The Trouble City Forums
SKYFALL Post-Release - Printable Version

+- The Trouble City Forums (http://citizens.trouble.city)
+-- Forum: Specific Cinema (http://citizens.trouble.city/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Films in Release or On Video (http://citizens.trouble.city/forumdisplay.php?fid=78)
+--- Thread: SKYFALL Post-Release (/showthread.php?tid=145354)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35


- jhp1608 - 10-31-2012

Spoilers

...

I feel like a complete grouch not liking this film that much. It's a tremendous technical achievement - really. It's the best looking Bond since OHMSS and the acting in 90% of cases is top notch. But there were really strange choices made with the story and humour that kept taking me out of the film, and when taken together really killed the buzz for me by the time the film ended.

Stuff like the abandoned operatives list plot (why did he steal it?) or the fact that the most interesting thing about Bardem's villain was his ability to manipulate the shit out of global affairs, which is then relegated to a background set up.

Oh, and how come he was still able to play Neuromancer when his island retreat had been compromised by us Brits? And if he didn't need it to be able to keep one step ahead of everybody after being captured, why did he have it in the first place? And why would a country that has abandoned an island because of a "chemical spill" not double check it had actually happened, go back to check the damage, conduct satellite surveillance...

Speaking of the island sequence, did no-one think of patting Bond down and checking whether the really obvious mini-radio was cunningly hidden...in a pocket?

And why would the head of MI6 trade an apparently awesome agent to the Chinese, in return for anyone else? Even if he had been doing some unauthorised work, I find it impossible that we'd sacrifice one of our own. What, we haven't got any Chinese agents spare? Somewhere I feel there was a discarded plot point that he was actually working for the Chinese. Would have made the idea that he could make his way out of Chinese detention, set himself up as a super-hacker and make his priority to kill the head of MI6 somehow more believable. Would also have explained the "abandoned island" base more reasonably and would have been more topical given the general concern about Chinese cyber-warfare now.

Why did Silva need to be captured? Why couldn't he have just smuggled himself into London, changed into a police outfit, and ambushed the inquiry? Seems like he chose a really roundabout way to go about achieving his primary objective, and exposed himself to risks he needn't have done. The better Bond villains didn't do that, a flaw magnified by the fact that he is set up as some kind of technology-manipulating omniscient.

That couple remarking "I guess he's in a rush" was only just this side of double-taking pigeons.

And the "Yeah! Bond's back" at the end felt really unearned to me on a story level. Bond's story here is of him fundamentally screwing up. Seriously. First he loses a really, really important bit of intelligence. Then he fails to recover it. Then he fails to protect his boss, somewhat suggesting that his whole "going off the reservation/taking a trip down memory lane" wasn't such a good idea after all. Because making your last stand in a remote, isolated country house without any kind of counter-intel, surveillance systems or back up whatsoever is totally the way to deal with a mortal threat.

Plus, the CIA and other NATO countries must be going absolutely fucking ballistic that the agent list existed in the first place - on a laptop hard drive? all in one place? really? - but there's zero indication of fall out bar the off hand remark that, hey, some of our closest allies are going to be really pissed about us losing a list we should never have had in the first place. Ah fuck it - Moneypenny? M in an office straight out of the 1960s (like they've been preserving Bernard Lee's old gaff like a grief stricken parent just in case someone blows up the new HQ)? dang-diggly-dang-dang...

If it had been me, he'd have been fired.

And the Goldfinger car? Having just spent 20 minutes in a previous film setting up why this incarnation would have a fifty year old car in the first place. After further emphasising the fact it wasn't a company car.

The homosexuality, bad wigs and repressed Oedipal feelings felt really outdated to me. Silva was great in theory, and Bardem is an actor I find ordinarily compelling, but the execution made him some kind of Wint & Kidd-style character with all of Fleming's bigotry dialled up to 11.

I know, I know...it's a Bond film. Grow a sense of fun. But Christ, they did so well re-establishing this franchise in a relatively believable universe with Casino Royale (honestly there is very little about that film which is fundamentally unbelievable or doesn't hold up to a decent amount of scrutiny - Mathis aside). Quantum also wasn't such a mis-step that they couldn't have dived straight into the "Bond is back" story they signalled at the end of that film...instead we get this weird mash up of TDK/TDKR, Goldeneye, and TWINE.

Sorry - rant over. No doubt those who did like it can rightly accuse me to criticising it for not being the film I wanted. Maybe I'll warm up on this film and forget about its flaws on subsequent viewings, but having squandered the promise of Casino Royale for the second time, it's hovering around mid-table FYEO territory of relative quality for me.




