Skyfall: Good film but didn't quite live up to the hype

Well, I enjoyed the film but I'm not sure as to whether it lived up to the hype.

The one liners just don't belong in the Craig era. He’s just not the type of actor who should be muttering them and while I do think DC is a very talented actor, he can't deliver them with the flair of Connery and Moore. They just seemed out of place in SF. They hinder my enjoyment of the film.

The scene with the reptile in the casino was very Flemingsque but could have been more suspenseful and certainly could have done without Bond making the cheesy quip at the end after pulling himself back onto the bridge. “Put all my money on red”. This is probably the worst line in the film.

I was also hoping Bond would have gone into more detail about his childhood but at the same time I was wondering how they would do it as M was undoubtedly aware of Bond's history.

I'll have to see this a couple of more times but I think Casino Royale is the better film. Campbell made the right decision keeping the one liners out. With Mendes, it just seemed in some parts that he was just ticking all the boxes.

Another example of Mendes just wanting to tick off all the boxes as they did in the horrible Brosnan era is that after the casino he's suddenly in Severine's room then they get it on immediately. It's too rushed and tightly cut. I think they should have just cut this scene out all together then they would have had more room for another scene like one of the following that I would have liked to have seen in the film:

"- A shot of Bond running through Regent's Park as he prepares for his MI6 evaluation.

- An exchange between M and Mallory when she quips Bond being in the South China Sea is precise intelligence.

- A procession of hearses and producer Michael G. Wilson's cameo as a pall bearer at the funeral service for the MI6 agents.

- Shots of dead & wounded MI6 agents following the explosion were cut."

Why does the DB5 have guns and an ejector seat? Are we supposed to believe that Demetrious had all this fitted into his car before Bond won it off him in CR? Why would Q do all this when he said that exploding pens are not what they do anymore? Unnecessary. Silly.

I thought that Bardem’s character might have been a little too light hearted and comical for my liking but thankfully I was proved wrong. He did a wonderful job. One of the best villains in the series.

I love who became the new M at the end, this put a real smile on my face, but Eve turning out to be Moneypenny was a bad move in my opinion.

I was hoping the scenes at the beginning when Bond is "enjoying death" would be a little more panned out. Sadly, they were cut too tightly. Great what little we did see though. Love this human element.

Loved the scenes on the island with Silva (very Flemingsque and great how they played that vintage music over the speakers. This worked very well) but they could have done without the Bond theme at the end. They should have used this cue in the opening scene with the bulldozer. Newman's score was pretty average. Overall, better than Arnold's as most of Arnold’s action music is horrible but Arnold has the odd well composed individual cue whereas Newman doesn't have anything that really stands out.

Currently, I rate the film around 7 out of 10. CR is better. Campbell had the right idea - leave out the one liners as they just don’t belong in the Craig era. It seemed like Mendes was just ticking off all the boxes in some parts as I said, not unlike in the Brosnan era. I’m not even sure where I would rate this film at the moment. Maybe in the top 10 or 7. I did like how there was more character development in this film. It was part action, part thriller, part drama instead of pretty much all just action like in the post Dalton films with the exception of CR. Something I've always hoped for.

Oh, and I don't buy into Mendes's comments about how the gun barrel doesn't match up with the first shot. The white circle could have easily faded out into the silhouette of Bond.

I did like Harris in Skyfall but why they made a field agent a secretary is beyond me. Since they did she should have gone into more explanation as to why she chose to take a desk job at the end. I thought it was corny in the next scene the way she said I haven't told you my last name or something like that, then she says "Moneypenny."

Pity there couldn't have been some dialogue exchanged between Bond and his girlfriend at the beginning and I wish they had have lingered on the two drinking scenes with the scorpion and when he's on the beach at the bar. I thought that Greek girl (Greek is she?) was going to have a bigger part. She was merely a featured extra.

Anyway, I'm always a bit too critical of a Bond film upon first viewing. It was the same with Casino Royale too. I do like SF but at the moment I feel like it doesn't quite live up to the hype created by the critics. It's a good film but not that good. Well, I'll see how I feel after the second viewing next Sunday.

For Bond 24 and beyond, I'm going to avoid photo threads because otherwise I will accidently read all this speculation which often proves to be accurate. It was no surprise what happened at the end of the film for me.

