Skyfall - Grading & Discussion

[CaptainCanada]

TedShatner10 wrote:

---

And people are ripping into Quantum of Solace now, even though it was a relatively decent Bond movie?

That's not really a "now" thing. It was considered disappointing when it came out, and "meh" has been the consensus ever since.

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

This movie wasn't that good. It's entertaining but a bit thin and preposterous... but that comes with the territory.

Any chance we'll get the Bond we all know? At the end of CR, we got him with the suit, gun and the music, as if to show, in Batman Begins style, that this is the Bond we all know. Ironically, this new film ends the same way, with Bond actually the Bond we know, with Q, M, and Moneypenny only fully in place at the end of the film.

It's almost like we haven't got to a real Bond adventure yet that wasn't in fact a prequel.

[Ghost Bones]

Most people are too kind. It is the worst film ever made.

[JarodRussell]

Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

---

This movie wasn't that good. It's entertaining but a bit thin and preposterous... but that comes with the territory.

Any chance we'll get the Bond we all know? At the end of CR, we got him with the suit, gun and the music, as if to show, in Batman Begins style, that this is the Bond we all know. Ironically, this new film ends the same way, with Bond actually the Bond we know, with Q, M, and Moneypenny only fully in place at the end of the film.

It's almost like we haven't got to a real Bond adventure yet that wasn't in fact a prequel.

It feels like this film wants to make us forget about Quantum of Solace. Casino Royale and Skyfall taken together are a great couple. CS starts out rough and dirty with nothing in place, and Skyfall ends smooth and clean with everything in place.

[throwback]

Well, I saw the opening credits. They have really toned the number of times females appear, haven't they? It's like they are now an afterthought. (I have been watching some of the older Bonds, and noticing that the number of times females appeared was greater.)

I am not sure if these effects will look good in ten years, or fifty years from now. CGI dates quickly.

[TedShatner10]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

Casino Royale isn't a bad movie.

It's a great movie.

Actually it's a pretty good spy movie. It's just not a cinematic James Bond movie.

It was the first Bond movie to follow a Fleming novel properly in decades and successfully rebuilt Bond for the big screen from the ground up, after Brosnan Bond got rapidly stale.

The less said about Quantum of Solace the better. It's easily one of the 5 worst films in the whole franchise.

More like in the top of the bottom 10 Bond movies - around the middle of the pack really. It was certainly better than the last couple of Brosnan movies.

And it does it while not being very Bond-esque either.

You think the exotic locations, chase scenes, and a Bond girl killed in a bizarre way was un-Bondian?

Skyfall is the first DC Bond I'll be proud to own and watch over and over.

I gave it a B, it's very watchable and solid, but felt like back to square one after Judi Dench got replaced.

[Captrek]

We’re not used to second-guessing James Bond, because he always wins, but he makes a very questionable one here.

Silva wants to kill M (and himself, it turns out), so Bond takes her to his old house, lets nobody on his side know where they’re going, but leaves a “trail of breadcrumbs” inviting the villain to come after them with an army. Is this really a good idea?

M doesn’t survive the showdown. Bond showing up at the end to put a knife in Silva’s back changes nothing. So what does Bond actually accomplish in this film? He blows up the house and the car and kills a bunch of hired hands, all for nothing. Bond failing in this manner might make him more “real” and compelling. It’s certainly not what one ordinarily expects from a Bond film.

ETA: In the poll at the top of the thread, the grades are almost universally high. The lowest vote is (as of this posting) a single vote for D+. Who’s the voter who was so disappointed? M.

[Professor Zoom]

captrek wrote:

---

We’re not used to second-guessing James Bond, because he always wins, but he makes a very questionable one here.

Silva wants to kill M (and himself, it turns out), so Bond takes her to his old house, lets nobody on his side know where they’re going, but leaves a “trail of breadcrumbs” inviting the villain to come after them with an army. Is this really a good idea?

M doesn’t survive the showdown. Bond showing up at the end to put a knife in Silva’s back changes nothing. So what does Bond actually accomplish in this film? He blows up the house and the car and kills a bunch of hired hands, all for nothing. Bond failing in this manner might make him more “real” and compelling. It’s certainly not what one ordinarily expects from a Bond film.

And as I said earlier, a desirable spy.

"So, Mr. Bond, it seems on your last mission, you made the choice to take your boss 'off the grid' which resulted in her death... Why should we continue your employment here at MI6?"

[Captrek]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

And as I said earlier, a desirable spy.

"So, Mr. Bond, it seems on your last mission, you made the choice to take your boss 'off the grid' which resulted in her death... Why should we continue your employment here at MI6?"

I just saw the movie today, and didn’t want to read the 171 messages already posted in this thread, so I didn’t. Now going back and reading your earlier post, I find it’s remarkably similar to mine. It almost looks like I copied you. _____ minds think alike, I guess. I don’t know what word goes in the blank.

As to the question of his continued employment, I don’t think this case is one he’s going to highlight on his resume. Despite his failure here, his success-to-cock-up ratio is still impressive enough to warrant his continued employment at MI6.

[Starkers]

Ghost Bones wrote:

---

What do you mean even Casino Royale? It's as ridiculous as any Bond film, if not more.

In fact, just last week HISHE did it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byku-4Sl4zE

My ‘even Casino Royale’ statement was made from the perspective that a large majority of people see it as some kind of perfect uber film, which it isn’t, it’s as flawed as any other, in fact in some ways I find the contrivances more jarring because it proclaims to be a “realistic” Bond film. At least when I see Roger Moore with a laser gun I know to suspend my disbelief.

