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

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

And since Bond 24/25 is a two part story, what are the chances that Logan is going to tackle a remake and a re-imagining of OHMSS and YOLT?

Craig debunked the "two-parter" rumor.

Loomis wrote:

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.

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.

Indeed, you may have hit it on the head there. Purvis and Wade now gone completely too. And of course they left us with a mess.
Of course Silva could have just killed M to begin with but nooo that would have been too easy/simple/sensical/not drawn out enough to fill plot.
The cinematography is rather uninspired and using the Arri gives a resolution just over 2K and not even the standard of 4K which allows for a creeping sense of lacking definition and inherent softness.

Quote :

Of course Silva could have just killed M to begin with but nooo that would have been too easy/simple/sensical/not drawn out enough to fill plot.

It also wouldn't have fit Bardem characterisation of a man plagued by internal conflict, neuroses and guilt, hence why killing his abusive mother isn't a simple decision. In a sense, he's his own worst enemy.

Quote :

The cinematography is rather uninspired and using the Arri gives a resolution just over 2K and not even the standard of 4K which allows for a creeping sense of lacking definition and inherent softness.

Eh? I thought that softness was lovely, a gave the a film a warmth I rarely I find in digital photography. If by "uninspired", you mean the finest Bond cinematography since Jean Tournier's work on MOONRAKER, then yes I agree

Largo's Shark wrote:

Quote :

Of course Silva could have just killed M to begin with but nooo that would have been too easy/simple/sensical/not drawn out enough to fill plot.

It also wouldn't have fit Bardem characterisation of a man plagued by internal conflict, neuroses and guilt, hence why killing his abusive mother isn't a simple decision. In a sense, he's his own worst enemy.

Where is the evidence that Silva feels any guilt about anything? What is this internal conflict of which you speak?

Again, I've seen SKYFALL but once, but my reading of the Silva character is that he believes himself to have been grossly wronged by M (and he's right), and that he was also unhinged by captivity and torture (although he was something of a loose cannon within MI6 to begin with).

So Silva is basically a pretty straightforward character, rather like, erm, every other Bond villain before him. I don't see him as wracked with doubt or plagued with unique psychological complications that make him any different to yer average Hollywood action franchise baddie.

Loomis wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Quote :

Of course Silva could have just killed M to begin with but nooo that would have been too easy/simple/sensical/not drawn out enough to fill plot.

It also wouldn't have fit Bardem characterisation of a man plagued by internal conflict, neuroses and guilt, hence why killing his abusive mother isn't a simple decision. In a sense, he's his own worst enemy.

Where is the evidence that Silva feels any guilt about anything? What is this internal conflict of which you speak?

Well, he loves M as a mother figure, yet despises what she's done to him. One part of him wants to kill her for his perceived betrayal, and the other sees a fragile, old woman whom he used to love, but can't bring himself to killing in cold blood. A lot of this comes from the final scene in the chapel, where he can only achieve his goal through a double suicide, and having her pull the trigger.

He's a more nuanced baddie than you're giving credit for.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Well, he loves M as a mother figure, yet despises what she's done to him. One part of him wants to kill her for his perceived betrayal, and the other sees a fragile, old woman whom he used to love, but can't bring himself to killing in cold blood. A lot of this comes from the final scene in the chapel, where he can only achieve his goal through a double suicide, and having her pull the trigger.

He's a more nuanced baddie than you're giving credit for.

There was a moment at the end where I thought Silva was going to move in and put his mouth on Dench's. Didn't happen, but....it felt like there was some sort of Oedipus complex thingy going on there.

Largo's Shark wrote:

He's a more nuanced baddie than you're giving credit for.

On this point -- might be the only point -- you and I agree. I was thinking Kurtz in APOCALYPSE and the Whitman 'I contradict myself' poem-thing (and Roy Batty) ... I really think they made the wrong movie about the right character.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Quote :

Of course Silva could have just killed M to begin with but nooo that would have been too easy/simple/sensical/not drawn out enough to fill plot.

It also wouldn't have fit Bardem characterisation of a man plagued by internal conflict, neuroses and guilt, hence why killing his abusive mother isn't a simple decision. In a sense, he's his own worst enemy.

Quote :

The cinematography is rather uninspired and using the Arri gives a resolution just over 2K and not even the standard of 4K which allows for a creeping sense of lacking definition and inherent softness.

Eh? I thought that softness was lovely, a gave the a film a warmth I rarely I find in digital photography. If by "uninspired", you mean the finest Bond cinematography since Jean Tournier's work on MOONRAKER, then yes I agree

Ehhh...I could give you that on Silva, but he had already made up his mind to her in hence all the elaborate plotting. I think this is another example of fascinating villain character not given enough development in the script courtesy of surprise! Purvis and Wade.

Cinematography...is a no. One doesn't need a style or faux realistic touch to convince an audience of substance, exactly as in Deakins/Mendes/Craig's previous collaboration the similarly cold Road to Perdition. You have to have a certain amount of space compositionally speaking on a Bond film, and that's something that has been continually disregarded 1995 onwards. This is nowhere near as well shot as the Dalton era, or any of Glen's era. Or Brosnan's to be honest. But hey I'm the lone voice guy. :cyclops:

Have to MAJOR disagree with you there. If there is one thing SKYFALL made me realise it is how intensely lacking Bond films have been in the cinematography department sibce Ted Moore died.

