Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SkyFall

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    I saw Skyfall on Friday morning. I'm... not sure how I feel about it.

    POSSIBLE SPOILERS ALERT:





    Not sure how I felt about the obviously gay/bisexual villain. The scene where he was hitting on Bond was clearly intended to elicit outrage from both Bond and the (predictably straight, male) audience. Bond's strange "what makes you think this is my first time" comment was evidently intended to mitigate any criticism of homophobia, but I still found the scene problematic.

    I was also really pissed off about Bond's interactions with the Macau Bond girl (no idea her name), as well as her death scene. The whole thing was pure misogyny, and struck me as more closely related to the treatment of women characters in the early Bond films than in the past decade.

    As a big Judi Dench fan, I really liked that she was more of a presence in the film. I also liked the whole final sequence at Bond's childhood home. It didn't feel particularly Bond-ish to me... more like a weird amalgam of Harry Potter, Home Alone, and Batman. But I liked it anyway. I'm ambivalent about M's death and replacement. I like Ralph Fiennes ok, but Judi Dench is something special. Other than Eva Green's Vesper, Judi Dench has been the only "real" female character in the Craig films. The presence of well-developed non white, male characters made it easier to take the films seriously as films, rather than as the silly adolescent male fantasies they have traditionally tended toward.

    END SPOILERS

    The film was pretty good but still lacked the polish, tightness, and nail-biting thrills of the Bourne series and some other, more modern thrillers and action movies. Still not as good as Casino Royale.
    Ben

    Comment


      #32
      Yes, I felt the same about the odd (regressive) sexual politics of the film, and I agree it wasn't Casino Royale. But I think it was better than the last one, and really, I think it was very good for an action movie.

      Comment


        #33
        Just saw Skyfall.

        POSSIBLE SPOILERS ALERT:

        I think I liked it. I didn't dislike it. The PTS was great and the ending was good. The middle, I felt, was a little lacking in a certain degree of discovery. I think a good Bond film requires detective work. We all know that Bond isn't going to die and the day will be saved, so I kind of expect a slow reveal of the villain's master plot or at least some investigation to figure out what hes up to. The course of the film is very linear and there isn't really a lot of mystery - everything is presented with no real twists. A>B>C Everything is a little too convenient and glazed over.

        It was nice to see Bond not going against MI6's orders for once, what was once unique in License to Kill has become sort of cliched with Craig's era, IMO. The final bit, with M, was touching and gave the film a tone that hasn't really been tried since OHMSS and I really appreciated that.

        Style wise, because this is a style site, I liked everything. The use of the tab collars really made sense, keeping everything in place with all the action. Craig's midnight blue tuxedo was sick. And I already knew I loved the lodge outfit - I've picked up both the C&J islays and the Barbour jacket.

        Comment


          #34
          Being on dappered made me notice Bond's wardrobe a lot more than usual...anyone else?

          Comment


            #35
            As a Bond enthusiast, did anyone else notice all the references to previous Bond movies? I mean, the DB5 had the same license plate as Goldfinger along with the same gadgets (machine guns in the same location and the infamous ejector seat) along with Q's little quip about the exploding pen (a nod towards Goldeneye)
            "We had a sick night b*tches!"

            Comment


              #36
              I have been watching a lot of the Bond movies lately, and I think the main thing that makes me really like Daniel Craig is the sheer physicality and humanity he brings to the role. He doesnt have a gadget for every situation, and he isnt invincible. I really liked the movie. I think its about on par with Casino Royale for me. I really like Brosnan's Bond as well, but I think that after watching Goldeneye's (which is one of my fav bond movies) opening sequence yesterday where he jumps off the runway cliff with the bike and skydives without a parachute into a falling plane, and relating it to the sheer physicality and more realistic nature of Skyfall and Craig's Bond, I can relate to the new Bond much better.

              Plus I can appreciate his clothing much more now :P

              Comment


                #37
                I've given it some more thought and I've decided the plot of the film is really, disappointingly weak.

