SPOILER ALERT - Skyfall Media Reviews Thread

Largo's Shark wrote:

There's a rumour going around that Silva kisses Bond in their final fight, supposedly being turned on by it all.

I hope not. That just sounds.... silly.

It would also seem to suggest that the portrayal of gay characters in the Bond series hasn't moved on from the unenlightened days of Messrs Wint and Kidd.

trevanian wrote:

Sounds like somebody saw Bob Rafaelson's BLACK WIDOW way way back and riffed on it.

Is that a good film, BTW? Have been vaguely thinking about checking it out (if it's on DVD in Britain, which I doubt it is).

Wasn't there that rumour a few years back that Cregg wanted Bond to have a gay moment?

Mission accomplished.

Loomis wrote:

trevanian wrote:

Sounds like somebody saw Bob Rafaelson's BLACK WIDOW way way back and riffed on it.

Is that a good film, BTW? Have been vaguely thinking about checking it out (if it's on DVD in Britain, which I doubt it is).

I really liked it when I first saw it theatrically, but on VHS later it just laid there. Tried it again on DVD a few years back and thought it was pretty darned good again (could be that Conrad Hall's photography is the kind of great stuff that when you go too low-rez, you lose all the specialness of it.) Terry O'Qunn shows a lot with very little screen time, but Nicol Williamson is really wasted.

By choosing the director they did, it was clearly a deliberate decision to favor character over action, and I think that's a good call. If they'd gone POINT BREAK on us, it would have lost all credibility.

They shot a lot of different versions of the kiss between Winger and Theresa Russell and the one in the film is not too passionate at all, more of the 'I can do this so I am doing this' as I recall, which is true to character and honest.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Well, SKYFALL is meant to take 4-6 years after QUANTUM OF SOLACE, so I guess of lot of it depends on being to buy that Craig Bond has been to hell and back since.

Exactly. SKYFALL marks a leap forward in the CraigBond timeline, allowing us to imagine all the countless missions that occurred over the past few years. The success or failure of that avenue will largely be in Craig's performance. (Reviews indicate he does superbly, so I'm not too worried about that. But unlike some here, I really like what Craig has brought to the part in his first two films.)

What I am very curious to see is how they take the Bond character post-SKYFALL. You've done the "rookie Bond" and then you've done the "Bond loses his groove and gets it back" arc. I'm assuming EON isn't suddenly going to do "just another mission" at this point, but how can you possibly do another "this time it's personal" mission without it seeming very halfhearted?

Harmsway wrote:

What I am very curious to see is how they take the Bond character post-SKYFALL. You've done the "rookie Bond" and then you've done the "Bond loses his groove and gets it back" arc. I'm assuming EON isn't suddenly going to do "just another mission" at this point, but how can you possibly do another "this time it's personal" mission without it seeming very halfhearted?

Oh, that's easy: you do the "this time, it's personal" mission, but with a twist - the villain (Quantum, maybe?) comes after Bond. Kind of a modern-day FRWL.

The villain going after Bond is a twist now?

Presumably B24 will also need to have the gunbarrel at the end of the film when Bond finally becomes Bond.

Having an infant at home aside (babysitters are difficult to get here, though I could get my hard-core religious fanatic in-law's to take care of him), I have a feeling that this will be the first Bond film post '87 that I will miss on big screen. I am not motivated enough. But then, we'll never now.

Lazenby? Your move is mine, man.

CJB wrote:

The villain going after Bond is a twist now?

Yes, the villain inevitably goes after Bond. But I'm thinking of a villain whose entire plan is to kill Bond.

Harmsway wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Well, SKYFALL is meant to take 4-6 years after QUANTUM OF SOLACE, so I guess of lot of it depends on being to buy that Craig Bond has been to hell and back since.

Exactly. SKYFALL marks a leap forward in the CraigBond timeline, allowing us to imagine all the countless missions that occurred over the past few years.

A leap forward, but only up to a point. The film is still part of the "BOND BEGINS" trilogy (not that you're denying that). Obviously, if Moneypenny and Q are being introduced it's hard to fully accept Craig at this point as The Bond We All Know And Love(TM).

But I'm sure Craig is superb in SKYFALL. He's always excellent.

Harmsway wrote:

What I am very curious to see is how they take the Bond character post-SKYFALL. You've done the "rookie Bond" and then you've done the "Bond loses his groove and gets it back" arc. I'm assuming EON isn't suddenly going to do "just another mission" at this point, but how can you possibly do another "this time it's personal" mission without it seeming very halfhearted?

