RE: Skyfall

Follow @empiremagazine

Forum Home

Register for Free!

Log In

Moderator Tickets

FAQ

Users Online

RE: Skyfall

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Skyfall

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Skyfall - 30/10/2012 9:24:36 AM

Jessica_ca_ca_ca

Posts: 30072
Joined: 4/1/2006

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

Great to see credits back to the good ol' sentimental and slinky Bond days. I just love where Daniel Craig's taken his character. Some of the personal parts felt a little disjointed for me, however as a whole it came together in a neat little package. There are flaws to be sure, but can't honestly say it didn't feel like great entertainment anyway. Judi Dench as M was sublime, adored Ralph Fiennes' character, and the villain? One of my favourite performances this year.

_____________________________

You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.

(in reply to Deviation)

Post #: 181

RE: Skyfall - 30/10/2012 9:50:22 AM

manwihtheplan

Posts: 100
Joined: 11/9/2012

I've yet to see "Skyfall.... like apple crumble", but this review posted by a fan on Bond site CBN doesn't inspire that much confidence:

quote:

Well, I might sound like the party pooper here, but I'm really left disappointed.
Sure, this is a very beautiful movie as such. Great cinematography, great cast, superb shots.
But this is not a Bond movie. This would have been more suitable for another character. Bond doesn't call for a movie about his inner traumas. Bond doesn't call for a movie where he takes care of M like she's his mother. I mean, we see M almost as often as we see Bond! I must have missed the part when they said Skyfall would be a hitchkockian film about a putative mother/son relationship...
Whatever happend to the Bond character we so love? Whatever happened to the simple notion of a spy sent on a mission to do what he does best? Why on Earth do we need to get inside Bond's mind and delve into his childhood issues?
To me, eventhough it is brilliantly done, this kind of movie is really uncalled for in the Bond series.
The only glimmer of hope I got was watching the last minute, where we (finally!) get Bond back. Maybe the next one will actually be a Bond movie. Better late than never...

I remember the old days when Bernard Lee's M made about two appearances in a Bond film. One after the pre-credit scene and one at the end of the film. Perhaps Eon Productions should consider hiring Judi Dench for a spin-off series:

M - The Adventures of James Bond's Secret Mother

< Message edited by manwihtheplan -- 30/10/2012 9:51:12 AM >

(in reply to Jessica_ca_ca_ca)

Post #: 182

RE: Skyfall - 30/10/2012 9:54:16 AM

Happy Shrapnel

Posts: 17420
Joined: 19/1/2006
From: Wishing for the Clothes of Heaven

quote:

ORIGINAL: manwihtheplan

I've yet to see "Skyfall.... like apple crumble", but this review posted by a fan on Bond site CBN doesn't inspire that much confidence:

quote:

Well, I might sound like the party pooper here, but I'm really left disappointed.
Sure, this is a very beautiful movie as such. Great cinematography, great cast, superb shots.
But this is not a Bond movie. This would have been more suitable for another character. Bond doesn't call for a movie about his inner traumas. Bond doesn't call for a movie where he takes care of M like she's his mother. I mean, we see M almost as often as we see Bond! I must have missed the part when they said Skyfall would be a hitchkockian film about a putative mother/son relationship...
Whatever happend to the Bond character we so love? Whatever happened to the simple notion of a spy sent on a mission to do what he does best? Why on Earth do we need to get inside Bond's mind and delve into his childhood issues?
To me, eventhough it is brilliantly done, this kind of movie is really uncalled for in the Bond series.
The only glimmer of hope I got was watching the last minute, where we (finally!) get Bond back. Maybe the next one will actually be a Bond movie. Better late than never...

I remember the old days when Bernard Lee's M made about two appearances in a Bond film. One after the pre-credit scene and one at the end of the film. Perhaps Eon Productions should consider hiring Judi Dench for a spin-off series:

M - The Adventures of James Bond's Secret Mother

Inspire much confidence in who ?
All the people who have actually seen it and said HOW GOOD it is ?

_____________________________

In John Le Mesurier's last words........

' Its All Been Rather Lovely '

Happy Trails

(in reply to manwihtheplan)

Post #: 183

RE: Skyfall - 30/10/2012 9:56:31 AM

OPEN YOUR EYES

Posts: 3454
Joined: 5/2/2012
From: Living on Lynch's quiff

I like the fact he quotes other people on other-distant (fanboy) forums.

_____________________________

?eeffoc emos ekil uoy dluow

(in reply to Happy Shrapnel)

Post #: 184

RE: Skyfall - 30/10/2012 9:57:28 AM

Happy Shrapnel

Posts: 17420
Joined: 19/1/2006
From: Wishing for the Clothes of Heaven

He's a strange fish, that one.

_____________________________

In John Le Mesurier's last words........

' Its All Been Rather Lovely '

Happy Trails

(in reply to OPEN YOUR EYES)

Post #: 185

RE: Skyfall - 30/10/2012 10:28:42 AM

paulyboy

Posts: 2111
Joined: 30/9/2005

It was ok, hard to say why, it just didn't pop like it should have.

I think overall it was just lacking in excitement more than anything, it's a suprisingly long film with a shocking lack of decent set-pieces and a rather uninspired plot. Even Bardem's bad guy lacks real menace, inducing flat-out laughter rather than fear most of the time.

That all makes it sound like I hated it and I didn't, it's not a bad film, it's just not a very good one either. Like I said, it was ok.

2.5/5

On the related note that fall Bond survives at the start, you know, several hundred feet, BACK FIRST, into water. I think that was probably more science fiction than the invisible Aston Martin from Die Another Day.

