Rate Skyfall (out of ten)

Guess it's just something that doesn't work for everyone. It worked for me, you call the setting up long winded, I say it helps adding to the build up. Unlike the previous three installments I managed to see in theaters, I never felt there was anything glaringly wrong in SF. It just works. Even the DB5, as crazy as that is, works because it's a reminder of how fun a Bond film can be without feeling like it has its head so far up its ass. There's a lot of stuff in it that if you told me a year before it came out, I would have probably thought it could be the worst Bond film, TWINE 2.0 as Lazenby. put it. Judi Dench's role is even more prominent? OH NO, MADNESS!!!

I can't really answer your (rhetorical?) questions Loomster, since we don't agree on what see as bleedin' obvious. I do however miss my old SF sparring partner Manhunter. What happened to the guy?

Khan and Gravity get mentioned so often as the two that are critically missed, but there are many other good members gone lately. Harmsway, hegottheboot, Louis Armstrong, Fae, Seve, FourDot, PKK, ect.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Guess it's just something that doesn't work for everyone. It worked for me, you call the setting up long winded, I say it helps adding to the build up.

But it seems to me that the makers of SKYFALL thought that everything needs buildup, but I don't think everything does need buildup - take something like, say, Silva's real name, which is treated as a major revelation even though there's no obvious payoff about it. Even Bond moving from the crane to the train in the PTS seems to take forever.

SKYFALL does not justify its bum-numbing running time of nearly two and a half hours. It simply doesn't have the story for it, and neither does it develop its characters (remotely) enough to merit so much screentime.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Even the DB5, as crazy as that is, works because it's a reminder of how fun a Bond film can be without feeling like it has its head so far up its ass.

The DB5 provides a couple of the few moments in SKYFALL in which good old-fashioned Bond movie fun rears its head.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Judi Dench's role is even more prominent? OH NO, MADNESS!!!

Dench is good although it's anyone's guess as to why Bond would be so loyal to a character who's written as so cold and calculating.

Anyway, here's my SKYFALL fix:

PTS: Set in Hong Kong in 1997. Show the betrayal of Silva and his imprisonment - don't just tell us about it. Let us experience - and ideally in an exciting and suspenseful segment lasting ten minutes or so - the fall of the brilliant agent who could have been another Bond. Set things up so that the viewer sympathises with Silva to an extent (without actually condoning his revenge plan against M, naturally).

OPENING CREDITS SEQUENCE FOLLOWED BY: The explosion in M's office. No need for all the stuff in Turkey, Bond "dying", Bond's BOURNE SUPREMACY beach period, or the ROCKY BALBOA stuff in London about Bond being supposedly old and clapped-out. (FFS, you could make that play with Connery in NSNA or Moore in AVTAK if you wanted to, but it doesn't wash if your star is Daniel Craig - just look at his physique.) No need, even, for all the business about the stolen data concerning undercover agents. I dunno, it just seems to me that there's an incredible amount of preamble (and angst) before the film gets to Shanghai, which is where things really start to get going. Just have the explosion and then have Bond following some kind of lead to Shanghai, where he meets Eve and kills Patrice before going to Macau. Or simply have him go straight to Macau, or maybe just have the casino bit also in Shanghai - either way, why have two locations when you can have just one but explore it a bit more fully?

Silva's island. I'd add a chase through the abandoned and ruined city - an intriguing location so let's make a little more of it. Make it a bit more difficult and dangerous for Bond to capture Silva as opposed to just calling in the Royal Navy or whatever.

I'd have the rest of the film more or less "as is", except for the addition of Silva demanding of the British government that they apprehend M and turn her over to him, otherwise he'll use his skills (which have already been amply demonstrated) to wreak havoc - a considerable raising of the stakes. M would therefore be in line to suffer the exact same treatment that he himself underwent in Hong Kong: betrayal by her own people in order to facilitate the greater good. This would also give the British government - and Bond - a moral dilemma adding drama and suspense to the film. It would have been nice to see Bond's loyalty to M truly tested in SKYFALL.

Perhaps also add a little twist towards the end in the form of Silva's revelation to Bond (which we see played out in flashback) that he once saved Bond's life when Bond was a twentysomething British secret service rookie on a brief assignment in Hong Kong during the twilight years of British rule. Have him try to persuade 007 that he, Silva, deserves his loyalty and support every bit as much as M does, and even more so since he has (unlike M) never hung Bond out to dry. (The "Take the bloody shot!" bit would not be in this version of the film, but something else could replace it to demonstrate that M is capable of being thoroughly nasty to our hero 007. Heck, why not have M order Silva in 1997 Hong Kong to take the bloody shot at Bond, but Silva doesn't do it - unbeknownst to Bond, who is blissfully unaware of any such order?)

