Skyfall: an unsurprising disappointment

meesterbornd wrote:

I have to say I was left wanting with Skyfall too. It felt like it tried to be all things to all people and achieved mediocrity in all areas. As a film it count decide whether to take itself seriously or not. One minute its trying to be gritty and real like Casino Royale, the next its trying to be all nodd and wink like Roger Moore's laziest films.
Why hire Dench, Bardem, Finnes and Finney just to deliver such weak lines?? Even Craig looked like he was going through the motions at times.
After the brilliance of Casino RoyaIe Qos felt like a let down but at least it knew what it was doing.

All fur coat and no knickers!

Sorry meesterbornd......you are way off the mark.

meesterbornd wrote:

After the brilliance of Casino RoyaIe Qos

You had me until that.

I found the way in which Silva hacks into every computer system, even that of MI6, to be hardly credible. He plans his arrest and escape and everything else meticulously and is "always one step ahead" of MI6 (how original). The whole Silva scheming and escaping and dressing as a police man part is taken straight from THE DARK KNIGHT (with some changes and additions, of course), and I'm a bit emberrassed to say that it is this part that I enjoyed the most (it being highly unbelievable is casting light on the fact that they aren't handling the "serious drama" stuff too well).
Also, the metro train derailing was unnecessary and too much of an overblown action scene, same with the destroying of the VW Beetles in the (pretty unimpressive) PTS. I also couldn't buy that Bond, who has been a bloody rookie in the first two Craig films, is now presented as some sort of old wreck that was better to quit service for Her Majesty. If they had reduced that to body issues from the shoot and his involuntary dive, with reduced faith in his job and his own physical abilities, it would have been better. Adding to the OTT action scenes, the shooting and mega explosions at the Skyfall manor are too much of a good thing, too. Having Silva arrive in a helicopter in Kilgore style was way too silly, too. I also didn't like the new Q, who comes across as one of the young nerds from TV trash like CRIMINAL MINDS.
On the positive side, they were really trying to keep it low-key, with the exception of the PTS perhaps and the other two action scenes I've mentioned. They tried to focus on three characters, Bond, M, and Silva, and took plenty of time to introduce and portray them. I found the film rather unengaging until the point of time when Silva arrives. Bardem manages to play that larger-than-life character without silly OTT-ness, and we still sense enough of the pain he is feeling. One of the weaker aspects is that you clearly notice he is partially modelled on the Ledger Joker, with a dash of Hannibal Lecter.
Another thing I liked was M finally being put to a governmental investigation board, having to justify herself for her many shortcomings during her reign as head of MI6. Unsatisfyingly, her position seems to turn to the better, and the case is brutally interrupted by Silva who somehow manages to save her head, even if he has intended to chop said one off. If this was intended by the filmmakers, it may be pretty good irony. As someone has said before, M is portrayed as a highly unsympathetic old c*nt, no-one would want her to be one's boss. The best thing about the film for me, consequently, is the fact that she finally bites the dust and that we have got our male M back!!! :D
I still can't see much of a resemblance between Craig's Bond and the Bond from the books or the first two films. I simply don't see an English gentleman in him. He is less of a Bourne in SKYFALL, but still a far cry from Fleming's Bond. I wish they would hire more intelligent and more creative writers, along with a new actor for Bond. Tall, dark-haired, handsome, with good manners, but also with an edge, no hulky-bulky Red Grant type. Craig may be a nice person and a decent actor, but Bond is different from the way he portrays him.
What they managed to avoid in SKYFALL is soap opera character writing and acting (I'm thinking of Vesper and anything TWINE). I dare to give credit to Logan and Mendes, in particular. Without their involvement, I suppose, nothing would have changed in that department. Their attempt to make this film as low-key as they probably dare to make it, endeavouring to render the drama believable and grown-up, is really admirable, and I do not want to criticize the film too much - but I am largely unimpressed by the storyline and dialogue, let alone the attempts at humour within the film.
All things considered, it is a slightly above average Bond film, I'd put it in the same realm as FOR YOUR EYES ONLY and LICENCE TO KILL, though I may prefer the former, not sure about the latter. I am also already pretty sure that on further viewings, I'll like elements of the film less than now, and the film as a whole. It's a pleasant surprise to see how much EON dared to leave the old tested territory, but SKYFALL is still a far cry from being a fully convincing Bond film with an engaging storyline, memorable characters (except Silva, perhaps), a genuine feel of travelogue (mostly absent from SKYFALL, apart from two or three shots of Shanghai/Macau, London, and Scotland), low-key, realistic action scenes, a sense of adventure, more interesting plot points than computer stuff, a melodic, varied, rich, memorable score (I miss Johnny B dearly!) and, above all, the return of the English gentleman spy!
New writers, a low-key, imaginative thriller script, a modern Terence, and a new Bond actor as described above will be the way to go. The worst thing they could do now would be to go back to formula. I hope they will get rid of it for good (and considering the immense success of the Craig films, this my wish isn't impossible to fulfill). I hope the bloody DB5 is destroyed irreversibly, as is Dench-M. Logan, Mendes, and NewBondActor might be able to produce a fine Bond film. SKYFALL stepped into the right direction more than the other post THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS films, I'm just not particularly impressed with a lot of it.