- robert hill - 10-31-2012

I just have one question when is Craigs going to star in the remake of Zardoz?




- MrSaxon - 10-31-2012

Whilst I don't have the necessary time to answer all of your questions (and i will admit that some don't have an answer - or at least I'm not able to answer them) as I'm running late for something, i thought I'd quickly answer this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhp1608 View Post

Why did Silva need to be captured? Why couldn't he have just smuggled himself into London, changed into a police outfit, and ambushed the inquiry? Seems like he chose a really roundabout way to go about achieving his primary objective, and exposed himself to risks he needn't have done. The better Bond villains didn't do that, a flaw magnified by the fact that he is set up as some kind of technology-manipulating omniscient.

Silver does tell M that he wanted to look upon her face one more time and show her what she did to him. I don't remember the exact wording but it's whilst he's imprisoned and before the escape occurs. In that context, his plan makes a little more sense.




- sentinel red - 10-31-2012

That was one deeply fucking odd, strange, plain.damn.weird film.

I know there was a thing a couple of years back for film journos complaining that all the studios wanted to Dark Knight up every franchise they had after it proved to be a box office juggernaut but I didn't think there was any real truth to it. Until now anyway because that was Nolaned right up the arse all right. The moody skyscrapers, the bizarre charismatic nutter antagonist, creepy country manors, broken and angry orphans with kindly old duffers trying to steer them right, and ultimately a pained hero who loses as much as he wins. I felt like I'd walked in on the wrong film, which screen was Bond on again?

I mean, there were some genuinely great moments littered throughout and it was beautifully, stunningly shot but it comes crashing to a halt when it reaches the island and never really recovers. The sight of Bond tearing through rush hour on the District Line somehow manages to be jarring and immersion breaking as fuck and seeing a parliamentary inquiry turn into a mad shoot out with Bond, Mallory and the others, while staged well, felt so very, very wrong.

Come the end of it, it really came across like the producers were saying, okay, experiment's over, here you go, we promise to stop, normal service will be resumed next time out. And while I generally loathe the status quo being restored in various forms of ongoing fiction, after this outing, I'm not going to complain if it helps ensure the next entry doesn't feel as off as this one did.

If anything, it was Judy Dench's film, she was brilliant throughout (and gets the best, most random and unexpected F-bomb in a film possibly ever), and I appreciate that they tried to do something different with her and the film but if I'm honest, it's not really what I look for in the series. M's job is to bark at Bond, pour some scotch and pat him on the back after a job well done, not be haunted by past mistakes, get humiliated at every turn and ultimately fucking die!

Bardem was fine enough, though Sean Bean still reigns supreme in the pissed off ex-agent stakes. Berenice Marlohe was outstanding in her limited screen time (seriously, that conversation with Bond at the bar was probably my favourite scene of the entire film, her face and expressions were incredible). Oh and I can't believe they're wasting Naomie Harris with *that* role. Still, I guess her, Fiennes and that other chap have a nice little earner sorted for the next couple of decades at least. As for Craig himself, HOLY FUCK he looks so old he's practically a fucking lich or something, the skin's stretched so tight over his skull. Ah well, I guess it went well with the all pervasive sense of death I suppose...

Really. Fucking. Strange. If it were just an original spy film, I'd probably say it was aces, it's a really great piece of film making on its own terms but as a James Bond 007 film...um, yeah. Hmmmm.




- mary h. - 11-02-2012

I just had to reply to this one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhp1608 View Post

Spoilers

The homosexuality, bad wigs and repressed Oedipal feelings felt really outdated to me. Silva was great in theory, and Bardem is an actor I find ordinarily compelling, but the execution made him some kind of Wint & Kidd-style character with all of Fleming's bigotry dialled up to 11.

Was Silva REALLY homosexual (or maybe I'm missinterpreting what you are saying).  That is not at all what I got from that scene.  Silva, to start with, has a mistress that we know about before that scene.  And after that we see how jealous he is with her.  He kills her since she slept with another man.  The man that he "hit on".  The flirting to me was showing how far both those men would go to get what they want.  It was about power, not sex.  I loved that Bond played along and hinted that he had gone all the way on that.   To me, that was actually quite modern.

