't conflicted about it at all, and those scenes didn't add to the story except to make him more unsympathetic. And if we're going to take movies like Amazing Spider-Man and Prometheus to task for having unsympathetic leads, Skyfall should be open to the same criticism.

post #743 of 1166

If he stops the assassination then it's possible that his path to Patrice's boss will go cold and tip them off that he's on to them. He's playing the long game and, until he wakes up on Severin's boat to discover they are both captives, thinks he's getting the drop on Silva. As far as the William Tell game, he's visibly uncomfortable and more than slightly enraged at the game he's being forced to play, but he has to keep it cool to save his own neck. 

post #744 of 1166
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Fleming 
Bond is not a hero, nor is he depicted as being very likeable or admirable. He’s not a bad man, but he is ruthless and self-indulgent.
post #745 of 1166

Quote:

Originally Posted by avian View Post

 

Well, I don't want to go too much into "Yeah-huh!"/"Nuh-uh!" internet discussion, but the staging didn't do that for me. In both cases, Bond is supposedly not up to spec, yet moments later he's able to beat Patrice in hand to hand combat and take out Silva's whole goon squad at once. (And in Patrice's case, he had a gun and the drop on the guy. He can't just say "Hands up!"?) Maybe if with Severin, he himself had shot her and then used the moment of "WTF?" to attack everyone, or if the helicopters had arrived then and given the opening he needed. But as it played, with him waiting to kick everyone's ass until he had a suitable bon mot to drop, it seemed to me like he didn't give a shit, wasn't conflicted about it at all, and those scenes didn't add to the story except to make him more unsympathetic. And if we're going to take movies like Amazing Spider-Man and Prometheus to task for having unsympathetic leads, Skyfall should be open to the same criticism.

 

While Bond was able to beat Patrice in a fight, he wasn't able to pull him up/keep him from falling to his death.  And was visibly struggling to keep from letting Patrice (sky)fall.  He's got his moments, but they're undercut by him not being a perfect agent, nor presumably as good as he is at his best.

post #746 of 1166
Thread Starter 
His shaky hand when holding up his gun reminded me of Fleming's description in The Man with the Golden Gun when Bond's hand has the shakes, "like a sleeping dog chasing rabbits" and waiting for it to snap out of it.
post #747 of 1166

Notice how Bond used to be the trendsetter but has spent the last few years (decades?!) playing catch-up?!? Moonraker was the first of this as it was clearly done to rip off Star Wars. But I've noticed that the Craig Bond's are, by far, the most grevious thieving magpies of the entire series. I'll explain....

 

The Brosnan Bonds decended into the usual Roger Moore assclown bullshit (invisible cars, ice palaces ect....) by the time Die Another Day came out. But between DAD and Casino Royale the first two Bourne movies were released.

 

Now, The Bourne Identity was a very good spy-thriller and reminded people that the genre wasn't about stupid gadgets being thrown around by a clothing model. It came out in 2002 and made Die Another Day (also released that year) look like a ridiculous piece of shit. It's clear that the Bond Producers (Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson) took a look at that when they started putting together Casino Royale. By 2004 The Bourne Supremacy had been put out but luckily Martin Campbell had returned to Direct Bond after helming Goldeneye which was my favorite of the series movie until CR. But most significantly you’ll notice that they hired Bourne Identity second unit Director Alexander Witt for the same job on CR while cutting down on the gadgets and going for a tougher, more “realistic” feel towards the action scene’s. This approach was a huge boon as it made CR feel fresh and helped to make it the best Bond movie IMHO.

 

But it helped that they were working from a good novel and had the right Director for the job because the biggest problem with the Bond series lately has been Neil Purvis and Robert Wade, Brocolli and Wilson’s in-house writers who have been scribbling the Bond movies since The World Is Not Enough. These two are the Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman of the Bond franchise. Their scripts are weak and have left a stink on every Bond project that they’ve been a part of with the exception of CR and I believe that’s because the quality of the book, Director Campbell and script polisher Paul Haggis ‘ contributions outweighed the shit produced by those two fucking script monkey’s.

The proof of this theory is Quantum of Solace which I will now refer to as Suckass. That movie is a horrid piece of shit. The first problem is nice again letting those two cocksuckers develop the script while Haggis returned for a polish, but you can make a turd shine. The second problem is that after Bond showing a strong emotional core in CR, Broccoli and Wilson made the mistake of hiring yet another HACK, Marc Forster, to Direct when he was only known for one films, 2001’s Monsters Ball, which won Halle Berry her Oscar. But that movie sucks shit and Forster has made nothing but fucking trash his whole worthless career. They just hired him to Direct the “dramatic scenes” while leaving the action to the second unit as had been the standard for most of the Bond movies. With Campbell the Producers got lucky with a Director who can do both action/suspense as well as good drama. Forster is incompetent at both.   