                MORE SPOILERS ALERT




                First of all, the whole "lost list of undercover agent identities" thing has been done before - Mission Impossible immediately comes to mind. And we're never given a reason such a list would exist or why it would be in some guy's laptop in Istanbul. Nor does it make any sense that it would be physically stolen from a laptop when the whole focus of the villain is how he can do anything he wants with the click of a button (i.e. hacking and high tech infiltration). The whole idea of the list is just thrown out there to get things rolling. It doesn't make any sense other than as a plot device.

                Next, the magical bullet fragments that immediately lead us to the assassin Patrice. I mean, come on. Lame on top of lame, not to mention unrealistic.

                Then there's the Patrice-casino-Silva connection. Still weaker. If I'm hiring Patrice to kill someone, I'm not going to hand him a form of currency that leads directly back to me (or to an establishment under my control) in case he is captured or killed. Furthermore, I'm not going to give him his payment before he's even done his job. Arguably Silva did this to lure Bond in. If that's the case, isn't Bond a bit dense for not seeing how obvious a trap it was? Isn't Patrice a bit dense for not realizing he's being used as bait?

                Silva's plan to get caught is pretty obvious from the get-go. Why else would he be captured so easily, so early in the movie? His pre-planned hack into the MI6 computers is pretty obvious as well. If you weren't groaning a little when Q hooked that laptop up to the MI6 computer system right then and there, you weren't paying attention. One of my major pet peeves is when characters in movies get themselves into obvious traps by doing stupid things that the audience can clearly tell is a bad idea. This was a pretty obvious case of that happening.

                And then there's Bond "kidnapping" M to lure Silva. I understand why this occurred from a character development standpoint, but it made very little sense practically. If Bond can communicate enough with MI6 to have them leave unobvious but still detectable "bread crumbs" for Silva to follow, and they have the skills to somehow do that without giving the game away, they could have worked to set up a much better "trap" that doesn't leave Bond and the head of British intelligence all by themselves in the middle of nowhere with an antique rifle and an old gamekeeper to protect them. If Silva had been smarter, he could have just bombed the crap out of the Skyfall manor and been done with it. When Silva was able to find and follow M and the gamekeeper because of their flashlight, that was another one of those "stupid mistakes that the characters should not have made" moments that really irritated me.

                I don't know. I still liked some things about the movie, but the plot itself was not well-done in any sense.
                Ben

                Comment


                  #38
                  The plot could have been better, I agree, but the things you are pointing out -- these are all formulaic aspects of the action genre, no? I mean, this is better than the usual old action-spy plot (evil guy straps Bond to a killing device, explains his whole plan, and Bond escapes and derails the plan). I'm just trying to say that these frustrating elements are important to an action movie, because explaining things in detail (or taking the time to build character relationships, or making everything work out perfectly) takes away time from what everyone is there to see -- Bond getting in fighting and chase scenes, with some scenes to set up tension thrown in there. I'm all for intelligent film, but I wonder if you're making a genre mistake.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    ***SPOILERS***

                    Agree with you on a lot of those points, Ben. The whole 'I was captured because I wanted to escape' is pretty old hat and, maybe my memory is faulty, but did he even achieve anything with that? He had already hacked into their computers earlier in the film so what did he get out of that? He let himself out but he didn't even disable or cripple the MI6 computers, so that whole section of the film became superflous. Hindsight is 20/20 but there should have been more to why he had to get himself captured - like totally bringing down the governments computers, sending law enforcement or infrastructure into chaos, etc... something that also would have given a better excuse to run away to the lodge and forsake technology.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      @BB I never have perceived Bond as solely an action film. He has always been to me a detective. When you're on 23 films I don't think its really an excuse to say, 'hey, its an action film, cut us some slack'.

                      Goldfinger has a really great formula. Bond is assigned to investigate Goldfinger for what is a somewhat minor, domestic problem. Its a slow build up to reveal whats going on. Bond, for instance finds out that Goldfinger is working on a secret 'Project Grand Slam'. Even when Bond is strapped to the table he tries to get this info out of Goldfinger, who doesn't reveal anything but rather taunts him. Later in the film Bond thinks he discovers the plan, to steal all the gold in fort knox. In the end though, close to the finish, the twist is that Goldfinger has no intention to actually steal the gold - he merely plans to kill everyone there and set off a dirty bomb radiating the US's gold supply.