I think you raise some fair points Bounine, I totally agree that the one liners felt awkward when delivered by DC, but then again it's part of the tradition and after the humourless QOS it was what people were asking for.
I felt they got the balance of reminiscing about Bond's childhood just about right, it was a difficult choice for there are many fans who want to know all about his early days and equally there are those who feel Bond should only live in the moment, his character a cipher that needs no back story. For me there was just enough to add interest without going overboard on Bond's childhood.
I rather liked all the Severine scenes and wished her role was larger though I fully concede why it wasn't and what value it added to the plot motivation and characterization.
I like many of your suggestions, but I guess the long running time prevented these sort of scenes being included (it does seem frustrating though considering how much time was wasted with long lingering location set up shots).
I hadn't given any thought about the DB5 being the Dimitrios car, but now you've mentioned it I think it will probably bug me too!
I found the soundtrack mediocre at best, though being one of those disgruntled Arnold fans I expected nothing more, maybe when I've listened to the soundtrack a few times my opinion will soften, to be fair at least there was nothing stand out dreadful about it.
Personally on first viewing (Like you I often change my opinion on repeated viewings) I would rate this an 8 out of 10, CR is just a superior film (IMO).
I'd love to avoid photo threads and speculation for Bond 24 as it certainly does spoil some of the surprises, mind you I said the same about Bond 20, Bond 21, Bond 22 and Bond 23. I doubt I'll ever learn, anyway thanks for your thoughts Bounine it made interesting reading.

Thanks. Well, I wasn't expecting a huge spiel but I was hoping for just a few lines of dialogue regarding exactly how Bond's parents died and on which mountain. Some reference to the circumstances leading to the rock climbing incident would have been good too as Pearson described in his biography of Bond. He said that they had been arguing and why. Bond's mother went up the mountain and her husband chased after her. Just a few lines of dialogue would have been good.

It's a damn pity that they have to have these run time restrictions.

I'm fairly certain that the film wouldn't be any less popular with the general audience without the one liners. CR was hugely popular and this had more natural humour.

I suppose a few extra lines wouldn't of hurt, but then again with Bond's parents death Fleming only wrote very briefly about the location, type of accident and Bond's age at the time. I don't consider John Pearson's version to be in anyway definitive regardless of whether Glidrose consider it official or not. The producers are very wise to only go back to the words of Fleming, if you start to incorporate aspects of the continuation authors work before long you'll end up with them using some of (God forbid) Raymond Benson's (Spit!) material!

Bounine wrote:

I'm fairly certain that the film wouldn't be any less popular with the general audience without the one liners. CR was hugely popular and this had more natural humour.

I agree 100%, CR had a great balance of natural humour.

I was supposed to say at the end "not that I think Eon would ever use another author's work". :) They could have made something up in terms of the circumstances surrounding his parent’s death I think.

I would have liked the psychologist to have discussed some of the facets of Bond's personality with M and Mallory too. I would have loved him to have talked about how Bond is a loner, prone to melancholy, at odds with himself regarding the requirements of his profession etc.

Bounine wrote:

I would have liked the psychologist to have discussed some of the facets of Bond's personality with M and Mallory too. I would have loved him to have talked about how Bond is a loner, prone to melancholy, at odds with himself regarding the requirements of his profession etc

I think this point was labelled more than once all the way through the movie, without spelling it out any further in this scene.

I have to say I would have hated it if they'd said anything about how Bond's parents died because I hate it when a film treats me like an idiot. Why does a film have to tell us everything? Can't we be allowed to know the original source, or to simply work it out for ourselves? It was one of the things I liked about Quantum of Solace - we were told things once and that was it; not a constant reminder going on, the verbal equivalent of *THIS IS THE PLOT - PAY ATTENTION* flashing across the bottom of the screen. I like a film that treats me as an equal, not needing to be spoon fed information every few minutes, or to be told everything so there's no depth or mystery to it.

We're talking about the brief specifics of Bond's background history. Either you know what happened or you don't. If you want to just guess what happened to Bond in his past, then fine. I myself would like to know the facts.

Then read the books. Or put it together from the other 22 films. If any film, not just Bond, tells you everything you want to know about a character, not only will it be incredibly long, it will be utterly boring.

When they're talking about his parents' death, Bond looks up at the mountains. I thought that was plenty.

I've read all the books several times. A bit more information in the film however would have been nice. I understand that some people want Bond to remain more of a mystery in the shadows however. It's a debate I've had with a few when I've always expressed my wishes for learning more about Bond's background history in the actual films.

I think it would detract from the character. It would turn him in to yet another action hero with a failed marriage, bad relationship with his kids, arguments with his boss, drowning his sorrows in a bottle, his only friends other failures and misfits like himself, blah blah blah. Let him have his secret. It makes him a better character, more complete and nuanced. He is a detailed character, but we don't have to know the details to see that.

I don't think just a few more sentences regarding his history would detract from the character but this is a debate I've had with others in the past who will always remain on the side of Bond remaining a complete mystery and more one dimensional.

What I would like is if the villian knew about Bond's past (or M obviously) and was to mention it to Bond in 3 or 4 sentences.

I don't mind the films delving into his background,. so long as it's respectful to Fleming's writing. I do feel after 50 years and 23 movies if you don't start looking deeper at his character and his past you end up making bland Pierce Brosnan style generic Bond films.
Personally I don't think Skyfall's brief glimpses into Bond's past made him either a failure, misfit or just another action hero. I would argue that what was shown in Skyfall of his personal tragedy only strengthened his character adding both motivation and credibility to the icon that we already recognise him as.