 

So hiring Forster on top of Purvis and Wade just compounded every problem. But even worse is that you can tell exactly what the Producers were doing. Broccoli and Wilson have a tendency to revert the Bond franchise back into the same old mold every time. Look at the Brosnan era; Goldeneye was the first Bond without Barbara’s father, Albert R. Broccoli who died in 1996, who Produced every Bond from the very first film back in 1962. I get the feeling that, as it was their first solo Bond, Barbara and Michael G. Wilson (step-son of Albert, half-brother of Barbara) took extra special care on Goldeneye which is why that movie was an extremely well-crafted action-thriller. But soon after the wheels started to come off and by the fourth Brosnan film they were back in Roger Moore territory as previously mentioned.

 

This is why they re-booted Bond and although I adore Casino Royale, it’s a shame that the films development wasn’t organic and rather a by-product of the success of the Bourne films. But with Suckass they reverted back to type in only the second film while also aping the Paul Greengrass Bourne movies. The script for Suckass was fucking terrible, as per usual from Purvis and Wade, but even worst than that, on Suckass they hired Greengrass’ second unit Director from his Bourne flicks, Dan Bradly (who apparently played Jason Voorhees on the first day of shooting Friday the 13th part 6!), and this outright plagiarism extended to that goddamn motherfucking headache inducing shaky cam approach which made the Bourne sequels all but impossible to watch. Suckass was trash, end of fucking story.

 

Which now brings us to Skyfall. It’s clear that Same Mendes (American Beauty, Road to Perdition, Jarhead, Revolutionary Road, fucking Kate Winslet!)  was once again hired to do the “dramatic” stuff while the second unit took care of the action business with Alexander Witt returning for the PEW-PEW-PEW-KABOOM! But from minute one it was clear that Mendes and the Producers intent was not to rip-off the Bourne movies as it was to Xerox Christopher Nolan’s Batman films, specifically The Dark Knight.

I knew this going in but I wasn’t prepared for how much wallowing this movie was going to be doing into the dark recesses of the human soul or some such bullshit that Mendes wanted to convey in his grade school psychological exploration of a fictional character who became famous for his globetrotting, woman fucking and bad guy killing exploits that have been reincarnated several times over. Bond is a fantasy character. He became famous with the Connery films because of it was a Playboy magazine come to life. Exotic locations, hot bitches and licensed to murder, who doesn’t dream of such things?!? *cough*

 

The point is that there is a serious fallacy of trying to do a psyche assessment of a character who isn’t a “hero” and is in fact a vicious, cold-blooded killer. Because that is what Bond would be in the real world. Batman has always been a vigilante and what Nolan did was return him to the moral ambiguity that was always at the heart of Bruce Wayne. But if Mendes was to do a proper representation of a “realistic” Bond then it would have to deal with a man who works as a secret agent, not for Queen and country, but because he gets to travel the world with an expense account, is permitted to seduce and destroy hot women when not indulging in stress relieving murder.

 

A Bond movie that has the character come to terms with being a sociopath and the fact that he enjoys it would be something interesting. But that wouldn’t wash with the producers who just want a simple “good vs. evil” story while the details of Skyfall have been lifted wholesale from a dozen different sources; the ex-agent with a grudge – Goldeneye; the stolen spy records – Mission: Impossible (1996); crazy disfigured villain who allows himself to be caught as part of his plan – The Dark Knight; along with an “over-the-hill” Bond coming to terms with his own mortality while dealing with young newcomers Q and Moneypenny and his relationship with mother figure M. We’ve seen all of this shit before in many, many other movies and there’s nothing new to any of it although it sure does look purdy due to Roger Deakins photography. But a psychological case study is not what I wanted and Skyfall is as trite as I expected a Same Mendes Bond movie to be. Great action films can be dramatically satisfying but Skyfall comes off as just dull. This feels like two separate movies (character study/action) molded into one when it should have been a solid suspense-thriller that revealed character through the narrative as opposed to bashing everyone over the head with how “deep” it is before throwing yet another by-the-numbers action scene at the audience to wake them the fuck up.

 

And now Bond is at yet another crossroad where it appears that this franchise will once again revert back to type with Q, Moneypenny and a male M in place before a cat stroking villain makes an appearance no doubt.

 

Yawn, James Yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz………………..    

 

This will be my last post for a while until I'm back in Jan after my stress relieving trip.

post #748 of 1166
Is that a whiff of familiarity I'm detecting?
post #749 of 1166

I'm sure the line "Go on! Eject me! See if I care!" had a whiff of familiarity for this guy.

 

Once again, I'm grateful for the easy-to-use Block Member option.

post #750 of 1166

I'm starting to feel wrong for seeing this thing five times already.

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