What I'm saying is: cut out all the fat and subplots and unnecessary characters but deepen the connections between the three leads: Bond, M and Silva, and strengthen and personalise Silva's revenge plot. Result: a leaner, meaner and more focused SKYFALL clocking in at 100 minutes and change.

(Oh, yes, and get Connery to play Kincaid. )

Loomis wrote:

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.

You´re a good man, Loomis, and good men will never be alone. The frames are mostly very beautiful by shape, but the lighting and colours are appaling IMO, I have no idea whatsoever what sense they are supposed to be making.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Guess it's just something that doesn't work for everyone.

You couldn´t be more right. I tried to watch SF again, in honour of Mr. Shark´s friendly efforts to open my eyes, but alas, it just don´t work for me. A prime example is the scene with Bond and Severine in the shower: Where other films´ scenes with Bond and a girl appear to me to be fun, optimistic, edgy moments, this scene somehow makes me not want to be there.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Unlike the previous three installments I managed to see in theaters, I never felt there was anything glaringly wrong in SF. It just works. Even the DB5, as crazy as that is, works because it's a reminder of how fun a Bond film can be without feeling like it has its head so far up its ass.  

Interestingly, I feel the opposite in every point: SF is actually the first Bond film that gives me the impression that there is something glaringly wrong. The DB5 is presented as if a reminder was necessary, because the film has its head so far up its ass, and that makes it not funny.

Largo's Shark wrote:

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.

Academically speaking you´re making a lot of sense Sharky, but I´m not interested in allusions if the medium doesn´t catch my attention. The latter is what I accuse SF of. Sure, the Grisham adaptions so far may not have had shots like the ones I mentioned, but the point is those shots made me think of a Grisham-like story and not of a Bond story.

Loomis wrote:

Dench is good although it's anyone's guess as to why Bond would be so loyal to a character who's written as so cold and calculating.

Or why such a cold and calculating boss would hire one psychological wreck after the other for the most critical jobs. I have an easier time understanding the former, because Bond could just have a higher cause. After all, ever since Dench´s M appeared, Bond has had a tendency of lecturing her here and there.

Loomis wrote:

Anyway, here's my SKYFALL fix:

PTS: Set in Hong Kong in 1997. Show the betrayal of Silva and his imprisonment - don't just tell us about it. Let us experience - and ideally in an exciting and suspenseful segment lasting ten minutes or so - the fall of the brilliant agent who could have been another Bond. Set things up so that the viewer sympathises with Silva to an extent (without actually condoning his revenge plan against M, naturally).

Actually, not showing much of Silva is quite ok as an idea, because it makes him more of a lunatic. We don´t even get proof that he did anything with his computer skills beside acquiring an island and attacking M. Which makes him very much like The Joker, who likes to tell a story each time differently. And much like that film, SF´s stride doesn´t appeal to me. It´s not the slow pace (old Connery films aren´t edited at a frantic pace, yet they feel much faster than SF), it´s something different, maybe one could call it Nolanism, but I´m not sure if that would be correct.

Largo's Shark wrote:

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.

It´s not necessarily the amount of tracks, as long as those tracks stick out in way that they affect the comprehension of the whole film.

Largo's Shark wrote:

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.

That aspect about bringing out the playful humor eludes my ears. You´re right about those flutes not being heard before in a Bond film. I don´t insist on having things never before heard, but those flutes are cool. Still, the hammering rest of that track is a waste for me.

Largo's Shark wrote:

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.

Technically I´m sure you´re right, but what I wrote is the association I get when I hear that track.

Largo's Shark wrote:

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

This is again one point where SF seems to polarise. My apprehension of those tracks would be aptly described with the term loathing. But it´s not so much that they don´t work, it´s the whole atmosphere that´s created. I guess it gels with the film more or less, but then the whole film seems to me to have much in common with TDK and TDKR in terms of pace, characterisation, and mood. It seems to appeal to a lot of people, which is fair enough, but it doesn´t do much for me.




On another note, M of all women in the Bondiverse getting that window-hommage to OHMSS (at Skyfall Lodge), and Bond shedding tears for M after he didn´t even shed one single tear when Tracy died is just a travesty, and no arguing that this all takes place before Tracy will change my mind on that.

