Skyfall, celebrating 50 years of Bond, is clearly serving a large portion of fan service. And I bloody loved it because of that.

It's a film which not only progressed Bond and the new universe, but ties in many classic elements which have been put aside for many years.

I really liked the film overall, but I found it rather joyless and gray. Film makers seem to have forgotten that spy adventures—especially Bond's—are supposed to be fun. Characters actually sneer at the idea of Bond having spy gadgets or a cool car.

And again the bad guy is rather dull (and one of ours*), with no notable henchmen. But we basically have NO villain for half the movie. And what was that shit about Bond being old and out of shape? Craig was rock hard and only 41; that's when Dalton and Brosnan STARTED, and younger than Moore before he made SEVEN pictures. Did nobody remember how dumb that sounds in Star Trek 2 and Lethal Weapon given that they made several more movies?

We do get some pretty spectacular action sequences and a nicely personal story that grows the character. We learn about Bond's family, and even get background for Moneypenny and M. However, I hated the reveal of Moneypenny. "We've never been formally introduced"? She helped you on TWO missions. You FUCKED her. How do you not know her NAME?!

But then, did anybody catch that the chick who gets killed is named "Sévérine"? I had to look it up. Fleming would have called her "Fanny Krease" or "Emasculatia" or something. I'm not saying Fleming's silly names were GOOD, but they were MEMORABLE. Even the villain's name here is kind of tossed aside and made confusing. Silva? Rodriguez? Whatever.

* WAY too common in all spy movies these days. See Alec Trevalyan, Elektra King, Miranda Frost, Vesper Lynd, and M's body guard, just in the Bond series.

Last edited by Zarban (2012-11-12 00:53:09)

I actually thought this was a reflection on the current state of Bond films, and their move from tradition to the bourne-styled realism. I interpreted Skyfall as a renewal of the series, opening the way back to a more stylish, fun take on Bond; he doesn't even get angry until the Aston is shot.

Honestly, when compared to the overt and blatant sexism in the earlier Bond films, Skyfall is practically feminist. But I see where you're coming from. I agree that Severine was kind of wasted as a character. If you're going to cry sexism, that's the place to start. All she does is stand around and be sexy, and then she gets killed just as a way for the bad guy to freak Bond out.

Eve, however, is a different story. I actually really like her arc, and I don't think what happens to her is an example of sexism. I think the writers saw it as a neat way to give Ms. Moneypenny a badass backstory, rather than it coming out of a subconscious thing for traditional gender roles. We know that she's not just a secretary, she's a more-than-capable field agent and a match for Bond when it comes to wit. I'm sure in the sequels she'll get more to do than sit behind a desk.

I do find the transition back to a male M interesting. Do younger moviegoers even remember a time when M wasn't Judi Dench? A few years ago, before I knew anything about Bond beyond Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, I was genuinely surprised to discover that M was a man in all the earlier films. It just never occurred to me that M wouldn't be a woman. That said, I'm really pleased with Ralph Fiennes in the role. Perfect casting there. Anyway, my point is that because the character of M was originally a man, I don't see Mallory taking the role as an example of sexism. Is M's death sexist? I don't know. It is odd that she'd be so completely useless in a gunfight. Yes, she's old, but so is Kincade, and she has far more experience in this world than, presumably, he does. But if you're going into this movie saying "M is going to die," there aren't a lot of better ways to go about it. I mean, seeing Judi Dench blazing away with an AK like Rambo might have come across as comical. At the end of the day, she's an old lady. Sure, she gets shot and dies. What more can you do, really?

Severine, though. The treatment of that character really bugs me for some reason. She's just so completely helpless, and the fact that Bond doesn't save her is unsettling.

Totally. Weakest effect in the movie. That whole scene is pretty ridiculous, actually. Do Komodo dragons actually eat people?

Last edited by Doctor Submarine (2012-11-12 05:06:06)

I think the biggest negative I can throw at this one is that it's lacking in the action department.

Casino Royale kicked so much ass in terms of action film-making, and had at least 4 classic action scenes.
This one has a great opening, and a cool finale, but I agree with Zarban that the movie felt kind of dull throughout the middle when it decided to turn into the Dark Knight. Just in terms of number of set-pieces, this is one of the least action-packed entries in the series, to where it doesn't even feel like a bond movie throughout much of it.

That being said, this movie is also stunningly gorgeous, I love all the Shanghai and Maccau stuff (though the fight in the Komodo pit should've been longer, as per Bond tradition).

I think what's interesting is how original this one is in context of the bond films. Going in I thought this was going to be more of a throwback to the Connery-era films, but it wasn't anything like that either. I love that the last third turns into basically an old school Charles Bronson flick.

Good points, but my problem isn't that Severine doesn't do enough but that she and her death aren't memorable. However I'm not saying that every betrayer has to be covered in gold paint or fed to piranhas. I think the writer was going for an emotional moment where Bond realizes he's a failure, but that scene felt lame.

It doesn't help that Bond acts like he's helpless to stop it and then 3 seconds later kills the guards and captures Silva. ...And then we find out that all Bond had to do was stall for 30 seconds and the helicopters would have arrived. D'oh!

It wouldn't have taken much to give Severine a more emotional rendezvous with Bond and have him promise to keep her safe. Then his failure is more effective.

I don't think that was an actual hint that Bond is bisexual, I think he was just proving to the bad guy that he is unflappable. Silva was trying to see if he could freak out the straight man but Bond doesn't care and played along. That's how I saw it anyway. He was keeping cool 'under pressure'

And there were two females in Skyfall, you (and I) may not have found them attractive but others do (like the director, clearly). Also, Bond did sleep with Sévérine and that bird on the island he washed up on. So, considering he sleeps with two women in the film and no dudes, I think it's safe to say he's straight

Also, I'd say pretty much everybody is useless in Skyfall. Bond basically does lose at the end.......

I think these films are still pretty much leading up to Bond being a super-spy. We just got Q and Monypenny in Skyfall, so they're getting there, I guess

This is very true but I imagine all that talk is a reference to the fact that Bond just celebrated 50 years on screen. I agree that the script was all over the place but I still enjoyed the film and don't really give a shite about minor script problems. I had fun with it and that is what counts for me.

I thought the motorcycle chase on the rooftops was pretty poorly done, something about the compositing on the close-ups made it look very fake.

I only noticed it in like 1 shot, I wouldn't make a big deal out of it considering how many insane practical stunts they pulled off for this. Seeing that behind the scenes and realizing they actually had those guys fighting it out on a moving train with minimal wires is kind of insane.

I didn't even notice it.