"I don't mind the films delving into his background,. so long as it's respectful to Fleming's writing. I do feel after 50 years and 23 movies if you don't start looking deeper at his character and his past you end up making bland Pierce Brosnan style generic Bond films."

I agree. A little bit of info attributed to Logan as to what happened on the mountain and what had been going through Bond's parents minds just briefly wouldn't be disrespectful to Fleming's words I don't think.

"Personally I don't think Skyfall's brief glimpses into Bond's past made him either a failure, misfit or just another action hero. I would argue that what was shown in Skyfall of his personal tragedy only strengthened his character adding both motivation and credibility to the icon that we already recognise him as."

In SF, all I remember was M mentioning that Bond is an orphan which is what we already know and seeing his family house.

Bounine wrote:

"Personally I don't think Skyfall's brief glimpses into Bond's past made him either a failure, misfit or just another action hero. I would argue that what was shown in Skyfall of his personal tragedy only strengthened his character adding both motivation and credibility to the icon that we already recognise him as."

In SF, all I remember was M mentioning that Bond is an orphan which is what we already know and seeing his family house.

I was thinking in particular of the scene in SF when M is shown the priest hole by Kincade and he mentions the young Bond spending two days grieving in it before coming out a man.

Oh yes, that's right.

Interestingly, Kincade isn't Fleming's invention unless my memory completely fails me.

A little bit of info attributed to Logan as to what happened on the mountain and what had been going through Bond's parent's minds just briefly wouldn't be disrespectful to Fleming's words I don't think.

No Kincade is purely a Skyfall creation, but I think it's fair to say the implication that Bond's parents death helped create the man he became is entirely in accordance with Fleming's principles (and with Fleming's own experience of losing his father while young). Elaborating on what exactly happened to Bonds parents and what was going through their minds at the time would have to of been treated very, very carefully.

Bounine wrote:

I don't think just a few more sentences regarding his history would detract from the character but this is a debate I've had with others in the past who will always remain on the side of Bond remaining a complete mystery and more one dimensional.

Except I never said complete mystery, but that enough was revealed to maintain interest. And I also said that revealing everything about any character results in the character becoming one-dimensional. I don't know about you, but I don't know everything about everyone I ever meet, and that's what makes them interesting. Even my partner of 14 years, I don't know his every thought or every action of his life in the 20 odd years before I met him. That doesn't make people one or even two dimensional; it makes them more real.

I hate - absolutely hate - films that have to tell you everything. It's boring. It's results in a cardboard cut-out character that ticks boxes and basically covers whatever stereotype fits the plot at the time. Dull, boring, predictable and unimaginative.

Couldn't disagree more with Bounine, here. Silliness, playfulness, charm and a light touch are one of the many things I love about Bond, and SKYFALL has those in spades. The Komodo Dragon scene being a prime example. Not all of the one liners worked, granted, but even the worst are no more cheesy than "salt corrosion", "he got the.... boot" or "he gad lots of guts!" It's that pulpiness that's been missing in the previous Craig films, and before only showed up DIE ANOTHER DAY, though there in extreme.

As for the cut scenes go, that's the curse of hindsight and following a film's production too closely. Mendes has admitted he's pretty brutal in his edits, so I can't blame the guy for choosing Bond fucking Severine over unnecessary shots of him running in Regents Park, M with the cortege, or her line about "precise intelligence."

Bounine wrote:

Oh yes, that's right.

Interestingly, Kincade isn't Fleming's invention unless my memory completely fails me.

Bond had a maiden aunt in Fleming, a character who John Pearson utilized to good effect in his Bio of 007, which would have been an infinitely better source to draw upon if they were seriously trying to invoke Fleming, instead of just saying they were.

There's a huge difference between Bond, presumed dead, losing his mind/memory and not coming back to work as a result (as in the books), and Bond, presumed dead, just living the life instead of coming back to work, which doesn't sound right at all, not even when he is in his most burned-out state.

Quote :

Bond, presumed dead, just living the life instead of coming back to work, which doesn't sound right at all, not even when he is in his most burned-out state.

Except in SKYFALL, Bond isn't exactly "living the life."

If he ain't coming back to work, he ain't Bond. (Even Dalton's Bond came back after a week or ten days.) I guess he is just 'becoming' again.

trevanian wrote:

Even Dalton's Bond came back after a week or ten days.

Technically not true.

Did it feel like longer? I got the impression it was maybe a week between the Hemingway House scene and the end when it sounds like all is forgiven.

I mean it ends with Bond hanging out at Lupe's party and calling Felix about doing some fishing the next week when he visits him. Leiter does remind Bond that M called for him but Bond doesn't really respond to that and instead tells Leiter he has to go when Lupe approaches him.