(PS: The elevator, neon-lights stalking/fighting bit is pretty fine. I think I should add that).

Largo's Shark wrote:

meesterbornd wrote:

After the brilliance of Casino RoyaIe Qos

You had me until that.

I feel I should just clarify that should read; 'After the briliance of Casino Royale, Qos felt like a let down' (forgot the all important comma)

I cant bare the thought of anyone thinking I think QoS was brilliant! Far from it!

Quote :

Logan, Mendes, and NewBondActor might be able to produce a fine Bond film.

Craig's signed on for two more films.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Quote :

Logan, Mendes, and NewBondActor might be able to produce a fine Bond film.

Craig's signed on for two more films.

And Logan is writing them solo. Now we just have to go through the suspense of waiting for the next director being hired.

meesterbornd wrote:

All fur coat and no knickers!

Whereas QOS was all trench coat and no knickers?

Manhunter wrote:

I found the way in which Silva hacks into every computer system, even that of MI6, to be hardly credible.

Indeed. They way Q allows the entire system to be contaminated would get him fired as the system admin at your local garage.

Any real analysis of Silva's hardware would obviously happen on a system that is completely separate from the one that controls the Mi6 base's environment.

Salomé wrote:

Manhunter wrote:

I found the way in which Silva hacks into every computer system, even that of MI6, to be hardly credible.

Indeed. They way Q allows the entire system to be contaminated would get him fired as the system admin at your local garage.

Any real analysis of Silva's hardware would obviously happen on a system that is completely separate from the one that controls the Mi6 base's environment.

Yeah, very true, but let's be honest, there'd be no movie if that happened. :)

Sir Dalton Craig wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Manhunter wrote:

I found the way in which Silva hacks into every computer system, even that of MI6, to be hardly credible.

Indeed. They way Q allows the entire system to be contaminated would get him fired as the system admin at your local garage.

Any real analysis of Silva's hardware would obviously happen on a system that is completely separate from the one that controls the Mi6 base's environment.

Yeah, very true, but let's be honest, there'd be no movie if that happened. :)

Some suspension of disbelief is always required, that much is true. The above example didn't bother me too much. The subway car explosion one did.

Nice review Oppers, I wrote a longer reply but my computer ate it. I don't disagree with much that you've said at all.

A couple more points:

1) You touched on it, but how on Earth would Silva obtain goons, weapons and a freaking miltary class helicopter in Britain when every police force and security agency in the country would be after him, would have his face plastered on every wall and he presumably would be all over every 24/hour newsservice with calls for identificiation?

2) The utter, utter, utter implausibility of Silva getting ANYWHERE near that Parliamentary inquiry without a bullet in his skull, let alone away from it, presumably just because he was disguised in a police uniform. In a Banana Republic? Sure. In an emerging power? Maybe. In 21st Century, CCTV-addled London? Not a flipping chance.

3) The internal inconsistency of Bond, who called in the reinforcements for an impromptu meeting on the other side of the world, not doing the same when laying a trap for Silva within the UK, where he was a wanted man fresh off a massive terrorist attack, where he would no doubt have had unlimited resources and cooperation. Makes perfect sense.

4) Likewise, the ridiculous notion that Mallory, Tanner and Q would sit there and do nothing while they monitored Silva's following of the 'breadcrumbs' and not organise reinforcements, detainment, etc.

Bardem is a fine actor but he is completely wasted here. A villain whose apparent cunningness and danger is entirely reliant on every character in the film acting like they've had a frontal lobotomy is not effective. It's just plain and simple bad writing.

