SKYFALL is a much better film in almost every respect. GHOST PROTOCOL features more gadgets and big action, but the characters are pretty thin and the story isn't all that interesting.
If you're looking for spectacle like the Dubai tower climb, SKYFALL won't impress you as much.
I agree again like i mentioned the acting was far superior in skyfall. However i was a bit disappointed with some of the action set pieces in Skyfall. There's no reason something in the vein of the dubai tower climb couldn't have been put into the film.
Bond has always been about the over the top action set pieces especially in the openings.
Sheriff Pepper was another eyesore. I think it was capitalising on the Smokey & the Bandit craze at the time, which is why he was probably in LALD too, where he was featuring in a more similar way to that Burt Reynolds franchise.
I agree again like i mentioned the acting was far superior in skyfall. However i was a bit disappointed with some of the action set pieces in Skyfall. There's no reason something in the vein of the dubai tower climb couldn't have been put into the film.
Bond has always been about the over the top action set pieces especially in the openings.
So, what do you think about this Oscar buzz surrounding Skyfall? Do you think it's warranted? Or are they overrating this film just because Academy darlings Sam Mendes, Javier Bardem and Judi Dench are involved?
She was originally written much different, I think. She was actually *the* bond girl of D.A.D, and then they screwed her over, cause they casted Berry. I remember her saying something about it.
I'm not sure he meant the car stunt, which wasn't technically a flying car but more of a corkscrew jump. There was literally a flying car in TMWTGG which belonged to Scaramanga. It had wings attached to it and took off and flew in the air and escaped.
The corkscrew stunt was awesome though and I agree it was ruined by that slide whistle.
I didn't like Nick Nack. He was painful to watch. Sheriff Pepper was another eyesore. I think it was capitalising on the Smokey & the Bandit craze at the time, which is why he was probably in LALD too, where he was featuring in a more similar way to that Burt Reynolds franchise.
I read today about some possible subtext and throw back to the first Bond Dr. No, in that Bond is represented as a Modern King Arthur who does battle against dragons, however in this case the dragons are not those of legend, or missiles from Dr. No but actual Komodo Dragons.
Also, I read that Raoul Silva Might be an anagram for a Rival Soul.
For those of you who saw M:I-Ghost protocol and enjoyed it how would you compare it to skyfall?
A friend of mine I saw Skyfall with said he actually enjoyed GP better. While i think skyfall was better and the acting much better. GP with all the gadgets did have a lot of that old school bond feel and it did have some great action set pieces. I don't know if skyfall had anything that could compare to the dubai tower climb?
GP was more fun and had better action spectacle, but in every other respect (the story, acting, cinematography, etc), Skyfall beats it, imo. But no, it doesn't have anything that compares to the Dubai sequence. Skyfall seemed less interested in being a big action movie and more interested in being a good Bond movie. But its action scenes are nothing to sneeze at, either.
Hate to be "that guy" but I was very disappointed with Skyfall. I have been a Bond fan since I can remember. Casino Royale is my favorite of all time with Thunderball being a close second.
The film just seems agonizingly slow. Many of you mentioned that Bond isn't just an action film but let's be honest...they are action films. The action in Skyfall was underwhelming. I fear that I may have bought too much into the hype (pardon the pun) when reading non-spoiler reviews saying that this was "the best Bond film ever". I totally disagree.
I thought Javier Bardem's character left a lot to be desired. His performance was spectacular but he could've been more menacing in my opinion.
I know I'll get flamed for this review but that's how I feel after seeing the movie about an hour ago. I don't know if I'll even purchase this one.
I didn't mean a literal recreation of that scene. The film had decent action but i think sam mendes being less familiar with action based on his prior work probably did the best he could but not to the extent of maybe a martin campbell could.
Hate to be "that guy" but I was very disappointed with Skyfall. I have been a Bond fan since I can remember. Casino Royale is my favorite of all time with Thunderball being a close second.
The film just seems agonizingly slow. Many of you mentioned that Bond isn't just an action film but let's be honest...they are action films. The action in Skyfall was underwhelming. I fear that I may have bought too much into the hype (pardon the pun) when reading non-spoiler reviews saying that this was "the best Bond film ever". I totally disagree.
I thought Javier Bardem's character left a lot to be desired. His performance was spectacular but he could've been more menacing in my opinion.
I know I'll get flamed for this review but that's how I feel after seeing the movie about an hour ago. I don't know if I'll even purchase this one.
He didn't mean literally dude, he meant something that upped the stakes, the shootout at Skyfall lodge was very basically shot in comparison to the bravura quality of the opening sequence.
