SPOILER ALERT - Skyfall Media Reviews Thread

dr. strangelove wrote:

Are we Bond fans so shallow that the placement of the gunbarrel is enough to cause an uproar? I, for one, could pretty much care less. Bond is defined by so much more than It's box-ticking elements.

I don't care about the GB at all, but this business of Bond's childhood traumas (plural!) and his response to Silva's touch -- this ain't Bond, the closest it might come is being about Fleming. I stomped around the house using some language that would doubtless have gotten me banned here after reading some of these reviews, and my wife almost stopped speaking to me because she couldn't believe the word choices, but I am just F***IN' livid about what Logan has done here. Have a feeling that if he'd gotten to do more TREK movies (instead of killing the franchise with NEMESIS) that he'd have had Geordi flashing back on unpleasant moments from childhood and that is what caused his corneas to short-circuit.

I'm really beginning to understand and agree with the Babs hatred, because all of these allegedly arty choices are on her head.

Y'know, when David Gerrold updated his WORLD OF STAR TREK's book after the movies started being made, he had mention of the whole k/s phenomena (fan fiction written about Kirk & Spock as lovers) ... he mentioned that pretty much all of the gay and bi fans he knew liked Kirk and Spock the way they were and didn't need to change them to fit some fantasy. Guess Gerrold didn't know Logan.

I haven't read any reviews in depth as I want to avoid spoilers, but from headlines in news sites I've gathered that this is going to be an emo Batman movie and the gunbarrel is at the end again as a big Fuck You to the fans who thought this would be "Bond with a capital B" for the 50th anniversary of the series.

Fucking great.

See? People here haven't even seen the film yet and the cracks are showing. CR ended with Bond having "become" Bond, QOS ended with Bond undoubtedly being Bond, yet still SF feels the need to AGAIN have Bond out of his usual domain for the fourth film running (DAD: Captured, tortured, bearded, declared useless and tossed aside, CR: "Not Bond" enough to even warrant his own theme being played, resigns from MI6, QOS: Bond operating outside the service, a capture or kill order out on him, SF: Bond AGAIN out on his own, presumed dead, arsing around with Heineken and scorpions and AGAIN deemed a loose cannon by MI6. It's getting boring now.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

[Silva runs his hands across Bond's chest and then strokes his legs and knee, asking him if 'his training ever prepared him for something like this?' and Bond replies 'What makes you think this is my first time?'

FFS.

trevanian wrote:

Bond's childhood traumas (plural!)

FFS.

What have they done?

dr. strangelove wrote:

Are we Bond fans so shallow that the placement of the gunbarrel is enough to cause an uproar? I, for one, could pretty much care less. Bond is defined by so much more than It's box-ticking elements.

I understand where you are coming from, SF may well be the best Bond film ever made but unfortunately for me, without the gunbarrel at the beginning I just can not bring myself to award it full marks. Perhaps in the future the gubarrel being at the end will become the norm and I shall simply see it as the "nu" Bond template and not a criticism of the individual film itself but unless that is the case (I hope not) then my decision stands firm. I know that it may only be a brief scene that lasts around 15-20 seconds and so is not vital to the plot but you can use that same argument for the exact opposite reason, if it is only a brief meaningless scene then why mess around with it, they went to the trouble of making it in the first place so they may as well put it in the correct place. I am not saying that we should go back to the style of the Brosnan Bond films and tick every single box regardless of the context within the film but if the gunbarrel is simply just a box, then I say tick it. I could go on although I am now mearly waffling and will soon wind up repeating myself but I shall never stand down regarding this injustic which is happening to the Bond franchise.

The only one I've read so far was Collin's review in The Telegraph, and even then, I simply skimmed it. I was, however, concerned when I found that Silva was styled as a cyberterrorist. Comparisons would inevitably be drawn with Timothy Olyphant's character in DIE HARD 4.0, which is unfortunate, because he was probably one of the weakest villains in recent film history.

The problem with cyber terrorism is that there is no real on-screen correlation between the actions of the villains and the results of those actions. When Olyphant opened up the gas pipelines and blew up the power plant in DIE HARD 4.0, there was no direct connection between himself and John McClane. And it's like this in a lot of populat culture - the television series NCIS is notorious for having characters who "hack into" things all the time; one particularly infamous scene has two characters using the one keyboard at the same time. It's usually marked by vague references to techno-babble, like "rerouting the server" and "offset the buffer".

This, I felt, did not bode particularly well for SKYFALL. But then I watched the trailer again, and reread parts of Collin's review, and my mind was put at ease. For one, the reviews all highlight Bardem's performance as a strong point of the film. And secondly, he has a direct presence in pretty much everything that happens. He's not hiden behind a computer screen the entire time.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Silva runs his hands across Bond's chest and then strokes his legs and knee, asking him if 'his training ever prepared him for something like this?'