And the 'suspension of disbelief' argument is a bit of furfy. The film goes out of its way to try and ground the film in the real world, if the producers wish to do so they should perhaps try making sure the action of the characters and the setting - gee - resembles the real world.

Silva is a comic book villain.

Vesper wrote:

Nice review Oppers, I wrote a longer reply but my computer ate it. I don't disagree with much that you've said at all.

A couple more points:

1) You touched on it, but how on Earth would Silva obtain goons, weapons and a freaking miltary class helicopter in Britain when every police force and security agency in the country would be after him, would have his face plastered on every wall and he presumably would be all over every 24/hour newsservice with calls for identificiation?

We are led to believe Silva is always one step ahead of the game throughout the film, and M's disappearance up to Scotland was to be off the radar, to prevent any further attacks.

Vesper wrote:

2) The utter, utter, utter implausibility of Silva getting ANYWHERE near that Parliamentary inquiry without a bullet in his skull, let alone away from it, presumably just because he was disguised in a police uniform. In a Banana Republic? Sure. In an emerging power? Maybe. In 21st Century, CCTV-addled London? Not a flipping chance.

Why not? I would have thought men dressed in police uniform can get access to places like that. Hell, a pie flinger can get into the inquiry court room of Murdoch being questioned live on TV, one of the most powerful men in the world, and the pie flinger was not even dressed as a copper, he was just a regular guy. Knowing the incompetence of our government and police force, anything in this country is possible, so I didn't find this far-fetched at all.

Vesper wrote:

3) The internal inconsistency of Bond, who called in the reinforcements for an impromptu meeting on the other side of the world, not doing the same when laying a trap for Silva within the UK, where he was a wanted man fresh off a massive terrorist attack, where he would no doubt have had unlimited resources and cooperation. Makes perfect sense.

You have a point with this one, but it wasn't the immediate first thing that struck me when watching the movie. Every Bond film has the occassional plot hole, and Skyfall is no exception.

Vesper wrote:

4) Likewise, the ridiculous notion that Mallory, Tanner and Q would sit there and do nothing while they monitored Silva's following of the 'breadcrumbs' and not organise reinforcements, detainment, etc.

Incompetencies of our government again. You are giving them way too much credit. If a paedophile can abuse hundreds of kids across the UK, get access to his own keys at prisons and hospitals, his crimes get reported and nothing happens, but instead Savile gains worldwide celebrity status, and all under the watch of our own BBC, for decades, then anything in this country is possible. Tanner and Q would probably find their own jobs at stake, which would be far more important protecting. Worse still, they may have even been arrested, so yes, I can see governement chief's doing this. I work at the BBC and know what these senior management staff can be like. Nothing too unrealistic here.

Vesper wrote:

Bardem is a fine actor but he is completely wasted here. A villain whose apparent cunningness and danger is entirely reliant on every character in the film acting like they've had a frontal lobotomy is not effective. It's just plain and simple bad writing.

Again you are giving too much credit to the government. If 4 home-grown, unemployed, uneducated terrorists can board tubes and buses and blow them up, bringing London to a complete standstill, then anything is possible. Look at how our security was handled just 1 week before the Olympics opened. Utter shambles!!!

Vesper wrote:

And the 'suspension of disbelief' argument is a bit of furfy. The film goes out of its way to try and ground the film in the real world, if the producers wish to do so they should perhaps try making sure the action of the characters and the setting - gee - resembles the real world.

For the most part I think it definitely does. No volcano lairs, invisible cars or double-taking pigeons here. I find Skyfall the most down-to-earth Bond film since FRWL.

Vesper wrote:

Silva is a comic book villain.

Yes, and he was one of the best things in Skyfall. I thought he was superb.

Quote :

Why not? I would have thought men dressed in police uniform can get access to places like that. Hell, a pie flinger can get into the inquiry court room of Murdoch being questioned live on TV, one of the most powerful men in the world, and the pie flinger was not even dressed as a copper, he was just a regular guy. Knowing the incompetence of our government and police force, anything in this country is possible, so I didn't find this far-fetched at all.

Big, big difference between a home-grown terrorist walking into the tube with a bomb in his backpack than a major known international criminal who has escaped from custody within hours walking into Westminster, shooting the place up and then walking right out again, travelling through London and through the entire country to Scotland and somehow ascertaining a military grade helicopter in the process, though, surely?

