Rate Skyfall (out of ten)

Python wrote:

One difference I can say is that unlike TWINE, SF actually had balls. TWINE feels like a movie that wants to be SF but can't because it's far too concerned of ticking boxes

I can agree with you on that part. SF takes what TWINE did and just ramps it up, working the film out to its logical conclusion. TWINE was still in that era of EON when they were delivering basic formula, which included (generally) at least two Bond Women, one whom Bond teams up with at the end and then has a romance with and a corny last line like "I thought Christmas came only once a year" or "I need to pull it out. It's got to come out sometime." "But James, leave it in. it's so big!"

EON has wisely, oh so wisely, dumped those horrible, cliched one-liners that even Roger Moore, in all of his infinite Roger Mooriness, could never have pulled off. Sometimes simpler is better. Daniel Craig says so much more when he jumps into the train car and adjusts his cufflinks without having to say a word, rather than having to prattle on some witless twaddle about "pumping" Paris Carver for information. For this, I thank EON. They've let Craig be Craig, but this film has also brought out a bit of Craig we had not seen yet, and I THINK THAT has also really helped sell the film. Allowing Bond to be cool, allowing him to smile just a bit....to make that little wink at the audience right before he pulls the trigger in the courtroom...the adjusting of the cufflinks....the only misfire in terms of dialogue was his comment to the train car operation about being from the Department of Health and Safety, and not that it was poorly delivered, but that it didn't need to be delivered at all. My audience was laughing at the woman's deadpan reaction to him, plus all of us have at one time or another had to run to catch a cab, a bus, a train, or a plane, so we can related to Bond, or we think are relating to him, in this instance. That last bit of dialogue was just so unnecessary. In this film they've allowed Craig to be not just an action here, an embodient of raw, sexual energy and machismo, but also a much cooler guy to hang with...and a bit human at the same time.

If you're detecting a change in my attitude towards Craig, it is because my attitude is changing towards him. I got a lot more of what I wanted out of Craig in Skyfall than I got before. Not saying he'll ever be my favorite, but I have found some new respect for him.

I also think that SF works better because it doesn't have to make Bond feel vulnerable to anybody before being betrayed, like Brosnan's Bond fell for Elektra before realizing she was in cahoots with Renard (the way that Bond discovers the two are working together through the mutual use of a phrase was always the weakest part of the story for me; never did quite sit right).

Quote :

and delivering dull generic action by Vic Armstrong. To make matters worse, TWINE is utterly incompetent.

Gotta disagree. My only complaint with the oil rig pipe chase was that the dialogue sounded like it was being delivered in a tin can, which made Richards performance's flaws show up all the worse. The scene had more potential than it delivered, but it still does send a chill up my spine everytime I watch it; David Arnold's cues were right on. I also loved the nuclear bunker shoot-out, and the destruction of the caviar factory.

Where TWINE could have taken a page from SKYFALL's book was in dispensing with the need for a proper Bond Girl for the 2nd and 3rd act. By mostly eliminating the Christmas Jones character (or turning her into a him), the movie would have had more credibility. But because it needed to tick off those boxes, it forced itself into making some moves that didn't serve the overall purpose of the film very well.

Another point to remember: in both films M is kidnapped. In TWINE she's kidnapped by Elektra and used as bait the same way M used Elektra as bait to draw out Renard. In SKYFALL, Bond kidnaps M and uses her for bait to draw out Silva.

tiffanywint wrote:

Seve wrote:

Well, if you want to discuss what's wrong with "Fail Rider" vis-a -is Shane, we can do that over in the Western thread some time

Me, I prefer Clint as Jose Wales, rather than as a "pale" shadow of Alan Ladd

Clint is awesome in every western he made. There is nothing to discuss, but Pale Rider and High Plains Drifter are my two favourites. He is pure wrath in both. :affraid:

Funnily enough those are my two least favourite, but to each his own

BRONCO BILLY is my favourite.