                      Its that kind of plot, with slow reveals and twists, that belong in a Bond film. Not something to just string along a series of action scenes - Bond is so much more than that.

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Good points! I agree with you, VespaMatt. I guess I need to go back and watch my old Bond films again. I should say this: I had a lot of fun watching Skyfall, but I wasn't expecting great storytelling. But I am coming around to seeing your point, which is that I should be expecting much more when it comes to Bond films.

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Wow...there's some big time over analyzing going on.

                          I absolutely loved Skyfall, the interaction with the villain was great. If you liked Casino Royale then it's almost IDENTICAL to when he says "I'm going to tell everyone you scratched my balls". It was funny and witty and continued on with the theme. I loved the movie from start to finish, kept my attention the entire time and I was sad when it ended. Avengers I got bored in parts, and I loved it.

                          I will say I did not like the old bond films, too boring and over the top fake.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
                            I saw Skyfall on Friday morning. I'm... not sure how I feel about it.

                            POSSIBLE SPOILERS ALERT:





                            Not sure how I felt about the obviously gay/bisexual villain. The scene where he was hitting on Bond was clearly intended to elicit outrage from both Bond and the (predictably straight, male) audience. Bond's strange "what makes you think this is my first time" comment was evidently intended to mitigate any criticism of homophobia, but I still found the scene problematic.

                            I was also really pissed off about Bond's interactions with the Macau Bond girl (no idea her name), as well as her death scene. The whole thing was pure misogyny, and struck me as more closely related to the treatment of women characters in the early Bond films than in the past decade.

                            As a big Judi Dench fan, I really liked that she was more of a presence in the film. I also liked the whole final sequence at Bond's childhood home. It didn't feel particularly Bond-ish to me... more like a weird amalgam of Harry Potter, Home Alone, and Batman. But I liked it anyway. I'm ambivalent about M's death and replacement. I like Ralph Fiennes ok, but Judi Dench is something special. Other than Eva Green's Vesper, Judi Dench has been the only "real" female character in the Craig films. The presence of well-developed non white, male characters made it easier to take the films seriously as films, rather than as the silly adolescent male fantasies they have traditionally tended toward.

                            END SPOILERS

                            The film was pretty good but still lacked the polish, tightness, and nail-biting thrills of the Bourne series and some other, more modern thrillers and action movies. Still not as good as Casino Royale.
                            I don't think the bisexual villain was intended to cause outrage at all. I also don't think it was trying to get the possibility of homophobia out of the way. Bond's comment was just plain Bond wit. He wasn't suggesting he is open or interested in homosexual encounters or experimentation, he was just playing with the amusing unfolding of Silva. If that outraged Bond, he hid it well, and if it outraged the straight males in the audience, I'm surprised because it was pretty harmless.

                            I also fail to see much trouble in his interactions with Severine. She played strong at first in Shanghai and then the casino, but Bond took a chance guessing why she cared so much about her "bodyguards" and he guessed right. She took a chance that he might get her out of there. She was killed because she betrayed Silva, not because she was a woman that encountered misogyny. I thought she was one of the more fragile Bond girls, but in a far more believable way then the average damsel.

                            I agree that making M's story this time was very good.


                            Originally posted by Leslie Chow View Post
                            As a Bond enthusiast, did anyone else notice all the references to previous Bond movies? I mean, the DB5 had the same license plate as Goldfinger along with the same gadgets (machine guns in the same location and the infamous ejector seat) along with Q's little quip about the exploding pen (a nod towards Goldeneye)
                            There were plenty. It was very neat and more subtle than the Quantum of Solace and Die Another Day attempts at references. Though, I don't understand how Bond got that DB5 because he had a stock version thanks to Casino Royale. I can't imagine that it was supposed to be MI6's because Bond and M were trying to get away from serious links to MI6.

                            Originally posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
                            I've given it some more thought and I've decided the plot of the film is really, disappointingly weak.

                            MORE SPOILERS ALERT




                            First of all, the whole "lost list of undercover agent identities" thing has been done before - Mission Impossible immediately comes to mind. And we're never given a reason such a list would exist or why it would be in some guy's laptop in Istanbul. Nor does it make any sense that it would be physically stolen from a laptop when the whole focus of the villain is how he can do anything he wants with the click of a button (i.e. hacking and high tech infiltration). The whole idea of the list is just thrown out there to get things rolling. It doesn't make any sense other than as a plot device.