Had Osama bin Laden been detained within a month of 9/11, and then somehow escaped the Pentagon, garbed himself in a police uniform and started wandering the streets of Virginia for hours on end shooting people, do you really think it would've taken days, maybe a week to catch up with him?

Quote :

We are led to believe Silva is always one step ahead of the game throughout the film, and M's disappearance up to Scotland was to be off the radar, to prevent any further attacks..

We're told this. We're not shown it. And it still doesn't explain how AFTER his SECOND terrorist attack in the UK he managed to get through the UK without being noticed or detained, especially while ascertaining the kind of equipment that would definitely raise red flags.

It's kind of like the South Park episode where they play ninjas, and where once the rule is made that they can only have one power each, Cartman says he has the power of having many powers. It's a cheap storytelling trick to say he's ahead of the game without really showing it. And given he's supposed to be behind the game when he gets to Scotland, and his plan was to kill M in the hearing room, how could he have had all this lined up in advance? Why would he have all this lined up in advance?

Quote :

Incompetencies of our government again. You are giving them way too much credit. If a paedophile can abuse hundreds of kids across the UK, get access to his own keys at prisons and hospitals, his crimes get reported and nothing happens, but instead Savile gains worldwide celebrity status, and all under the watch of our own BBC, for decades, then anything in this country is possible. Tanner and Q would probably find their own jobs at stake, which would be far more important protecting. Worse still, they may have even been arrested, so yes, I can see governement chief's doing this. I work at the BBC and know what these senior management staff can be like. Nothing too unrealistic here.

Bit of a difference again, between ignoring the Savile scenario and a life-and-death-and-possibly-worse scenario. And between the motives that people go into the military/civil service and the BBC for. But okay, for arguments sake, if Mallory, Tanner or Q were to be responsible for stopping Silva - launcher of two major terrorist attacks within a few weeks time span - it would make their careers, not break them, so it's a bit tough to say that they'd sit on their hands out of self-interest? It also neglects the context that this is a film, they are the good guys, and hardly likely to be intentionally played as incompetent careerists in a bloated bureacracy. We've even seen Mallory at this point take a bullet for M, so why would he sit on his arse and be complacent with her life on the line?

In terms of these characters' interest in serving the greater good/Queen and Country, it makes sense for them to do more than sit by. In terms of their own careers and self-interests it makes sense for them to do more than sit by. In terms of what we've been shown about their relationship to M it makes sense for them to do more than sit by. What's the reasonable justification evidenced within the film for these characters to sit by and do nothing?

Vesper wrote:

Quote :

Why not? I would have thought men dressed in police uniform can get access to places like that. Hell, a pie flinger can get into the inquiry court room of Murdoch being questioned live on TV, one of the most powerful men in the world, and the pie flinger was not even dressed as a copper, he was just a regular guy. Knowing the incompetence of our government and police force, anything in this country is possible, so I didn't find this far-fetched at all.

Big, big difference between a home-grown terrorist walking into the tube with a bomb in his backpack than a major known international criminal who has escaped from custody within hours walking into Westminster, shooting the place up and then walking right out again, travelling through London and through the entire country to Scotland and somehow ascertaining a military grade helicopter in the process, though, surely?

Had Osama bin Laden been detained within a month of 9/11, and then somehow escaped the Pentagon, garbed himself in a police uniform and started wandering the streets of Virginia for hours on end shooting people, do you really think it would've taken days, maybe a week to catch up with him?

Quote :

We are led to believe Silva is always one step ahead of the game throughout the film, and M's disappearance up to Scotland was to be off the radar, to prevent any further attacks..

We're told this. We're not shown it. And it still doesn't explain how AFTER his SECOND terrorist attack in the UK he managed to get through the UK without being noticed or detained, especially while ascertaining the kind of equipment that would definitely raise red flags.

It's kind of like the South Park episode where they play ninjas, and where once the rule is made that they can only have one power each, Cartman says he has the power of having many powers. It's a cheap storytelling trick to say he's ahead of the game without really showing it. And given he's supposed to be behind the game when he gets to Scotland, and his plan was to kill M in the hearing room, how could he have had all this lined up in advance? Why would he have all this lined up in advance?