Interesting to see so many people dissing Bond’s plan to lure Silva off. Although M died, from the perspective of 007 and MI6 I think you could call it a success, or at least not a failure. Silva had already blown up part of Thames House killing multiple (what was it 7?) MI6agents. He’d revealed the names of many more, at least one of whom ended up dead. In escaping from the new MI6 HQ he killed at least one more man that we’re aware of, and given there was clearly a driver in the tube train he derailed it’s possible he died too (though there didn’t appear to be any passengers) and of course after this we have multiple police officers and potentially many civilians killed when Silva attacks the hearing.

As M says, “Too many people are dying because of me.” In fact I’d go as far as to say that transporting her to the middle of nowhere was less about Bond protecting M, than about Bond protecting MI6 and the British populace! In those circumstances mission accomplished. Probably more of a successful mission than Casino Royale given MI6 don’t get Le Chiffre, and don’t even get the money!

And I like Quantum, as I always say it has a lot of flaws, but in many ways I think it plays more like a classic Bond film than Casino Royale does.

[Captaindemotion]

Ghost Bones wrote:

---

Most people are too kind. It is the worst film ever made.

Not in a universe where Batman and Robin exists.

[Starkers]

Captaindemotion wrote:

---

Not in a universe where Batman and Robin exists.

Not in a universe where many many films exist. Heck I'd sooner watch B&R than a whole heap of other films I could mention (Catwoman springs instantly to mind)

[TedShatner10]

Starkers wrote:

---

In those circumstances mission accomplished. Probably more of a successful mission than Casino Royale given MI6 don’t get Le Chiffre, and don’t even get the money!

Bond stops an aircraft getting blown up (saving dozens of lives), a dangerous money man that was funding many crime syndicates, rogue states, and terrorist groups was taken out of the picture in the process, a traitor was eliminated, and the main backer was taken into custody (albiet very briefly, but it led to Bond stopping a Latin American country being subverted by a quasi-corporate crime syndicate, a brutal would be tyrant was killed, and Bond also put a stop to the same group corrupting Western operatives).

Silva succeeded in killing the head of MI6, but like Khan Noonien Singh he pissed his great power and abilities up the wall to essentially get after one person he has severe emotional hang ups over, not thinking that MI6 and the rest of the British nation goes way beyond M, getting most or all of his followers and himself killed in the process.

[Caligula]

Haven't read through the entire thread, but I'm definitely seeing a lot less positive reaction here than I would have expected. As for me, this just became my new favorite Bond movie (with apologies to GoldenEye). I'll even go so far as to say that this was James Bond's The Dark Knight. I loved how it was able to pay tribute to the conventions of past Bond films without ever feeling like it was a slave to said conventions. And Javier Bardem as Silva is easily my favorite Bond villain. I've seen and heard the complaints about his showing up later in the film than expected, but my take on that was that his lurking in the shadows only added to the character's menace. Whenever they decide to bring Blofeld back to the series (because you know that's happening someday), it'll be interesting to see what they have him do that can top what Silva did in this movie.

John Logan, you are officially removed from my shit list. Bravo.

[Caliburn24]

Finally got around to seeing Skyfall.

I loved every technical element. The actors, the direction, the editing, the score, the lighting, all top-notch. Among the best of any Bond movie.

All those wonderful contributions were let down by a script and a plot that is insanely inept and contrived. I was just happily following along with the movie, until it hit a lull in the middle, and my brain turned back on and started piecing together what was going on.

So lets go through the salient plot points piece by piece.

1) M gives up Silva to the Chinese. He gets tortured. He escapes somehow. He blames M. He then waits over a decade to do anything about it. Why?

2) Bond chases down the NOC-list as the movie opens. Why is it in Istanbul? Why is Bond there? Whatever, it is an in media res opening, that is fine. But then why does M fake Bond's death? Why does he allow her to fake his own death? Why does the plot take a break for weeks or months so Bond can heal up?

3) Silva blows up MI-6, knowing they will move operations underground. Makes sense for the moment.

4) Bond breaks into M's flat(gee...maybe someone else should have thought of that...)

5) Patrice(the assassin) uses depleted uranium bullets(whatever, its a Bond movie) which makes it easy to identify and track him. AND FOR SOME REASON Bond kept three pieces of the bullet that hit him inside his shoulder, just waiting for the right time to pull them out.

6) Bond tracks Patrice to Shanghai, lets him assassinate his target, and uses the casino chip to meet up with sex slave lady. The assassination was staged, the Komodo-dragon fight was staged. All to bring Bond to meet Silva.

7) Silva than kills his lady, who apparently was just following Silva's plan all along(willingly or not). And then lets Bond take him prisoner. So that...

8) He can be imprisoned in the London underground, and breakout(how did he escape his cage anyways? He had no physical help as far as we can tell) into the Tube. Using precise timing and relying on Q's ineptitude.

9) His master plan is then revealed as he walks into Westminster with two henchmen dressed as cops, and attempts to gun down M. REALLY?! This whole elaborate plan just so he can try to kill her with a pistol?

10) Bond leads Silva to Scotland. And Q and M apparently don't even try to send help.

11) M dies, rendering meaningless Bond's entire actions during the movie. He could have stayed in his tropical paradise and things would have turned out better for a lot of people.

I understand this is a Bond movie. I know Bond movie plots don't always make sense. But this movie is trying to be somewhat more grounded(The exploding pens line for example) and realistic. Only instead of offering a tighter plot, it offers the most contrived-holey plot of any Bond movie I can think of. The Joker's plan in TDK is simplicity itself compared to Silva's plan here. And the actions of our heroes are arbitrary and idiotic as well.

I'm sure I'll watch this movie again at some point, and enjoy how pretty it is and the high production values. But gosh, if people are willing to accept this level of writing in their blockbusters(not even just accept, but lavish praise on it) I fear for the future of storytelling.