Based on what little we know of Silva, he's quite a cerebral villain. Almost everything he says - and I admit, I am limited to the trailer and the trailer alone here - seems to be carefully weighted to try and get inside Bond's head. He picks apart Bond's relationship in a matter of seconds, and so he is obviously well aware of who James Bond is. Bond's realtionship with woman would obviously be well-documented, so a pseudo-sexual advance like this would no doubt be intended to try and make Bond uncomfortable, throw him off balance and try to get him to give up some information that he might otherwise hold back.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

and Bond replies 'What makes you think this is my first time?'

This is simply Bond holding his ground and not letting Silva get inside his head.

Also, what he says is true. Le Chiffre's men bound him, stripped him and placed him in a chair for Le Chiffre to go to work on him with a knotted length of rope.

Skyfall is currently showing 100% on Rotten Tomatoes - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/skyfall/

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

and Bond replies 'What makes you think this is my first time?'

This is simply Bond holding his ground and not letting Silva get inside his head.

Also, what he says is true. Le Chiffre's men bound him, stripped him and placed him in a chair for Le Chiffre to go to work on him with a knotted length of rope.

The reviewer either knew his Ian Fleming or he was given press materials at the screening, because he seemed to infer that Bond's response was a reference to his childhood time spent at Eton,where he was surrounded by nothing but boys. The line could go either way. It could be explained by his experience with LeChiffre or something else.

I think the point, though, is that EON continues to do what some people around here swore they'd never do. Some people are in denial that we're going to have our first bisexual Bond by the time the next actor or two takes over the role, because the audience is being softened up precisely to expect that and to not react negatively to it. Or we're going to have our first black James Bond, because we've already got a black Moneypenny and a black Felix Leiter. These changes are coming. There is no denying it anymore.

Yes, it's the best Bond film ever! - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2217414/Skyfall-Why-best-Bond-film-ever.html

Lazenby. wrote:

DAD: Captured, tortured, bearded, declared useless and tossed aside

In SF he's not declared useless or tossed aside.

Lazenby. wrote:

CR: "Not Bond" enough to even warrant his own theme being played

Reviews say there's plenty of Bond theme in Newman's score.

Lazenby. wrote:

SF: Bond AGAIN out on his own, presumed dead, arsing around with Heineken and scorpions and AGAIN deemed a loose cannon by MI6.

From what we've seen and heard, Bond is evaluated by MI6 and declared reliable, even if he has to get back into shape. The "loose canon" stuff is only a suspicion by Mallory, and soon dropped.

Just trying to provide an antidote to the tedious barrage of cynicism round here. Would never have imagined it would be me or all people, FFS.

After the success of Casino Royale Eon feel they have to be serious and radical and probably want to recapture the praise they received from the critics.

I just want a normal Cubby Broccoli style Bond movie with a handsome charming Bond and some fun. Probalbly not something that will happen with Barbara Broccoli and Daniel Craig running the series.

Your antidote is much appreciated, Sharky :) .

Cpt Sir Dominic Flandry wrote:

After the success of Casino Royale Eon feel they have to be serious and radical and probably want to recapture the praise they received from the critics.

I just want a normal Cubby Broccoli style Bond movie with a handsome charming Bond and some fun. Probalbly not something that will happen with Barbara Broccoli and Daniel Craig running the series.

Welcome Cap'n!! :cheers:

Largo's Shark wrote:

[
From what we've seen and heard, Bond is evaluated by MI6 and declared reliable, even if he has to get back into shape. The "loose canon" stuff is only a suspicion by Mallory, and soon dropped.

I wonder if the Doctor who evaluates Bond is the same as the one in YOLT (Sir James Moloney).

Just to counter the negativity: I, for one, am generally pleased with the reviews and am super-excited about the film.

Harmsway wrote:

Just to counter the negativity: I, for one, am generally pleased with the reviews and am super-excited about the film.

Same.

Lots of hyperbole floating around in this thread.

Cpt Sir Dominic Flandry wrote:

I just want a normal Cubby Broccoli style Bond movie with a handsome charming Bond and some fun.

Indeed. However, that sort of "fun-for-all-the-family" Bank Holiday/Christmas Day Bond film died out in the 1980s - A VIEW TO A KILL was probably the last one.

I love Dalton and both of his films, but his era did bring a new regime of would-be seriousness to the series that has stuck around ever since, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. The rot did not set in with "Babs" - the truly lighthearted, unpretentious Bond movie has been extinct for a quarter of a century.

Another review:

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2012-10-14/skyfall-review---a-fitting-tribute-to-50-years-of-james-bond

Loomis wrote:

Cpt Sir Dominic Flandry wrote:

I just want a normal Cubby Broccoli style Bond movie with a handsome charming Bond and some fun.

Indeed. However, that sort of "fun-for-all-the-family" Bank Holiday/Christmas Day Bond film died out in the 1980s - A VIEW TO A KILL was probably the last one.

