New James Bond movie --- Skyfall

[detlef]

The only thing wrong with QoS is the premise is not that fantastic. But has the premise of any bond flick ever really mattered?

 

They're all just vehicles for a particularly sexy action flick that shows of the fashion and technology du jour and has hot women.

 

Seen in that light. Quantum had the ingredients.

[electricrelish]

I finally saw Skyfall yesterday. I was extremely psyched up for this film after hearing so much about how it was a mature Bond and possibly one of the best of all time in the series. Furthermore, the fact that American Beauty director Sam Mendes was at the helm, I was extremely interested in seeing his take on the character. Boy, was I ever disappointed.

 

***SLIGHT SPOILERS WARNING***

 

There are some very slick scenes, but none terribly original, but still fun I will admit. Unfortunately, the script was not one that was very well constructed, and I found myself having to try to sustain more and more disbelief as the film progressed.

 

The worst thing is that they changed the Bond character. We learn that Bond was an orphan with wealthy Scottish parents that he lost at a very early age. Wait a minute, isn't that Bruce Wayne's story? Yes, it is and it's not at all the one that Ian Fleming wrote for Bond. Does the character really need to be recreated to be something he never was? I'm not some Bond purist, but it feels like the creative staff watched Christopher Nolan's Batman movies a few too many times.

 

What's even more laughable is that everyone is praising Javier Bardem's rouge agent character Silva when he comes off as a feminine Joker knock-off. This villain has no plan whatsoever but to get revenge? Really? He convinced all of these henchmen that are terribly skilled to work for him to get one person, who he could have killed a long time ago.

 

If Silva could plant bombs at MI6's HQ and hack into M's laptop, then why would he need to be captured so he could get closer? He wouldn't. There is no plan, the story is constructed because someone thought it would be exciting if there was a chase in London's underground. The villain's crazed obsession and motivation doesn't ring true.

 

Oh wait, that's what all Bond films are like. There's always an over the top bad guy. Exactly. It's just like so many other poor Bond films and is no where near close to being a more mature one.

 

The final act of the film is completely ludicrous. It makes no sense whatsoever for Bond to go back to his home and take his Boss with him with no weapons and no other men. And the old gatekeeper character was apparently written for Sean Connery, who smartly turned it down, because it was ridiculous for someone who played the double agent to be pretending he's home alone.

 

Was the movie entertaining? Yes, it's enjoyable like popcorn, but there's not much substance. Mendes' take on Bond reminds me of Bryan Singer's Superman Returns where a skilled filmmaker is so busy making a love letter for what he grew up watching that he loses sight of making the material his own and how to make it work for today's audience. There's nothing new in this film at all, but like Mendes I grew up watching Bond, so I can appreciate his tribute to the franchise. Skyfall made a ton of money. I hope it means they can make the next one better. I'm never going to stop hoping.

Edited January 8, 2013 by electricrelish

[detlef]

So, my revisit to all Bond flicks continues and I've got a few observations:

 

1) Anyone who goes on and on about how it's Connery and nobody else needs to watch Diamonds are Forever and You Only Live Twice. They're both pretty bad. I think I rank Diamonds behind any Bond movie not made by Dalton.

 

2) Speaking of Dalton, his two are certainly the worst overall. No question in my mind.

 

3) I actually generally like the Bronson flicks. Granted, it may have much to do with the fact that they're newer and, thus, have better effects, but effects matter. Especially in a brand that relies on slick fashion, gadgetry, and suspended disbelief. Sure, I put them all behind Connery's earliest stuff and the Craig flicks, oh and Her Majesty's, but I think I do put them ahead of most of Moore's and Connery's later swag (plus, as I mentioned, Dalton's). Though I've never seen Never Say Never Again (it didn't come in my boxed set). So, I'd say the worst of them is early-mid teens and the best do at least crack the top 10. I also like Densch as M and Sophie Marceau makes up for Denise Richards the genius as does Halle Berry's bikini make up for the fact that it sounded like she was reading the script for the first time. The bad guy in Tomorrow Never Dies was great and I actually dug the whole change of identity gig in Die Another Day.

 

4) I actually dig Moonraker, sort of. I mean, it's stupid beyond belief, but it's fun. Jaws finding love and the laser gun fight between dudes floating around in space are freaking awesome.