I would agree that the film doesn't have the big action sequence that pushes the boundaries of what an action movie could do, nor even what has been done in Bond films, but I think it had far more emotional weight and stakes than the vast majority of Bond films, which I think made it more interesting. Yeah, the shooting style may not be nearly as advanced. But, having a good story makes anything more interesting.
For those of you who saw M:I-Ghost protocol and enjoyed it how would you compare it to skyfall?
A friend of mine I saw Skyfall with said he actually enjoyed GP better. While i think skyfall was better and the acting much better. GP with all the gadgets did have a lot of that old school bond feel and it did have some great action set pieces. I don't know if skyfall had anything that could compare to the dubai tower climb?
He didn't mean literally dude, he meant something that upped the stakes, the shootout at Skyfall lodge was very basically shot in comparison to the bravura quality of the opening sequence.
Exactly my point. Again i chalk it up to mendes not being very familiar with action.
Regardless of what some people are saying bond and great action are synonymous. If SkyFall had raised the stakes like GP it probably would be right up there with CR or ahead of it to me.
I kinda think if Skyfall went into production a little later some of the people involved would have probably seen GP and tried to top it. As it is (soon to be was) the biggest spy film box office wise non-inflated and bond is always kinda influenced by it's competition.
I would agree that the film doesn't have the big action sequence that pushes the boundaries of what an action movie could do, nore even what has been done in Bond films, but I think it had far more emotional weight and stakes than the vast majority of Bond films, which I think made it more interesting. Yeah, the shooting style may not be nearly as advanced. But, having a good story makes anything more interesting.
I really didn't feel the emotional weight was there as there wasn't really a stand out scene with Bond and M where things were laid bare, both kept their individual persona's in tact, and this wasn't the first time M was in danger nor the first disgruntled agent to come back for revenge.
Exactly my point. Again i chalk it up to mendes not being very familiar with action.
Regardless of what some people are saying bond and great action are synonymous. If SkyFall had raised the stakes like GP it probably would be right up there with CR or ahead of it to me.
I kinda think if Skyfall went into production a little later some of the people involved would have probably seen GP and tried to top it. As it is (soon to be was) the biggest spy film box office wise non-inflated and bond is always kinda influenced by it's competition.
It could be but that opening sequence makes me wonder if that was the case, unless the opening sequence was shot by someone else as the one for DAD was.
Quite possibly, I mean despite how cerebral and different some seem to think Craig's Bond films are, at their core they are still over the top action adventures and Bond has always been the leader for big real stunt set pieces.
I really didn't feel the emotional weight was there as there wasn't really a stand out scene with Bond and M where things were laid bare, both kept their individual persona's in tact, and this wasn't the first time M was in danger nor the first disgruntled agent to come back for revenge.
But Bardem's scenes with M were all intense and uncomfrotable. You could feel his hatred of her, and how concerned this hatred made M. Bond and M have had 2 movies of history with one another, so we didn't need to lay everything out in the open in any major way. But, M clearly saw Bond was questioning her at various points, and in those scenes, she openly addressed them. I think there was more than enough drama between the main characters in this film, and it had much emotional weight.
As for comparing this to MI:GP like others are, I honestly can't compare. I didn't see MI:GP (unfortunately...school has killed my ability to see some movies ), but I do feel Skyfall had a very strong story, which makes how the action plays out work very well.
But Bardem's scenes with M were all intense and uncomfrotable. You could feel his hatred of her, and how concerned this hatred made M. Bond and M have had 2 movies of history with one another, so we didn't need to lay everything out in the open in any major way. But, M clearly saw Bond was questioning her at various points, and in those scenes, she openly addressed them. I think there was more than enough drama between the main characters in this film, and it had much emotional weight.
As for comparing this to MI:GP like others are, I honestly can't compare. I didn't see MI:GP (unfortunately...school has killed my ability to see some movies ), but I do feel Skyfall had a very strong story, which makes how the action plays out work very well.
Fair enough I just didn't feel it, to me I wanted to see their relationship beneath the hard nosed respect and stiff upper lip affection. I thought when they got to Skyfall lodge we'd get a great scene with them talking without the barriers but it didn't happen. As for her scene with Silva, I dunno, it was decent if a touch hammy, but I felt the scene between Bond and Silva was stronger.
I'm not knocking it as a good movie so don't get me wrong, but I didn't think the story stood out as that strong, it was pretty basic IMO. To me it was Craig's performance that papered over the weaker aspects.
Fair enough I just didn't feel it, to me I wanted to see their relationship beneath the hard nosed respect and stiff upper lip affection. I thought when they got to Skyfall lodge we'd get a great scene with them talking without the barriers but it didn't happen. As for her scene with Silva, I dunno, it was decent if a touch hammy, but I felt the scene between Bond and Silva was stronger.