High Plains Drifter is my favourite.

I don't see TWINE in SF. Thankfully. I can't stand TWINE, one of my very least favourite.

Ravenstone wrote:

High Plains Drifter is my favourite.

I don't see TWINE in SF. Thankfully. I can't stand TWINE, one of my very least favourite.

maybe you'll be able to see SF in TWINE instead, that might help?


Bounty hunter #1: "You're wanted, Wales."
Josey Wales: "Reckon I'm right popular. You a bounty hunter? "
Bounty hunter #1: "A man's got to do something for a living these days."
Josey Wales: "Dyin' ain't much of a living, boy."

Seve wrote:

Josey Wales: "Dyin' ain't much of a living, boy."

The awesomeness leaves one simply speechless.

===
“You see, in this world there’s two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.”
"The Good The Bad and the Ugly"

===
Most chilling line from Pale Rider is right there at the top of the poster
:shock::shock::shock:

tiffanywint wrote:

Seve wrote:

Josey Wales: "Dyin' ain't much of a living, boy."

The awesomeness leaves one simply speechless.

===
“You see, in this world there’s two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.”
"The Good The Bad and the Ugly"

===
Most chilling line from Pale Rider is right there at the top of the poster
:shock::shock::shock:

Megan Wheeler: [Reading from the Book of Revelation] "And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the fourth beast said: "Come and see." And I looked, and behold a pale horse. And his name that sat on him was Death. "
[the Preacher rides up on his pale horse]
Megan Wheeler: "And Hell followed with him."

Snaky: "Frank sent us."
Harmonica: "Did you bring a horse for me?"
Snaky: "Well... looks like we're... [snickers] looks like we're shy one horse."
Harmonica: "Looks to me like you brought two too many."
[gunfire]

Jed: "You must've rode a long way."
Ben Stride: "I walked."
Jed: "Ain't you got no horse?"
Ben Stride: "Did have. Chirichua jumped me about ten mile back."
Jed: "They stole 'em? "
Ben Stride: "They ate him."
Jed: "What brings you out here?"
Ben Stride: "You heard about that bank robbery in Silver Springs?"
Jed: "They ever catch them fellas who done it?"
Ben Stride: "Two of 'em"
[gunfire]

Voted for 9, even when my personal mark is 9.75/10

Overall is a very classic and Bondian film, the Bonder of the Craig era I shall say: a nice plot and script, great action sequences, soundtrack and photography, and a wonderful performance by Javier Bardem.

As for the cons, well, there are quite a number of plot holes I'd liked to be better explained (Bond surviving the Bloody Shot), Silva's background, what was Bond exactly doing in the Turkish village and how did he got there, etc.
And of course, even when in some *boards* they called me "childish", I CAN'T forgive having the gunbarrel back at the end and with a simplistic design, specially being the 50th anniversary and getting it on both posters. In a way, yes, it fits there more than in QOS, but no, I can't forgive it even with that silly excuse by Mr Mendes (which is at least better than the no-excuse we've had for QOS!)

BTW: I'll respect the opinion of those who disagree about my toughts on the barrel, and for those who agree with me, you can join my Facebook cause (hint: look at my siggie!) ;)

Full review on my site here: http://goldeneyedossier.blogspot.com.ar/2012/11/the-best-bond-since-goldeneye-well-not.html

Late to the party but after my view of CR changed beyond all recognition on repeat viewing I wanted to ensure I had seen the film more than once. It held up pretty well on Blu Ray, it still suffers from the modern disease of a villainous plan that unfolds with ludicrous amounts of coincidence and timing, but it looks beautiful, has real style, a nice tone and ensures we leave looking forward to the next film despite itself dangerously overlong. So a solid 8 from me.

the 'it's a disgrace' vote must be Sebastian Faulks.

Or Manhunter.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Or Manhunter.

poor chap.

I think it was very good!

