Skyfall (50th Anniversary) - Review Thread

[JBond]

Skyfall (2012)


In 2006, when Casino Royale was just around the corner, it was clear this wasn't going to be your 90s Bond. It was unclear what things were going to be changed and which were going to be completely done away with, but with Goldeneye's director Martin Campbell, we knew we were in good hands. But the thing is, I liked 90s Bond. I grew up with Brosnan, as I did with Lethal Weapon and Die Hard, and I never got my fill of him because after the brilliant Goldeneye we were left with only 3 mediocre/crappy films, and that was it. Ever since Goldeneye I have been left a bit empty by the Bond movies. I thought perhaps I was growing up and it would never be the same. But that's not it. The other Brosnan films are built the way I love, but they’re not all that great. Casino Royale was great...but not the Bond I remember and loved.

Casino Royale is very a good movie, but I'll never love it because it doesn't love itself. When Goldeneye came along, it adapted to the times while still keeping James Bond what it is. Casino Royale distanced itself by getting rid of Q, Monnypenny, gadgets, world domination, the James Bond theme, and by Quantum of Solace, even the opening bullet scene. (This is a serious grievance with me. You know that feeling you get when the "Star Wars" titles show up with the glorious first note of the theme? That's how I felt at the opening of Bond movies.)

Even worse, the ending of Casino Royale seemed to tease "James Bond is back." Craig said the immortal words and we finally hear the Bond theme in the credits. Two years later...we're hit with Quatum of Solace. Still no Bond theme etc., just more distancing from the Bond franchise. This time they appeared to try and make another Bourne film. The franchise was in danger.

Enter Skyfall.

Per usual when analyzing a Bond film, I like breaking it apart into its iconic constituents. First we have the opening sequences, easily one of the best. This movie is over-the-top in just the right places, giving us that Brosnan-esque fantasy element to the action sequences, but keeping it gritty for the 21st century audience member. Car chase, motorcycle chase, train chase. Just brilliant. All other action scenes are wonderful as well, but they know their place and don’t try to upstage the opening sequence.

This leads us into one of the best credit sequences, perhaps only second to The World is Not Enough (in my opinion.) It’s not only gorgeously done, but keeps a bit of that thematic relevance that Die Another Day did, but without the ear poison of Madonna. Bond has just “died” in the opening sequence, and now he is stuck in a purgatory that he can’t seem to find his way out of. This sequence isn’t just art, it’s existential characterization, and it sets us up for his shortcomings seen throughout the film. (The song’s OK. Works better as a whole package with the context of the animation.)

As for the movie itself, I have to talk about the technical aspects behind it before anything else, because this is what MADE the movie. In a word: professional. What we have here is the director of American Beauty, the editor of the first two Lethal Weapon movies (and countless others) and the cinematographer of half the Coen brother films. And boy does it show. This movie’s camera work and use of color is like nothing we’ve seen in this franchise. From big things, like the skyscraper scene in Shanghai, to little things, like a very quick shot of Bond actually getting more in the way of an oncoming train before shooting open a door and reaching safety. James Bond is a world traveler. Ever since the beginning he has gone to countless countries all over the world and killed and screwed people in each of them. Why did it take this long to get a professional cinematographer? Please don’t go anywhere, Mr. Deakins. (You too, Mr. Mendes.)

Nothing against Tomorrow Never Dies, it’s an above average film, but ever since Goldeneye the movies have never quite reached their potential. A couple things were missing in some, many from others, but one thing missing from them all was a great villain. I didn’t realize how crucial this was until I saw Javier Bardem as Silva. The whole movie was better for it. He was menacing, dangerous, and just the right amount of insane to please that classic James Bond part of me. (But without the world dominance. One of the many examples of this movie being a successful product of what’s come before it.) In fact, casting all around was superb. Judi Dench as M in her highest billing yet was great as always, Ralph Fiennes as Mallory, Naomie Harris, and even Ben Whishaw as Q was better than I had feared. The future cast of the Bond franchise is in good hands. My only complaint for the whole film is regarding the character of Sévérine. The part was acted well enough, and I’m quite used to the death of occasional Bond girls, but I thought it was mishandled. Not only does Bond make a quip about wasting good scotch right afterwards, but in the end, Bond loses TWO of his women in this film. Never before has Bond failed so much.

