Skyfall - Grading & Discussion

[MacLeod]

And do you know what the next sentance would likely be out of the questioner.

It would have been something along the lines, "Are you trying to get out of answering our questions?, by claiming that an attack on this room is imminant."

[DevilEyes]

MacLeod wrote:

---

And do you know what the next sentance would likely be out of the questioner.

It would have been something along the lines, "Are you trying to get out of answering our questions?, by claiming that an attack on this room is imminant."

Under the assumption that Parliament members have the maturity level of little kids and that M and the Minister are like two kids arguing in a high school rather than responsible adults. And that M both despises them and doesn't care about saving them, so she thinks "Those morons would never tell me I'm right unless they get hit by Silva themselves".

[stj]

Starkers wrote:

---

...They basically paint big targets on themselves then go off to a remote locatiion precisely in order to protect others.

Actually, they attempted to first lead Javier Bardem astray (heedless of any possible collateral damage,) then direct Bardem to Skyfall only after they had succeeded in preparing a rather better ambush than the one they could only improvise. Q of course failed as he failed in everything, but that is what Bond and M asked for.

There is very little evidence that any intelligence service beyond diplomats collecting public information and private communications from host government officials has ever contributed to any nation's security. And all the known evidence indicates that covert operations of the Bond variety merely impair relations or create new enemies. Trying to take this movie seriously on any level is like hitting yourself in the head.

[MacLeod]

They would think it was rather conveniant that an attack was going to occur just when they were questioning M.

[Gaith]

MacLeod wrote:

---

And do you know what the next sentance would likely be out of the questioner.

It would have been something along the lines, "Are you trying to get out of answering our questions?, by claiming that an attack on this room is imminant."

Even disregarding the extremely public and lethal attack on MI6 only days before, you cannot possibly be serious.

ElfEars wrote:

---

Bond shows no particular interest in saving - e.g. he doesn't try to stop the assassin before he kills his target).

That was definitely weird. Sure, he was trying to sneak up on the guy for maximum self-protection, but that's no excuse when a possible innocent life is at stake.

ElfEars wrote:

---

If the greatest thing Bond and M can do for the world at large and for the ordinary bystanders is not further endanger them/get them killed by having their confrontation with Silva out in the open - well, that still does nothing to answer the question that was posed in the movie itself, why the fuck is MI6 needed in the first place?

I guess the lesson they took from the fan backlash to Die Another Day, which also had a valedictory tone filled with callbacks to earlier movies, is that the worst the series can do is do outsize villains any more. And since political correctness drastically reduces other ethnic/nationalist options, rogue ex-agents are an easy and obvious alternative (see: the first three Mission: Impossibles). Another route is to reboot SPECTRE, which they tried with Quantum, but understandably let go of here, as that was also a pretty stupid idea. (Fact is, white spies just aren't very useful in a post-Cold War world.)

The result, as you observe, is narrative claustrophobia, covered in lots of shiny paint. Here's one of my favorite critics, Tom Shone:

The result is good-looking, dramatically inert, high-end filmmaking that invites its audience to feel superior to cheap thrills it doesn't have the faintest idea how to produce.

[...] Should Bond be this beautiful? The series always dreamed of sophistication, of course, with its martinis and jet travel and beautiful exotica — those complaining about product placement in the new film ought to remember that Fleming was dropping labels decades before Bret Easton Ellis was spitting out his pacifier — but it was the pseudo-sophistication of the business traveller, doomed to curdle into kitsch. That is what made Casino Royale such a blessed relief, for here was Bond played straight, with a new Bond who was blonde and tough and cool again. Given this, Mendes decision to revisit the theme of the Timothy Dalton Bonds — Bond as dinosaur, ribbed by his younger colleagues for being out-of-date — is all the more baffling, a self-inflicted defeat just inches from the end zone. What sense does it make to have M hauled in front of a government oversight committee and told that era of human intelligence is past, when what revivified the whole Bond franchise in the first place was the renewed threat of terrorism? The contemporary resonance is there on a plate.

I guess that for most, the shiny paint was enough.

[MacLeod]

The question is how would the Select Committee would view her statement about a threat. They could view it as accurate or as a way of evading their qestions about her and her runing of MI6.

They are supposed to be suspect of any answers given, until evidence backs it up.

[trevanian]

Starkers wrote:

---

How odd given that both Bond and M make it clear that they go off on their own to Skyfall because too many other people are dying. They basically paint big targets on themselves then go off to a remote locatiion precisely in order to protect others.

Which while sounding selfless, just comes off as stupid, like they've seen HIGH NOON and, even though the context is utterly & completely different, they need to step into Gary Cooper's boots. Avoiding innocents being killed is one thing, but how about SAS-types, where 'risk is their business' to paraphrase JTK? They could have done the same bread crumb trail thing to Scotland, and had SAS standing by out of range INDEFINITELY until Bardem moved in. You can keep claiming that his character has access to all information and data, but that kind of writing ploy used in excess becomes ridiculous - which is how ALL of SKYFALL played for me. You hide bad writing in an allegedly serious story, then run back and claim 'this is escapism' when people pick it out. But the rest of the time you claim better and more realistic, when your plot points are as arbitrary as the clues that led Roger Moore from Paris to South America in MR.

[Gaith]

^ Quite. And weren't there any other field agents, maybe even 00s, who happened to also be in London at the time and could have gotten secure communications for where to go and help out?

(... Or would they not get back to Blighty until Tuesday?)