The Oedipal bit my husband questioned, but I noted that considering he was her favourite in Hong Kong and he probably was an orphan like Bond (didn't she mention that the best agents are orphans) that he may have looked up to her like a mother.  To be betrayed so ruthlessly would be horrifying.  And then not being able to kill yourself when you desperately want to die.  Yeah, I could see going nuts on that one...Oedipal stuff is old-fashioned, but since those stories have been around at least 2,500 years, I suspect we'll continue to see them from time-to-time...




- mary h. - 11-02-2012

Oh and just to add in general - holy shit that was a beautiful film.  If that is not nominated for cinematography at the Oscars, it would be a sin.  Even when the Home Alone bits got a bit, well, Home Alone, just watching that house on fire in the background.  Dear Lord.  And the shadow fight was worth the price of admission alone.  Beautiful.




- MrSaxon - 11-02-2012

Yeah, Deakins is the unsung hero of this movie. I could have watched an entire movie set amongst the flashing neon lights of Hong Kong.




- jhp1608 - 11-02-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary H. View Post

I just had to reply to this one:

Was Silva REALLY homosexual (or maybe I'm missinterpreting what you are saying).  That is not at all what I got from that scene.  Silva, to start with, has a mistress that we know about before that scene.  And after that we see how jealous he is with her.  He kills her since she slept with another man.  The man that he "hit on".  The flirting to me was showing how far both those men would go to get what they want.  It was about power, not sex.  I loved that Bond played along and hinted that he had gone all the way on that.   To me, that was actually quite modern.

The Oedipal bit my husband questioned, but I noted that considering he was her favourite in Hong Kong and he probably was an orphan like Bond (didn't she mention that the best agents are orphans) that he may have looked up to her like a mother.  To be betrayed so ruthlessly would be horrifying.  And then not being able to kill yourself when you desperately want to die.  Yeah, I could see going nuts on that one...Oedipal stuff is old-fashioned, but since those stories have been around at least 2,500 years, I suspect we'll continue to see them from time-to-time...

I think I'd have bought your impression of the scene more if Bardem hadn't consistently characterised Silva as a deeply camp individual. The hair, the mincing, the strangely lispy accent. Sure, you could argue the scene with Bond is about him trying to get underneath Bond's skin, and in a sense it's a neat idea, but the whole presentation of the character suggested to me a rather old-fashioned idea that non-standard sexuality and emotional distress are bedfellows. I also don't remember if he explcitly explained his murder of Severine as revenge for her adultery - I thought it was a more straighforward punishment for betrayal.

It's a broad brushstroke character, and suits the film's melodramatic approach to emotional conflict, but I found it markedly distasteful in places. A bit like the idea that Scaramanga can't whistle indicates he may be gay, and hey, that's exactly the sort of character flaw we presume to see in a bad guy.




- jhp1608 - 11-02-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel Red View Post

That was one deeply fucking odd, strange, plain.damn.weird film.

I know there was a thing a couple of years back for film journos complaining that all the studios wanted to Dark Knight up every franchise they had after it proved to be a box office juggernaut but I didn't think there was any real truth to it. Until now anyway because that was Nolaned right up the arse all right. The moody skyscrapers, the bizarre charismatic nutter antagonist, creepy country manors, broken and angry orphans with kindly old duffers trying to steer them right, and ultimately a pained hero who loses as much as he wins. I felt like I'd walked in on the wrong film, which screen was Bond on again?

I mean, there were some genuinely great moments littered throughout and it was beautifully, stunningly shot but it comes crashing to a halt when it reaches the island and never really recovers. The sight of Bond tearing through rush hour on the District Line somehow manages to be jarring and immersion breaking as fuck and seeing a parliamentary inquiry turn into a mad shoot out with Bond, Mallory and the others, while staged well, felt so very, very wrong.

Come the end of it, it really came across like the producers were saying, okay, experiment's over, here you go, we promise to stop, normal service will be resumed next time out. And while I generally loathe the status quo being restored in various forms of ongoing fiction, after this outing, I'm not going to complain if it helps ensure the next entry doesn't feel as off as this one did.

If anything, it was Judy Dench's film, she was brilliant throughout (and gets the best, most random and unexpected F-bomb in a film possibly ever), and I appreciate that they tried to do something different with her and the film but if I'm honest, it's not really what I look for in the series. M's job is to bark at Bond, pour some scotch and pat him on the back after a job well done, not be haunted by past mistakes, get humiliated at every turn and ultimately fucking die!

