Skyfall: a surprising disappointment

I got an advance peek today...and left the cinema a disappointed girl.

I am really starting to miss the action sequences that made Bond...Bond. If you've seen the trailers, especially the pre-titles and 'Mind the Gap' on youtube, you've basically seen everything. Everything else is pretty ordinary...unless hanging from the bottom of an elevator was to be a defining action moment.

I didn't go looking for plot holes...in fact, some of the others have already found them and turned them into canyons. Apparently Bond stops being a physical wreck and gets his mojo back after getting his thighs touched.

The best, and most enjoyable parts of this movie involves the only thing that gives it some redemption. Silva was an absolute riot. Possibly my favourite standalone villain ever in a Bond flick. And he was dispatched too fucking cheaply. A knife in the back? That's it? YAWN. Severine's demise at least had something that was sold to the audience...and Bond was a complete dick about it.

I'm starting to wonder if part of the $150m estimated budget was pumped into hype and paying off journalists to cream themselves over Skyfall...I'm just not seeing the 4 and 5 stars appeal. It gets a barely passing grade from me. Seems like I have to watch Vin Diesel Fast and Furious movies for some good car stunts...and that's a shame. Bond used to define these things. No action scene in Skyfall is going to leave precedents. Only thing that might be remembered for years to come was Bond getting felt up by Silva...the only scene that had the cinema erupt into giggles.

The only thing I enjoyed about my whole jaunt to the cinema today was the trailer to Iron Man 3. At least THAT had some damn good looking action scenes.

I'll be going back of course, but it's more of having a good time hanging with great company than enjoying the film...which is a shame. Casino Royale was a better package overall.

Skyfall - 5/10 revised to 6.5/10 after second viewing. Pre-title gets a 8.5....

Couldn't disagree more. While the action in SKYFALL isn't the most innovative out there, it's effective and provides enough thrills. That said, Bond ain't just about action for me. SKYFALL's biggest strengths are elsewhere (performances, cinematography, score, production design, screenplay etc.) .

PS. Just caught the trailer for IRON MAN 3. Looks like more of the same. Cookie cutter, unengaging, weightless CGI action.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Couldn't disagree more.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I expected better for a 50th Anniversary film.

The grand finale is just an ordinary shootout where a key character gets mortally wounded. If Silva put the gun to his head instead, and took out both himself and M with a single shot, that would have been something.

Shame to hear you didn't like it DB. I think the only criticism I can agree with you on is that I feel SF could maybe have done with one more big action sequence to rival the PTS, but other than that I thought it was a great movie.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

The grand finale is just an ordinary shootout where a key character gets mortally wounded. If Silva put the gun to his head instead, and took out both himself and M with a single shot, that would have been something.

That would have been unnecessarily gratuitous and lacking emotional pay-off.

The grand finale is straight from Hard Target. You even have the vilain with the single shot gun



And of course Fouchon here to help

Erm, no.

Er yes. If you don't see it's a mix of Hard Target and Straw Dogs, you're not qualified to talk cinema on a board.

Stamper wrote:

Er yes. If you don't see it's a mix of Hard Target and Straw Dogs, you're not qualified to talk cinema on a board.

There's some A-team montage mixed in there as well. ;)

jet set willy wrote:

Shame to hear you didn't like it DB. I think the only criticism I can agree with you on is that I feel SF could maybe have done with one more big action sequence to rival the PTS, but other than that I thought it was a great movie.

Yes, it did need another major action sequence. After Bond's bike goes over the bridge and he grabs the train....that's about it for anything classed as Bond stunts...and the movie is only 10 minutes old. Did they try to compensate by having a runaway tube coming through a hole in the wall? That lasts only a few seconds... :suspect:

The silhouette/neon fight with Patrice maybe scores some artistic points, but Bond/Fisher in the toilet trumps it...you could actually see what was going on in that one rather than having to imagine it with shadows.

If not for Silva....I wouldn't bother to see Skyfall again, I'm that annoyed with it.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

Shame to hear you didn't like it DB. I think the only criticism I can agree with you on is that I feel SF could maybe have done with one more big action sequence to rival the PTS, but other than that I thought it was a great movie.

Yes, it did need another major action sequence. After Bond's bike goes over the bridge and he grabs the train....that's about it for anything classed as Bond stunts...and the movie is only 10 minutes old. Did they try to compensate by having a runaway tube coming through a hole in the wall? That lasts only a few seconds... :suspect:

If not for Silva....I wouldn't bother to see Skyfall again, I'm that annoyed with it.

I just read somewhere it cost £3m for that runaway tube sequence. That would have been much better spent on another elaborate stunt set-piece.

Anyway, not to worry. At least you still have a nice ass to flaunt on this forum....... :bounce:

You know, action bores me. Even if the stunts are spectacular, or expensive, or whatever, I need to be emotionally invested in action in order for it to mean something.

In that sense, SKYFALL succeeded as well as if not better than any Bond film to date. The movie exchanged action set pieces with more controlled bursts of action. Someone described it as "bursts of violence" versus the huge action set pieces we've grown used to.