Quote :

Incompetencies of our government again. You are giving them way too much credit. If a paedophile can abuse hundreds of kids across the UK, get access to his own keys at prisons and hospitals, his crimes get reported and nothing happens, but instead Savile gains worldwide celebrity status, and all under the watch of our own BBC, for decades, then anything in this country is possible. Tanner and Q would probably find their own jobs at stake, which would be far more important protecting. Worse still, they may have even been arrested, so yes, I can see governement chief's doing this. I work at the BBC and know what these senior management staff can be like. Nothing too unrealistic here.

Bit of a difference again, between ignoring the Savile scenario and a life-and-death-and-possibly-worse scenario. And between the motives that people go into the military/civil service and the BBC for. But okay, for arguments sake, if Mallory, Tanner or Q were to be responsible for stopping Silva - launcher of two major terrorist attacks within a few weeks time span - it would make their careers, not break them, so it's a bit tough to say that they'd sit on their hands out of self-interest? It also neglects the context that this is a film, they are the good guys, and hardly likely to be intentionally played as incompetent careerists in a bloated bureacracy. We've even seen Mallory at this point take a bullet for M, so why would he sit on his arse and be complacent with her life on the line?

In terms of these characters' interest in serving the greater good/Queen and Country, it makes sense for them to do more than sit by. In terms of their own careers and self-interests it makes sense for them to do more than sit by. In terms of what we've been shown about their relationship to M it makes sense for them to do more than sit by. What's the reasonable justification evidenced within the film for these characters to sit by and do nothing?

I think you have read way, way too much into this whole movie. I enjoyed it for what it was - a couple of hours of solid entertainment, with many Flemingesque touches, no silly humour or OTT action, a fairly down-to-earth approach throughout, and a cool Bond in the role.

All these plot holes you mentioned need quite a lot of thought, something which I wasn't really doing at the time in the cinema, neither was any of my friends who saw it either. Also, with 95% positive ratings currently on Rotten Tomatoes, it looks like all the reviewers on there didn't notice these plot holes either.

It's also close to breaking all-time UK records at the BO. Which makes us all a totally braindead audience, or that you are reading way too much into a Bond movie. Take it for what it is.

I don't think Skyfall tries hard enough to be so realistic that it warrants nitpicking at plot holes.

Jack Wade wrote:

I don't think Skyfall tries hard enough to be so realistic that it warrants nitpicking at plot holes.

Agreed. This is not a harrowing, real-life documentary that we are talking about, its a Bond movie.

Many of Fleming's novels were littered with plot holes but it never once took any enjoyment away when I read them. I took them for what they are.

Well, I haven't overthought it at all. Braindead audience it is.

Vesper wrote:

Well, I haven't overthought it at all. Braindead audience it is.

My, you are so clever. I'm very impressed. And my wife is a doctor too, yet she never noticed these huge glaring plot holes, neither did the many credible movie reviewers around the world.

I suggest you forget being a Bond fan and become a professor, a rocket scientist - you name it. The world is your oyster.

Quote :

The world is your oyster.

I'm glad we're finally on the same page. However, I think it's rather foolish to make it so simple that I can only be a Bond fan or a rocket scientist, when I can obviously be both.

Kind of as foolish as making it so simple that the movie cannot be entertaining (to many) and poorly written. Or that an expression that the film may be flawed is a statement of intellectual superiority over those who enjoyed it. Or than any genuine criticism of the film's writing is the result of 'overthinking'.

But never mind. I shall return to my ho-hum life of no fun, no sex, and a steady diet of bran, cranberry juice and regular overthinking.

Vesper wrote:

But never mind. I shall return to my ho-hum life of no fun, no sex, and just a steady diet of bran, cranberry juice and regular overthinking.

Why not indeed. It's obviously working for you. ;)

jet set willy wrote:

Vesper wrote:

But never mind. I shall return to my ho-hum life of no fun, no sex, and just a steady diet of bran, cranberry juice and regular overthinking.

Why not indeed. It's obviously working for you. ;)

Quite, I find it's particularly good at numbing the crippling pain I endure from my regret over not becoming a film critic. The lost opportunity to have some impact on the world is quite devastating.

The only thing you should be arguing over is Severine's tits.

Erica Ambler wrote:

The only thing you should be arguing over is Severine's tits.

We know you'd love to play target practice with her nipple pasties.

Erica Ambler wrote:

The only thing you should be arguing over is Severine's tits.

What are tits?

Vesper wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

The only thing you should be arguing over is Severine's tits.

What are tits?

Hint...007 gets his felt up by Silva....