< Message edited by paulyboy -- 30/10/2012 10:37:48 AM >

_____________________________

"Pain heals, chicks dig scars, glory lasts forever!"

(in reply to Jessica_ca_ca_ca)

Post #: 186

RE: Skyfall - 30/10/2012 11:36:08 AM

musht

Posts: 1130
Joined: 21/1/2009
From: Oireland

quote:

ORIGINAL: manwihtheplan

I've yet to see "Skyfall.... like apple crumble", but this review posted by a fan on Bond site CBN doesn't inspire that much confidence:

quote:

Well, I might sound like the party pooper here, but I'm really left disappointed.
Sure, this is a very beautiful movie as such. Great cinematography, great cast, superb shots.
But this is not a Bond movie. This would have been more suitable for another character. Bond doesn't call for a movie about his inner traumas. Bond doesn't call for a movie where he takes care of M like she's his mother. I mean, we see M almost as often as we see Bond! I must have missed the part when they said Skyfall would be a hitchkockian film about a putative mother/son relationship...
Whatever happend to the Bond character we so love? Whatever happened to the simple notion of a spy sent on a mission to do what he does best? Why on Earth do we need to get inside Bond's mind and delve into his childhood issues?
To me, eventhough it is brilliantly done, this kind of movie is really uncalled for in the Bond series.
The only glimmer of hope I got was watching the last minute, where we (finally!) get Bond back. Maybe the next one will actually be a Bond movie. Better late than never...

I remember the old days when Bernard Lee's M made about two appearances in a Bond film. One after the pre-credit scene and one at the end of the film. Perhaps Eon Productions should consider hiring Judi Dench for a spin-off series:

M - The Adventures of James Bond's Secret Mother

I remember the old days when people would see a film before forming an opinion on it.

_____________________________

"SAVE ME, BARRY!!"

"What the hell are Regionals!?"

(in reply to manwihtheplan)

Post #: 187

RE: Skyfall - 30/10/2012 12:25:05 PM

Rgirvan44

Posts: 18881
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

Don't you guys get it? Bond should never change. Never, ever, ever.

Oh and Lee was in quite a lot of A View to A Kill actually....

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

(in reply to musht)

Post #: 188

RE: Skyfall - 30/10/2012 12:31:00 PM

jcthefirst

Posts: 4074
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: Bangor

I didn't like it.

I thought the first hour with a struggling Bond was the best part but also that it took too long to get into the main thrust of the film.

The whole 20 minute bit with the woman who was afraid of Silva was pretty pointless I though and could have been completely cut.

I didn't think Silva was very interesting/menacing outside his introductory scene.

And I've never felt there was any sort of connection between Bond and M (besides boss/employee) and felt that was hastily shoehorned in to make us feel something come the end.

Some of the nods to the history were clunky too. Q was good, but the ejector seat gag? No thanks.

_____________________________

@Jonny_C85

My Movie Blog | My Other Various Rantings Blog

(in reply to Rgirvan44)

Post #: 189

RE: not quite as amazing as you're hoping - 30/10/2012 9:05:24 PM

bozo

Posts: 2477
Joined: 1/11/2006
From: HM Prison Slade

As a lifelong, obsessive-compulsive Bond fan, I can say Skyfall definitely delivers - it's entertaining, fun and gorgeous to look at. Could've done with a better script, but several things are undeniable:

1. One of the greatest Bond villains ever, definitely in the top 5 together with Blofeld, Max Zorin, Goldfinger and Sanchez. Bardem's performance was mesmerizing and his character was trully fascinating. That moment in the glass cage (if you've seen the film you know what I'm talking about) has to rank among the greatest Bond moments ever, right up there with Ursula Andress coming out of the water, the ski plunge and 'I expect you to die'.

2. Amazing cinematography. The most beautiful Bond film to date.

3. Brilliant last 20 minutes.

_____________________________

Prometheus 5/10
Ice Age 4 7/10
Skyfall 8.5/10
A Nightmare On Elm Street 3 7.5/10
Ringu 8.5/10
The Bad Seed 9.5/10
The Cabin In The Woods 4/10
Wolf Creek 8/10
Carnival of Souls 8.5/10
The Brood 9.5/10
Wrong Turn 8.5/10
Perfect Blue 10/10

(in reply to Coyleone)

Post #: 190

RE: Great Bond - 30/10/2012 10:31:20 PM

Filmfan 2

Posts: 972
Joined: 30/9/2005

I have to asmit that I'm slightly perplexed as to the praise being heaped upon Bardem's Silva. Sure, Bardem plays him well and he's a fairly charasmatic screen presence, but best Bond villian ever? I'm not so sure.

What exactly is it about his character that makes him so great? I'm not asking this to be contentious, but I just don't see it myself. Sure, he's a nicely twisted reflection of our protagonist and there's his connection with M, but it's not like he's a chatacter of massive levels of depth. We do get a nice scene with him when he initially meets Bond and again with M in the glass cage, but they're not scenes layered with lots of nuance, or full of any real sense of threat. There's obviously a history with Silva and MI6, but it's not laid out in such great detail that you ever empathise to a great degree with Silva, and his relationship with M isn't explored in the way that it could have been. Silva doesn't push Bond to the limit in any particular way, and the way he gets at M when he pursues her with the intent of killing her is only the product of massive plot contrivances that are quite weak if held up to any kind of real scrutiny.

I'm not a tub-thumper for the older Bond movies, but a few of the Connery era villians beat Silva hands down imo. I'd be curious to read the thoughts of those who think that Silva is the best, and their reasoning for it.

< Message edited by Filmfan 2 -- 30/10/2012 11:25:29 PM >

_____________________________

I am not drinkin' any fuckin' Merlot!

