Skyfall (Mendes, 2012)

[makemeameteor]

I didn't expect him to cry over her or anything, but I would have hoped for is a little moment of remorse by 007...at least a small reaction shot of Craig. He's a great actor who can be quite expressive with his eyes alone. After all, he was the reason she was beaten then killed. I'm not saying she was a strong character by any means. However, I thought she did a nice job conveying her fear of Silva.

Whether my criticism is "weak" or not, it's feels like an unfortunate way to treat that moment.

Also, is there something in the MGM contract that says a Bond Girl now has to be killed in every movie? It's weird is all.

I think that's fair. I was just commenting more on the severity of your statement ("VERY disappointed"). It just doesn't seem like something that really makes a difference either way.

[Triviachamp]

Final comment, but it is not a cinematic one: didn't anyone else notice that M's speech to that committee justifying her and her agency's role could have been written by George Orwell for Big Brother? It offers a legitimation of the never-ending need to defeat a "shadow enemy" that, precisely because it changes constantly and cannot be permanently identified, requires a persistent, secret, powerful state force that should use violence to its heart's content? After all the (in my opinion, misplaced) anguish generated by The Dark Knight Rises' alleged endorsement of state power, it seems strange that there is so liitle comment on M's far more sinister advocacy of that same power.

Interesting point. I would say that perhaps one reason this isn't being addressed is because the Bond series has always been an endorsement of this sort of state power? Isn't the whole point of the series is that we need secret agents like Bond who can use violence to his heart's content to save the world from baddies? So complaining about it now would be rather pointless? The Man with the Golden Gun for example is explicitly about how Bond is better than Scaramanga since he kills people for the government while Scaramanga does it for money.

[MVP of West Hollywood]

The more I think about this film, the more terrible it comes off. It's flat, generic, completely lazy with its illogicies and holes. It's mainly a dull, standard action film that stars James Bond and a cool villain. Mendes slickly dresses up a turd of a script

[Gregory]

Interesting point. I would say that perhaps one reason this isn't being addressed is because the Bond series has always been an endorsement of this sort of state power? Isn't the whole point of the series is that we need secret agents like Bond who can use violence to his heart's content to save the world from baddies? So complaining about it now would be rather pointless? The Man with the Golden Gun for example is explicitly about how Bond is better than Scaramanga since he kills people for the government while Scaramanga does it for money.

Only the explanation here is different. Almost all such films (not just Bond films) have the audience rooting for the hero against the villain, and I frequently find that dynamic problematic in real life (the police/secret agent good guys against "drug kingpins," for instance), but am willing to shrug it off for the sake of the internal dynamic of the film or novel. Bond began with gangsters and the Soviets, then the Red Chinese, then Spectre, then all kinds of madmen threatening to blow up the world or some such. I can handle that because all of these villains are known quantities, fictional or real. M's speech, on the other hand, states explicitly that the reason her deparment is so necessary is because the world is full of unknown individuals (and "individuals" is emphasized) who you might not realize are villains in the shadows, and therefore what is in effect the national security state must remain empowered because you never know who these individuals might be. This is inherently more dangerous a notion than any of the "villains" in the Bond series heretofore. The irony is that the villain in this movie is actually self-generated; presumably if her agency did not exist he would not have become a villain . How convenient bureaucratically--how dangerous in real life.

[Triviachamp]

Only the explanation here is different. Almost all such films (not just Bond films) have the audience rooting for the hero against the villain, and I frequently find that dynamic problematic in real life (the police/secret agent good guys against "drug kingpins," for instance), but am willing to shrug it off for the sake of the internal dynamic of the film or novel. Bond began with gangsters and the Soviets, then the Red Chinese, then Spectre, then all kinds of madmen threatening to blow up the world or some such. I can handle that because all of these villains are known quantities, fictional or real. M's speech, on the other hand, states explicitly that the reason her deparment is so necessary is because the world is full of unknown individuals (and "individuals" is emphasized) who you might not realize are villains in the shadows, and therefore what is in effect the national security state must remain empowered because you never know who these individuals might be. This is inherently more dangerous a notion than any of the "villains" in the Bond series heretofore. The irony is that the villain in this movie is actually self-generated; presumably if her agency did not exist he would not have become a villain . How convenient bureaucratically--how dangerous in real life.

I'm not sure I quite understand your statement about "known qualities" since the likes of Stromberg, Drax, Zorin, Carver, etc. were public figures who turned out to be evil. Or Blofeld pretending to be Howard Hughes Willard Whyte. Or how Goldfinger was some jeweler who was suspected of being a smuggler and turned out to have far more sinister intentions. Heck Dr. No was running a Bauxite mine and turned out to be toppling US rockets. I recall that Stromberg's and Zorin's evilness were dismissed by Bond's superiors because they were wealthy businessmen. And that dynamic is rather interesting to say the least. Seems like they have already been implicitly stating that there are villains in the shadows for some time.

I agree that the spoiler you posted is quite unusual for the series.

