Skyfall - what I liked and what I didn't (spoilers)

Okay, by and large I found SKYFALL a real letdown, especially after all the rave reviews. No way is this the best Bond film ever - not even close. It's not even one of the best outings since Moore stood aside.

It isn't a total dead loss, though. I did enjoy quite a bit of it. Indeed, there's (rough guess, this) twenty or thirty minutes of near-greatness here. The rest of it? Not so great.

Anyway, here are some fairly random thoughts:

The PTS is okay - just okay. I really liked the first shot and Bond's entrance, but the much-vaunted chase sequence is no great shakes. It isn't bad (and the fact that you can easily make out what's going on is a real plus), but neither is this one of the all-time great Bond movie pursuits. It's competently done but never especially exciting, and certainly brings nothing new to the table. Not only does it not hold a candle to the best of the series' action sequences, but it doesn't even begin to compare to, say, the Moscow car chase in THE BOURNE SUPREMACY. It's gets things off to a pretty decent start, but this sure ain't one of those iconic PTSes. And, sadly, it's pretty much the film's most elaborate action setpiece.

After this PTS (and what is for my money the least aesthetically pleasing opening credits sequence in the series' history), the film chugs along for a while in watchable but strangely unexciting fashion. Bond's AWOL beach bum period recalls the Goa segment of THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, and it also seems that we've seen 007 go rogue/go AWOL so often in recent years that this part of SKYFALL lacks much impact or interest value. It would be more suprising these days if we saw Bond actually turning up for work. This part of the film just seems like: Ho-hum, Bond's gone off in a huff yet again.

By this point in SKYFALL I was starting to wonder why people are acclaiming it as the most beautifully shot Bond film ever. Again, not even close. It's not even one of the most beautifully shot Bonds of recent years (that would be CASINO ROYALE).

Don't get me wrong: Deakins' cinematography is hardly dreadful, and, yes, there are some nice compositions here and there (the Shanghai silhouette fight with the neon jellyfish or whatever it is is SKYFALL's visual highlight in my book), but I didn't find this film to be the banquet of cordon bleu cinematography I'd been expecting. Also, I don't care for the digital look.

I did quite enjoy the score. Apart from anything else, it's refreshing to have an Arnold-free Bond film for the first time in fifteen years. The production design was a mxied bag for me - some of it I liked (M's new flat, Shanghai), but some of it I didn't (Macau is rich in extraordinary architecture that might have been highlighted, from old churches to new casinos, but instead we just get Fu Manchu kitsch, which also seems awkward alonsgide the film's realistic portrayal of London - essentially, the same film gives us TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY-type settings, yet it also gives us INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM-type ones).

So, like I say, the film chugs along for quite a bit. Bond returns to London and has his by now traditional row with M. It's at this point that things start to get a bit bogged down in an ill-conceived and unconvincing ROCKY BALBOA-ish subplot in which our hero has to prove that he isn't a clapped-out old dinosaur (and, yes, there's even a shot of Bond manfully cranking out some difficult chinups as his sceptical colleagues look on).

Oddly, the folks at MI6 seem to believe that Bond has "lost a step" because he's becoming old and past it. Now, why aren't they blaming his condition on, um, the fact that he was recently shot and fell a great height off a bridge? Presumably no one thought he was a relic a few weeks ago when they sent him off to the mission in Turkey, so why are they all of a sudden acting as though his age is the whole problem?

Not only does this angle seem pretty contrived and redundant, but it simply doesn't work when the guy playing Bond is the 44-year-old Daniel Craig, who still has a body that most guys would kill for (predictably, there are some moments in the film designed purely to show off his physique, such as the swimming pool scene - funnily enough, he seems to have acquired a bit of chest hair). It might well work if Brosnan were still Bond. But for heaven's sake, remember Connery in NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN (not an Eon effort, I know) or Moore in A VIEW TO A KILL. We've seen Bond much older and more raddled than this. As Hannibal Lecter would say, it won't do.

Off we go to Shanghai, and the film doesn't show us any more of the city than MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III did (how I long for the days when locations in Bond films seemed more than mere backdrops for action scenes). The skyscraper fight is pretty cool (and I love Bond jumping onto the elevator).