"All I wanted me was a piece of cornbread, you motherfuckers!"

Defender of all things Batman Begins

Post #: 191

RE: Great Bond - 30/10/2012 11:42:22 PM

musht

Posts: 1130
Joined: 21/1/2009
From: Oireland

quote:

ORIGINAL: Filmfan 2

I have to asmit that I'm slightly perplexed as to the praise being heaped upon Bardem's Silva. Sure, Bardem plays him well and he's a fairly charasmatic screen presence, but best Bond villian ever? I'm not so sure.

What exactly is it about his character that makes him so great? I'm not asking this to be contentious, but I just don't see it myself. Sure, he's a nicely twisted reflection of our protagonist and there's his connection with M, but it's not like he's a chatacter of massive levels of depth. We do get a nice scene with him when he initially meets Bond and again with M in the glass cage, but they're not scenes layered with lots of nuance, or full of any real sense of threat. There's obviously a history with Silva and MI6, but it's not laid out in such great detail that you ever empathise to a great degree with Silva, and his relationship with M isn't explored in the way that it could have been. Silva doesn't push Bond to the limit in any particular way, and the way he gets at M when he pursues her with the intent of killing her is only the product of massive plot contrivances that are quite weak if held up to any kind of real scrutiny.

I'm not a tub-thumper for the older Bond movies, but a few of the Connery era villians beat Silva hands down imo. I'd be curious to read the thoughts of those who think that Silva is the best, and their reasoning for it.

I have to agree, some great scenes but overall his motives and execution were pretty weak. Such a good plan to get to M and when he fails this evil genius with expert hacking skills and MI6 training walks straight into a trap that he should've seen a mile away.

ALSO, a thing that annoyed me at the time but has been bubbling away and I'm now furious about it. The guy survived cyanide!! But he can't take a knife in the back? I'm sorry but what a cop out, we deserved a proper showdown between Silva and Bond

_____________________________

"SAVE ME, BARRY!!"

"What the hell are Regionals!?"

(in reply to Filmfan 2)

Post #: 192

RE: Great Bond - 31/10/2012 1:32:58 AM

Quentin Black

Posts: 36
Joined: 2/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Filmfan 2

What exactly is it about his character that makes him so great? I'm not asking this to be contentious, but I just don't see it myself. Sure, he's a nicely twisted reflection of our protagonist and there's his connection with M, but it's not like he's a chatacter of massive levels of depth. We do get a nice scene with him when he initially meets Bond and again with M in the glass cage, but they're not scenes layered with lots of nuance, or full of any real sense of threat. There's obviously a history with Silva and MI6, but it's not laid out in such great detail that you ever empathise to a great degree with Silva, and his relationship with M isn't explored in the way that it could have been. Silva doesn't push Bond to the limit in any particular way, and the way he gets at M when he pursues her with the intent of killing her is only the product of massive plot contrivances that are quite weak if held up to any kind of real scrutiny.

I have to disagree. He's certainly amongst the ranks of great film villains.

To start with he is well designed. Like many great villains he's a distorted reflection of the protagonist that shines a light on the ethics and morals that the protagonists hold so dear. Similarly, like many great villains he doesn't need much screen time or detail. He's both threatening and interesting because of the suggestions the film makes and nuanced performances. The mystery created by not laying things out just reinforces this.

To elaborate:

Before we've even met him the film shows us that he is both intelligent and dangerous. A man that can create chaos and destruction without being present. A man that causes a seemingly hardened woman to quiver with fear (hats off to B�r�nice Marlohe for selling this so well).

In the reveal he walks slowly to the camera while talking in metaphors about the human condition. As well as being intelligent and in control, he's very strange and very disconcerting. He refers to M as their "mommy" and toys with the conventions of sexuality, using it like a weapon. His self-assured showmanship is an extension of his madness.

He is also clearly Bond's superior. An agent that matches Bond's physical abilities but recognizes the power that technology affords him. While Bond is used to the days of exploding pens, this is a man who can cripple a country with a laptop. The limits that Silva pushes Bond to are psychological. Knowing that his body and mind are no longer fit enough for service and that M lied to him, Bond is forced to question his mother figure, his purpose and his ability to do the job. When Silva makes Bond shoot the glass of the top of Severine's head it is not to test his marksmanship but to punish him psychologically. Bond could have saved her were he not a broken shell of his former self and he knows it. It is a match of wits and although Bond plays it cool throughout, Silva knows exactly what buttons to push.

Even when captured Silva is clearly dangerous. He always seems to be in control, like it is all part of the plan. When M feels like she has to explain herself to Bond you know Silva has gotten under her skin. We then find out that it was all part of the plan and Bond realizes that the only chance of beating him is by turning the table on Silva and stop playing the game by his rules (which leads to an excellent reversal of the Bond infiltrating the villain's fortress tradition).

In the end Silva's weakness is also thing that fuels him. The only time he isn't in control is when M is in the picture. Bardem's performance when Silva takes out his mouth piece to reveal his hidden deformity, sells the pain he has gone through because of M's actions. Nothing will take away the physical and psychological damage that has been inflicted on him and part of him realizes that. In the third act, his obsession with M blindsides him and he falls into Bond's trap. The closer he gets to achieving his goal the more careless he gets and in the end he breaks down. He's a monster that just wants to be released from his pain.

Silva is is well designed, well executed and extremely well acted. Maybe I read too much into it but for me he is a villain that is reminiscent of Heath Ledger's Joker, Anthony Hopkin's Hannibal Lecter, Gary Oldman's Stansfield, Sean Bean's Alec Trevelyan and even the shark from Jaws. That's not bad company to be keeping.