I like Deakin's work for SF but agree some of it can appear overcooked, almost distractingly so.

As regard's craig-Bond's women in general I think the approach is somewhat awkward, often rushed and a trifle 'off' acutely in the case of Fields and Severine there is a sense of Bond gratuitously and callously using them as a shield.

Skyfall has a strong sense of past about it and I think works best when channelling the classic motifs and less well when it wallows in the pretensions and soap styled dross that has been escalating since TWINE. As a template for the future I think it is far far stronger than the bland and generic tone of its two immediate predecessors and Mendes, at the very least, brings a genuine love and enthusiasm to the project that Campbell and Foster lacked.

As to the cold and calculating M - I think it is a valid point that in the Craig reboot the general presentation of M inspires adjectives such as thoughtless, stupid or just plain inept....there is no precedent for her faith in the uproven Bond and precious little evidence that he should consider her anything more than a professional superior. Ironically I think it is only the history she brings from Brosnan that makes her death in any way resonant for SF.

I think Sf is paced very well, I like that it takes a few moments to breathe, has the odd gratuitous smile and trims it's action back to bursts that don't leave me numb before they are finished. That said characters like Severine and Silva don't quite get the time I would have wished for.

I agree the film shares many elements with TDK and TDKR, but for the most part those are elements that have roots prior to Nolan and indeed could be seen as Bondian traits he instilled in the Bat franchise....all in all I think it is to the benefit of both series.

Bond wept over Tracy, the 60's was a bit more reserved in its depiction of emotion (and god I wish those days would return) but I think it can be seen he sheds more than a few tears at the end of OHMSS. Thankfully I do see SF as an immense improvement over the CR-QOS method of emotive exposition and self importance, it saves the moment for the end and moves on. Like CR the best aspect of SF is the end and the prospect for the future....hopefully unlike CR it won't turn out to be an out and out lie.

lachesis wrote:

As a template for the future I think it is far far stronger than the bland and generic tone of its two immediate predecessors and Mendes, at the very least, brings a genuine love and enthusiasm to the project that Campbell and Foster lacked.

I believe him and Craig when they say that Mendes genuinely loves the Bond novels and films. However I´m not at all content with the result. QOS was a stylistic escapade, but I don´t see any lack of love and enthusiasm on Forster´s side. Speaking in pop music terms, Forster made a re-mix of a Bond film. However he didn´t fail to fill it with a lot of live elements. I think much higher of the humor in QOS than of that in SF, which feels rather forced most of the time.

lachesis wrote:

I agree the film shares many elements with TDK and TDKR, but for the most part those are elements that have roots prior to Nolan and indeed could be seen as Bondian traits he instilled in the Bat franchise....all in all I think it is to the benefit of both series.

The shared elements which disturb my enjoyment are nothing I ever noticed in any way in any prior Bond film. I´m not saying Nolan invented them, but I see a clear relation to what Nolan made so fashionable. Usually I enjoyed it when Bond films sponged up the current fashions, in this case it´s something I don´t particularly enjoy.

lachesis wrote:

Like CR the best aspect of SF is the end and the prospect for the future....hopefully unlike CR it won't turn out to be an out and out lie.

I don´t want to see film endings, I want to enjoy the whole film, from start to end. With CR and QOS that was no problem. SF more or less ignored much of the previous films´ content. After CR it was not stictly necessary but made a certain amount of sense to have Bond go after answers to his questions, leading to Bond being able to let go of his personal problems and devote himself fully to his job. And what does Skyfall? It brings up yet another heavy psychological trauma. Now I don´t buy at all into Bond having an unsolved childhood trauma, because then his actions and reactions throughout the film wouldn´t make any sense. That means Bond´s trauma is a trust issue concerning M. She preferred risking his life over trusting his capability to obtain the harddrive from Patrice. But that kind of trust test between Bond and M was already profoundly dealt with in CR and QOS, so why bring it up again? Does that mean CR and QOS are obsolete and SF is the real re-boot? Or have we entered an age where every Bond film deals with profound trust issues inside the own company?

boldfinger wrote:

Does that mean CR and QOS are obsolete and SF is the real re-boot? Or have we entered an age where every Bond film deals with profound trust issues inside the own company?

Hopefully not the latter but I'd personally be very happy with the former, increasingly its CR and QoS that I feel are the real dead end for the series (and lacking any identity of their own), while SF does indeed take pretty much the same elements (many of which have be laboured since TWINE in fact), add an unique flavour to present a much more engaging package and stronger, more iconic, foundation going forward.