But it's only with the introduction of Silva that SKYFALL perks up dramatically. Bardem is probably the best thing about the film (Craig is excellent, as always, and Whishaw's Q is also terrific), although I don't think I made out more than a couple of words of his opening monologue (which may have been down to the acoustics at the cinema). And, why, given Silva's past history with Beijing, why does he choose to operate out of.... Chinese territory? No matter: the abandoned city idea (that he conned people into abandoning!) is one of the most enjoyably ludicrous touches that the series has given us in a long while. It also recalls the good old-fashioned Flemingian element of the bizarre so often lacking in recent 007 adventures. This idea seems a trifle underdeveloped (a chase scene through this dusty, deserted metropolis might have been cool), but, still, it's a nice touch.

I adored his interrogation of Bond - incidentally, Craig's "What makes you think this is my first time?" quip got the biggest mass laugh of the evening at the cinema I saw SKYFALL in. The audience was fairly subdued throughout, although when swapping SKYFALL viewing experiences with people over the last couple of days I've heard of one audience laughing and cheering virtually nonstop. It was also probably my favourite moment in the film.

Anyway, Bardem gives a hugely enjoyable, larger-than-life, iconic Bond baddie of the kind that the series hasn't seen since---- well, I'm struggling to think of the last one. This fella is pretty much up there with the likes of Dr. No and Pleasence's Blofeld, and is alone worth the price of admission.

Sadly, though, Silva is wasted in SKYFALL's final act.

For me, SKYFALL's stretch of near-greatness runs from the introduction of Silva through to the climax of the havoc he wreaks in London. And I loved the grilling of M at the select committee, and M quoting Tennyson as Bond tears through the streets. This section is fine, rousing stuff, albeit more than a little indebted to Nolan and THE DARK KNIGHT.

But the final act in Scotland left me cold. Freezing cold. As cold as one imagines the interior of the Skyfall Lodge to be on a particularly miserable autumn night. I did not want the climax of Bond's fiftieth anniversary outing to feature our hero stuck in the back of beyond being told the facts of life by Albert Finney and giving Judi Dench an impromptu lesson in close-quarters combat. This stretch of SKYFALL plays like a latterday HALLOWEEN sequel meeting an episode of LAST OF THE SUMMER WINE. It just blows. At the end of it I was sat there with my head in my hands, stunned by this desecration of all that I held dear in the world of 007.

It's by far the least Bondian episode in any Bond film, well, ever. And, sure, many doubtless like it for that very reason. Mendes and co. certainly cannot be accused of giving us a common-or-garden Bond movie climax. Variety can sometimes be a good thing, especially in a (let's face it) fairly cookie-cutter franchise like Bond. But here it just doesn't work. It's not particularly entertaining, there are no especially memorable action moments, and there's just too much doom and gloom here. The final showdown between Bond and Silva is deeply disappointing.

What's more, M's demise packs no emotional wallop whatsoever, largely because the character - at least as portrayed in this film - is almost entirely unsympathetic. She's cold, calculating, appears to have almost zero regard for her agents' welfare (and indeed is quite prepared to sacrifice them at the drop of a hat), refuses to accept responsibility for her blunders, barks at underlings (her "Don't you recognise the car?" line to the policeman now carries unintentional but very topical echoes of the Andrew Mitchell furore) and seems concerned above all else with covering her own back. Yes, yes, I know that M is essentially a goodie and that she always has her eye on the greater good and so on and so forth, but, still, there's little about the character that's endearing in this flick.

Incidentally, I wonder why the filmmakers didn't have Silva threaten the lives of thousands of Londoners in order to make the British government hand M over to him as a sacrificial lamb? "Give me M or London gets it." Which would then give Bond and co. a moral dilemma and would also have the result of making M feel just as expendable as she made Silva feel. So Silva would not just get to kill M - he'd also get to give her a taste of her own medicine. "You gave me up to the Chinese. Now your own people will give you up to me." Maybe the British government would give Bond a top secret order to deliver M to Silva in order to avert this threatened catastrophe (along the lines of the observation in THUNDERBALL that if the bombs are not found then the ransom will have to be paid). And then Bond would, of course, play along with this but secretly scheme to protect M and take Silva down.