< Message edited by Quentin Black -- 31/10/2012 1:44:01 AM >

(in reply to Filmfan 2)

Post #: 193

RE: Great Bond - 31/10/2012 2:25:43 AM

Quentin Black

Posts: 36
Joined: 2/10/2005

It seems that many of the comments on this board are criticizing the film for either not being the same old smooth action flicks of the good ol' days or not being the gritty Bourne-inspired films that we've become accustomed to.

The problem with the good ol' days is that many of the Bond films (apart from the true greats) have not dated well and simply don't cut it in a post 911 world. The formula is too black and white, too misogynistic and too unrealistically simple. Many of those films didn't have much of an emotional core because they were pure fantasy and the girls were disposable sex objects.

The problem with the reinvented Bond films is that they've never really stepped out of Bourne's shadow. After Die Another Day tried to hard to match action films like Triple X, Casino Royale tried to hard to match the Bourne films to the extent that they even hired their stunt team to do all the action. Bond is just too glossy to exist in the same gritty world as Bourne and if audiences want gritty they should just watch the Bourne films.

I don't really understand the criticisms of Skyfall. It nails it. With some clever plotting it delivers a Bond that is both traditional and serious. It reintroduces all the elements that make a Bond film a Bond film in a logical and understated way, while delivering action and set pieces that are visually stunning and original. At the same time the characters and relationships are more developed and complex. The world is less black and white and more relevant to our times. This provides the films with a emotional and dramatic core that the audience can believe in.

Skyfall has taken the franchise out of the shadow of the Bourne series while still delivering a Bond that you can believe in a post 911 world. I struggle to understand why people are so opposed to this.

< Message edited by Quentin Black -- 31/10/2012 2:26:41 AM >

(in reply to Filmfan 2)

Post #: 194

RE: Great Bond - 31/10/2012 7:48:49 AM

jonson

Posts: 8057
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin Black
I have to disagree. He's certainly amongst the ranks of great film villains.

To start with he is well designed. Like many great villains he's a distorted reflection of the protagonist that shines a light on the ethics and morals that the protagonists hold so dear. Similarly, like many great villains he doesn't need much screen time or detail. He's both threatening and interesting because of the suggestions the film makes and nuanced performances. The mystery created by not laying things out just reinforces this.

To elaborate:

Before we've even met him the film shows us that he is both intelligent and dangerous. A man that can create chaos and destruction without being present. A man that causes a seemingly hardened woman to quiver with fear (hats off to B�r�nice Marlohe for selling this so well).

In the reveal he walks slowly to the camera while talking in metaphors about the human condition. As well as being intelligent and in control, he's very strange and very disconcerting. He refers to M as their "mommy" and toys with the conventions of sexuality, using it like a weapon. His self-assured showmanship is an extension of his madness.

He is also clearly Bond's superior. An agent that matches Bond's physical abilities but recognizes the power that technology affords him. While Bond is used to the days of exploding pens, this is a man who can cripple a country with a laptop. The limits that Silva pushes Bond to are psychological. Knowing that his body and mind are no longer fit enough for service and that M lied to him, Bond is forced to question his mother figure, his purpose and his ability to do the job. When Silva makes Bond shoot the glass of the top of Severine's head it is not to test his marksmanship but to punish him psychologically. Bond could have saved her were he not a broken shell of his former self and he knows it. It is a match of wits and although Bond plays it cool throughout, Silva knows exactly what buttons to push.

Even when captured Silva is clearly dangerous. He always seems to be in control, like it is all part of the plan. When M feels like she has to explain herself to Bond you know Silva has gotten under her skin. We then find out that it was all part of the plan and Bond realizes that the only chance of beating him is by turning the table on Silva and stop playing the game by his rules (which leads to an excellent reversal of the Bond infiltrating the villain's fortress tradition).

In the end Silva's weakness is also thing that fuels him. The only time he isn't in control is when M is in the picture. Bardem's performance when Silva takes out his mouth piece to reveal his hidden deformity, sells the pain he has gone through because of M's actions. Nothing will take away the physical and psychological damage that has been inflicted on him and part of him realizes that. In the third act, his obsession with M blindsides him and he falls into Bond's trap. The closer he gets to achieving his goal the more careless he gets and in the end he breaks down. He's a monster that just wants to be released from his pain.

Silva is is well designed, well executed and extremely well acted. Maybe I read too much into it but for me he is a villain that is reminiscent of Heath Ledger's Joker, Anthony Hopkin's Hannibal Lecter, Gary Oldman's Stansfield, Sean Bean's Alec Trevelyan and even the shark from Jaws. That's not bad company to be keeping.

Interesting post, but I can't help thinking you're like one of those art critics who spends 10 minutes describing a blank peice of paper.
Sorry, but he was just "very good" for me, not even in the Top 5 Bond villains. Creepy, well acted, amusingly camp, but that's about it. I think you're reading way too much in it for a Bond villain.
Now his character in No Country for Old Men was horrifically psychotic, insane, scary - he'd of made a great Bond baddie, I think Bardem used up all of his nutter points on that one.
Again, as i said in an earlier post, I really enjoyed the film immensely but it's waaay over-hyped, as is Bardem's performance (IMO)

_____________________________

I've got all the Barbie ones!!!

Yeah but you're old. Really old. Old. Old. Old. Old.

(in reply to Quentin Black)

Post #: 195

RE: Great Bond - 31/10/2012 9:17:27 AM

Gazdance

Posts: 1237
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Southampton

Skyfall was a disappointment to me. Such a shame.