Both CR and QOS were obviously designed from the outset more as excursions than as templates for future Bond films. So I don´t see how they could have provided a dead end.
I see a lot of identity in those two films, and unlike SF, they are not entirely centered around identity crisis.

Quote :

Speaking in pop music terms, Forster made a re-mix of a Bond film. However he didn´t fail to fill it with a lot of live elements. I think much higher of the humor in QOS than of that in SF, which feels rather forced most of the time.

Using the same analogy, I'd say Forster - AKA Singer/Songwriter A - was persuaded by his record label to collaborate with Singer/Songwriter B. Although he didn't have much affinity for, or knowledge of the genre Singer/Songwriter B wanted to write in (Cajun Blues), he reluctantly pushed ahead, since he'd always wanted to work with Singer/Songwriter B.

On the other hand, Mendes - AKA Singer/Songwriter A had always always respected both Singer/Songwriter B and the genre he was working in since he was a child, and took the creation of the album in his stride.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Quote :

Speaking in pop music terms, Forster made a re-mix of a Bond film. However he didn´t fail to fill it with a lot of live elements. I think much higher of the humor in QOS than of that in SF, which feels rather forced most of the time.

Using the same analogy, I'd say Forster - AKA Singer/Songwriter A - was persuaded by his record label to collaborate with Singer/Songwriter B. Although he didn't have much affinity for, or knowledge of the genre Singer/Songwriter B wanted to write in (Cajun Blues), he reluctantly pushed ahead, since he'd always wanted to work with Singer/Songwriter B.

On the other hand, Mendes - AKA Singer/Songwriter A had always always respected both Singer/Songwriter B and the genre he was working in since he was a child, and took the creation of the album in his stride.

That is quite a nice analogy that doesn´t change the result.

Loomis wrote:

Silva's island. I'd add a chase through the abandoned and ruined city - an intriguing location so let's make a little more of it. Make it a bit more difficult and dangerous for Bond to capture Silva as opposed to just calling in the Royal Navy or whatever.

One was scripted (Silva runs off and Bond pursues and catches up with him, they tussle and fall through a damaged floor into a room full of rats tying into Silva's opening monologue), but it was dropped.

boldfinger wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Quote :

Speaking in pop music terms, Forster made a re-mix of a Bond film. However he didn´t fail to fill it with a lot of live elements. I think much higher of the humor in QOS than of that in SF, which feels rather forced most of the time.

Using the same analogy, I'd say Forster - AKA Singer/Songwriter A - was persuaded by his record label to collaborate with Singer/Songwriter B. Although he didn't have much affinity for, or knowledge of the genre Singer/Songwriter B wanted to write in (Cajun Blues), he reluctantly pushed ahead, since he'd always wanted to work with Singer/Songwriter B.

On the other hand, Mendes - AKA Singer/Songwriter A had always always respected both Singer/Songwriter B and the genre he was working in since he was a child, and took the creation of the album in his stride.

That is quite a nice analogy that doesn´t change the result.

Haterz gonna hate.

boldfinger wrote:

QOS was a stylistic escapade, but I don´t see any lack of love and enthusiasm on Forster´s side. Speaking in pop music terms, Forster made a re-mix of a Bond film. However he didn´t fail to fill it with a lot of live elements. I think much higher of the humor in QOS than of that in SF, which feels rather forced most of the time.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE has a lot of shortcomings, but I found myself watching bits of it when it played on one of the ITV channels the other day, and I was surprised by how much the narrative - fractured and flawed though it is - pulled me in. By contrast, I feel strangely kept at a distance by the narrative of SKYFALL.

Forster and co. do achieve in creating a "world" - Bond-meets-Graham-Greene-meets-Bourne - and populating it with characters who seem relatively rounded and real, at least by comparison to those in SKYFALL (save for Silva, the one character who does come to life). Which heightens the sense of danger in QUANTUM, the sense of things at stake. And, as you point out, the humour also works better in QUANTUM.

boldfinger wrote:

Does that mean CR and QOS are obsolete and SF is the real re-boot?

Yeah, I do get that feeling. It wouldn't be surprising for Mendes to want his Bond(s) to belong very much to his own universe, as with Nolan and Batman, and for SKYFALL to be the start of something new as opposed to CASINO ROYALE 3.

boldfinger wrote:

Or have we entered an age where every Bond film deals with profound trust issues inside the own company?