                            Next, the magical bullet fragments that immediately lead us to the assassin Patrice. I mean, come on. Lame on top of lame, not to mention unrealistic.

                            Then there's the Patrice-casino-Silva connection. Still weaker. If I'm hiring Patrice to kill someone, I'm not going to hand him a form of currency that leads directly back to me (or to an establishment under my control) in case he is captured or killed. Furthermore, I'm not going to give him his payment before he's even done his job. Arguably Silva did this to lure Bond in. If that's the case, isn't Bond a bit dense for not seeing how obvious a trap it was? Isn't Patrice a bit dense for not realizing he's being used as bait?

                            Silva's plan to get caught is pretty obvious from the get-go. Why else would he be captured so easily, so early in the movie? His pre-planned hack into the MI6 computers is pretty obvious as well. If you weren't groaning a little when Q hooked that laptop up to the MI6 computer system right then and there, you weren't paying attention. One of my major pet peeves is when characters in movies get themselves into obvious traps by doing stupid things that the audience can clearly tell is a bad idea. This was a pretty obvious case of that happening.

                            And then there's Bond "kidnapping" M to lure Silva. I understand why this occurred from a character development standpoint, but it made very little sense practically. If Bond can communicate enough with MI6 to have them leave unobvious but still detectable "bread crumbs" for Silva to follow, and they have the skills to somehow do that without giving the game away, they could have worked to set up a much better "trap" that doesn't leave Bond and the head of British intelligence all by themselves in the middle of nowhere with an antique rifle and an old gamekeeper to protect them. If Silva had been smarter, he could have just bombed the crap out of the Skyfall manor and been done with it. When Silva was able to find and follow M and the gamekeeper because of their flashlight, that was another one of those "stupid mistakes that the characters should not have made" moments that really irritated me.

                            I don't know. I still liked some things about the movie, but the plot itself was not well-done in any sense.

                            I figured that the laptop was not being used online for the sake of security, thus it stayed on an offline hard drive.

                            The bullet thing didn't seem like a problem to me. It's not that wild of an idea to believe, for me.

                            Patrice didn't get paid before he did the job. He got a voucher, but to collect he had to make the kill (Severine was there to confirm. Had Patrice failed, the casino wouldn't have turned over the money).

                            I guess I didn't pay good attention at the laptop scene, but it seemed pretty minor.

                            I think the set-up for the third act was somewhat only somewhat iffy. While the kidnapping would not likely be allowed by MI6, M and Bond didn't want any more MI6 deaths and when they were escaping, they had the opportunity to cut off MI6 for the sake of preventing any more kills in Silva's pursuit of M. All they wanted was to disconnect from MI6 but not from Silva. Thankfully for them, Ralph Fienne's Mallory felt both of them were causing damage through their connections with MI6 and understood the nobility of the kidnapping so he let them trail Silva out to the lodge without risking MI6 agents.

                            Now the flashlight. That was a real shallow piece of plot. Who the hell would make that mistake during a life-and-death game of hide and seek?

                            Originally posted by shad0w4life View Post
                            Wow...there's some big time over analyzing going on.

                            I absolutely loved Skyfall, the interaction with the villain was great. If you liked Casino Royale then it's almost IDENTICAL to when he says "I'm going to tell everyone you scratched my balls". It was funny and witty and continued on with the theme. I loved the movie from start to finish, kept my attention the entire time and I was sad when it ended. Avengers I got bored in parts, and I loved it.

                            I will say I did not like the old bond films, too boring and over the top fake.
                            I think it was great. The line where he told Eve to stop touching her ear on the radio was also intended to keep some personal continuity with Craig's Bond.
                            Last edited by Cannon; November 12, 2012, 07:59 PM.

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Originally posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
                              I've given it some more thought and I've decided the plot of the film is really, disappointingly weak.