I expected more bang for my buck. Didn't feel there was anything in the film that was the equal of the opening in terms of action or excitement.

The Aston Martin being used as a reference to the past - well moments like that took me out of the film. We know that Craig's Bond won that car from gambling in the Bahamas. Why does it have an ejector seat and weapons, then? Because its the 50th anniversary and "here's a reference".

I don't expect all of the Bonds to form one complete continuity. I view them as separate incarnations. As such, I find the messing around of Craig's continuity - even in this small way - illogical and silly.

There's more but it really doesn't matter. Parts of it were well done but after the excellent Casino Royale and unfairly maligned Quantum of Solace, I fear the producers have made a small misstep with this one.

(in reply to jonson)

Post #: 196

RE: Great Bond - 31/10/2012 10:00:45 AM

dolfinack

Posts: 73
Joined: 20/7/2011
From: Belfast

I've seen the glass cage bit of the film and I don't know what you're talking about. It was just your bog-standard monolgue.

_____________________________

"I'm as human as the next man"

"Dad! I WAS the next man!"

Post #: 197

RE: Great Bond - 31/10/2012 10:42:10 AM

musht

Posts: 1130
Joined: 21/1/2009
From: Oireland

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gazdance

Skyfall was a disappointment to me. Such a shame.

I expected more bang for my buck. Didn't feel there was anything in the film that was the equal of the opening in terms of action or excitement.

The Aston Martin being used as a reference to the past - well moments like that took me out of the film. We know that Craig's Bond won that car from gambling in the Bahamas. Why does it have an ejector seat and weapons, then? Because its the 50th anniversary and "here's a reference".

I don't expect all of the Bonds to form one complete continuity. I view them as separate incarnations. As such, I find the messing around of Craig's continuity - even in this small way - illogical and silly.

There's more but it really doesn't matter. Parts of it were well done but after the excellent Casino Royale and unfairly maligned Quantum of Solace, I fear the producers have made a small misstep with this one.

In fairness though he won it in a bet like four years ago, who knows how much time is supposed to have passed between this and QoS, I like to think he could have sent it in to be all kitted out before Q branch got the reboot seen in this film.

_____________________________

"SAVE ME, BARRY!!"

"What the hell are Regionals!?"

(in reply to Gazdance)

Post #: 198

RE: Great Bond - 31/10/2012 11:31:30 AM

cerebusboy

Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Filmfan 2

I'm not a tub-thumper for the older Bond movies, but a few of the Connery era villians beat Silva hands down imo. I'd be curious to read the thoughts of those who think that Silva is the best, and their reasoning for it.

Well, a few reviewers have said Silva reminds them of both Hannibal Lecter and the Joker, two of greatest screen villains of the last twenty years. The fact that Silva is a Bond-level secret agent (like Sean Bean in GoldenEye) and a criminal mastermind and sadistic/charismatic, with a striking old-school style look makes for a pretty fearsome combination. I'm not saying he's the best bond villain ever myself, but I'd certainly call Silva the best in recent memory. He's an excellence expression of the movies old/new themes too. The thigh-rubbing scene, for example, was a brilliant interrogation of the old (to quote LGBT Gore Vidal's phrase) "fag villain" trope from Bondian style fiction.

(in reply to Filmfan 2)

Post #: 199

RE: Great Bond - 31/10/2012 11:33:59 AM

cerebusboy

Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin Black

It seems that many of the comments on this board are criticizing the film for either not being the same old smooth action flicks of the good ol' days or not being the gritty Bourne-inspired films that we've become accustomed to.

The problem with the good ol' days is that many of the Bond films (apart from the true greats) have not dated well and simply don't cut it in a post 911 world. The formula is too black and white, too misogynistic and too unrealistically simple.

Well said. Take the reviews that say Skyfall's a great film but not a ''proper'' Bond film. Compared to what, Moonraker? yeesh.

(in reply to Quentin Black)

Post #: 200

RE: Great Bond - 31/10/2012 11:38:01 AM

cerebusboy

Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: musht

ORIGINAL: Filmfan 2

ALSO, a thing that annoyed me at the time but has been bubbling away and I'm now furious about it. The guy survived cyanide!! But he can't take a knife in the back? I'm sorry but what a cop out, we deserved a proper showdown between Silva and Bond

Depends where the knife goes though - surely Bond would know how to throw a knife so it kills a guy? I know he's been beat up a lot by that point, fallen through the ice etc etc, but I still think Bond had it in him to kill a guy with a short distance knife throw. Plus, the clock's ticking on M's injury. It would have been a bit jarring to have had, say, a big Bond/Silva fight scene in the chapel while M's bleeding out.

(in reply to musht)

Post #: 201

RE: Great Bond - 31/10/2012 11:51:45 AM

musht

Posts: 1130
Joined: 21/1/2009
From: Oireland

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: musht

ORIGINAL: Filmfan 2

ALSO, a thing that annoyed me at the time but has been bubbling away and I'm now furious about it. The guy survived cyanide!! But he can't take a knife in the back? I'm sorry but what a cop out, we deserved a proper showdown between Silva and Bond

Depends where the knife goes though - surely Bond would know how to throw a knife so it kills a guy? I know he's been beat up a lot by that point, fallen through the ice etc etc, but I still think Bond had it in him to kill a guy with a short distance knife throw. Plus, the clock's ticking on M's injury. It would have been a bit jarring to have had, say, a big Bond/Silva fight scene in the chapel while M's bleeding out.

I can absolutely believe that Bond would be able to kill someone with a short distance knife throw but I still think it was a cop out. If they could've found a way to make Kincade redundant then I think Bond fighting to keep Silva away from a dying M wold have been much more dramatic, the emotion of the one trying to kill his mother figure and the other trying to protect could have worked really well.