[Whiskey Pimp]

I finally saw Skyfall yesterday. I was extremely psyched up for this film after hearing so much about how it was a mature Bond and possibly one of the best of all time in the series. Furthermore, the fact that American Beauty director Sam Mendes was at the helm, I was extremely interested in seeing his take on the character. Boy, was I ever disappointed.

 

***SLIGHT SPOILERS WARNING***

 

There are some very slick scenes, but none terribly original, but still fun I will admit. Unfortunately, the script was not one that was very well constructed, and I found myself having to try to sustain more and more disbelief as the film progressed.

 

The worst thing is that they changed the Bond character. We learn that Bond was an orphan with wealthy Scottish parents that he lost at a very early age. Wait a minute, isn't that Bruce Wayne's story? Yes, it is and it's not at all the one that Ian Fleming wrote for Bond. Does the character really need to be recreated to be something he never was? I'm not some Bond purist, but it feels like the creative staff watched Christopher Nolan's Batman movies a few too many times.

 

What's even more laughable is that everyone is praising Javier Bardem's rouge agent character Silva when he comes off as a feminine Joker knock-off. This villain has no plan whatsoever but to get revenge? Really? He convinced all of these henchmen that are terribly skilled to work for him to get one person, who he could have killed a long time ago.

 

If Silva could plant bombs at MI6's HQ and hack into M's laptop, then why would he need to be captured so he could get closer? He wouldn't. There is no plan, the story is constructed because someone thought it would be exciting if there was a chase in London's underground. The villain's crazed obsession and motivation doesn't ring true.

 

Oh wait, that's what all Bond films are like. There's always an over the top bad guy. Exactly. It's just like so many other poor Bond films and is no where near close to being a more mature one.

 

The final act of the film is completely ludicrous. It makes no sense whatsoever for Bond to go back to his home and take his Boss with him with no weapons and no other men. And the old gatekeeper character was apparently written for Sean Connery, who smartly turned it down, because it was ridiculous for someone who played the double agent to be pretending he's home alone.

 

Was the movie entertaining? Yes, it's enjoyable like popcorn, but there's not much substance. Mendes' take on Bond reminds me of Bryan Singer's Superman Returns where a skilled filmmaker is so busy making a love letter for what he grew up watching that he loses sight of making the material his own and how to make it work for today's audience. There's nothing new in this film at all, but like Mendes I grew up watching Bond, so I can appreciate his tribute to the franchise. Skyfall made a ton of money. I hope it means they can make the next one better. I'm never going to stop hoping.

 

 

 

Agree with everything you said.

[detlef]

I finally saw Skyfall yesterday. I was extremely psyched up for this film after hearing so much about how it was a mature Bond and possibly one of the best of all time in the series. Furthermore, the fact that American Beauty director Sam Mendes was at the helm, I was extremely interested in seeing his take on the character. Boy, was I ever disappointed.

 

***SLIGHT SPOILERS WARNING***

 

There are some very slick scenes, but none terribly original, but still fun I will admit. Unfortunately, the script was not one that was very well constructed, and I found myself having to try to sustain more and more disbelief as the film progressed.

 

The worst thing is that they changed the Bond character. We learn that Bond was an orphan with wealthy Scottish parents that he lost at a very early age. Wait a minute, isn't that Bruce Wayne's story? Yes, it is and it's not at all the one that Ian Fleming wrote for Bond. Does the character really need to be recreated to be something he never was? I'm not some Bond purist, but it feels like the creative staff watched Christopher Nolan's Batman movies a few too many times.

 

What's even more laughable is that everyone is praising Javier Bardem's rouge agent character Silva when he comes off as a feminine Joker knock-off. This villain has no plan whatsoever but to get revenge? Really? He convinced all of these henchmen that are terribly skilled to work for him to get one person, who he could have killed a long time ago.

 

If Silva could plant bombs at MI6's HQ and hack into M's laptop, then why would he need to be captured so he could get closer? He wouldn't. There is no plan, the story is constructed because someone thought it would be exciting if there was a chase in London's underground. The villain's crazed obsession and motivation doesn't ring true.

 

Oh wait, that's what all Bond films are like. There's always an over the top bad guy. Exactly. It's just like so many other poor Bond films and is no where near close to being a more mature one.

 

The final act of the film is completely ludicrous. It makes no sense whatsoever for Bond to go back to his home and take his Boss with him with no weapons and no other men. And the old gatekeeper character was apparently written for Sean Connery, who smartly turned it down, because it was ridiculous for someone who played the double agent to be pretending he's home alone.