BOND 24 could involve Quantum in some way. Maybe Bond (who has, it turns out, been secretly pursuing his own private vendetta for some years) gets wind of Mr White's location and new identity a la HANNIBAL and the plot could develop from there.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=95905

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/10/new-film-skyfall

007 Magazine chimes in:

http://www.007magazine.co.uk/bond23/skyfall_review.htm

Largo's Shark wrote:

007 Magazine chimes in:

http://www.007magazine.co.uk/bond23/skyfall_review.htm

Nice.

another positive review - http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-10/15/skyfall-review

From James Bond 007 Magazine....this is very encouraging -

It's my contention that the tone of a Bond film is the hardest thing to get right - too flippant (à la Moonraker) and you lose all sense of reality; too serious (à la Quantum of Solace) and the glamour evaporates, leaving you with nothing more than a hollow series of action sequences; equally fatally, if you attempt but fail to balance humour and seriousness, you risk a fiasco like the irredeemably awful Die Another Day. It's therefore to Mendes' credit that he gets the tone and tenor of Skyfall spot on; this is a Bond film which provides some outrageous spectacle, as well as incorporating some bizarre almost surreal touches which would be at home in a Fleming novel, as well as some killer one-liners reminiscent of the Connery era at its best. However, this is also a film which maintains an admirable seriousness of intent, most notably in its determination for its characters to have three dimensions, rather than act as bland ciphers or clothes horses. Skyfall never becomes too light-hearted but, equally, the joyless earnestness that plagued Quantum of Solace has been banished. It might sound like a contradiction in terms, but perhaps the best way I can characterise Skyfall is to call it a 'serious romp'!

Sounds very reassuring especially since that's the same magazine that gave QOS a 1/10, so the filmmakers must have really pulled something off.

Goddamn, I hated it. It's Nolanesque slow and boring, without any standout action scene. The YOLT/MWTGG borrowing is evacuated by the first act, where it should be the backbone of the whole film.

Everything is explained and contextualised by dialogue, ala Nolan, it's like the end of James Bond, all the machinery is now "naked" and explained as a 101 for the newbies who will come out of it happy they can show you all fans that they understand the character and everything.

Craig quipping like Moore is absolutely ridiculous.

Worst, we have Albert Finney in a role obviously written for Sean Connery.

EPIC FAIL.

Stamper wrote:

Goddamn, I hated it. It's Nolanesque slow and boring, without any standout action scene. The YOLT/MWTGG borrowing is evacuated by the first act, where it should be the backbone of the whole film.

Everything is explained and contextualised by dialogue, ala Nolan, it's like the end of James Bond, all the machinery is now "naked" and explained as a 101 for the newbies who will come out of it happy they can show you all fans that they understand the character and everything.

Craig quipping like Moore is absolutely ridiculous.

Worst, we have Albert Finney in a role obviously written for Sean Connery.

EPIC FAIL.

You've seen it then?

Can't tell if he has or if he's channeling Lazenby.'s future thoughts.

Python wrote:

Can't tell if he has or if he's channeling Lazenby.'s future thoughts.

Must be Lazenby's future thoughts......

Yes, saw an early screening today. I waited for CR 2 and got BondKnight Rises.

I enjoyed the Nolan films, so if there's a similarity with SF then I hope it works in the film's favor.

Stamper wrote:

Yes, saw an early screening today. I waited for CR 2 and got BondKnight Rises.

Good for you.

It's good to note that fans who disliked the two other Craig films loved this one.

I liked CR plenty, still from the looks of it SF may be better and I welcome that.

jet set willy wrote:

Stamper wrote:

Goddamn, I hated it. It's Nolanesque slow and boring, without any standout action scene. The YOLT/MWTGG borrowing is evacuated by the first act, where it should be the backbone of the whole film.

Everything is explained and contextualised by dialogue, ala Nolan, it's like the end of James Bond, all the machinery is now "naked" and explained as a 101 for the newbies who will come out of it happy they can show you all fans that they understand the character and everything.

Craig quipping like Moore is absolutely ridiculous.

Worst, we have Albert Finney in a role obviously written for Sean Connery.

EPIC FAIL.

You've seen it then?

He's bluffing. Nothing that can't be already gleamed from other reviews out there. Nice satire though.