I give it a 10 out of 10, didn't really have any problems with it and enjoyed it thoroughly.

One year on, and I can´t get a grip on that film. It talks the talk, but it doesn´t walk the walk. I don´t understand why so many people rate it so high.

What is it about it that gives you a hard time getting into it?

I´m thinking of writing something like a review, but I have to get into it. Working on it ;-).

Makeshift Python wrote:

What is it about it that gives you a hard time getting into it?

I have a hard time digging the atmosphere, especially the first hour after the pts. Lots of people seem to adore Deakins, I don´t feel touched by much of his camera work. There are lots of splendid shots, but lots of very mediocre shots as well. All in all, there is no continuous pull that holds me in the film.

The acting performances are all over the place, characters with considerable screentime and importance (like Moneypenny) are directed to act almost like hams (Naomie Harris was a totally different caliber in Miami Vice).

I think the editing makes for a sleepy pace, I don´t feel much suspense.

The dialogue would probably fit well with a fast-paced film, but the combination with the dramatically slow pace is of no advantage.

There are too many shots that don´t contribute to the storytelling and don´t look amazing so that that could make up for it.
M writing Bond´s obituary for instance, or right after that, M and Tanner driving to Mallory´s office. Just leaving out those two scenes would improve the flow tremendously, without compromising the story in any way.
The scene with Bond and the scorpion would have absolutely sufficed to deliver the idea that Bond is bored out of his mind, no need to elongate that sequence unnecessarily by having Bond screw a chick, look bored, take a pill, and then walk along the beach even more Bourne-ey than he was in CR and QOS taken together.
The introductory shots of Shanghai are very drawn out and give almost no information. The shots of Bond swimming and of Bond sitting at an empty bar with his cell phone openly in front of him on the bar like a yuppie don´t make any sense to me.
From then on, I can´t point my finger on waste shots, but everything feels tiringly drawn out, up to Silva´s prison break.

Bond´s childhood trauma is basically a trust issue concerning M, yet it hardly shows in Bond´s reactions, and not at all in his decisions and actions, so why is it in the film at all? That contributes to my problems with the final big shootout. The action is ok, but  I fail to get the meaning of all the fire in front of a black sky, which visually has an emotional effect on me, I just don´t get what it is or what it´s supposed to be. The shootout is laboriously and time-consumingly set up, but for what exactly?

Skyfall is full of references towards the importance of traditional Bond and MI6, yet the film is by far the least typical Bond film. It´s various references to the past feel like awkward reminders that it´s a Bond film, something that shouldn´t be in a Bond film, especially since Craig already two times before proved that he can do anything with the role and still impress. The combination of all talk and no walk (concerning classic, traditional Bond) gives the film an uncomfortable feeling of self-consciousness and lack of self-esteem, thus mirroring the issues of many of the film´s characters, instead of solving them.

And the music isn´t helping any.

Quote :

M writing Bond´s obituary for instance, or right after that, M and Tanner driving to Mallory´s office. Just leaving out those two scenes would improve the flow tremendously, without compromising the story in any way.

This is both setting up the obituary gag for later in the film, and to foreshadow M's death (the chimes). Both are intimate character scenes, and the of kind you'd never get to see in CR or QOS - both of which were too concerned with advancing the plot and prepping the next 2nd unit setpiece. That's the Mendes touch for you.

This isn't made in the Marc Forster 'like a bullet' school of pacing. Like Fleming's prose it lingers on atmosphere with a surgical precision and a meditative pace.

Quote :

The scene with Bond and the scorpion would have absolutely sufficed to deliver the idea that Bond is bored out of his mind, no need to elongate that sequence unnecessarily by having Bond screw a chick, look bored, take a pill, and then walk along the beach even more Bourne-ey than he was in CR and QOS taken together.

Again, it's about the slow burning atmosphere. After the tension build leading to the MI6 gas explosion, you need contrast. To show how utterly bored Bond is out of action, the scorpion or bar scenes wouldn't have been enough.