Bardem was fine enough, though Sean Bean still reigns supreme in the pissed off ex-agent stakes. Berenice Marlohe was outstanding in her limited screen time (seriously, that conversation with Bond at the bar was probably my favourite scene of the entire film, her face and expressions were incredible). Oh and I can't believe they're wasting Naomie Harris with *that* role. Still, I guess her, Fiennes and that other chap have a nice little earner sorted for the next couple of decades at least. As for Craig himself, HOLY FUCK he looks so old he's practically a fucking lich or something, the skin's stretched so tight over his skull. Ah well, I guess it went well with the all pervasive sense of death I suppose...

Really. Fucking. Strange. If it were just an original spy film, I'd probably say it was aces, it's a really great piece of film making on its own terms but as a James Bond 007 film...um, yeah. Hmmmm.

I'm sharing a carriage with this chap. And I like what Nolan did with the Bat-films. It just seemed a pecualiar direction to take Bond in, and it didn't take me along for the ride. I suspect some may argue it was closer to the Fleming conception of Bond's damaged fatalism, but to be honest it come over as an adaptaion of a John Gardner book than anything Fleming would have written.




- MrSaxon - 11-02-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel Red View Post

The sight of Bond tearing through rush hour on the District Line somehow manages to be jarring and immersion breaking as fuck and seeing a parliamentary inquiry turn into a mad shoot out with Bond, Mallory and the others, while staged well, felt so very, very wrong.

Okay, now I'm curious. I'm interested to know why you felt the first sequence was "jarring" and the second was "so very, very wrong". I didn't find this to be the case at all. Is it because you're more used to Bond's chase sequences occuring outside of the UK and that MI5 is usually reduced to background material whilst Bond goes about his mission? A friend in a London office told me that he loved these sequences, specifically because they were set in his home city.




- mike's pants - 11-02-2012

Agreed, seeing Bond on the tube was so much fun




- leederick - 11-02-2012

.


- s.d. bob plissken - 11-03-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by leederick View Post
I'd be really interested is seeing the drafts - what's Morgan, Purvis/Wade, and Logan.

Morgan only ever wrote a rough outline.  MGM went tits up before he could start an actual draft and he was otherwise occupied when pre-preproduction resumed after the bankruptcy problems had ended.




- Felix - 11-03-2012

I definitely liked it as a whole. The Bond stalking the Hitman scene in China was beautifully shot.

Which Bond girl did you prefer? Naomie Harris or Berenice Marlohe.

P.S- Was that a real Komodo Dragon?




- ken savage - 11-03-2012

SPOLIERS!!!

Saw it a second time with the Mrs.  Still great but my nitpicks still remain (re the car).

Regarding the title sequence.   If you watch that again, it, along with the song actually tells you how the film is going to end - which is kind of cool.




- mr. stockslivevan - 11-03-2012

A[quote name="S.D. Bob Plissken" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/50#post_3415075"]
Morgan only ever wrote a rough outline.  MGM went tits up before he could start an actual draft and he was otherwise occupied when pre-preproduction resumed after the bankruptcy problems had ended.
[/quote]

It's probably a good thing too because he didn't really seem to care much for 007 at all: http://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/peter-morgan-007-fans-hardly-knew-ye/


- MrSaxon - 11-03-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post

Which Bond girl did you prefer? Naomie Harris or Berenice Marlohe.

Berenice for me. She can shake my martini any time.

M was the real Bond girl of this movie, though.




- Felix - 11-03-2012

I really felt for her here. She looked frightened and yet resigned at the end. A pity her screentime was so short.




- stelios - 11-04-2012

Definitely much better than Quantum Of Solace, in Casino Royale's class but not as good. These were my exact words coming out of the theater. But after a couple of hours I have to say it as good as CR. CR is a big favorite because it saved us from the evil of late Brossnan films. You take that out and Skyfall is just as good.

Mendes was always visually gifted. Being paired with a godlike entity like Roger Deakins would of course lead to shot after shot of glory.

Bardem fucking kills it. Absolutely kills it. Genuinely scary is not something I've ever called a Bond villain. He plays it crazy, but uncomfartable crazy, not movie cookoo crazy. The crowd can get a bit homophobic here in Greece but instead of bullshit jokes and uncomfortable laughs the theater was dead fucking silent when he started fucking with Bond. He was marvelous. I want someone to make Frankenstein again and have Brdem play the creature.

Dench's send off gave her the chance to play something more than the ice queen that deep inside cares for her people. M as a role has been fun but beneath her. Her reactions alone in her first scene with Bardem were more and better acting than she did in all her previous parts as M.