I imagine so. I guess we must nowadays always have a Bond who questions his own organisation (and himself). In film after film after film. It's so refreshing to cane the good old Blu-ray box set and enjoy an entry from the 1960s, 70s or 80s, in which 007 just, like, y'know, goes off on a mission.

There's humor in QOS?

With the exception of the 'Teachers on sabbatical line' and M's nice quip about florists, I thought the humour in QUANTUM OF SOLACE was woefully misjudged and undersold, giving the vibe that the filmmakers didn't care. Granted, there a few clunkers in SKYFALL ('It's the circle of life.') but overall most of the jokes worked - helped greatly by improved timing and delivery, along with more reverence to the material.

QUANTUM is arguably the most aloof Bond film to date. If I had to pull an example of Verfremdungseffekt in Bond, that film would take the jackpot. It's arty affectations, self-indulgence and cold, metronomic editing pull me away from the film, not engage me.

I prefer to call the humour in QUANTUM "dry" rather than "undersold". It's true that there aren't many glaring, self-conscious and on-the-nose quips (those that do exist tend to sink like lead balloons, e.g. Bond's groansome "You and I had a mutual friend!" line), but the film is far from being a comedic Atacama Desert. It relies, though, on lines that one chuckles at quietly rather than bombarding the viewer with would-be belly laughs.

Largo's Shark wrote:

It's arty affectations, self-indulgence and cold, metronomic editing pull me away from the film, not engage me.

Well, that's certainly true to an extent. By no means am I saying that QUANTUM is wonderful. What I'm saying is that it does have its good points.

But I guess it's also a question of one's mood. The points you cite do turn me off the film sometimes, but on other occasions I find myself in an artier frame of mind and more receptive to what Forster was trying to do. I mean, it's not every day that I want to just kick back and guffaw at a Moore outing.

I prefer the kind of dry humor seen in DR. NO. Most of the attempts in QOS come off like something made by the most humorless person in the world.

Loomis wrote:

boldfinger wrote:

Or have we entered an age where every Bond film deals with profound trust issues inside the own company?

I imagine so. I guess we must nowadays always have a Bond who questions his own organisation (and himself). In film after film after film. It's so refreshing to cane the good old Blu-ray box set and enjoy an entry from the 1960s, 70s or 80s, in which 007 just, like, y'know, goes off on a mission.

I got into Bond in the first place because basically the films were hardboiled detective stories much like Hammett wrote, blended with more glamour and escapism. I think that is cool and inspiring. If Mendes wants to do his own trilogy or whatever, or if Eon want to have Nolan direct Bond after that, then so be it. I guess I´ll go back to 1-16 and 21-22 until the tide changes again.

Largo's Shark wrote:

It's arty affectations, self-indulgence .... pull me away from the film, not engage me.

While those of SF do engage you?

Makeshift Python wrote:

I prefer the kind of dry humor seen in DR. NO. Most of the attempts in QOS come off like something made by the most humorless person in the world.

No, it´s just very dry humor, and in places it´s rather eerie, for example when Bond asks the dying Mathis about his cover name, or when Elvis is seen in underpants. I wish more Bond films had such places.

boldfinger wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

It's arty affectations, self-indulgence .... pull me away from the film, not engage me.

While those of SF do engage you?

I didn't find those in SKYFALL.

boldfinger wrote:

or when Elvis is seen in underpants.

 

It's barely visible and only shown for a split second before we cut to Bond chasing Greene. It's doesn't even warrant a chuckle or a smirk.

Jeez, I must have missed the underpants bit. Had to have been a really fast cut there.

Another joke that doesn't work. Elvis is supposed to be comic relief, that he's the worst henchman in the world and was only hired because he was a childhood friend of Greene or something. I can see the intent, with him being brushed aside so easily by everyone, but it's just not funny and as a result many fans actually thought the filmmakers meant for Elvis to be a serious henchman!

I'm still waiting on those criminal charges to be laid against Forster.

Largo's Shark wrote:

boldfinger wrote:

or when Elvis is seen in underpants.

 

It's barely visible and only shown for a split second before we cut to Bond chasing Greene. It's doesn't even warrant a chuckle or a smirk.

But the fact that it´s just a split second is exactly what makes it so funny.

Elvis isn't really weird, he's just dopey.

boldfinger wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

boldfinger wrote:

or when Elvis is seen in underpants.

 

It's barely visible and only shown for a split second before we cut to Bond chasing Greene. It's doesn't even warrant a chuckle or a smirk.

But the fact that it´s just a split second is exactly what makes it so funny.

And so forgettable.