 

Was the movie entertaining? Yes, it's enjoyable like popcorn, but there's not much substance. Mendes' take on Bond reminds me of Bryan Singer's Superman Returns where a skilled filmmaker is so busy making a love letter for what he grew up watching that he loses sight of making the material his own and how to make it work for today's audience. There's nothing new in this film at all, but like Mendes I grew up watching Bond, so I can appreciate his tribute to the franchise. Skyfall made a ton of money. I hope it means they can make the next one better. I'm never going to stop hoping.

 

I guess what I don't get is that your expectations were so high, seemingly because you "grew up watching Bond". But were let down because it was no better than the others. No better than others in a franchise that you grew up loving and, as a result gave you such high expectations?

 

I guess that's what I don't get from people's issues with both this and QoS. Now that they've dialed back from invisible/swimming cars and such. Now that Bond isn't jumping behind a fighter jet and out-dueling a seasoned pilot or big wave surfing into N Korea, any reality stretch is just stupid.

 

It's still a Bond flick. Hell, take Casino Royale, one that virtually everyone loves there's some silly chives that you have to buy. The Madagascar fight/chase scene is just a wee-bit hard to fathom. A high-stakes poker genius who takes everyone's money all the time scratches his eye every time he bluffs? And Bond is the only one to figure it out?

 

It's Bond!

[electricrelish]

I guess what I don't get is that your expectations were so high, seemingly because you "grew up watching Bond". But were let down because it was no better than the others. No better than others in a franchise that you grew up loving and, as a result gave you such high expectations?

 

I guess that's what I don't get from people's issues with both this and QoS. Now that they've dialed back from invisible/swimming cars and such. Now that Bond isn't jumping behind a fighter jet and out-dueling a seasoned pilot or big wave surfing into N Korea, any reality stretch is just stupid.

 

It's still a Bond flick. Hell, take Casino Royale, one that virtually everyone loves there's some silly chives that you have to buy. The Madagascar fight/chase scene is just a wee-bit hard to fathom. A high-stakes poker genius who takes everyone's money all the time scratches his eye every time he bluffs? And Bond is the only one to figure it out?

 

It's Bond!

 

My expectations were setup for all the critical praise that Skyfall received. Here are some examples:

 

Peter Travers of Rolling Stone: This is Bond like you've never seen him, almost Freudian in his vulnerability.

 

- We've never seen Bond like this because they've confused the character with Bruce Wayne.

 

Betsy Sharkey of the Los Angeles Times: "In "Skyfall," Mendes has given us a thrilling new chapter in a franchise that by all rights should have been gasping for air -- which really makes him the hero of this saga. Saving Bond, after all, is rather like saving the day."

 

- Save Bond? No way. Again, they altered the origin by copying Batman.

 

Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly: "Of all the marvelous feats that make 'Skyfall' such a thrilling addition to the James Bond movie canon, the greatest may be that the 23rd entry conveys the melancholy of loss, mortality, and future-shock anxiety, while at the same time leaving us plenty of space to enjoy one of the most complexly unhinged villains in Bond history."

 

- The villain was a variation of The Joker. And for all his complexity, he over complicated his plans for a simple goal.

 

Peter Debruge of Variety: "Putting the "intelligence" in MI6, 'Skyfall' reps a smart, savvy and incredibly satisfying addition to the 007 oeuvre, one that places Judi Dench's M at the center of the action."

 

- I found a lack of intelligence in the film.

 

Yes, it's Bond. It's nothing new. Sam Mendes has done nothing new other than try to throw in some psychological complexities to the character by altering his origin story, which I found unnecessary and unsatisfying. Skyfall suffers from the same problem with many previous Bond films, which is a coherent storyline throughout the film. There's nothing new here to transcend or elevate as these critics would have you believe.

Edited January 9, 2013 by electricrelish

[detlef]

My expectations were setup for all the critical praise that Skyfall received. Here are some examples:

 

Peter Travers of Rolling Stone: This is Bond like you've never seen him, almost Freudian in his vulnerability.

 

- We've never seen Bond like this because they've confused the character with Bruce Wayne.

 

Betsy Sharkey of the Los Angeles Times: "In "Skyfall," Mendes has given us a thrilling new chapter in a franchise that by all rights should have been gasping for air -- which really makes him the hero of this saga. Saving Bond, after all, is rather like saving the day."