Whishaw is fun but forgetable.

Fiennes made me feel sorry for never getting the chance to be Bond himself.

Craig was as great as always. It is weird fun though, witnessing 15 year old girls audibly lusting after a 44 year old man. And I've realized something. I feel that his Bond as the "personification of British fortitude" that M called him in his obituary is a quite self reflective and willful comment on Britain and its history. He's suave and confident as hell but he's also a quite murderous and brutal thug. He's gone from "The empire where the sun never set" to "The empire where the sun never set and the blood never stopped flowing" as I've heard told.

Finally, screw the haters. The Goldfinger DB 5 accompanied by the theme was a great scene. And as an old-school Bond fan everything that came after seeing the coat rack gave me a MASSIVE erection.




- Felix - 11-04-2012

Wasn't surprised that this was Dench's send off here. She's been suffering some health problems this past year.




- mike's pants - 11-04-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post

Bardem fucking kills it. Absolutely kills it. Genuinely scary is not something I've ever called a Bond villain. He plays it crazy, but uncomfartable crazy, not movie cookoo crazy. The crowd can get a bit homophobic here in Greece but instead of bullshit jokes and uncomfortable laughs the theater was dead fucking silent when he started fucking with Bond. He was marvelous. I want someone to make Frankenstein again and have Brdem play the creature.

This and this. I loved his entrance, he's incredibly magnetic as a presence at the best of times but he was mesmerising in this.

A friend of mine stated on Facebook that Skyfall was 'shite', when I asked why he said (I'm quoting here) "The villain feels him up and he was fine with it, it weirded me out". I just left it there.




- jacob singer - 11-04-2012

Probably more like, "The villain feels him up and he was fine with it, and I got a huge boner".




- MrSaxon - 11-04-2012

Great write-up Stelios! Glad to see that you enjoyed it as much as I did (probably more, in fact, as I rate CR a tiny bit higher). I'm looking forward to seeing the reactions from everyone else when it's released in the U.S.A.




- Stale Elvis - 11-05-2012

Saw this last night.

Agree with 99% of the write-ups on here but just a couple of thoughts...

  • Q - Ben Wishaw - I stated in another thread that I hated the fact that he was so young etc. Being honest, I liked his character but  - here's the thing, they styled him as a techno-nerd - all big hair, glasses and cardigans - but they never maxed out this angle, keeping him relativley grounded - raising the question, why style/cast him as such?
  • M - Judi Dench - thank fuck for that. Would have preferred her to fade away into the sunset/retirement but at least there's a line drawn under that bloody character.
  • Skyfall Lodge - all a bit predictable. We've seen that before form Home Alone to Death With 3 or 4 - was purely filler. Scene with the tunnel telegraphed from a 1000 miles away.
  • Craig - brought his A game as usual
  • Bardem - all been said - great character

Other than the above I thought it was OK. My only gripe was there was a complete lack of glamour and luxury throughout the film - to me Bond is as much about the luxurious lifestyle as he is about the DB5 etc.

Overall, Better than QoS and falls well short of CR.




- stelios - 11-05-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

For those who have seen it, without spoiling anything what do you think of Daniel Kleinman's Skyfall title sequence?

Sorry I missed that question. Not that great except for a small part. Unimaginative, except for said small part, and ill fitting to the song. A shame because there were a lot of great visual cues they could have taken from the movie. Casino Royale remains by far the best of the modern Bonds in this regard.

ETA: I can't believe how much the last few scenes still make me smile. I know that's what they were supposed to do but dammit they worked for me.




- pbar - 11-06-2012

AMore thoughts later...but I fucking loved it. Casino does the story aspects better, but this balances everything much more elegantly.

Booby trapped house for the win.


- don swoosh - 11-06-2012

Quote:
Finally, screw the haters. The Goldfinger DB 5 accompanied by the theme was a great scene. And as an old-school Bond fan everything that came after seeing the coat rack gave me a MASSIVE erection.

While I'll be seeing the film here in the US on Thursday night in glorious IMAX, I still had to comment on this.  Why is the car a problem?  It's not like we didn't see how Craig's Bond got the thing.  It's spelled out in Casino Royale.  Cut to six years later and a visit from Xzibit and his friends from "Pimp My Ride" and we know how this thing got tricked out....

What's the beef?




- Stale Elvis - 11-06-2012

OK - to be clear, this isn't the car from Casino Royale. They're both DB5s but not the same car.