[City Lights]

I didn't expect him to cry over her or anything, but I would have hoped for is a little moment of remorse by 007...at least a small reaction shot of Craig. He's a great actor who can be quite expressive with his eyes alone. After all, he was the reason she was beaten then killed. I'm not saying she was a strong character by any means. However, I thought she did a nice job conveying her fear of Silva.

Whether my criticism is "weak" or not, it's feels like an unfortunate way to treat that moment.

Also, is there something in the MGM contract that says a Bond Girl now has to be killed in every movie? It's weird is all.

LOL. He was in the middle of a mission and was so close to capturing the man he was chasing. So...yes. Let's have him get distracted RIGHT when he's finally closed in on him.

[Buster]

Only the explanation here is different. Almost all such films (not just Bond films) have the audience rooting for the hero against the villain, and I frequently find that dynamic problematic in real life (the police/secret agent good guys against "drug kingpins," for instance), but am willing to shrug it off for the sake of the internal dynamic of the film or novel. Bond began with gangsters and the Soviets, then the Red Chinese, then Spectre, then all kinds of madmen threatening to blow up the world or some such. I can handle that because all of these villains are known quantities, fictional or real. M's speech, on the other hand, states explicitly that the reason her deparment is so necessary is because the world is full of unknown individuals (and "individuals" is emphasized) who you might not realize are villains in the shadows, and therefore what is in effect the national security state must remain empowered because you never know who these individuals might be. This is inherently more dangerous a notion than any of the "villains" in the Bond series heretofore. The irony is that the villain in this movie is actually self-generated; presumably if her agency did not exist he would not have become a villain . How convenient bureaucratically--how dangerous in real life.

As well as the (not so) subtle similarities of Silva to Julian Assange, and the threat he holds to the powers that be.

[Triviachamp]

As well as the (not so) subtle similarities of Silva to Julian Assange, and the threat he holds to the powers that be.

That too.

Funny I recall in the book of You Only Live Twice Blofeld does make some interesting defenses of his actions.

[Bob Burns]

forgive me if this question has already been covered, but....

Whishaw's eyeglass frames - curious who designed them.

[Josh_The Original]

Well... I saw this last night.

I'll start off with the positive, I thought it was GORGEOUS to look at, the story being so character-driven was great and the acting, especially from Dench, Craig and Bardem stood out.

Now the negative, this is a step up from the terrible Quantum of Solace but I don't think this got to the Casino Royale level of engagement from me. I thought the script development was actually quite lazy... and so I kept thinking "why are they letting xxx happen?" "this makes no sense"... However, you can definitely see the influence of Nolan's Batman Begins... so hopefully the same team can hang around for the next one, and like The Dark Knight, the next one can see all the new pieces fit together.

Overall, this is one where the whole isn't as good as some of its elements, but those good elements are among the best in ANY Bond film.

I would happily nominate this for

- Supporting Actor - Bardem
- Supporting Actress - Dench
- Cinematography
- Art Direction
- Sound cats
EDIT: OH!! - Original Song... duh!

[RRA]

Spielberg quite liked SKYFALL.

(Scroll down the page to find it.)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...serables-.html

[Kargo]

I have to admit i'm very disappointed by the film.

Roger Deakins is an absolute master of his craft and his work has an incredible mixture of beauty and artistry.Unfortunately that's the only thing that really left an impression on me.The script is so illogical,the plot is so bare that it's best described as a series of vistas mixed with high intensity chases and inconsequential dialogue.The influence The Dark Knight had on Mendes was too obvious,from the Joker-like villain,the intentional arrest,to making Bond basically Bruce Wayne,a rich orphan with a parenting figure(M instead of Alfred)

The film opens with a stolen disc in Istanbul.What was such an important info doing there?The first half of the movie is entirely about the MI6 agents and their endangered mission but half-way through that whole major plot point gets pushed to the side and is completely forgotten.What happened to the disc?What happened to the agents?Then you have the explosion at the HQ,sure you can hack their DB but how did they managed to actually place explosives or gas?The Shanghai scene was visually marvelous but it made no sense at all.Silva's bodyguards have the target but a hired assassin has to kill him from another building?All while Bond stands and watches him?Who was that guy?Why was he murdered?It doesn't matter because the plot needs to go on.Bond talks to Severine for only 5 minutes but she's not surprised or shocked when he enters her shower cabin naked?Why did she slept with him when she had to be certain that it would have been her doom(as it turned out to be)?Both Silva's reason to get caught and his miraculous escape made no sense at all.They finally arrested the most dangerous terrorist hacker in the world and they put him in a room with an underground exit that gets you out of the building?The Scotland part made no sense whatsoever either.Why did Bond not called for a back-up?How would Silva know?And how could Silva be sure that it wasn't a trap?Plus Bond was the reason M was killed and yet he suffered no consequences.He made her a bait and she was killed because of it.

This reminded me of the Avengers,lots of homages to the fans,incredibly safe script where nothing seems to be at stake,a non-threatening villain,a hundred plot holes,basically a franchise filler made for yet another sequel that makes a billion dollars.

[kupo]

Script schmipt.