Still written by the Bozo Twins, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, they did a better job this time and were picked up by a brilliant crew in directing, editing and cinematography. The pacing in this film is outstanding: I was never bored and I was never overwhelmed by action. I was a little concerned when I heard this movie was going to be a bit more about the psychology of Bond than usual, as that's a slippery slope for a 50 year old film franchise. But it was done very well and was actually the source of my favorite scene in the movie, perhaps in any Bond film ever. It started off wonderfully enough: with an Aston Martin DB5. (And with a delicious couple of notes from the Goldfinger soundtrack.) In what started out as a scene to give the franchise its birthday present, something wonderful happened: The James Bond theme started to play. I don't mean a few notes snuck into the soundtrack like in the last couple movies, I mean the damn song was playing, and not in just any way, but with the twangy guitar of the 60s version. Because this wasn't just a celebration of the Bond franchise; this was a journey into its past. Literally. After the theme plays and the nostalgia has filled our hearts, Bond drives with M in the DB5 through the fog to his birthplace. I never could have imagined a transition done with such genius in a Bond film. We were treated with a brief and subtle retrospective that was seamlessly inserted into the plot of the film. And what follows is a brilliant finale that was made all the more special from all of this leading up to it. For the rest of the film we were somewhere else. As for the whole film, it was a perfect marriage of script, direction and editing.

I didn’t speak earlier of the Bond movies from the 90s onward just for exposition. I am a fan of James Bond, but I’m in it for the history. I liked going into a Bond movie and knowing exactly what I was going to get out of it. Some were good and some were bad, but I enjoyed them all. What I love most about Skyfall is that it felt like I was watching James Bond for the first time in at least a decade. In fact, it transcended the genre (yes, “James Bond” is a genre now) and for the first time showed me that James Bond can be James Bond and still be relevant to today’s audiences, both thematically and in subject matter.

There’s something very ironic going on here, though. Casino Royale’s ending promised us a return to the James Bond we know and love, but we were betrayed. In similar fashion, this movie ends with a promise for Bond conventions that were left behind. I don’t expect the Bond theme to be freed from its shackles from now on, but I was given closure on the matter. But for some reason I trust them this time to find this equilibrium, and if this turns out to be false, then at least I’ll always have Skyfall.


****/****

[PsYkOoOoO]

Originally Posted by bbf2

Question for those that have seen the film:

My friends and I were thinking of seeing this tonight, the thing is, I saw Casino Royale but I never saw Quantum of Solace. Does it matter or does it start a new story? Most people I've talked to who saw QoS said they don't even remember what happened in it.

I've never seen Quantum of Solace either. You can go right ahead.

[Justin]

Should be seeing it tonight, maybe.

[Knerys]

Skyfall

The James Bond Franchise has become a master at reinventing itself. Whether for political climate or the man himself, 007 has morphed more times than any other character I can think of. Sometimes the results are glowing and many times less so. Though I'm not a Bond superfan, I've always appreciated the character and eagerly look forward to the films. This latest turn around had abandoned the gaudy opulence of the Brosnan era for a less polished, though no less captivating, Bond. Casino Royale was a wonderful introduction. Quantum of Solace was a mediocre follow up. Using over stylized film making to mask the lack of story and direction, the long standing franchise was this close to abandoning everything that made Bond Bond. Now after a four year hiatus (thanks MGM), Sam Mendes takes up the reigns and with a clever and very thoughtfully written script, he has helped the franchise find it's footing again.