Such a plot development would, I reckon, have raised the stakes dramatically. Then again, Silva's plan seems unconvincing. I don't buy that he'd sacrifice his brother agents (the YouTube slayings) - after all, his quarrel is only with M.

But do we demand realism from Bond? Of course not. But I suppose one reason that I harp on about these plot holes is that, frankly, I expected much, much better of Mendes. Not that Mendes ever promised us the moon, of course - I suppose he basically set out to make a rollicking good piece of franchise fodder that was never intended to withstand a high degree of scrutiny, and to an extent he has succeeded in this aim. But, still, I expected better, given the participation of not just Mendes but the other talented names involved in this flick. I expected, in short, a film at least as good as CASINO ROYALE, and this ain't it,

Fortunately, SKYFALL does end on something of a high, namely the scene between Bond and Mallory (and Fiennes, by the way, is excellent). On the other hand, this final scene highlights one of the problems with SKYFALL: it ultimately feels like little more than an extended setup for a new regime at MI6 (Naomie Harris makes an unsatisfying Eve but I think she'll be an ace Moneypenny). SKYFALL has an end-of-an-era quality to it (and it obviously also caps the first fifty years of the cinematic 007), and the feel of a "bridging" film. Indeed, one person I was conversing with about SKYFALL commented that it also felt like a final outing for Craig's Bond and asked whether Craig was stepping down from the role.

It may be that in time I'll look more favourably upon SKYFALL (I certainly hope so - after all, I'm a Bond fan and want to really like it). I've changed my mind before on Bond films - my initial reaction isn't always definitive and lasting. I'll probably see it once more during its theatrical run, but probably no more than that. By contrast, I saw the last four films about four times each on the big screen.

Quote :

It's not even one of the most beautifully shot Bonds of recent years (that would be CASINO ROYALE).

I find Phil Meheux's work on CASINO ROYALE (minus a couple of shots) to be ugly and cold. Over-saturated (but not in the Ted Moore sense) and with that nasty orange and teal blur to it. GOLDENYE is a much more visually appealing film, before the days of digital intermediates.

BTW, did you see it at in IMAX? If not, then I seriously recommend it.

Quote :

essentially, the same film gives us TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY-type settings, yet it also gives us INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM-type ones).

That's part of why I like it. The dichotomy between naturalism and camp, new and old, the inner and outer Bond, Bond's home turf and the rest of the world. Much of that tension (especially between Bond's mundane life in England and his adventures abroad) lies in Fleming.

Largo's Shark wrote:

BTW, did you see it at in IMAX? If not, then I seriously recommend it.

Sadly, no. I'd like to see it at the Waterloo IMAX but it seemed pretty much booked solid.

Incidentally, it was hard enough getting into a common-or-garden showing. I can't remember not just any Bond film but any film ever creating this much excitement among people.

And I realise I'm in a minority on SKYFALL. Most people, it seems, love it (although I do know a few others who were underwhelmed). Maybe it's me.

The CR cinematography at times really seemed to suffer from somebody turning a knob to digitally up the contrast or the color after the fact. The stuff I found most objectionable in it all had a 'digital' feel to it that was rather pronounced -- I'm thinking of the 'poisoned and in the bathroom' stuff and some of the late-in-film too-beautiful lakefront exteriors. I greatly prefer QoS, even if I have to freezeframe it to actually be able to see and appreciate Schaefer's work.

Most of the SKYFALL stuff I've seen in ads and trailers, while retaining the digital look I associate most strongly with DRIVE (which I think was the first feature shot on Alexa), has a softness that seems a bit more filmlike.

I'm by no means an advocate for digital; if anything the opposite. But this is probably about as good as you're going to get with a digital look, because the post-Alexa series of cameras will make EVERYTHING look like an HD soap opera; they have (according to Deakins) too much resolution, which sounds odd, but given the extremes you get when you see a football game with a 600 hz TV and flomotion ... you see what he means.

LOOMIS' comment about not getting as much out of the locations as he'd expect is probably due to the fact that the main unit only went to Scotland and Istanbul; all the other countries were done as second unit shoots, so you're seeing elaborate studio constructs in the UK a lot of the time, sort of like a seriously gussied-up SAINT episode in one sense.