I'm not knocking it as a good movie so don't get me wrong, but I didn't think the story stood out as that strong, it was pretty basic IMO. To me it was Craig's performance that papered over the weaker aspects.
I agree that the scene with Bond and Silva was stronger, but in a film like this that relied on the mirror image villain, that needed to be the case. I agree that Craig definitely gave his best performance, which I think can be said all across the board. That also greatly helped the story out. Mendes seems to know how to get a lot out of his cast.
My initial feelings about the film were, "It was good, but not as good as Casino Royale." But, when I thought about it, that was probably because I was expecting more of an action film than character study of Bond. The advertisements probably had something to do with that, as well.
However, after reading what Visceral posted some pages back, I think my opinion on the film is a lot more positive. I think he so eloquently sums up why it's such a excellent piece of filmmaking:
Though much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
liked this and the old ship as metaphors for bond.
For those who haven't read it yet
Skyfall is the Bond movie I have always hoped they'd make but never expected them to. It's Ian Fleming's Bond, straight off the page. And it's smart.
In what universe would you expect to compare a Bond movie to Straw Dogs and Days of Heaven? In this one apparently.
The film is hugely fun, but has a very serious theme: the place of tradition in the modern world. It really feels like a statement about modern Britain by Mendes, Deakins and Crag - three of our leading filmmakers.
Ever since reading the books I've wanted to see Ian Fleming's creation on screen, not the cartoon that Bond has often lapsed into on screen. Skyfall brings in a serious director, a serious cast, and one of the greatest cinematographers working today. They all have a blast and over deliver.
Skyfall is by far the closest depiction of the Bond from the novels. The novels are in many ways are about the traditions of the British Empire colliding with post WW2 decline. Something that Skyfall almost stands as a response to. Skyfall itself is an answer the questions and insecurities Fleming exposed as the Empire rapidly declined in the 50s and 60s.
If Roger Moore is your favorite Bond, you may be disappointed (unless you loved For Your Eyes Only - another previous high watermark). Like the books that were such a shock on fist reading... Gone are the corny quips. Gone are the invisible cars. (Q even says "we don't do that sort of thing any more"). The one liners are still there but when they come they have a bitter emotional edge that reveals character not frippery.
SPOILERS HERE:
The central Tennyson quote by M is the key to the whole film (incase you missed the relevance of the Fighting Temarare by Turner earlier on). Throughout the film tradition is constantly threatened by modernity - and each time a tempered version of tradition comes up trumps. There are countless examples... Bond is shot not by the mistake of someone on the ground, but because of the high tech communication. MI6 new building is destroyed and they're safer in ancient WW2 tunnels. Silva is a tech genius, but Bond (and M) is repeatedly called out of touch or old. And of course, the final sequence can be seen as one giant metaphor - the high tech invaders storming Bond's castle with all their equipment and Bond has ancient rifles and a knife. And how does he finally beat Silva - by the most simple weapon he has. There is so much of this throughout the film I can't remember it off the top of my head. The whole film is about the interaction of tradition and modernity.
The reading I take from the film is as Tennyson says: time will give you a beating, but hold onto your history and traditions and they will steel you against anything that comes at you. That's exactly what James Bond does.
SPOILERS END
I'd love to hear how Americans react to the themes of tradition in the film. Particularly around the relevance of the Tennyson quote from Ulysses spoken by M:
Though much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
If putting that Tennyson speech into the mouth of one of our greatest living actors in the middle of our biggest cultural exports isn't a statement about Britain, I don't know what is.
I can't see any of those sentiments or political position of Skyfall being made by many American filmmakers.
Take Jason Bourne for example. Compare Bourne and Bond as characters. Bourne is made from the tabula rasa. He is a man without a past constantly seeking it. A man who doesn't know his strength and was created by strength of will. Bond on the other hand is a man with a very strong past and ancient traditions which is exactly where he finds heroic will and strength.
Some reviewers over here have called Skyfall a post Bourne Bond, but I think that's entirely wrong. That was the dreadful Quantum of Solace and it was a mess. This is a post-Inception Bond. It's a massive blockbuster that is quite comfortable having quite a high IQ while blowing things up in the background.
I find it very interesting that with the two peaks of Skyfall and the Olympics, 2012 has seen Britain talking confidently to the world about itself in a way it hasn't for a long time.
And the fact that you can even start talking about the film in this way is surely a resounding reassurance that Bond and his traditions are in very rude health.
The Dark Knight is to America, what Skyfall is to Britain.
Okay I think that I've figured it out.
after the review I posted earlier and much thought on the film, I need to change my Skyfall opinion from 7/10 to 9.8/10 at least.