I'll start with the intro. Possibly my favorite of any of the franchise so far. First you're are thrown into the thick of it as always. Exotic scenery, fast action, and nail biting tension. Then it melts seamlessly into the title screen, using it as an extension of the storytelling with Adele's beautiful voice to serenade us along the way. Next is the set up, simple yet relevant (and as I try to leave my reviews largely spoiler free, I'll leave it at that). There are the Bond girls of course. I liked Naomi Harris in Ninja Assassin and she was equally up to the task here. Berenice Marlohe was a beautiful throw back to sultry damsel, wearing perhaps a little too much makeup and dress a little too tight, and, oooooh did she wear it well. Dench throws in possibly her best performance as “M”, Ben Whishaw hits just the right notes as the young and confident Q, and there are some lovely performances by others I'll leave you to be surprised by. Then you have the villain. Javier Bardem is a FABULOUS actor. I couldn't take my eyes of him. Flamboyant, ruthless, charming and tragically damaged. So dangerous and soooooo good. He and Craig play brilliantly off each other. Speaking of Craig, he truly comes of age in this installment, finally owning the character the way Brosnan and Connery did. Bond is undeniably his now. I'm very happy we get to share a few more adventures with him.

All of this is serviced with an excellent script, at points transcending the genre and even pulling us deeper into Bond's psyche without breaking any of the cardinal rules. You feel closer to Bond without really knowing much more about him. Age is a recurring theme and they do a good job of handling its pitfalls. The film itself is shot beautifully, from the neon vistas to foggy hills. Pacing is near flawless. Mendes has an elegant touch when comes to commanding subtly or megadrama, and has the good sense to know when to use which. In the end, it leaves you with more than just another spy movie.

Skyfall is pure excellence. It hits every note that makes Bond what it is. Exoctic locales, beautiful women, cheeky one liners, flamboyant villains, breathtaking action, and one mysterious Spy. They've finally stuck that delicate balance between the Bond we knew and loved with the Bond we’ve been dying to see.

Bond is back. And I can't wait to see him again.

10/10

[JBond]

Good review. I forgot to mention the return of the cheeky one-liner. I don't recall Craig having any before. At least not in the "set up / delivery" manner like in Skyfall. ("Bond, what took you so long?...")

[sshuttari]

Originally Posted by JBond

What I love most about Skyfall is that it felt like I was watching James Bond for the first time in at least a decade. In fact, it transcended the genre (yes, “James Bond” is a genre now) and for the first time showed me that James Bond can be James Bond and still be relevant to today’s audiences, both thematically and in subject matter.

I see we have a James Bond section again

Also good review I was worried a little that you wouldn't like it as much as me... What was I thinking

[Knerys]

Originally Posted by JBond

Good review. I forgot to mention the return of the cheeky one-liner. I don't recall Craig having any before. At least not in the "set up / delivery" manner like in Skyfall. ("Bond, what took you so long?...")

Same to you, for your review.

And he had a few in this one.

[Neverending]

Originally Posted by JBond

when Casino Royale was just around the corner, it was clear this wasn't going to be your 90s Bond.

Instead, it was your 1989 Bond

Casino Royale is very a good movie, but I'll never love it because it doesn't love itself.

????

First we have the opening sequences, easily one of the best.

The pre-title sequence has my least favorite action scene in the movie. It was so bland and by-the-numbers compared to the rest of the film. You can tell it was 2nd Unit and not Mendes/Deakins.

The song’s OK. Works better as a whole package with the context of the animation.

The song will likely grow on me, like Chris Cornell's You Know My Name.

In a word: professional.

So the other films aren't professional?

the editor of the first two Lethal Weapon movies

Stuart Baird also edited Casino Royale. It was a lot more obvious in that movie.

Why did it take this long to get a professional cinematographer?

YOLT, OHMSS, GoldenEye, and Casino Royale had excellent cinematography as well.

Never before has Bond failed so much.

Have you not seen Goldfinger or OHMSS or TWINE?

Still written by the Bozo Twins, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade,

*cough* John Logan *cough*

Aston Martin DB5

His face was priceless when it got destroyed.

[JBond]

Originally Posted by Neverending

Have you not seen Goldfinger or OHMSS or TWINE?