I love Dalton and both of his films, but his era did bring a new regime of would-be seriousness to the series that has stuck around ever since, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. The rot did not set in with "Babs" - the truly lighthearted, unpretentious Bond movie has been extinct for a quarter of a century.

You are probably right there. AVTAK was the last fun Bond film. Ever since the series has tried to keep a serious tone throughout. In the Dalton and Craig films this darker approach worked better, due to the actors playing the role. The comedy relief was kept to a bare minimum because of their acting strengths.

With Brosnan, it brought in a more muddled era. His films would have suited a Moore-type style, yet often his films strayed into a state of confusion, not knowing whether to be a Fleming Bond film one moment, or a tongue-in-cheek one the next. They really lost their identity in the 90's during the Brozza era.

Nowhere was this highlighted more than in DAD - a film which tried to start off dark, yet towards the end it was more OTT than Moonraker, but without any of the fun.

Loomis wrote:

Cpt Sir Dominic Flandry wrote:

I just want a normal Cubby Broccoli style Bond movie with a handsome charming Bond and some fun.

Indeed. However, that sort of "fun-for-all-the-family" Bank Holiday/Christmas Day Bond film died out in the 1980s - A VIEW TO A KILL was probably the last one.

I love Dalton and both of his films, but his era did bring a new regime of would-be seriousness to the series that has stuck around ever since, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. The rot did not set in with "Babs" - the truly lighthearted, unpretentious Bond movie has been extinct for a quarter of a century.

Oh I don't know, I would say that TND and TWINE fit the bill (although those aren't the best Bond films and even they include a few half-baked attempts of real drama which just come off as soap-esque). I do agree though that it would be a relief just to have a straightforward, by-the-numbers Bond film for a change rather than making everything "personal" all of the time. In the older 'Cubby Era' Bond films I don't mind because it was only done every now and again "for the fans" (OHMSS, LTK), but now this is happening on a regular basis and so has lost its impact a bit for me. Although I would never hold this against SF as an individual film regardless of its quality, I do hold it against the series and the producers at this moment in time.

I'm not sure DIE ANOTHER DAY really started off all that dark. There's a gritty aesthetic, but the scenarios and dialogue throughout that first section are pure over-the-top Bond. Heck, DIE ANOTHER DAY opens with Bond *surfing* into North Korea.

Harmsway wrote:

I'm not sure DIE ANOTHER DAY really started off all that dark. There's a gritty aesthetic, but the scenarios and dialogue throughout that first section is pure over-the-top Bond. Heck, DIE ANOTHER DAY opens with Bond *surfing* into North Korea.

Bond being tortured for 9 months, then recovering in hospital. I'm sure in the early drafts the intention was to make this dark and serious. But then Tamawhore came onboard as director, and the rest is history.....

More positive reviews - http://www.screendaily.com/reviews/the-latest/skyfall/5047755.article?blocktitle=The-Latest&contentID=592

And another - http://moviecitynews.com/2012/10/review ... iler-free/

And another - http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Skyfall-Isn-t-Just-Great-Bond-Film-It-Character-Resurrection-33554.html

Daily Star on Sunday gave it 5 stars - http://www.dailystar.co.uk/film/view/276998/Skyfall-12A-review-and-trailer/

jet set willy wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

I'm not sure DIE ANOTHER DAY really started off all that dark. There's a gritty aesthetic, but the scenarios and dialogue throughout that first section is pure over-the-top Bond. Heck, DIE ANOTHER DAY opens with Bond *surfing* into North Korea.

Bond being tortured for 9 months, then recovering in hospital. I'm sure in the early drafts the intention was to make this dark and serious. But then Tamawhore came onboard as director, and the rest is history.....

*tortured for 14 months

Walecs wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

I'm not sure DIE ANOTHER DAY really started off all that dark. There's a gritty aesthetic, but the scenarios and dialogue throughout that first section is pure over-the-top Bond. Heck, DIE ANOTHER DAY opens with Bond *surfing* into North Korea.

Bond being tortured for 9 months, then recovering in hospital. I'm sure in the early drafts the intention was to make this dark and serious. But then Tamawhore came onboard as director, and the rest is history.....

*tortured for 14 months

Which makes that hospital recovery scene even more ridiculous...... :*e*:

James Bond wrote:

I do agree though that it would be a relief just to have a straightforward, by-the-numbers Bond film for a change rather than making everything "personal" all of the time.

I wonder whether the folks at Eon believe that straight-down-the-line James Bond would no longer be interesting. To me, though, origin stories usually seem to speak of a fundamental lack of faith in the material.

Connery's Bond needed no "explanation". We didn't need to know about his upbringing. Same with Moore's Bond. These Bonds just were. Bond is basically a blank canvas fantasy figure - nothing else is really necessary. Fleming gave us a few scraps of detail about his background but that's it. In a way, the less we know about Bond the better.