I wasn't nuts about Ghost Protocol, but the whole team aspect struck me as both more credible (even in-universe) and more engaging than Skyfall's absurd "even when he shoots worse than a drunk Navy SEAL, Bond's all we've got" mentality.

[Samurai8472]

"Skyfall crossed a billion dollars. Can it win an Oscar?




FYI: For these "For Your Considerations" ads it's standard protocol to forward these ads for every major crew and cast members.


Cottilard even got one for "The Dark Knight Rises"!

[MacLeod]

a billion isn't that bad, and it's still to open in China.

[trevanian]

TITANIC won a best pic oscar; so did CHARIOTS OF FIRE. Geez, KRAMER VS KRAMER beat APOCALYPSE NOW and ALL THAT JAZZ for Oscar, and don't get me started on how BOUND FOR GLORY, ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN, TAXI DRIVER and especially NETWORK could lose to ROCKY. That's up there in WTF! with BABE beating APOLLO 13 for the VFX oscar.

With all that in mind, yeah, sadly it's possible SKYFALL could win an Oscar. But just because you can do a thing, Academy, doesn't mean you should ... especially with this one.

[MacLeod]

There's nothing wrong with films like Chariots and Krammer vs Krammer winning the best film oscar.

[trevanian]

Not much right with them winning, either.

Man I REMEMBER how many great films should have been in competition in place of CHARIOTS ... Just in terms of non-nominated films, TAPS, TRUE CONFESSIONS and RAGTIME blew me away (and the latter two STILL impress), while I actually fell asleep on CHARIOTS (had already bought the soundtrack, so it was all downhill from there.) ABSENCE OF MALICE, while nominated for director and most of the cast, also didn't get a bestpic nod.

[Starkers]

Gaith wrote:

---

Even disregarding the extremely public and lethal attack on MI6 only days before, you cannot possibly be serious.

That was definitely weird. Sure, he was trying to sneak up on the guy for maximum self-protection, but that's no excuse when a possible innocent life is at stake.

I guess the lesson they took from the fan backlash to Die Another Day, which also had a valedictory tone filled with callbacks to earlier movies, is that the worst the series can do is do outsize villains any more. And since political correctness drastically reduces other ethnic/nationalist options, rogue ex-agents are an easy and obvious alternative (see: the first three Mission: Impossibles). Another route is to reboot SPECTRE, which they tried with Quantum, but understandably let go of here, as that was also a pretty stupid idea. (Fact is, white spies just aren't very useful in a post-Cold War world.)

The result, as you observe, is narrative claustrophobia, covered in lots of shiny paint. Here's one of my favorite critics, Tom Shone:

The result is good-looking, dramatically inert, high-end filmmaking that invites its audience to feel superior to cheap thrills it doesn't have the faintest idea how to produce.

[...] Should Bond be this beautiful? The series always dreamed of sophistication, of course, with its martinis and jet travel and beautiful exotica — those complaining about product placement in the new film ought to remember that Fleming was dropping labels decades before Bret Easton Ellis was spitting out his pacifier — but it was the pseudo-sophistication of the business traveller, doomed to curdle into kitsch. That is what made Casino Royale such a blessed relief, for here was Bond played straight, with a new Bond who was blonde and tough and cool again. Given this, Mendes decision to revisit the theme of the Timothy Dalton Bonds — Bond as dinosaur, ribbed by his younger colleagues for being out-of-date — is all the more baffling, a self-inflicted defeat just inches from the end zone. What sense does it make to have M hauled in front of a government oversight committee and told that era of human intelligence is past, when what revivified the whole Bond franchise in the first place was the renewed threat of terrorism? The contemporary resonance is there on a plate.

I guess that for most, the shiny paint was enough.

I find it hard to take seriously any crtic who can't even get his basic facts right. Dalton's 007 ribbed as a dionosaur? I don't think so...

But as for relevance, surely in a time when more and more of a spotlight is being shone on the covert world, when organisations like wikileaks and anonymous exist, surely this was relevent?

Trouble is Casino Royale convinced people that Bond could work as a gritty realistic spy, but aside from From Russia with Love, and maybe For Your Eyes Only, the Bond films have never been about gritty realistic spy thrillers, and quite frankly I don't want them to be. When I want something approaching real spying I'll watch the awesomeness that is Tinker Tailor, what I want is slick action, wit and wish fulfillment I'll watch Bond. This was my argument over the Bournification too, when I want to watch Bourne (maybe if I need to sleep) I'll watch a Bourne film, when I want to watch Bond I'll watch a Bond film and, for me at any rate, Skyfall is the irst Craig film to truly 100% feel like a Bond film.

And I kinda like that Bond doesn't win (although you could argue he does to a certain extend given Silva is neutralised, and, perhaps more importantly, dies thinking he's failed) Skyfall is one of the films of 2012 that didn't quite go where you expected it to (along with Looper).

As for Oscars, I'll be surprised if Skyfall doesn't pick up a couple, if only for cinematography and maybe Dench as supporting actress, though I'll be surprised if Mendes doesn't at least get a nomination for best director.

[MacLeod]

trevanian wrote:

---

Not much right with them winning, either.

Man I REMEMBER how many great films should have been in competition in place of CHARIOTS ... Just in terms of non-nominated films, TAPS, TRUE CONFESSIONS and RAGTIME blew me away (and the latter two STILL impress), while I actually fell asleep on CHARIOTS (had already bought the soundtrack, so it was all downhill from there.) ABSENCE OF MALICE, while nominated for director and most of the cast, also didn't get a bestpic nod.

The Academy has made some interesting choices over the years.