_____________________________

"SAVE ME, BARRY!!"

"What the hell are Regionals!?"

(in reply to cerebusboy)

Post #: 202

RE: Supposed Bond fans! - 31/10/2012 12:16:58 PM

Dr Lenera

Posts: 3446
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: dannyfletch

I'm quite surprised by some of te reactions from supposed Bond fans on here! Skyfall is a definite return to form ( even though I didnt hate QOS ) an by far one of the best in the series. Daniel Craig's Bond is possibly the best Bond as here he becomes the 007 as described in the Fleming books. Excellent performances all round, brilliant action and one of the best Bond baddies as Bardem portrays the sadistic and cunning Silva making him menacing and memorable.
Far better than most of the Pierce Brosnan era and definitely rememiscent of the excellent Connery era!

Supposed Bond fans? So I am not a Bond fan because Skyall disappointed me? OK then.

And I wouldn't say it's much like the Connery Bonds at all. And certainly doesn't near most of them in quality or enjoyment for me. I have Skyfall 7 out of 10 in my review, but I wonder if that was too high......

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

Post #: 203

RE: Bond back on top (no shagging pun intended) - 31/10/2012 1:59:02 PM

licencetokilt

Posts: 18
Joined: 26/10/2012

To me, all the Bond films from Dr. No to Licence to Kill exist in a different world than the other ones - they were the ones I watched on TV and on video and I can objectively rate them as good or bad films but I also can't help but let nostalgia influence my enjoyment of them. They are movies from my childhood whereas everything afterwards felt like a new era, and as such I was consciously comparing the Goldeneye onwards films to the previous sixteen. I'll never love the Brosnan and Craig ones the same way that I love the old ones because they don't feel the same. This makes judging all the newer Bond films objectively quite difficult because I can't help but put them aside the old films, which, even though some of them are crap, still feel like proper Bond to me rather than the new ones.

I must add, my definition of proper Bond is totally personal and I'm not going to try and give it credibility by arguing for it! When I watched Casino Royale I was blown away by how great it was but secretly I was feeling nostalgia for the gunbarrel, the Bond theme (yeah, i know it's at the end, but that's not an awful lot of screen time), Q, Moneypenny and so on. Still, I also thought - sod it, those films are over, this new direction is amazing, I should stop pining. This series needed a kick up the arse after Die Another Day. Then Quantum came out and it was atrocious - none of the Bond style but nothing good to offer in its place. So now we get Skyfall, a film that feels more like what I want from Bond, but is not as good a film as Casino Royale. Still, it is a good film. Yet, will I watch it as much as say, Moonraker or A View to a Kill - clearly inferior movies to Skyfall but more obviously Bond to me and therefore more likely to be chucked on the telly when I feel like relaxing with a Bond film.

As a film, Skyfall is very good. As a Bond film, it's very respectable. But in my own crazy world of what makes a great Bond film, is it one of my favourites? No. Still, I won't hesitate to recommend it to people, and of course I'm going to buy it when it comes out.

Besides, what is proper Bond? Hard-edged and brutal? Spectacular and silly? Should Bond pull all the women and kill all the bad guys? Should he be more emotional and multi-dimensional? Spies and intrigue? Hollowed-out volcanoes? A gunbarrel? Some will argue that Connery is the quintessential Bond, others will see Bond as Roger Moore. Some will rate Dalton (myself included). What about those who've read the books? Do they have a better say on who Bond should be?

I'm going to stop, sorry about the rambling. There is a point somewhere in all of the above.

Post #: 204

RE: Skyfall - 31/10/2012 8:01:38 PM

attakdog

Posts: 33
Joined: 4/11/2008

Was really enjoying Skyfall till it turned in to Assault on Precinct 007 for the final act, and dragged on for twenty minutes longer than it needed to.

Oh and shouldn't Albert Finneys game keeper character have at least a tiny wee hint of a scottish accent?

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 205

RE: Great Bond - 31/10/2012 9:08:24 PM

bozo

Posts: 2477
Joined: 1/11/2006
From: HM Prison Slade

quote:

ORIGINAL: Filmfan 2

I have to asmit that I'm slightly perplexed as to the praise being heaped upon Bardem's Silva. Sure, Bardem plays him well and he's a fairly charasmatic screen presence, but best Bond villian ever? I'm not so sure.

What exactly is it about his character that makes him so great? I'm not asking this to be contentious, but I just don't see it myself. Sure, he's a nicely twisted reflection of our protagonist and there's his connection with M, but it's not like he's a chatacter of massive levels of depth. We do get a nice scene with him when he initially meets Bond and again with M in the glass cage, but they're not scenes layered with lots of nuance, or full of any real sense of threat. There's obviously a history with Silva and MI6, but it's not laid out in such great detail that you ever empathise to a great degree with Silva, and his relationship with M isn't explored in the way that it could have been. Silva doesn't push Bond to the limit in any particular way, and the way he gets at M when he pursues her with the intent of killing her is only the product of massive plot contrivances that are quite weak if held up to any kind of real scrutiny.

I'm not a tub-thumper for the older Bond movies, but a few of the Connery era villians beat Silva hands down imo. I'd be curious to read the thoughts of those who think that Silva is the best, and their reasoning for it.

I think you're overthinking this. It's a fast-paced action-adventure movie, not a profound deliberation on the meaning of life. A memorable, menacing and scary villain is enough and Silva ticks all those boxes. Were you expecting Iago or something?