Nope. How are they?

[Justin]

Which one was Twine?

[Neverending]

Originally Posted by Justin

Which one was Twine?

The one where Christmas came twice.

[JBond]

I'll never forget the collective groan in the theater after that line.

[donny]

I really liked this one, definitely one of my favorites.

The opening was great, as was the credit sequence. I gotta say, though, after this first viewing I prefer Casino Royale. I'm going to see this again for sure, so it might change after the second time around. Blew QoS out of the water.

But for me, even though I'd say Skyfall felt more like a Bond flick, I like Royale more because of the relationship between Bond and Vesper. Not only did I like the story, but Craig and Eva Green had great chemistry. It was very compelling. I think this one really didn't have that element. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the stuff between Bond and M in this one, but it just didn't reach the emotional impact of Vesper.

I loved when they got to Skyfall, though. That was all great stuff.

As for Craig, I think he really kills it in this. I love Brosnan, but I think at this point, I think I prefer Craig. He's got some undeniable charm to him. And he also felt a little more like the Bond I love this time around. I'd also say, aside from GoldenEye, both this and Royale are better than any of Pierce's movies. Not his fault, really. But just saying.

Ending was great. And, love to see more of Ralph Fiennes.

8.5/10

[Daniel]

Did anyone read/like my review? It got stuck at the bottom of the last page, so I feel like everyone missed it, or hated it

[PG Cooper]

Skyfall is an interesting case of two forces that’ve lost their way finding each other. First: the James Bond series. Despite being successfully reborn with 1995’s Goldeneye, the series would quickly begin to decline with each subsequent Pierce Brosnan film being worse than the one before. This hit its peak with 2002’s Die Another Day. Producers were forced to rethink the character and series and the result was 2006’s Casino Royale. Casino Royale reinvigorated the Bond series in a big way, stripping things down to basics. Daniel Craig broke out as one of the best Bonds ever and the series seemed to be heading in the right direction. Unfortunately, 2008’s Quantum of Solace was not very well received and is hated by a lot of fans to this day. A series of financial problems kept Craig’s third Bond outing in development for a long time. Once again, the future of the series was in doubt.

Second: director Sam Mendes. Mendes started his career as a filmmaker off extremely well with 1999’s American Beauty. The film was a huge critical hit, winning Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director for Mendes. Mendes was seen as a hot new talent. His next film was 2002’s Road to Perdition. Despite receiving good reviews at the time, the film was passed over for the most part by the Oscars and seems to be forgotten by the general public. 2005’s Jarhead had its supporters, but was mostly considered a disappointment. This pattern continued with 2008’s Revolutionary Road. Mendes hit his low point with 2009’s Away We Go, a film which very few saw and those who did were not impressed. Mendes had gone from “hot new talent” to a has-been.

I want to make it clear that I had faith in both Bond and Mendes. The James Bond franchise had hit far lower points than Quantum of Solace and bounced back, so I knew Bond wasn’t dead yet. I also always admired Sam Mendes as a director. I love American Beauty, Road to Perdition, and Jarhead. I’m not a fan of Revolutionary Road, but it isn’t a bad film. And while I haven’t seen Away We Go, I doubt it’s so bad that I would have lost faith in Mendes. I definitely expected both forces to return, and Skyfall is a return to form for both.

On the surface, the story is simple. An enemy from M’s past returns seeking vengeance. So Bond needs to stop him. Despite this simplicity, Skyfall has one of the best stories of any of the Bond films. The plot is designed so that the characters can be examined on a deeper level. Bond, M, and even the villain Silva are examined on a much deeper level than usual. We learn about who these people are and there’s a lot of dimension to them. The film manages to find a great balance of Bond being human and relatable, while still being the superspy badass audiences know and love. Silva is a villain with interesting motivation and one actually sympathizes with him. Even M is in a more vulnerable position than usual.

