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

Largo's Shark wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Forgot to mention this in my initial review: Thomas Newman's score was excellent.

You have it?

Have what? If by "it" you mean my review, I basically laid out my main review in this thread. Didn't think it was necessary, or wanted, to start up an entirely new thread with my review. Plus the computer is getting a bit dodgy, so I'm essentially bullet-pointing my thoughts in hopes that I won't lose my work or my thoughts if it crashes.. Looks like I'm going to need a new computer soon.

I meant the soundtrack.

No. I was referring to the pieces that were contained in the film. The score basically jumped out at me, and I knew we had a winner, during Bond's jump onto the elevator in Shanghai.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Forgot to mention this in my initial review: Thomas Newman's score was excellent.

You have it?

Have what? If by "it" you mean my review, I basically laid out my main review in this thread. Didn't think it was necessary, or wanted, to start up an entirely new thread with my review. Plus the computer is getting a bit dodgy, so I'm essentially bullet-pointing my thoughts in hopes that I won't lose my work or my thoughts if it crashes.. Looks like I'm going to need a new computer soon.

I meant the soundtrack.

No. I was referring to the pieces that were contained in the film. The score basically jumped out at me, and I knew we had a winner, during Bond's jump onto the elevator in Shanghai.

That's what I meant by the soundtrack. Do you want it?

Largo's Shark wrote:

That's what I meant by the soundtrack. Do you want it?

I'd never turn down a freebie.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

The presence of Barbara Broccoli is all over the way the female leads are portrayed. We have a 78-year old female M as THE LEAD BOND GIRL in this story. It's not enough to give Bond his orders; her presence in the story must be made to be critical to moving it forward, which apparently includes M putting explosives together and firing a gun. She must be made to be shown as bad-ass as Bond could be. Same for Moneypenny.

I'm not entirely convinced this is Babs imposing her presence...considering that M is now dead and has been replaced by Mallory. Assuming you stand 100% behind your assertion, how will Babs fill the vacuum left by Mummy M in Bond 24 to maintain her presence?

I'm a bit surprised that Bond girls are being considered Bond girls when their screen time is...15 minutes? Girls like Triple-X, Kara, Melina, were most present in their films but Severine barely lasted a quarter of an hour after our first glimpses of her. Her death was original though...

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

The presence of Barbara Broccoli is all over the way the female leads are portrayed. We have a 78-year old female M as THE LEAD BOND GIRL in this story. It's not enough to give Bond his orders; her presence in the story must be made to be critical to moving it forward, which apparently includes M putting explosives together and firing a gun. She must be made to be shown as bad-ass as Bond could be. Same for Moneypenny.

I'm not entirely convinced this is Babs imposing her presence...considering that M is now dead and has been replaced by Mallory. Assuming you stand 100% behind your assertion, how will Babs fill the vacuum left by Mummy M in Bond 24?

I'm a bit surprised that Bond girls are being considered Bond girls when their screen time is...15 minutes? Girls like Triple-X, Kara, Melina, were most present in their films but Severine barely lasted a quarter of an hour after our first glimpses of her. Her death was original though...

Of course it is Babs imposing her presence. Even she can't fend off the onset of time and disability. Judi Dench's M is probably too old to hold down her position in real life, and in any event, Dame Judi's health has made it unlikely she could continue on. And since Babs wouldn't be so obvious as to replace one female M with another, she'll simply find other ways to incorporate her radical, feminist agenda using Craig-Bond. Maybe the next Bond Girl will be disabled or weigh 200lbs or be homely.

I still like SKYFALL. I will see it again in the theater (Bardem's performance is worth the price of admission alone). But I think I'd probably be really, really, really impressed with Dench's performance, her "expanded" role, etc...if I hadn't essentially seen this performance before in TWINE.

By the way, did anyone else feel like they understood Silva just a wee bit based upon his monologue to M? Is that the first villain we've had cry or been close to crying? Bardem was excellent at selling both the psychotic side and the sympathetic side at the same time. You understood what drove him to be the monster he is today; I might have gone over the edge if what happened to him happened to me. The big reveal was quite gruesome. I wonder if any kids in the audience got scared.

Oh, I do suspect an Oscar/Golden Globe/People's Choice nomination for Bardem. Probably a lock for a Best Supporting Actor nomination, and an NAACP Image Award for Harris.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

By the way, did anyone else feel like they understood Silva just a wee bit based upon his monologue to M? Is that the first villain we've had cry or been close to crying? Bardem was excellent at selling both the psychotic side and the sympathetic side at the same time. You understood what drove him to be the monster he is today; I might have gone over the edge if what happened to him happened to me.

They may have done too good of a job; I found it easier to dislike (and at times, despise) M more than Silva, who for all his hateful excesses has a Roy Batty air, perhaps mixed with Kurtz from APOCALYPSE NOW, that this is someone who deserved better than what he got. I normally would never quote from the film of CR, but in this case, "One sympathizes."

trevanian wrote:

They may have done too good of a job; I found it easier to dislike (and at times, despise) M more than Silva, who for all his hateful excesses has a Roy Batty air, perhaps mixed with Kurtz from APOCALYPSE NOW, that this is someone who deserved better than what he got. I normally would never quote from the film of CR, but in this case, "One sympathizes."