_____________________________

Prometheus 5/10
Ice Age 4 7/10
Skyfall 8.5/10
A Nightmare On Elm Street 3 7.5/10
Ringu 8.5/10
The Bad Seed 9.5/10
The Cabin In The Woods 4/10
Wolf Creek 8/10
Carnival of Souls 8.5/10
The Brood 9.5/10
Wrong Turn 8.5/10
Perfect Blue 10/10

(in reply to Filmfan 2)

Post #: 206

RE: Great Bond - 31/10/2012 9:56:52 PM

jobloffski

Posts: 1837
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: elsewhere

My initial reaction to Skyfall: It's very, very, very, very, very, very...okay.

Maybe on future viewings I will fall in love with the cinematography, but first feeling is it actually got in the way of engagement with what was going on a lot of the time. It should be the icing, but on first view, it felt like a very large part of the cake.

Also. given the jump from here the there and constant switches of film making style I felt the score could/should have been a little more consistent to create a consistent tone, feel and mood for the film.

And re the ending I could have done with a little more catharsis after the long build up. Writers 'shouldn't' do this but I am one and I don't 'care' about not chucking in my thruppeny bit into to the mix. Re the ending (invisitext follows)

Instead of having Bond throw the knife that killed Silva I'd have suggested a rewrite if presented with the script showing what we saw. I'd have lingered longer on Silva taunting and enjoying his moment of coup de grace and suddenly had his face change, because his extended moment of enjoying being about to get his revenge would have given Bond time to sneak right up behind him and drive the knife into his back. This would have given a slightly more shocking change of mood, especially if followed by a wider shot of Bond pulling the knife out of Silva's back, and driving it in again, saying 'get your filthy hands off her!!' and throwing Silva to the ground. Cut to him hitting the ground, dead. Back to Bond, relieved. Almost a salute expressed by his voice as he says 'Ma'am...' and regains his composure, M starts to smile in response, bringing the same expression from Bond. But M's smile drifts and droops and there is an extended moment where we and Bond and she realise she is dying and he has failed to save his 'mother'. Bond falters, saying more weakly, 'Ma'am?' and as she slumps into his arms and he lowers to the floor he says one more time, almost breathing a whisper, 'Ma'am' and a very slow fade to black with music preventing us hearing, but the visual allowing us to to see Bond beginning to lose control as weeps overtake him, seen from behind to respectfully spare him the indignity of us seeing him weep. Well, that;s my take anyway

Maybe I'll learn to love the way the film looks, but at first look, it's a far flimsier piece of work than the reviews led me to expect, although I do appreciate attention to detail like when Bond is being presented to us as past it, he does genuinely look ill. Next time out, I think I want to feel more 'with' 007 throughout, instead of taking a ride through the scenery of the film with the cinematography and not engaging so much with emotion, danger, flow of story from one moment to the next.

All that said, presumably the burning down of Bond's ancestral home and the loss he suffers in this film means he has now earned his spurs, lost everything about himself he has to lose and can now be bond fully next time out.

Lots to like about this film. Not sure yet what there is to love, And I say that as a very staunch defender of QOS.

< Message edited by jobloffski -- 31/10/2012 10:03:06 PM >

_____________________________

Yes, dreamers dream and doers do. But if dreamers DON'T dream, doers don't have anything TO do. Everything that is only here because people exist, only exists because someone thought of it., or in other words, dreamed it.

(in reply to bozo)

Post #: 207

RE: Great Bond - 31/10/2012 10:02:24 PM

Darth Marenghi

Posts: 2946
Joined: 10/10/2010
From: Manchester

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin Black

I have to disagree. He's certainly amongst the ranks of great film villains.

To start with he is well designed. Like many great villains he's a distorted reflection of the protagonist that shines a light on the ethics and morals that the protagonists hold so dear. Similarly, like many great villains he doesn't need much screen time or detail. He's both threatening and interesting because of the suggestions the film makes and nuanced performances. The mystery created by not laying things out just reinforces this.

To elaborate:

Before we've even met him the film shows us that he is both intelligent and dangerous. A man that can create chaos and destruction without being present. A man that causes a seemingly hardened woman to quiver with fear (hats off to B�r�nice Marlohe for selling this so well).

In the reveal he walks slowly to the camera while talking in metaphors about the human condition. As well as being intelligent and in control, he's very strange and very disconcerting. He refers to M as their "mommy" and toys with the conventions of sexuality, using it like a weapon. His self-assured showmanship is an extension of his madness.

He is also clearly Bond's superior. An agent that matches Bond's physical abilities but recognizes the power that technology affords him. While Bond is used to the days of exploding pens, this is a man who can cripple a country with a laptop. The limits that Silva pushes Bond to are psychological. Knowing that his body and mind are no longer fit enough for service and that M lied to him, Bond is forced to question his mother figure, his purpose and his ability to do the job. When Silva makes Bond shoot the glass of the top of Severine's head it is not to test his marksmanship but to punish him psychologically. Bond could have saved her were he not a broken shell of his former self and he knows it. It is a match of wits and although Bond plays it cool throughout, Silva knows exactly what buttons to push.

Even when captured Silva is clearly dangerous. He always seems to be in control, like it is all part of the plan. When M feels like she has to explain herself to Bond you know Silva has gotten under her skin. We then find out that it was all part of the plan and Bond realizes that the only chance of beating him is by turning the table on Silva and stop playing the game by his rules (which leads to an excellent reversal of the Bond infiltrating the villain's fortress tradition).

In the end Silva's weakness is also thing that fuels him. The only time he isn't in control is when M is in the picture. Bardem's performance when Silva takes out his mouth piece to reveal his hidden deformity, sells the pain he has gone through because of M's actions. Nothing will take away the physical and psychological damage that has been inflicted on him and part of him realizes that. In the third act, his obsession with M blindsides him and he falls into Bond's trap. The closer he gets to achieving his goal the more careless he gets and in the end he breaks down. He's a monster that just wants to be released from his pain.