Another reason the plot works so well is the pacing. Simply put, Skyfall is paced perfectly. It contains just the right balance of story, characters, and actions, and it knows when to employ what. Everything flows together very naturally and builds to one hell of a finale. Some might be intimidated by the near two and a half hour runtime. I assure you it isn’t an issue.

Skyfall also has some of the best action scenes I’ve seen all year. Instead of relying on big stunts, most of the action is more grounded. Chases, fist fights, and shoot-outs make up the bulk of the action. None of it becomes boring or tedious either. There’s enough variety sprinkled throughout the various set pieces to keep things fresh. Another positive is none of the action feels shoe-horned in. All of it advances the plot and characters. Overall, the action manages to be fantastical while still maintaining the grittier and more realistic feel the Daniel Craig films have prided themselves on.

Based solely on the technical merits, Skyfall is the best Bond film of the franchise. Arguably one of the film’s highest achievements is Roger Deakins’ award worthy cinematography. Whether it is towering skyscrapers or natural landscapes, Skyfall constantly looks gorgeous. Bond has never looked so good. Credit is also due to composer Thomas Newman for crafting an exciting score which I greatly enjoyed. The trademark opening credits are fantastic as well. Adele’s song is good, but the real star here is the visuals, which not only look awesome but are also thematically important.

The cast is good across the board. Daniel Craig is still an excellent James Bond and further solidifies himself as Connery’s true successor. Craig manages to be the suave and badass secret agent that Bond is, but he also feels like a real character. Craig captures these elements perfectly and helps Bond feel like a real human in addition to being an icon. Javier Bardem is also great as the villain Silva. Bardem is evil and menacing, but also entertaining and really fun to watch. He feels a lot like a classic Bond villain. Judi Dench gives her best performance as M. She has to show more dimensions than usual, and Dench pulls this off flawlessly. Good performances are also given by Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Albert Finney, and Ben Whishaw who makes a great new Q.

Perhaps Skyfall’s most impressive accomplishment is the way it combines the classic Bond elements with the strengths of the Craig films. Skyfall brings back Q, the gadgets, the music, the quips, and other elements that have been missing lately. The great thing is the film manages to integrate these elements into Craig’s world seamlessly. What’s more is that while the film features several of the classic Bond elements, they’ve also been inverted in really interesting ways. Being the 50th anniversary of the series, Skyfall also features a few references to the films of old. Unlike Die Another Day however, these references are actually really clever and are not intrusive to the film. In fact quite the opposite is true; several references are actually worked into the story. It’s amazing how Skyfall is in many ways a classic Bond adventure yet still maintains its own identity.

I think it’s pretty clear I love this film. It’s one of the strongest films I’ve seen all year and is the best work from Sam Mendes since Road to Peridtion. Arguably the most important question of all is how does Skyfall rank among the rest of the series. Well, I wouldn’t call it the best Bond film ever, but it’s certainly in my top five. Skyfall is a huge triumph for all involved and a confident step for the future of Bond. I can’t what to see where the series goes from here. My only concern is they may have set the bar too high; Skyfall will be incredibly difficult to top.

Rating: A+

[JBond]

Well put.

You too, Daniel.

[Neverending]

Originally Posted by PG Cooper

Based solely on the technical merits, Skyfall is the best Bond film of the franchise.

Let's not exaggerate. Deakins cinematography is beautiful and the best in the series. But that's it. Let's give the other films their credit.

Thunderball had groundbreaking and Academy Award Winning special effects. To this day, we haven't seen a more ambitious underwater action scene. YOLT had a massive volcano set by Ken Adams that still leaves people in awe. OHMSS has one of the most spectacular aerial photography you're ever gonna see. TSWLM has another massive Ken Adams set that's lit by Stanley freaking Kubrick. Moonraker has one of the most insane and dangerous stunts ever captured on film.

So let's not belittle the previous movies because something "new" has been released. This is typical fanboy bulls--t. It's already annoying we have to put up with that crap in the Batman franchise.

[PG Cooper]

Originally Posted by Neverending

Let's not exaggerate. Deakins cinematography is beautiful and the best in the series. But that's it. Let's give the other films their credit.