Well, M was certainly indifferent to Silva's pain. The writers are careful to preface her decision by explaining that Silva exceeded his mandate against the Chinese, thereby giving M some cover in her decision to let the Chinese have him.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

trevanian wrote:

They may have done too good of a job; I found it easier to dislike (and at times, despise) M more than Silva, who for all his hateful excesses has a Roy Batty air, perhaps mixed with Kurtz from APOCALYPSE NOW, that this is someone who deserved better than what he got. I normally would never quote from the film of CR, but in this case, "One sympathizes."

Well, M was certainly indifferent to Silva's pain. The writers are careful to preface her decision by explaining that Silva exceeded his mandate against the Chinese, thereby giving M some cover in her decision to let the Chinese have him.

Hence my mention of Kurtz; he was succeeding all too well, but in his own fashion rather than by following dubious standards of the U.S. military. For all we know, M. may have achieved her position as a result of this expediency (if she was station H in the late 90s and a veteran boss of MI6 by 2006, it follows that her promotion happened shortly after this Silva betrayal.)

trevanian wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

By the way, did anyone else feel like they understood Silva just a wee bit based upon his monologue to M? Is that the first villain we've had cry or been close to crying? Bardem was excellent at selling both the psychotic side and the sympathetic side at the same time. You understood what drove him to be the monster he is today; I might have gone over the edge if what happened to him happened to me.

They may have done too good of a job; I found it easier to dislike (and at times, despise) M more than Silva, who for all his hateful excesses has a Roy Batty air, perhaps mixed with Kurtz from APOCALYPSE NOW, that this is someone who deserved better than what he got. I normally would never quote from the film of CR, but in this case, "One sympathizes."

Indeed. I'm pretty sure that I was supposed to find M much more sympathetic a character than I actually felt her to be.

Just as I feel that SKYFALL might have raised the stakes and dramatic tension by having Silva explicitly threaten the British public unless the British government actively hands M over to him (thus mirroring the way M handed him over, and leading to a moral dilemma for Bond as to whether to comply), Silva going against his mandate in Hong Kong might also have been fleshed out a bit. For instance, maybe Silva was plotting (a la Guy Thackeray in Raymond Benson's ZERO MINUS TEN) to wreck the Handover because he wanted to keep Hong Kong under British control - something like that.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Probably a lock for a Best Supporting Actor nomination

Yes, I think a Best Supporting Actor nomination for Bardem is the only Oscar nomination SKYFALL really deserves.

Now, whether Bardem deserves to actually win is another question - his performance is certainly one of the highlights of SKYFALL, but then again it's hardly original, given that there are echoes not only of Heath Ledger's Joker but also of Bardem's bad guy in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. But I think he's earned a nomination for Silva, at least.

Loomis wrote:

trevanian wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

By the way, did anyone else feel like they understood Silva just a wee bit based upon his monologue to M? Is that the first villain we've had cry or been close to crying? Bardem was excellent at selling both the psychotic side and the sympathetic side at the same time. You understood what drove him to be the monster he is today; I might have gone over the edge if what happened to him happened to me.

They may have done too good of a job; I found it easier to dislike (and at times, despise) M more than Silva, who for all his hateful excesses has a Roy Batty air, perhaps mixed with Kurtz from APOCALYPSE NOW, that this is someone who deserved better than what he got. I normally would never quote from the film of CR, but in this case, "One sympathizes."

Indeed. I'm pretty sure that I was supposed to find M much more sympathetic a character than I actually felt her to be.

I don't think so. She's pretty cruel and nasty here. And that's what works about her characterization; she's 007's (and Silva's) abusive surrogate mom, and neither of them can shake her influence.

Harmsway wrote:

She's pretty cruel and nasty here. And that's what works about her characterization; she's 007's (and Silva's) abusive surrogate mom, and neither of them can shake her influence.

Sure, but I felt nothing but relief when she dies. The real villain of SKYFALL gets her just desserts and Bond goes off to work for a much better M - one who apparently cares for his agents' welfare and doesn't appear to have an ego the size of a planet. Everybody wins (including Silva).

Do you think that's the reaction that the makers of SKYFALL intend viewers to have? Maybe it is, I don't know. But I can't help feeling that we're also supposed to feel sorry for M and to mourn her "tragic" death - if so, then that side of things fell absolutely flat for me.

Loomis wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

She's pretty cruel and nasty here. And that's what works about her characterization; she's 007's (and Silva's) abusive surrogate mom, and neither of them can shake her influence.

Sure, but I felt nothing but relief when she dies.

I felt for Bond in that scene more than I felt for M.

But I wasn't completely heartless toward M. During the last stretch of the film, she's turned around a bit and realized that what she's done, and so she essentially insists to Bond that the defense at Skyfall be something of a last stand (her comment to Bond that the stand at Skyfall should be just the two of them, since enough have died because of her choices). She knew she was unlikely to make it through.