Silva is is well designed, well executed and extremely well acted. Maybe I read too much into it but for me he is a villain that is reminiscent of Heath Ledger's Joker, Anthony Hopkin's Hannibal Lecter, Gary Oldman's Stansfield, Sean Bean's Alec Trevelyan and even the shark from Jaws. That's not bad company to be keeping.

Excellent post, QB - I'm surprised given your start date that you've not posted much before but some more of this kind of analysis would be very welcome around here.

_____________________________

Invisible Text for SPOILERS: "color=#F1F1F1" Spoiler text "/color" , then change the quotation marks to square brackets.

(in reply to Quentin Black)

Post #: 208

RE: Great Bond - 31/10/2012 10:12:21 PM

Deviation

Posts: 26906
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: jonson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin Black
I have to disagree. He's certainly amongst the ranks of great film villains.

To start with he is well designed. Like many great villains he's a distorted reflection of the protagonist that shines a light on the ethics and morals that the protagonists hold so dear. Similarly, like many great villains he doesn't need much screen time or detail. He's both threatening and interesting because of the suggestions the film makes and nuanced performances. The mystery created by not laying things out just reinforces this.

To elaborate:

Before we've even met him the film shows us that he is both intelligent and dangerous. A man that can create chaos and destruction without being present. A man that causes a seemingly hardened woman to quiver with fear (hats off to B�r�nice Marlohe for selling this so well).

In the reveal he walks slowly to the camera while talking in metaphors about the human condition. As well as being intelligent and in control, he's very strange and very disconcerting. He refers to M as their "mommy" and toys with the conventions of sexuality, using it like a weapon. His self-assured showmanship is an extension of his madness.

He is also clearly Bond's superior. An agent that matches Bond's physical abilities but recognizes the power that technology affords him. While Bond is used to the days of exploding pens, this is a man who can cripple a country with a laptop. The limits that Silva pushes Bond to are psychological. Knowing that his body and mind are no longer fit enough for service and that M lied to him, Bond is forced to question his mother figure, his purpose and his ability to do the job. When Silva makes Bond shoot the glass of the top of Severine's head it is not to test his marksmanship but to punish him psychologically. Bond could have saved her were he not a broken shell of his former self and he knows it. It is a match of wits and although Bond plays it cool throughout, Silva knows exactly what buttons to push.

Even when captured Silva is clearly dangerous. He always seems to be in control, like it is all part of the plan. When M feels like she has to explain herself to Bond you know Silva has gotten under her skin. We then find out that it was all part of the plan and Bond realizes that the only chance of beating him is by turning the table on Silva and stop playing the game by his rules (which leads to an excellent reversal of the Bond infiltrating the villain's fortress tradition).

In the end Silva's weakness is also thing that fuels him. The only time he isn't in control is when M is in the picture. Bardem's performance when Silva takes out his mouth piece to reveal his hidden deformity, sells the pain he has gone through because of M's actions. Nothing will take away the physical and psychological damage that has been inflicted on him and part of him realizes that. In the third act, his obsession with M blindsides him and he falls into Bond's trap. The closer he gets to achieving his goal the more careless he gets and in the end he breaks down. He's a monster that just wants to be released from his pain.

Silva is is well designed, well executed and extremely well acted. Maybe I read too much into it but for me he is a villain that is reminiscent of Heath Ledger's Joker, Anthony Hopkin's Hannibal Lecter, Gary Oldman's Stansfield, Sean Bean's Alec Trevelyan and even the shark from Jaws. That's not bad company to be keeping.

Interesting post, but I can't help thinking you're like one of those art critics who spends 10 minutes describing a blank peice of paper.
Sorry, but he was just "very good" for me, not even in the Top 5 Bond villains. Creepy, well acted, amusingly camp, but that's about it. I think you're reading way too much in it for a Bond villain.
Now his character in No Country for Old Men was horrifically psychotic, insane, scary - he'd of made a great Bond baddie, I think Bardem used up all of his nutter points on that one.
Again, as i said in an earlier post, I really enjoyed the film immensely but it's waaay over-hyped, as is Bardem's performance (IMO)

That's an immensly unnecessary and pointless comment, is it? Especially since there was nothing particularly pretentious in that post (other then the human condition bit) and your reply post has nothing of real extra value to add other than saying "I disagree and you are seeing way too much into things". I mean it's your opinion and I have nothing agaisnt it about, whether you think Silva is very good or great or just rubbish, but that was really an unnecessary comment followed by a thin comment.

< Message edited by Deviation -- 31/10/2012 10:30:08 PM >

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to jonson)

Post #: 209

RE: Great Bond - 1/11/2012 9:54:16 AM

londonnut

Posts: 19
Joined: 5/8/2009

ORIGINAL: Jobloffski

quote:

'get your filthy hands off her!!'

lol! a line like that is worthy of Austin Powers not Bond.

He didn't need a line here; not giving him a line says more about the character than giving him one - the (professional) writers knew that; throw a knife off screen - job done.

The clue was in Kilcade's earlier line delivered when he layed their meagre collection of weaponry (incl. dagger) on the table, saying something along the lines of the old ways being best.

Brings the whole end sequence to a fitting conclusion where the message was Bond - having being stripped of gadgetry - is simply a bloody good agent who relies on his skill experience and ingenuity.

< Message edited by londonnut -- 1/11/2012 10:13:42 AM >

(in reply to Darth Marenghi)

Post #: 210