Loomis wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

BTW, did you see it at in IMAX? If not, then I seriously recommend it.

Sadly, no. I'd like to see it at the Waterloo IMAX but it seemed pretty much booked solid.

I only managed to get a showing at 1:15 am. That said, it was first perfect seating (furthest row from the screen, bang in the middle), and the experience was incredible. It was the first film I've seen in IMAX, and I was blown away. I do recommend booking a midnight or early morning showing at Waterloo ASAP, even if means watching it in late November or December.

I really think Deakins's cinematography here was meant for this size and aspect ratio (1.9:1 ), whereas in regular cinemas it's cropped to 2.35. It was only when some of the lower res ads before the film took up only a quarter of the screen, that I realised how much would be lost in non-IMAX screens. The earth shattering sound system helps too. You feel very much in the moment, and part of a collective experience.

trevanian wrote:

Most of the SKYFALL stuff I've seen in ads and trailers, while retaining the digital look I associate most strongly with DRIVE (which I think was the first feature shot on Alexa), has a softness that seems a bit more filmlike.

That's exactly what I thought. It looked more film-like to me than most films shot on film I've seen in the last decade.

Loomis wrote:

Incidentally, I wonder why the filmmakers didn't have Silva threaten the lives of thousands of Londoners in order to make the British government hand M over to him as a sacrificial lamb? "Give me M or London gets it."

That'd probably be a DARK KNIGHT ripoff too far.

Loomis wrote:

I expected, in short, a film at least as good as CASINO ROYALE, and this ain't it,

I'll never understand your love for that film, but I have to give you credit for sticking to your guns for 6 years. Since SKYFALL is the anti-CASINO ROYALE in many respects, I never expected you to be won over by it.

Largo's Shark wrote:

I'll never understand your love for that film

Well, I do have majority opinion on my side when it comes to my love for CASINO ROYALE. Then again, it would seem that you also have majority opinion on your side when it comes to your love for SKYFALL.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Since SKYFALL is the anti-CASINO ROYALE in many respects, I never expected you to be won over by it.

Okay, although I'll point out that I love all manner of Bond films. There are really only three that don't quite work for me, namely THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, QUANTUM OF SOLACE and SKYFALL. Even so, though, all three do have their good moments. There is no Bond film that I consider unwatchable.

Loomis wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

I'll never understand your love for that film

Well, I do have majority opinion on my side when it comes to my love for CASINO ROYALE. Then again, it would seem that you also have majority opinion on your side when it comes to your love for SKYFALL.

What I meant is that much of CASINO ROYALE's saintly status among fans has waned over the years. It used to be the trendy thing to have it as your favourite Bond film. Not any more.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Loomis wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

I'll never understand your love for that film

Well, I do have majority opinion on my side when it comes to my love for CASINO ROYALE. Then again, it would seem that you also have majority opinion on your side when it comes to your love for SKYFALL.

What I meant is that much of CASINO ROYALE's saintly status among fans has waned over the years. It used to be the trendy thing to have it as your favourite Bond film. Not any more.

True to an extent, but CASINO ROYALE is still very highly regarded. This isn't true at BAB, but BAB is hardly a stand-in for the broader Bond community.

Anyway Loomis, thanks for your thoughts. It has me quite worried, because your thoughts on the Craig era have generally echoed my own. So we'll see. Some of your complaints--"It would be more surprising these days if we saw Bond actually turning up for work"--strike me as quite credible.

Loomis wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

I'll never understand your love for that film

Well, I do have majority opinion on my side when it comes to my love for CASINO ROYALE. Then again, it would seem that you also have majority opinion on your side when it comes to your love for SKYFALL.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Since SKYFALL is the anti-CASINO ROYALE in many respects, I never expected you to be won over by it.

Okay, although I'll point out that I love all manner of Bond films. There are really only three that don't quite work for me, namely THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, QUANTUM OF SOLACE and SKYFALL. Even so, though, all three do have their good moments. There is no Bond film that I consider unwatchable.

I love both Skyfall and CR equally. They are now both sitting in my all-time top 5 Bond films. I actually find t strange how you can like only 1 of these 2 films, as I find them very similar. QoS is the odd man out in Craig's 3 movies.