The more I think about it the more I realize what Mendes was doing with Bond was very intelligent.
The key is in the Dark Knight similarities. I am sure now that Mendes did them on purpose.
When I was young I believed that Batman and Bond were, except for a few defining attributes, the same character. I mean did you know that the opening scene from TDKR was ripped off from Licence to Kill? Did you know Skyhook was used in Thunderball, like 45 years before The Dark Knight? They both have a sense of honor, Q and Fox, the car, women, fighting, globetrotting, so on.
So what upset me about the film Skyfall at first was the fact that I thought it was less about the man Bond than the phenomena of the Bond films. In the review posted earlier the Fighting Temmarie and the Quote from Tennyson are symbols that the film is about Old British Tradition coming into conflict with Modernity.
I have always thought that Batman and Bond were symbols of masculine identity trying to good within the world through their own strength. I still don't think that I am wrong, and Mendes doesn't take that away.
Its funny, where as Mendes saw only differences between Batman and Bond, I saw only similarities. We american's only see similarities.
I would theorize now that when Mendes viewed The Dark Knight for the first time, he didn't see a story about masculine identity trying to do good within a fallen world, he instead saw a film about national identity. Our fears against terrorism surely mirror the fears the British have. I don't think Mendes thought The Dark Knight was about Bush, that theory never held much weight, instead we have brought the law into our own hands, possibly a statement on policing the world. Begins was very much a film about facing our fears as if Quantum is the League of Shadows, Silva is the Joker.
What makes Batman so American is that he sometimes lacks an identity, in Begins he left his home and searched the world for who he was. Many other nations are rich in tradition. America is not rich in tradition, it is very young and still trying to find an identity. Some would even argue that America's identity is that of a chameleon. Constantly changing to suit the needs of its people. This is America's tradition. Batman leaves home in Begins, searching for his identity. Then in the last few moments of the Dark Knight, Batman exclaims what his identity is to Lt. Gordon, "I am whatever Gotham (the world) needs me to be". Batman is neither a hero nor villain, but what is needed. And that's what a Dark Knight is.
I argue these somewhat realistic versions of our heroes is due in part to the reemergence of the Bourne Identity. The book is more important, in defining what Robert Ludlum was doing with the character. Ludlum was strictly writing an anti-bond, a character so without tradition he couldn't remember who he was. In the book, Ludlum even describes his face as having undergone plastic surgery so as to blend in more. Bourne never agrees with his superiors and in fact his superiors are the main antagonists. I find it interesting that Bourne was written in the same decade as the Wolverine, who is almost the exact same character. What also interests me is that the main inspiration for Batman Begins, Batman Year One. In Year One, Bruce Wayne arrives from out of town after sometime from a history that is mysterious unknown and unexplained. Wayne returns and wages war on what he views as his creators, the corrupt society and the corrupt government of that society. Just like Wolverine wages war against his creators, and Bourne rages against his superiors/creators.
These stories all came about during the Reagan era at time when American Patriotism was at an all time high. The Dark Knight came during the Bush administration when there was a similar patriotism.
The reason i am going so in depth is because Bond never revolts against his superiors, even when they shoot him in the chest.
America is all about revolution, Britain still loves the Queen. This is the chief difference Mendes is making with Bond.
When Bond and M are going back in time there is an insinuation. I find it so interesting and maddening that it is just an insinuation. People believe that going into Bond's past will take away his every man status, but Batman has that same status, and we know every part of his history. Hell Bourne is all about fighting to know that history. But Bond doesn't give a ****, even if M was responsible for the climbing accident that Bond's parents had. Bond still loves M. He is still going to fight to protect her.
M: I've ****ed this all up.
Bond: No you haven't, you were just doing your job.
That is not Bond talking to M so much as it might be the people of Britain's past talking to the people of Britain's future. it wasn't that long ago that Britain gave Hong Kong Back to China, and not to long ago Turkey's Ottoman Empire(Istanbul) was seen as a rival to the British Empire.
Like Bond going into retirement, the British Empire has release control of the world. One must wonder what is going on with the British National Identity now that the Empire is has seen its final days.
But like Bond coming out of retirement when he is needed. The British Tradition is here to stay. Some of the language used, like "some men are coming here to kill us, we are going to kill them first". Are statements about foreign policy changing.
I still have a question, just one. Skyfall is the name of Bond's childhood home, which is symbolic of going back to your tradition and roots, in order to survive the future. But there is still more symbolism for why that is the title of the film.
I just find Live and Let Die to be a ridiculously fun movie with some great moments, like the bus chase and the part where Bond points a gun to Dixie Carter's head.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Here's the re-vision of the scene.
), but I do feel Skyfall had a very strong story, which makes how the action plays out work very well.