                              MORE SPOILERS ALERT




                              First of all, the whole "lost list of undercover agent identities" thing has been done before - Mission Impossible immediately comes to mind. And we're never given a reason such a list would exist or why it would be in some guy's laptop in Istanbul. Nor does it make any sense that it would be physically stolen from a laptop when the whole focus of the villain is how he can do anything he wants with the click of a button (i.e. hacking and high tech infiltration). The whole idea of the list is just thrown out there to get things rolling. It doesn't make any sense other than as a plot device.

                              Next, the magical bullet fragments that immediately lead us to the assassin Patrice. I mean, come on. Lame on top of lame, not to mention unrealistic.

                              Then there's the Patrice-casino-Silva connection. Still weaker. If I'm hiring Patrice to kill someone, I'm not going to hand him a form of currency that leads directly back to me (or to an establishment under my control) in case he is captured or killed. Furthermore, I'm not going to give him his payment before he's even done his job. Arguably Silva did this to lure Bond in. If that's the case, isn't Bond a bit dense for not seeing how obvious a trap it was? Isn't Patrice a bit dense for not realizing he's being used as bait?

                              Silva's plan to get caught is pretty obvious from the get-go. Why else would he be captured so easily, so early in the movie? His pre-planned hack into the MI6 computers is pretty obvious as well. If you weren't groaning a little when Q hooked that laptop up to the MI6 computer system right then and there, you weren't paying attention. One of my major pet peeves is when characters in movies get themselves into obvious traps by doing stupid things that the audience can clearly tell is a bad idea. This was a pretty obvious case of that happening.

                              And then there's Bond "kidnapping" M to lure Silva. I understand why this occurred from a character development standpoint, but it made very little sense practically. If Bond can communicate enough with MI6 to have them leave unobvious but still detectable "bread crumbs" for Silva to follow, and they have the skills to somehow do that without giving the game away, they could have worked to set up a much better "trap" that doesn't leave Bond and the head of British intelligence all by themselves in the middle of nowhere with an antique rifle and an old gamekeeper to protect them. If Silva had been smarter, he could have just bombed the crap out of the Skyfall manor and been done with it. When Silva was able to find and follow M and the gamekeeper because of their flashlight, that was another one of those "stupid mistakes that the characters should not have made" moments that really irritated me.

                              I don't know. I still liked some things about the movie, but the plot itself was not well-done in any sense.
                              I saw this Monday so I may have forgotten/not understood some aspects but here goes *Spoilers*:

                              I don't think the purpose of stealing the hard drive was to get the names on it. Like you said, Silva probably could have hacked in and got them himself. I think the purpose was to get Bond to catch Patrice, find out he's working for Silva, go after Silva, etc etc. That just took a lot longer because Moneypenny missed her shot but ended up happening eventually. Silvas plan to get caught was pretty obvious from the get-go but what are they going to do? Not catch him? I don't think they realized how big a jump Silva had on them.

                              Over the years, how many times has Bond put himself in situations realizing it is probably a trap but is confident enough in his skills that he can escape said trap? Alot.

                              I will concede that someone as smart as Q was quite dumb for plugging the villains laptop directly in to MI6's system.

                              If I remember correctly, the whole point of going to the middle of nowhere was to escape all of Silva's technological advantages. Bond arrived there expecting there to be more guns but was told that the guns were sold to some guy in Idaho or something. Silva didn't want to just bomb the manor because the killing of M was personal to him. That's why he made sure she wasn't in headquarters earlier when he bombed it. I remember him saying something along the lines of, "Don't touch her, she's mine," when they were attacking Skyfall. I agree that the flashlight thing was incredibly dumb.

                              Using the "magical bullet fragments" to find Patrice is probably one of the more realistic (not saying it's necessarily realistic) events that's occurred in a Bond movie but yet you describe it as "lame on top of lame, not to mention unrealistic". Half of the stuff that goes on in a Bond movie is pretty unrealistic. More than half the stuff that goes on in any action movie is pretty unrealistic. I guess I'm not really sure what you expected from a Bond movie.

                              *Edit* What Cannon said. I'm not sure how to quote bits and pieces like he did, hence the kind of spastic nature of my response*
                              Last edited by eharlow49; November 12, 2012, 08:05 PM.

                              Comment


                                #45
                                This suit is one of the greatest outfits in Bond history. Great work from Tom Ford:

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X