Quote :

The introductory shots of Shanghai are very drawn out and give almost no information.

They introduce the 'brave new world' of Shanghai, and in a combination of Newman's score and the helicopter shots, convey that this is a futuristic hub of advertising and commerce, antithetical to a cloak and dagger dinosaur like Bond.

The shots of Bond swimming and of Bond sitting at an empty bar with his cell phone openly in front of him on the bar like a yuppie don´t make any sense to me.[/quote]
The swimming is to tell us that Bond is still trying to get back into shape, and the brief bar scene is a bridge between the pool and airport.

Quote :

And the music isn´t helping any.

I thought Newman' score was wonderful, and greatly contributed towards the film's subtext, atmosphere and sexiness (of a kind we haven't heard since Barry).

I haven't watched it for well over 3 months...I'd rather reach for a Roger Moore or Tim Dalton Bond if I need a 007 fix.

Glad to see you haven't gone, bitch. You're our USP.  

Largo's Shark wrote:

Quote :

M writing Bond´s obituary for instance, or right after that, M and Tanner driving to Mallory´s office. Just leaving out those two scenes would improve the flow tremendously, without compromising the story in any way.

This is both setting up the obituary gag for later in the film, and to foreshadow M's death (the chimes). Both are intimate character scenes, and the of kind you'd never get to see in CR or QOS - both of which were too concerned with advancing the plot and prepping the next 2nd unit setpiece. That's the Mendes touch for you.

This isn't made in the Marc Forster 'like a bullet' school of pacing. Like Fleming's prose it lingers on atmosphere with a surgical precision and a meditative pace.

The obituary gag didn´t need any setting up.
The idea of the foreshadowing of M´s death is interesting, but the execution is too subtle for me. Especially since some other things in the film are the antithesis of subtlety, like Q´s quip about exploding pens, or the use of the DB5. Or most of the dialogue throughout the film.
Besides, all those shots directly following the titles and before M´s conversation with Mallory, have a visual appearance that belongs in a Grisham adaptation but certainly not in a Bond film. The same goes for the shots of M´s car arriving at her place a little later. This visual inadequacy detracts from any subtleties that might be there.
As long as the Mendes touch means being steeped too much in stageplays and novels and forgetting one is making a cinematic movie I´d rather go without.
That Forster went all the way to one extreme doesn´t mean it´s sensible to go to the other extreme.
Bond is not exactly about meditation. In the novels, yes, to a certain degree for sure. But the way it´s done here on the big screen fails.
Surgery is not about lingering, because then the patient dies.

Largo´s Shark wrote:

Quote :

The scene with Bond and the scorpion would have absolutely sufficed to deliver the idea that Bond is bored out of his mind, no need to elongate that sequence unnecessarily by having Bond screw a chick, look bored, take a pill, and then walk along the beach even more Bourne-ey than he was in CR and QOS taken together.

Again, it's about the slow burning atmosphere. After the tension build leading to the MI6 gas explosion, you need contrast. To show how utterly bored Bond is out of action, the scorpion or bar scenes wouldn't have been enough.

I don´t detest people with that kind of patience, but I don´t seem to have it myself. I don´t mind if the delivered content is a little compacted.
To entertain a whole beach bar by taking a drink with a scorpion on the back of the hand is looney enough for me to show the man is utterly bored. Also, Craig´s acting doesn´t need so many shots to make such a point.
And the question still stands: Why does it have to look as if straight out of a Bourne film? What happened to the Bond look the films had in the past? Even the last two were at least consistent in that regard.

Largo´s Shark wrote:

Quote :

The introductory shots of Shanghai are very drawn out and give almost no information.

They introduce the 'brave new world' of Shanghai, and in a combination of Newman's score and the helicopter shots, convey that this is a futuristic hub of advertising and commerce, antithetical to a cloak and dagger dinosaur like Bond.