Harmsway wrote:

Anyway Loomis, thanks for your thoughts. It has me quite worried, because your thoughts on the Craig era have generally echoed my own. So we'll see. Some of your complaints--"It would be more surprising these days if we saw Bond actually turning up for work"--strike me as quite credible.

Well, this isn't bottom-of-the-barrel franchise fare. It's better than INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL and LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD - for one thing, neither of those films has engaging performances of the sort provided by Craig, Bardem, Fiennes and Whishaw. And SKYFALL isn't redeemed only by its cast - there are many other things to like about it.

On the other hand, I don't find SKYFALL to be a great franchise sequel like CASINO ROYALE and THE DARK KNIGHT.

jet set willy wrote:

I actually find t strange how you can like only 1 of these 2 films, as I find them very similar.

I don't find them similar at all. And I much prefer the vulnerable Bond of CASINO ROYALE, who (naturally enough) becomes sick with fear when he realises he's going to be tortured, and who has to clean up his bloodied face after the stairwell fight, to the Bond of SKYFALL who cuts bullets out of his chest like The Terminator without even wincing.

Loomis wrote:

I don't find them similar at all. And I much prefer the vulnerable Bond of CASINO ROYALE, who (naturally enough) becomes sick with fear when he realises he's going to be tortured, and who has to clean up his bloodied face after the stairwell fight, to the Bond of SKYFALL who cuts bullets out of his chest like The Terminator without even wincing.

The vulnerable Bond of CR I loved, which is exactly why I loved Skyfall too.

Other than that one scene you mentioned. I found the Bond in Skyfall more fragile and vulnerable than ever. Craig hanging on to the elevator in Shanghai, with a look that he doesn't have the strength anymore, Craig collapsing after being on a treadmill, his gun aim useless, out of breath after a swim, the fight scene in the Macau casino, when he is thrown to the floor helplessly in defeat. When he is warned that the men were going to kill him in the casino, I genuinely felt a moment of fear, something I've not really felt in a Bond movie, other than CR's torture scene.

The audience is also told early on in the movie that Bond failed his examinations.

When Craig has the gun in his hand and ordered to shoot the glass off the girls' head, he has a look of panic and defeat about him.

The superhuman Bond of QoS definitely vanished in this movie, and was replaced by the vulnerable Bond of CR - only moreso. How you didn't see all this on your first outing beggars belief. It was the one thing that really stood out for me, more than anything else....... :shock:

jet set willy wrote:

Other than that one scene you mentioned. I found the Bond in Skyfall more fragile and vulnerable than ever. Craig hanging on to the elevator in Shanghai, with a look that he doesn't have the strength anymore, Craig collapsing after being on a treadmill, his gun aim useless, out of breath after a swim, the fight scene in the Macau casino, when he is thrown to the floor helplessly in defeat. When he is warned that the men were going to kill him in the casino, I genuinely felt a moment of fear, something I've not really felt in a Bond movie, other than CR's torture scene.

The audience is also told early on in the movie that Bond failed his examinations.

When Craig has the gun in his hand and ordered to shoot the glass off the girls' head, he has a look of panic and defeat about him.

The superhuman Bond of QoS definitely vanished in this movie, and was replaced by the vulnerable Bond of CR - only moreso. How you didn't see all this on your first outing beggars belief. It was the one thing that really stood out for me, more than anything else....... :shock:

None of those things in SKYFALL that you mention impressed me any more than, say, Brosnan's shoulder injury in TWINE.

In any case, SKYFALL doesn't attempt to sell us a vulnerable Bond so much as a clapped-out, ageing Bond (although this angle does seem to get dropped midway through, indeed at the end of the film he's almost Higson's Bond, being decried as a "jumped-up little shit" by Finney), and, as I say, you simply can't sell a clapped-out, ageing Bond with Craig playing him. You can't simultaneously let your camera lens linger lovingly over Craig's muscular bod and try to convince the audience that he's "lost a step" because he's turning into a bit of a codger. It doesn't work, or at least I didn't buy it. Craig is patently in phenomenal shape (you don't get to look like he does unless you are) - why would he be out of breath after a swim?