Who gives a shit? This was AWESOME. Like, I was expecting to enjoy this, given everything I'd heard. I was expecting to be impressed with Deakins cinematography. What I was not expecting was for Deakins and Mendes to have worked so carefully to ensure that each set piece ceased being "an action set piece" and actually aspired to become an aesthetic moment.

Seriously, the whole Shanghai sequence is just...ugh. So so good. And not even just the set piece (though obviously that's the true pay-off), but even the few brief introductory shots in Shanghai were so finely composed. I don't want to get too hyperbolic (but I will anyways)...I actually thought of Suzuki during the Shanghai fight. Here was an action scene built not in terms of logic, but built on pure style-borne adrenaline. Between this, and the Macau scenes, and the burning moors finale, it was clear that for Mendes and Deakins texture and form were always the bedrock on which everything else was built. "Logic" and "plot" mere afterthoughts.

Though, it must be said--even with the plot holes, and the general straightforwardness--this film did, at the very least, have a consistent thematic impulse. And it's even an interesting one! (though not necessarily examined with great nuance) The whole increasingly nebulous nature of crime (or everything, really) is a worthwhile conceit, and flipping that at the end to the raw physicality of the showdown on the moors is a nice touch. And they did their best to keep it from being too black and white, too schematic. Well, it's still pretty schematic, but they did have a few nice touches that confuse this cyber/corporal dichotomy, like the textural parallel that Silva's island--his hacker fortress of solitude--forms with the ruined Skyfall estate. It's all pretty surface level, but not unclever.

This is just about as good as truly mainstream cinema gets (between this and The Cabin in the Woods, multiplexes have had a couple truly glowing moments this year). This is about as good an action film as I've seen in...I don't know how long.

Yeah, I just really loved this.

[Capt. January]

is there something in the MGM contract that says a Bond Girl now has to be killed in every movie? It's weird is all.

I think maybe it depends on the guy playing Bond. Women in Sean Connery films got killed like flies (remember him blocking a shot with a girl while dancing?), but that didn't seem to suit the Roger Moore films, Pierce was half and half and now we´re back to an edgier Bond with Craig.

Anyway, I really hadn't noticed an increased tendency in the latest films, but since my first Bond movie was "On her Majesty's secret Service" I'm very accustomed to seeing Bond girls get killed. My only regret was that the annoying BIbi (Lynn Holly Johnson, "For Your Eyes Only") didn't get poisoned by a ninja, shot, covered in gold paint, blown up or fed to piranhas. And wasn't "The World is Not Enough" about oil pipelines and such? We could have had Denise Richards tarred!

[crazyfists3600]

I thought this was pretty awesome. Bardem was top notch, the cinematography may win a Fisti this year and that song is just all sorts of

Yeah...I kind of loved this. A great rebound from QoS, but not as well crafted (or thought out) as Casino Royale.

[DameMelissaLeo]

If any British Dame deserves a filler supporting actress slot it's Dame Judi for this! Not Dame Maggie for that god awful Hotel movie.

[OscarsFan 2.3]

To the people who are complaining about the disc:

It's a MacGuffin. Silva never truly cared about its contents. It was just something else he could use to torture M with.

[Aurelius]

Yeah, yeah, I'm late, but I finally saw this. Loved the hell out of it! This is the kind of James Bond I love. Who cares about logic? Cool stuff and a cool dude blowing shit up while keeping his tuxedo unblemished, what more do we need? But the most impressive, as everybody has probably said (didn't read the rest of the thread), was the cinematography. Impeccable framing, and I loved the parallel between M's talk about MI6 working in the shadows, and then most of the scenes indeed playing in the shadows, the dark, often in silhouette. Also loved the nods to Lawrence of Arabia, Star Wars, Silence Of The Lambs, and I have a feeling I missed a few (the Scotland sequence, which was superb, reminded me of a Western, but I can't quite put my finger on which one. Peckinpah? The amount of violence fits ).

Oh, and Daniel Craig is the sexiest man alive.

[avatar74]

To the people who are complaining about the disc:

It's a MacGuffin. Silva never truly cared about its contents. It was just something else he could use to torture M with.

Bingo.

[haqyunus]

Yeah, yeah, I'm late, but I finally saw this. Loved the hell out of it! This is the kind of James Bond I love. Who cares about logic? Cool stuff and a cool dude blowing shit up while keeping his tuxedo unblemished, what more do we need? But the most impressive, as everybody has probably said (didn't read the rest of the thread), was the cinematography. Impeccable framing, and I loved the parallel between M's talk about MI6 working in the shadows, and then most of the scenes indeed playing in the shadows, the dark, often in silhouette. Also loved the nods to Lawrence of Arabia, Star Wars, Silence Of The Lambs, and I have a feeling I missed a few (the Scotland sequence, which was superb, reminded me of a Western, but I can't quite put my finger on which one. Peckinpah? The amount of violence fits ).

Oh, and Daniel Craig is the sexiest man alive.

Good. How cool was the Shanghai sequence? It is still stuck in my head(along with Bardem)