I thought so too, but again would have preferred a slightly more compact way of delivering the idea. If you want to send a folding ruler, you don´t have to send it unfolded. You can of course, but it´s not my preferred way.

Largo´s Shark wrote:

Quote :

The shots of Bond swimming and of Bond sitting at an empty bar with his cell phone openly in front of him on the bar like a yuppie don´t make any sense to me.

The swimming is to tell us that Bond is still trying to get back into shape,  and the brief bar scene is a bridge between the pool and airport.

I don´t get that. Do his muscles come from eating corn flakes? His arm is not quite alright yet, as we see later when he hangs from the elvator, but swimming is not going to ease a cut in the flesh as would rest. The scene looks as if Bond was executing a regular workout routine, thus it doesn´t add to any development. One could of course say that both Bond swimming and Bond sitting at the bar give us a glimpse at Bond´s private habits, but then it feels too isolated and depressive (especially the lonely bar with noone around) to be comfortable.

Largo´s Shark wrote:

Quote :

And the music isn´t helping any.

I thought Newman' score was wonderful, and greatly contributed towards the film's subtext, atmosphere and sexiness (of a kind we haven't heard since Barry).

I can fully respect if people don´t appreciate Arnold´s scores, but I absolutely don´t hear more than a few bars in Newman´s score that are any better.
Many of the action cues sound either frighteningly close to Zimmer or blatantly inspired by Powell.
When Bond fights the three bodyguards in the casino, the music makes CR´s stairwell fight music seem subtle and pretty much destroys the good impression one got from the scene before, which, I admit, had very good music.
The mourning theme played over the caskets and near the ending sounds as if taken from some 90s US army adventure.
The whole sequence starting with the introductory shots of Shanghai leads pretty straightly towards the moment where Bond and Severine exchange glances, yet is accoustically ripped apart by no less than six musical cues which have no connection amongst each other at all. Even Arnold´s continuous change of thematic ideas seemed more coherent.

boldfinger wrote:

The idea of the foreshadowing of M´s death is interesting, but the execution is too subtle for me.

That's where we differ. I long for that kind of subtly in Bond and modern cinema in general.

Don't understand where you're on about re: John Grisham adaptations. I've seen most of them, and these scenes in SKYFALL look like pure Mendes and to me. Everything from the camera angles, framing, lighting, editing and sound design. Nothing stagy about it.

Mendes learnt a lot from the great Conrad Hall, and the use of reflections and mirrors is one of them. Remember rain against the window reflecting on the actor during IN COLD BLOOD's confession scene, creating the illusion of tears? The earlier shot of M looking out her office window is a tribute to that iconic moment.

boldfinger wrote:

Especially since some other things in the film are the antithesis of subtlety, like Q´s quip about exploding pens, or the use of the DB5. Or most of the dialogue throughout the film.

There's a healthy mix of more obvious and less obvious subtext throughout the film.

boldfinger wrote:

And the question still stands: Why does it have to look as if straight out of a Bourne film? What happened to the Bond look the films had in the past? Even the last two were at least consistent in that regard.

It doesn't. Deakins's cinematography is both opulent and cinematic, looking back to Freddie Young's work on YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. The BOURNE films were more televisual and rough n ready in appearance.

boldfinger wrote:

If you want to send a folding ruler, you don´t have to send it unfolded. You can of course, but it´s not my preferred way.

No, but if you want to demonstrate it for the prospective buyer, you unfold it.

boldfinger wrote:

Do his muscles come from eating corn flakes? His arm is not quite alright yet, as we see later when he hangs from the elvator, but swimming is not going to ease a cut in the flesh as would rest. The scene looks as if Bond was executing a regular workout routine, thus it doesn´t add to any development.