I just found this ROCKY BALBOA element of the film hamfisted and unconvincing. Of course, you can still have a Bond in superb physical fettle who's nonetheless emotionally vulnerable, and also frightened when he encounters extreme danger - that's the Bond we have in CASINO ROYALE, and it's probably the main reason why CASINO ROYALE works so well. With SKYFALL, though, I felt that Bond's supposed physical decline was being used as shorthand for his psychological vulnerability, but the problem is that the evidence of our own eyes (i.e. what Craig looks like) belies what we're being told by the script.

Loomis wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

Other than that one scene you mentioned. I found the Bond in Skyfall more fragile and vulnerable than ever. Craig hanging on to the elevator in Shanghai, with a look that he doesn't have the strength anymore, Craig collapsing after being on a treadmill, his gun aim useless, out of breath after a swim, the fight scene in the Macau casino, when he is thrown to the floor helplessly in defeat. When he is warned that the men were going to kill him in the casino, I genuinely felt a moment of fear, something I've not really felt in a Bond movie, other than CR's torture scene.

The audience is also told early on in the movie that Bond failed his examinations.

When Craig has the gun in his hand and ordered to shoot the glass off the girls' head, he has a look of panic and defeat about him.

The superhuman Bond of QoS definitely vanished in this movie, and was replaced by the vulnerable Bond of CR - only moreso. How you didn't see all this on your first outing beggars belief. It was the one thing that really stood out for me, more than anything else....... :shock:

None of those things in SKYFALL that you mention impressed me any more than, say, Brosnan's shoulder injury in TWINE.

In any case, SKYFALL doesn't attempt to sell us a vulnerable Bond so much as a clapped-out, ageing Bond (although this angle does seem to get dropped midway through, indeed at the end of the film he's almost Higson's Bond, being decried as a "jumped-up little shit" by Finney), and, as I say, you simply can't sell a clapped-out, ageing Bond with Craig playing him. You can't simultaneously let your camera lens linger lovingly over Craig's muscular bod and try to convince the audience that he's "lost a step" because he's turning into a bit of a codger. It doesn't work, or at least I didn't buy it. Craig is patently in phenomenal shape (you don't get to look like he does unless you are) - why would he be out of breath after a swim?

I just found this ROCKY BALBOA element of the film hamfisted and unconvincing. Of course, you can still have a Bond in superb physical fettle who's nonetheless emotionally vulnerable, and also frightened when he encounters extreme danger - that's the Bond we have in CASINO ROYALE, and it's probably the main reason why CASINO ROYALE works so well. With SKYFALL, though, I felt that Bond's supposed physical decline was being used as shorthand for his psychological vulnerability, but the problem is that the evidence of our own eyes (i.e. what Craig looks like) belies what we're being told by the script.

Physically Craig looked knackered in the film. The short hair played up to this, but facially he looked haggard. I really cannot see where you are coming from with this superhuman Bond aspect in Skyfall at all.

I suggest you need to go and see it again. I thought it was much better 2nd time round, and I'm seeing it again tomorrow.

For what its worth CR was my favourite all time flick until Skyfall - now I'm not sure.

jet set willy wrote:

I really cannot see where you are coming from with this superhuman Bond aspect in Skyfall at all.

Oh, I don't say that he's superhuman in SKYFALL (barring the shark-jumping, fridge-nuking "Terminator" moment that I mentioned). What I'm saying is that he hardly seems as out of shape and unfit as the script attempts to sell him as.

jet set willy wrote:

I suggest you need to go and see it again. I thought it was much better 2nd time round, and I'm seeing it again tomorrow.

I do intend to see it at least once more while it's in cinemas.

Loomis wrote:

And I much prefer the vulnerable Bond of CASINO ROYALE, who (naturally enough) becomes sick with fear when he realises he's going to be tortured, and who has to clean up his bloodied face after the stairwell fight, to the Bond of SKYFALL who cuts bullets out of his chest like The Terminator without even wincing.

We assume that Bond has taken some of kind of pain killer at that point, since he's been shown popping pills earlier on and Silva later says "Look at you, you're barely held together by your pills and drink." I could also bring up the ridiculous moment in CASINO ROYALE where he pulls a nail out of his back, but then one could argue that he's high on adrenaline and endorphins.