Loomis wrote:

Everybody wins (including Silva).

Nah, Silva loses. He doesn't get satisfaction, which is what motivated his entire plan.

Harmsway wrote:

her comment to Bond that the stand at Skyfall should be just the two of them, since enough have died because of her choices). She knew she was unlikely to make it through.

But why doesn't she stand alone against Silva? By what right does she drag Bond into all this? Bond played no part in the creation of the monster that is Silva, and he was certainly not responsible for M's many other poor choices. Not to mention that M has already treated Bond like dirt throughout the film - it's amazing that she even has the cheek to ask him for protection. Why doesn't Bond wash his hands of her? (Mind you, I suppose his decision to try to save her skin may be read as his desire to prover her wrong about his qualities.)

I dunno. Maybe I need another viewing of SKYFALL. Everyone seems to be raving about the characterisation and dramatic conflict in SKYFALL and hailing the film as a masterpiece of subtext, clever screenwriting and all the rest of it, but to my mind the film fails because I just don't think the motivations of its characters withstand even the slightest scrutiny. Perhaps it misses the point to carp at a Bond movie in this way (sure, all of them have their plot holes), but then again SKYFALL is being lauded as an A-grade Bond film.

Another curious thing about SKYFALL is that it can be read as an anti-feminist film. The female agent can't cut it out there in the field alongside the men and their guns and their split-second decisions, so she ends up reverting to secretarial work. The female M is incompetent, emotional and egotistical, so she's replaced by the cool, calm and collected Ralph Fiennes, a dignified and capable "man's man" with the sort of old-fashioned code of honour that's been sorely missing from the organisation (would he have sold out Silva? One doubts it). The final moments of SKYFALL almost literally turn the clock back to the 1950s.

Harmsway wrote:

Loomis wrote:

Everybody wins (including Silva).

Nah, Silva loses. He doesn't get satisfaction, which is what motivated his entire plan.

I can't recall whether or not Silva knows that M is mortally wounded. But in any case, he's buggered up MI6, wrecked M's reputation and made her fear for her life, so I would have thought that he gains a fair bit of satisfaction.

Loomis wrote:

By what right does she drag Bond into all this?

She doesn't drag Bond into it. Bond drags himself into it (kidnapping her, if you recall).

Loomis wrote:

I dunno. Maybe I need another viewing of SKYFALL.

Certainly. I know I'm going to have to see it at least once more in the theaters. It's dense. Because it is story-centric, you have to think about the film more. It does engage the viewer and challenge them, and it is much more heavy on plot than it is action. In that respect it's a lot like THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. Have any of us ever felt this way about MOONRAKER or A VIEW TO A KILL? I love those films, but you didn't need a second viewing to understand those films, and you were never asked to think through the character's motivations in the same way that SF pushes you to.

And where does the series even go after SF? This will be a hard act to top. Which director is going to be up for it? And if this is the result of a 2-3 year collaborative process (excluding the 9-10 months where there was no active pre-production going on while the bankruptcy was worked out), how will EON or SONY be able to justify putting the series into turnaround in slightly less than 14 months? By this time next year we could be seeing the new cast on the set of the new film. With the accolades and the box office SF is receiving, it may come across as a bit hasty to move into filming the next one so quickly for 2014. Maybe they should aim for 2015.

Loomis wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

Loomis wrote:

Everybody wins (including Silva).

Nah, Silva loses. He doesn't get satisfaction, which is what motivated his entire plan.

I can't recall whether or not Silva knows that M is mortally wounded. But in any case, he's buggered up MI6, wrecked M's reputation and made her fear for her life, so I would have thought that he gains a fair bit of satisfaction.

It's a pyrrhic victory for Bond and MI6.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Which director is going to be up for it?

Any director who needs a hit, I suppose. I don't believe that Mendes has made the ultimate Bond film in SKYFALL, or that his direction has raised the quality bar so impossibly high that he'll be a hard act to follow.

I hope (but don't expect) that Campbell will return for BOND 23/24. He has a lightness of touch that I feel Mendes lacks.

Still, there are plenty of possibilities when it comes to directors. And even though I wasn't blown away by SKYFALL I'd be happy to see Mendes return.

Danny Boyle. Mark my words.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Danny Boyle. Mark my words.

Could well be. Good choice.

I'd also suggest Steve McQueen (HUNGER, SHAME) and Ben Wheatley (KILL LIST) as directors who may be on Eon's radar.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Danny Boyle. Mark my words.

A very, very likely choice (if Mendes doesn't return, that is).

Loomis wrote:

I'd also suggest Steve McQueen (HUNGER, SHAME) and Ben Wheatley (KILL LIST) as directors who may be on Eon's radar.

Haven't seen KILL LIST, but managed to witness those two McQueen monstrosities. Bloody hell. If EON ever hires him, I'm going to lose it.

What next? Andrea Arnold?

Only Matthew Vaughn

Largo's Shark wrote:

Danny Boyle. Mark my words.

Why do I get the feeling that Babs will be shopping around for a female director if Mendes doesn't come back?

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?