It's a cardio workout, so Bond is still trying to get his heart and lungs back in shape after months of inactivity. By this point the skin would have healed with scar tissue, though any internal damage to tendons, muscle or connective tissue will take longer. He clearly has problems hanging from a bar but not doing a forward crawl.

boldfinger wrote:

One could of course say that both Bond swimming and Bond sitting at the bar give us a glimpse at Bond´s private habits, but then it feels too isolated and depressive (especially the lonely bar with noone around) to be comfortable.

Bond frequently suffers from accidie and depression in the books. There's not always a traumatic stimulus for these mood swings.

boldfinger wrote:

I can fully respect if people don´t appreciate Arnold´s scores, but I absolutely don´t hear more than a few bars in Newman´s score that are any better.

Personally I take 'The Bloody Shot', 'Voluntary Retirement', 'Coffins', 'New Digs', 'Brave New World, 'Shanghai Drive', 'Modigliani', 'Komodo Dragon', 'Somebody Usually Dies', 'Severine', 'Chimera' and 'Tennyson' over anything Arnold's ever written.

boldfinger wrote:

Many of the action cues sound either frighteningly close to Zimmer or blatantly inspired by Powell.

There's a few influences in 'Grand Bazaar, Istanbul', 'Jellyfish' and 'She's Mine' that sound a little Powell/Zimmerish, but over all I hear Newman. Revisit scores like A TALE OF UNFORTUNATE EVENTS and WALL-E.

boldfinger wrote:

When Bond fights the three bodyguards in the casino, the music makes CR´s stairwell fight music seem subtle and pretty much destroys the good impression one got from the scene before, which, I admit, had very good music.

Granted it's not subtle, but it brings out the playful humour of the scene in a way that Arnold never could. I especially love the jazzy flute solos for when Bond gets winded. Not something we've ever heard in a Bond film before.

boldfinger wrote:

The mourning theme played over the caskets and near the ending sounds as if taken from some 90s US army adventure.

 

No. 'M's Theme' is very un-American and un-Copeland. No reliance on fifths, snare drums or unison horns (i.e. Arnold's INDEPENDENCE DAY). It bares more in common with Sea Interludes from Benjamin Britten's very English PETER GRIMES and Barry's own score for THE LION IN WINTER.



Regardless, 'Coffins', 'Voluntary Retirement' and especially 'Mother' work fantastically on-screen, and are my favourite bits of Bond underscore since the days of Barry.

boldfinger wrote:

The whole sequence starting with the introductory shots of Shanghai leads pretty straightly towards the moment where Bond and Severine exchange glances, yet is accoustically ripped apart by no less than six musical cues which have no connection amongst each other at all.

There are consistent harmonic and timbral ideas that Newman threads through these scenes ('Jellyfish' and 'Silhouette'), even if there's no obvious melodic connection. Besides, they're designed to work in the context of the whole film, not this 15 minute stretch in isolation. Hence why the clustral underscore for Bond entering the lobby is a close relative of the opening bars of 'Grand Bazaar, Istanbul' or the obvious parallels between 'The Bloody Shot' and 'Silhouette.'

Nice work Sharky, keep going, I want to like the film  .

I'm greatly enjoying these exchanges between boldfinger and Sharky. My head tends to agree mainly with the latter but my heart with the former. Why is all the stuff on the Turkish (?) beach so Bourne-in-Goa? Why is it in the film at all? How come everyone but me seems to find Deakins' (digital) cinematography brilliant? (Fair enough, SKYFALL does have quite a few great visual moments, but there are also plenty of occasions on which it looks pretty dull.) And Deakins' work is nothing like Young's on YOLT. Why does the best Bond villain in decades seem to only get about ten minutes of screentime? Why is SKYFALL so fundamentally unexciting, and in spite of so many terrific ingredients? Et cetera.

boldfinger wrote:

The obituary gag didn´t need any setting up.

Or to be included at all. It's not all that funny.

The unnecessary and longwinded setting up of things is one of my chief problems with SKYFALL. See also the way that Bond spends acres of screentime sporting deeply unBondian stubble just so that Moneypenny can eventually shave it off.