Over all, I find Craig much more vulnerable and human in SKYFALL, and I buy his older wearier Bond a great deal more (helps that Craig has always looked much older than his age - which worked against his characterisation in the previous films) than his adolescent antics in CASINO ROYALE (recklessness, boorishness, puppy love, needing to have Vesper correct him on his suit0.

There's still many moments that show his vulnerability in SKYFALL. Grimacing when having to hold onto the elevator (almost letting go), almost missing the train when first jumping onto it, failing the psychological evaluation, slammed to the ground and winded by the big Chinese bodyguard, not being able to do any more pullups, missing the shooting gallery target no matter how close he gets, shaking and missing in the William Tell scene etc.

Largo's Shark wrote:

helps that Craig has always looked much older than his age

Facially, yes, but while he used to look old for his age when he was in his thirties he now looks good for his age now that he's in his forties.

He's BOBFOC - Body off Babewatch, Face off Crimewatch.

Loomis wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

helps that Craig has always looked much older than his age

Facially, yes, but while he used to look old for his age when he was in his thirties he now looks good for his age now that he's in his forties.

His face looks like a man in his 50s to me.

Loomis wrote:

He's BOBFOC - Body off Babewatch, Face off Crimewatch.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Loomis wrote:

And I much prefer the vulnerable Bond of CASINO ROYALE, who (naturally enough) becomes sick with fear when he realises he's going to be tortured, and who has to clean up his bloodied face after the stairwell fight, to the Bond of SKYFALL who cuts bullets out of his chest like The Terminator without even wincing.

We assume that Bond has taken some of kind of pain killer at that point, since he's been shown popping pills earlier on and Silva later says "Look at you, you're barely held together by your pills and drink." I could also bring up the ridiculous moment in CASINO ROYALE where he pulls a nail out of his back, but then one could argue that he's high on adrenaline and endorphins.

Over all, I find Craig much more vulnerable and human in SKYFALL, and I buy his older wearier Bond a great deal more (helps that Craig has always looked much older than his age - which worked against his characterisation in the previous films) than his adolescent antics in CASINO ROYALE (recklessness, boorishness, puppy love, needing to have Vesper correct him on his suit0.

There's still many moments that show his vulnerability in SKYFALL. Grimacing when having to hold onto the elevator (almost letting go), almost missing the train when first jumping onto it, failing the psychological evaluation, slammed to the ground and winded by the big Chinese bodyguard, not being able to do any more pullups, missing the shooting gallery target no matter how close he gets, shaking and missing in the William Tell scene etc.

Well said Sharky. Could not agree with this more. I find the vulnerable aspects to Bond far more in Skyfall than any previous outing. CR gave the impression of a young rookie reckless Bond for most part (mainly the first half of the film, and Venice at the end).

Here's another thing: I wish that the film had Eve (who just seems to fade out of the film after Macau) helping Bond and M in Scotland. Apart from anything else this might have spared us Kincaid.

Finney is one of the highlights of the film for me, despite how small his role is. Whenever he's on screen he adds a lot of charm, wit, and quiet dignity. Plus he gets some of the best lines.

"I was ready before you were born."

"Where did you say you worked for again?"

"Try and stop me you jumped up little sh*t."

Watch SATURDAY NIGHT AND SUNDAY MORNING and you'll see how similar a young Albert Finney was to Daniel Craig. Perfect casting.

*BLAM. BLAM.* 'Welcome to Scotland'.

Yes, that got a hearty chuckle too.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Finney is one of the highlights of the film for me, despite how small his role is. Whenever he's on screen he adds a lot of charm, wit, and quiet dignity. Plus he gets some of the best lines.

"I was ready before you were born."

"Where did you say you worked for again?"

"Try and stop me you jumped up little sh*t."

Watch SATURDAY NIGHT AND SUNDAY MORNING and you'll see how similar a young Albert Finney was to Daniel Craig. Perfect casting.

Sorry, I find the Kincaid character completely redundant and annoying. To my mind, the character could only have worked with Connery playing him, in which case his quips would have made sense and the badassery would have come through.