 

- Save Bond? No way. Again, they altered the origin by copying Batman.

 

Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly: "Of all the marvelous feats that make 'Skyfall' such a thrilling addition to the James Bond movie canon, the greatest may be that the 23rd entry conveys the melancholy of loss, mortality, and future-shock anxiety, while at the same time leaving us plenty of space to enjoy one of the most complexly unhinged villains in Bond history."

 

- The villain was a variation of The Joker. And for all his complexity, he over complicated his plans for a simple goal.

 

Peter Debruge of Variety: "Putting the "intelligence" in MI6, 'Skyfall' reps a smart, savvy and incredibly satisfying addition to the 007 oeuvre, one that places Judi Dench's M at the center of the action."

 

- I found a lack of intelligence in the film.

 

Yes, it's Bond. It's nothing new. Sam Mendes has done nothing new other than try to throw in some psychological complexities to the character by altering his origin story, which I found unnecessary and unsatisfying. Skyfall suffers from the same problem with many previous Bond films, which is a coherent storyline throughout the film. There's nothing new here to transcend or elevate as these critics would have you believe.

 

To be honest, I blame the critics for pretending this isn't a Bond movie or that Bond needed saving. I'd say we've become jaded, but based on the crap we eat up, especially stuff that is allegedly "reality" programing, I don't see how that could be true. Or why we're suddenly too cool to watch flicks that require suspended disbelief.

 

It reminds me of sitting with my step dad watching one of those stupid Charles Bronson flicks and him complaining about how the such and such caliber gun is ineffective at the range he's shooting it. Seriously? Dude is blowing up half of Manhatten trying to take out a gang of ne'er-do-wells and you're complaining about what caliber weapon he's using?

 

Also, I don't get what the big fuss about the Batman parralels, they're token details, not massive, plot-twisting zingers. You find out he's an orphan and they go back to his folk's old house where there's a cagey old caretaker. Well, actually, you find out he's an orphan in Casino Royale, but whatever. And the bad guy got his face messed up. I get, those parallel Batman and, honestly, it would have been better if they left it out. Mostly, however, because everyone is getting bent over that.

 

You mention it was entertaining, but in a popcorn sort of way. You should have stopped there, because that's what it's supposed to be. Bond is just a less-believable Bourne with much better clothes, hotter women, silly puns, lot's of drinking, and crazy villians in exotic places. Why does it need to be any more that? Has it ever been before?

Edited January 9, 2013 by detlef

[electricrelish]

To be honest, I blame the critics for pretending this isn't a Bond movie or that Bond needed saving. I'd say we've become jaded, but based on the crap we eat up, especially stuff that is allegedly "reality" programing, I don't see how that could be true. Or why we're suddenly too cool to watch flicks that require suspended disbelief.

 

It reminds me of sitting with my step dad watching one of those stupid Charles Bronson flicks and him complaining about how the such and such caliber gun is ineffective at the range he's shooting it. Seriously? Dude is blowing up half of Manhatten trying to take out a gang of ne'er-do-wells and you're complaining about what caliber weapon he's using?

 

Also, I don't get what the big fuss about the Batman parralels, they're token details, not massive, plot-twisting zingers. You find out he's an orphan and they go back to his folk's old house where there's a cagey old caretaker. Well, actually, you find out he's an orphan in Casino Royale, but whatever. And the bad guy got his face messed up. I get, those parallel Batman and, honestly, it would have been better if they left it out. Mostly, however, because everyone is getting bent over that.

 

You mention it was entertaining, but in a popcorn sort of way. You should have stopped there, because that's what it's supposed to be. Bond is just a less-believable Bourne with much better clothes, hotter women, silly puns, lot's of drinking, and crazy villians in exotic places. Why does it need to be any more that? Has it ever been before?

 

It's enjoyable for what it is, but it's not a movie that stays with you. It doesn't provoke further thought. After 23 films, I guess they're going to stick to this formula, which is fine. I can still enjoy it for what it is.

 

I just spoke to a friend of mine in London. She said the movie was really great, and they're not big Bond fans.

 

I cannot wait!

 

 

It's just that these kind of comments get me excited when I think that we'll see a new way of looking at the character. Honestly, I was hoping that we'd have a new director show the character in a new light that was always there, the way Frank Miller did with Batman in the 80's. I just think there is a lot of potential with the character for it to someday become a great thrill ride and high art all at the same time. They missed the mark this time, but it was good enough for another try.