You know, the other day I caught a little bit of CR on television. It was during the big parkour chase. That was a huge action sequence spanning several locales and using up A LOT of screen time. It was very impressive and still is. However, inevitably, after it concludes, there's an emotional letdown. You get wired up for this huge sequence, it takes a long time to resolve and then all of a sudden you're back to needing to pay attention to a plot. The next time you have action is at the airport, which is another huge and explosive sequence. Then the movie totally changes direction and you're playing cards for an hour - another huge emotional adjustment.

In a lot of ways, CR feels like two or three different movies stitched together. Now they're stitched together very well and the end result is one of the better Bond films. But SF doesn't go that route. You have your big action sequence in the pre-titles, as per Bond tradition. Then you're into the story, that substitutes the up and down of action found in CR with a more consistent level of tension and smaller action/chase scenes.

I think in general the action in SF is tasteful and appropriate. The story itself holds it together. A simple shootout feels like a huge action set piece because of what's at stake and the build up from the chase scene.

Silva was clearly a nod to this guy...and it worked.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Did they try to compensate by having a runaway tube coming through a hole in the wall? That lasts only a few seconds... :

About 20 seconds if I remember correctly. It's one of the longest stunts in Bond history, and boy do the cinema's subwoofers get a work out. The double explosion of Skyfall lodge and the helicopter was pretty impressive too. Much more awe-inspiring than the crane jump and car flip in CR IMO, though the IMAX does help.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

The silhouette/neon fight with Patrice maybe scores some artistic points, but Bond/Fisher in the toilet trumps it...you could actually see what was going on in that one rather than having to imagine it with shadows.

David Arnold's overbearing poor man's Don Davis ruins that toilet fight for me, as do the excessive dutch angles. I have very similar problems with the violence in CR as M_Balje does.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Silva was clearly a nod to this guy...and it worked.

Cesar Romero? Definitely.

Largo's Shark wrote:

It's one of the longest stunts in Bond history

Where exactly is the Bond stunt? He runs out of the way in half a second and the camera lingers on a train crash....guess he resigned from health & safety :face:

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

It's one of the longest stunts in Bond history

Where exactly is the Bond stunt? He runs out of the way in half a second and the camera lingers on a train crash....guess he resigned from health & safety :face:

Maybe stunt's the wrong word. Actually I can't think of the right word.

Salomé wrote:

Stamper wrote:

Er yes. If you don't see it's a mix of Hard Target and Straw Dogs, you're not qualified to talk cinema on a board.

There's some A-team montage mixed in there as well. ;)

My thought ran immediately to HOME ALONE

The first act is a Bond movie, the second act is THE DARK KNIGHT and the third act is HOME ALONE with guns.

More TDKR than TDK, but otherwise I would agree 100%

It's a good Bond movie until we arrive at Silva's island.

I would say its still a good Bond movie even then and only stops being so once Silva is captured.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I would say its still a good Bond movie even then and only stops being so once Silva is captured.

Agreed.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

The first act is a Bond movie, the second act is THE DARK KNIGHT and the third act is HOME ALONE with guns.

I don't see an issue with that.

I'm amazed that you Fleming aficionados like myself don't like the ending to SF. To me this was one of the highlights, seeing a back-to-basics Bond in the most down-to-earth finale since FYEO.

No silly volcano lairs, spaceships blowing up, crumbling Venice buildings, baddies in orange boiler suits fighting underwater with men in black suits, ice palace battles with lasers, etc.

Yes, plausibility stretches at the end - why wasn't a crack commando unit lying in wait for Silva and his merry men to arrive in Glencoe, but then knowing Silva, if that had happened he would have fled anyway.

Fleming's novels were littered with plot holes, some of them probably more far-fetched than the ending to Skyfall, but it never once took the enjoyment away for me, with the novels or Skyfall. Had Fleming been alive today, I think he would have found Skyfall more in line with his vision of Bond than any previous outing.

jet set willy wrote:

I'm amazed that you Fleming aficionados like myself don't like the ending to SF. To me this was one of the highlights, seeing a back-to-basics Bond in the most down-to-earth finale since FYEO.

No silly volcano lairs, spaceships blowing up, crumbling Venice buildings, baddies in orange boiler suits fighting underwater with men in black suits, ice palace battles with lasers, etc.

Yes, plausibility stretches at the end - why wasn't a crack commando unit lying in wait for Silva and his merry men to arrive in Glencoe, but then knowing Silva, if that had happened he would have fled anyway.

Fleming's novels were littered with plot holes, some of them probably more far-fetched than the ending to Skyfall, but it never once took the enjoyment away for me, with the novels or Skyfall. Had Fleming been alive today, I think he would have found Skyfall more in line with his vision of Bond than any previous outing.

I agree with every word of that. On paper, SKYFALL has an excellent finale, and, yes, one of the most down-to-earth and Flemingian finales ever. (Although for the fiftieth anniversary outing of the cinematic 007, it's arguable that an ending with "silly volcano lairs, spaceships blowing up, crumbling Venice buildings, baddies in orange boiler suits fighting underwater with men in black suits, ice palace battles with lasers, etc." might have been more appropriate.)

The problem is, I don't think it's done particularly well.