My major complaint against the Glen films, and pretty much my only complaint on the Dalton films, is how utterly bland they look cinematographically.

Even if Mendes didnt return, the series could really benefit by keeping Deakins aroundm Skyfall was the most stylish Bond cinema has been since 69 and it made me realize how much the Bond series needs, and is defined by, style.

Speaking as someone who works with this equipment, I will take an Alexa over a RED anyday. Its a gorgeous camera capable of gorgeous imagery and unlike RED it is manufactured by a company that actually understanda cameras and cameramen and their needs.

Deakins has unfortunately already opted out of another Bond film. He said this was fun for a one-off, but he'd rather return to his usual kind of film. Shame, too, since his work is terrific. Still, he's not the only great cinematographer left around. Then could get Christopher Doyle or Mihai Malamaire.

Regarding digital cameras, I'm very fond of how the Genesis camera made MYSTERIES OF LISBON look.

hegottheboot wrote:

One doesn't need a style or faux realistic touch to convince an audience of substance

What the hell does that even mean?

Coming from a decipherer of Armond White, that's saying something.

hegottheboot wrote:

Deakins/Mendes/Craig's previous collaboration the similarly cold Road to Perdition.

That was the late Conrad Hall, not Roger Deakins.

hegottheboot wrote:

This is nowhere near as well shot as the Dalton era, or any of Glen's era. Or Brosnan's to be honest. But hey I'm the lone voice guy. :cyclops:

The Glen era? The Brosnan era? :scratch:

Yes, you're definitely alone there.

Besides TLD and GE, those eras were the nadir of the series as far as cinematography goes. SKYFALL is definitely the most stylish looking Bond film since the 1970s.

LICENCE TO KILL takes the cake. As far as direction and cinematography go, it's the most inept in the entire series.

Largo's Shark wrote:

LICENCE TO KILL takes the cake. As far as direction and cinematography goes, the most inept in the entire series.

TOMORROW NEVER DIES is pretty bland looking too, in a different way.

I like LTK, but like all the Bonds since 1971 and including Goldfinger for the 60's, it looks like a TV movie shot in widescreen Panavision.

Guy Hamilton was a very bad director, as was John Glen. Goldfinger pales next to FRWL or TB in the photography dept, let alone YOLT.

I wouldn't say that about Hamilton. There are some interesting directorial choices in GOLDFINGER that you wouldn't have found in DR. NO or FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (i.e. the reflection of the Mexican in Bonita's eye in the PTS). I'd say with the exception of SPY, Lewis Gilbert's films were stunning.

Largo's Shark wrote:

LICENCE TO KILL takes the cake. As far as direction and cinematography go, it's the most inept in the entire series.

Agreed totally. I love the script for LTK, and Daltons's performance, but in terms of how beautifully the film is shot, its as bland looking as an episode of EastEnders.

jet set willy wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

LICENCE TO KILL takes the cake. As far as direction and cinematography go, it's the most inept in the entire series.

Agreed totally. I love the script for LTK, and Daltons's performance, but in terms of how beautifully the film is shot, its as bland looking as an episode of EastEnders.

strong words if there ever was.

I can't really say any Bond movie prior to Skyfall sticks out to me from a cinematography vantage, though to be fair, it's been a long time since I've watched most of the films.

YOLT always comes to mind, but really most of Ted Moore's work was gangbusters save maybe LALD.

DN, YOLT, OHMSS, and Skyfall are definitely the series' height in the photography department, IMO.

All the 60s and 70s films (save for TMWTGG) are pretty strong to me having watched them all in HD last month. It's really in the 80s where it goes downhill, save TLD and GE to an extent, they really started to look generic. I liked CR's a lot but didn't love it as much (I don't mind the grading, as I find it effective in places such as the dinner with Vesper). QOS looked nice, at least when you could actually see the damn thing.

I blame John Glen's directing for the drop-off during the 80s. He's the kind of director you hire when you're more concerned with meeting the schedule and staying under budget than pretty shots.

Just In J wrote:

I blame John Glen's directing for the drop-off during the 80s. He's the kind of director you hire when you're more concerned with meeting the schedule and staying under budget than pretty shots.

Yeah, a total studio director with no stamp of his own unless you count his pigeons. I do like TLD a lot though, that somehow turned out very good though you can imagine a more talented director would have given it more style. I think he should have been fired after AVTAK, but for whatever reason Cubby kept him for two more films before letting him go for good after LTK. Heck, even Dalton abandoned that Columbus film the moment Glen got hired for it.

Still, I say Spottiswoode was the worst of them all. Lee Tamahori is at least stylish, problem is his ideas for Bond were all wrong.

Python wrote:

Still, I say Spottiswoode was the worst of them all. Lee Tamahori is at least stylish, problem is his ideas for Bond were all wrong.

Absolutely. No contest.

And Tamahori is very stylish. I hear.