Stop looking for continuity in the Bond franchise or you'll disappear up your own ass.




- jhp1608 - 11-06-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

OK - to be clear, this isn't the car from Casino Royale. They're both DB5s but not the same car.

Stop looking for continuity in the Bond franchise or you'll disappear up your own ass.

I don't usually get bothered by it, but they bothered to make a point of how he got a remarkably notable classic sports car with a particular paint job in Casino Royale. Admittedly, it was fan service, but it fitted well into the scene-setting that this is not the same Bond as came before. There's no absolute need to maintain continuity, and I agree, Bond films are not historically slaves to it. It just grated with me how much the car being the one from Goldfinger wasn't (a) organic to the plot (b) necessary or © consistent with the the story about the very same character (and I mean Craig's Bond, not just Bond in general) that this film is very clearly meant to be about.

It wasn't my biggest beef (the dwindling stakes, melodrama and dodgy villain (yes, I'm that guy) were my main ones), but it was symptomatic of the film's problems as I see them. A lack of focus and to much attention paid to the meta-narrative. I love me some post-modernism but Casino achieved the same thing in a far more natural and effective way, at least IMHO.

Plus, as much as I like Craig as Bond, and would praise the majority of his performance, he is continuing the trend of "Blue Steel"-ing certain moments which he started in Quantum. The scenes where he is approaching X on a boat, for example, play way too broadly like I'm watching a moving picture version of a men's clothing catalogue. They jar with me, and remind me too much of the way Brosnan played the role before loosening up in DAD. Weirdly, Craig seems to be regressing (only in part, I grant you) from what was a much more naturalistic (and in my view, effective) performance in Casino.




- Stale Elvis - 11-06-2012

I simply see Bond films as a narrative where they can draw from a series of stock imagery/icons/set pieces/characters from the series. Whoever plays M, Q, Moneypenny etc are irrelevant to me provideing they're the stock characters. The DB5 is just part of this pool they can pluck things from to tell a James Bond story.

Which particular boat arrival scene were you referring to? The casino one or the other one? Because the casino one really stood out a WTF? poser moment.




- jhp1608 - 11-06-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

I simply see Bond films as a narrative where they can draw from a series of stock imagery/icons/set pieces/characters from the series. Whoever plays M, Q, Moneypenny etc are irrelevant to me provideing they're the stock characters. The DB5 is just part of this pool they can pluck things from to tell a James Bond story.

Which particular boat arrival scene were you referring to? The casino one or the other one? Because the casino one really stood out a WTF? poser moment.

I'd normally agree with you, but Casino Royale (and to a lesser extent, Quantum) was a game changer in that respect. That doesn't mean you can't muck around with or revert back to the old approach, but making such a strident reference to an old film in a way that diametrically opposes the creative decisions made recently and otherwise followed through on seemed crass and jarring. It's subjective, I grant you, but so is enjoying a movie.

Both boat approach scenes. The b-movie kung fu flick approach to Macao, and the yacht coming up to Silva's island. The latter stood out slightly less, but Craig was striking a pose that seemed (to me at least) a bit too much like a perfume advert.

Again, these are details (details...Don't bother me with the details) but they aggregated to such an extent I was actually annoyed when I left the cinema. I almost felt like it was a Bond movie made by people who actually don't like Bond very much.

Christ, I'm beginning to sound like Harry Knowles.




- stelios - 11-06-2012

Striking a pose? How? By having his hands in his pockets?




- Stale Elvis - 11-06-2012

Dunno about the yacht to the island, that didn't bother me at all, other than the henchmen suddenly appearing with the guns - he'd been there all night and everyone seemed surprised to suddenly see each other - Hey it's henchmen, where did they come from? and Hey, It's Bond, where did he come from?

The boat to the casino stance seemed incredibly forced - just standing still as you glide towards the camera.

I'm going to call it now, once the hype has died down and in a few years Skyfall will be hailed as an average Bond, a bit more style over substance. Not to say it isn't a good film, just a slightly more than average Bond.




- jhp1608 - 11-06-2012

Legs spread wide akimbo, shoulders set, hands in pockets. All looked a bit pose-y.

Fuck it. It bothered me. Can't sensibly jusitfy it, so won't try to.




- cognizant - 11-06-2012

Yeah, continuity in this franchise is a headache, but I like to think Skyfall promotes the idea that 'Bond' and 'M' are just codenames used by agents over the years.  I like the idea of the classic Aston Martin, and other cars of the franchise, just sitting in hideaways waiting to be used again.