Thunderball had groundbreaking and Academy Award Winning special effects. To this day, we haven't seen a more ambitious underwater action scene. YOLT had a massive volcano set by Ken Adams that still leaves people in awe. OHMSS has one of the most spectacular aerial photography you're ever gonna see. TSWLM has another massive Ken Adams set that's lit by Stanley freaking Kubrick. Moonraker has one of the most insane and dangerous stunts ever captured on film.

So let's not belittle the previous movies because something "new" has been released. This is typical fanboy bulls--t. It's already annoying we have to put up with that crap in the Batman franchise.

Perhaps this was a bit of an exaggeration. You do bring up some good points.

Edit: I'd rather you not consider my comments "typical fanboy bulls--t" though.

[JBond]

All the good reviews are making Neverending testy.

[Neverending]

Originally Posted by JBond

All the good reviews are making Neverending testy.

Not at all. I gave the film a good review as well. I just don't like that you called Skyfall the first "professional" Bond film.

[JBond]

Well good news, I didn't say that.

[Knerys]

Originally Posted by Neverending

Let's not exaggerate. Deakins cinematography is beautiful and the best in the series. But that's it. Let's give the other films their credit.

Thunderball had groundbreaking and Academy Award Winning special effects. To this day, we haven't seen a more ambitious underwater action scene. YOLT had a massive volcano set by Ken Adams that still leaves people in awe. OHMSS has one of the most spectacular aerial photography you're ever gonna see. TSWLM has another massive Ken Adams set that's lit by Stanley freaking Kubrick. Moonraker has one of the most insane and dangerous stunts ever captured on film.

So let's not belittle the previous movies because something "new" has been released. This is typical fanboy bulls--t. It's already annoying we have to put up with that crap in the Batman franchise.

Praising and embracing the innovation of modern films does not belittle the originals.

[JBond]

Also, the Connery era was RIDDLED with awful film practices. Horrible mattes, ridiculous undercranking, etc.

[Neverending]

Originally Posted by Knerys

Praising and embracing the innovation of modern films does not belittle the originals.

It does when you exaggerate. Skyfall has beautiful Oscar-worthy cinematography by Roger Deakins, but that's it. There's no other "innovation" to be found. Casino Royale had better action scenes. Moonraker had more shocking stunts. YOLT had better sets. Etc, Etc, Etc. So, when someone generalizes and says, "the best technical movie" OR "this was truly professional" it belittles what came before.

The Batman franchise went through this nonsense. Everything Chris Nolan did is better than what came before. "Forget 70 years of history. This is the definitive product right here." It's fanboy nonsense.

[Knerys]

Originally Posted by Neverending

It does when you exaggerate. Skyfall has beautiful Oscar-worthy cinematography by Roger Deakins, but that's it. There's no other "innovation" to be found. Casino Royale had better action scenes. Moonraker had more shocking stunts. YOLT had better sets. Etc, Etc, Etc. So, when someone generalizes and says, "the best technical movie" OR "this was truly professional" it belittles what came before.

The Batman franchise went through this nonsense. Everything Chris Nolan did is better than what came before. "Forget 70 years of history. This is the definitive product right here." It's fanboy nonsense.

I don't see it that way. Why would I condemn anything made before the films? That's silly. That history is why I have love the character in the first place. I view Nolan's work as a vital contribution to the mythology. I'm not ignoring anything. I'm appreciating his attention to and respect of the pantheon. There's nothing wrong with that.

And that's exactly what Mendes is doing here. The idea of what Bond was was getting lost in this frantic attempt to make him edgier and grittier. Bond films should be beautiful to look at and exciting to watch. Skyfall brought that back, and the franchise will be stronger for it. Nothing is going take away what the previous films did. It's impossible. We wouldn't be here arguing about this now if they didn't exist. Bonds films couldn't have reach this point without learning from the mistakes and triumphs of it own past.

Don't let blinding nostalgia restrain you from enjoying a good movie for what it is. And this is a good movie.