SkyFall - The Official review
- Thread starter AnkurShahi80
- Start date
sud98
Well-Known Member
Skyfall is such a sad movie.
A movie that had so much potential with the basic plot but made a hash of.
The Bond girl Severine, is probably the worst actress to take the Bond Girl despite the low standards required.
The villain was good, but could have a bigger role and comes in too late in the movie.
The initial chase scene is probably the best part of the movie.
Despite my initial reservations(pre- Casino Royale), Daniel Craig, does make a good Bond and plays his part well.
Two particular scenes are a drag - the scene in the Chinese gambling den with Severine and the shaving scene.
A movie that had so much potential with the basic plot but made a hash of.
The Bond girl Severine, is probably the worst actress to take the Bond Girl despite the low standards required.
The villain was good, but could have a bigger role and comes in too late in the movie.
The initial chase scene is probably the best part of the movie.
Despite my initial reservations(pre- Casino Royale), Daniel Craig, does make a good Bond and plays his part well.
Two particular scenes are a drag - the scene in the Chinese gambling den with Severine and the shaving scene.
As rightly put- it needs to be watched with an OPEN mind. But then we never have that at FIRST when we go for a bond movie, do we? We expect the usual- slick action, gadgets, attractive women, twist in the tale and some unique exotic locations to enjoy. That said, most are there but then there is a emotional angle, a story, a new side to James- one who feels pain and shows emotion.
Action is good, subtle humor rightly placed but what is missing is that wow feeling when looking at the action sequences and surely lack of the much awaited Bond girl (who has the oomph factor)
Overall - a mixed offering, can't agree to people who quote it to be the best, casino royale had all that and more i feel( of the Daniel Craig's movies)
Action is good, subtle humor rightly placed but what is missing is that wow feeling when looking at the action sequences and surely lack of the much awaited Bond girl (who has the oomph factor)
Overall - a mixed offering, can't agree to people who quote it to be the best, casino royale had all that and more i feel( of the Daniel Craig's movies)
pratimbayal
Active Member
I saw the movie last Friday and enjoyed it. It was more sentimental compared to other Bond movies. I like Daniel Craig - he seems to portray more of a secret agent character. Returning back Bond after the shooting in first scene could have been inserted in a dramatic way.
The shaving scene was innovative
7/10
Cheers
The shaving scene was innovative
7/10
Cheers
Last edited:
Quite a critic here! Bravo!! If Sam Mendes intended this, he could retire peacefully knowing that the message has reached well. Having walked gloomy, overcast streets of Britain for years myself, the attempt to compare them with oriental incandescence is irresistible. Well spotted.
My view is the image of character of Bond is very personal layered over standard characteristics - viz., wit, resourcefulness, fondness for women and a wee bit cunning etc. One could say Timothy Dalton had the best training to act since he came from theater. Lazenby mostly desperately wanted to play the part only to give it up with one film. Since Connery started it all, many tend to align with him as choice (For me it was Moore). I guess when the personal imagination coincides well with the particular actor's depiction, it clicks and he becomes the choice. Funny, directors are not a huge factors in discussing who brought the bond the best with a few exceptions, perhaps due to the curse of action movies allowing little time to develop characters.
disappointment overall!May bond financers didnot had much money for it.
a sick replica plot of fight with house cover .
Seriously bond killing an army with LPG cylinders!!!hahah
Ends with death of oldy for whom full fight was there..oh nooooo.
a sick replica plot of fight with house cover .
Seriously bond killing an army with LPG cylinders!!!hahah
Ends with death of oldy for whom full fight was there..oh nooooo.
Overall Boring.
No Gadgets at all. Come on this is a Bond Movies where everything should be so Kool and classy.
Casino Royal was much better than this.
Many say action is good..but most of the action sequences and big blasts are really unnecessary. They do not gel with the flow. It is like just blowing and breaking things up just for the sake of creating a feel that they have spend huge amount of money.
overall 4/10.
No Gadgets at all. Come on this is a Bond Movies where everything should be so Kool and classy.
Casino Royal was much better than this.
Many say action is good..but most of the action sequences and big blasts are really unnecessary. They do not gel with the flow. It is like just blowing and breaking things up just for the sake of creating a feel that they have spend huge amount of money.
overall 4/10.
just4kix
Well-Known Member
I am going this weekend. I really liked Casino Royale because it narrated a plausible story (to the extent plausible in a Bond film ). I am keeping fingers crossed. As I said earlier, a Bond film is a must see by way of a tradition.
). I am keeping fingers crossed. As I said earlier, a Bond film is a must see by way of a tradition. 
I watched _Skyfall_ the other day, in a nearby multiplex. I quite liked it. Yes, it is not the typical Bond movie, with the gadgets, girls, flashy cars, and cringeworthy (to me) jokes. To me, that was what made it good.
The movie focuses on James Bond, the man himself, and not the trappings that we have come to think are an integral part of James Bond. Also, I felt the movie takes an anti-bond-accessories stand. When push comes to shove, if Bond can't rely on himself and has to rely on the gadgets, what kind of a secret agent is he? I think the movie wants to show that Bond is more than the gadgets and the technology that we think supports him.
All along the movie there allusions to Bond's "humanness". The fact that he is not superhuman, the fact that he too would fail tests, the fact that he was getting too old for it all, and the fact that he was like everyone, a fundamentally flawed human.
WARNING: There are a few spoilers below.
<SPOILERS> The only real "gadgets" he uses are the personalised PPK and the wireless transponder. Both being quite not-so-awesome tech. I cringed a bit when he identified the pattern that decrypts the disk, but then again it was the human that did what the computer was struggling with and failing. In this way and in other small ways along the length of the movie, it stresses that when push comes to shove, it is the human that gets things done, and not the technology that we've all learnt to rely on so much.
He resorts to his old trusty Aston Martin during the getaway, and not the new fangled Jaguar that M was using, or some such car.
Continuing along this line, the movie shows him going back to his roots, to where he came from, when he needed to make a final stand. I find that very spiritual. We always find ourselves and resolve all problems best when we go back to the basics, inward, to the source, to the beginning.
When he needs to defend himself, he arms himself with his father's hunting rifle, not a high-tech weapon. Yes, he does have to resort to a submachine gun taken from the enemy after the attack starts, but his being comfortable with a back-to-basics weapon while anticipating the attack does go with the main theme, IMHO. Even the final kill is with a knife: One that was earlier introduced to us as "Sometimes the old ways are the best" or something like that.
Also in other ways, the franchise itself seems to have turned back to the roots, with the introduction of Moneypenny and the male M. Perhaps this movie was intended as a "Bond Begins" movie a la "Batman Begins". </SPOILERS>
I liked the attention to detail in many places. For example, in the scene when Bond clambers up the lift, you can see that he left a dirty palm-print on the floor. It is there just for a second before the scene cuts away, and something like this would normally not happen naturally while the scene was being shot: It was most likely deliberately added.
I think all of the cast did a great job. It was good to see more prominence being given to M. I also liked the score. There were enough allusions to the Bond theme towards the end, and the music did enhance the viewing experience.
I guess the movie had to be this way (lack of special effects and gadgets and what not) because it was produced by a studio that was basically broke. But I think they did turn that limitation into a wonderful strength. I'll definitely pay to watch the next Bond movie if Daniel Craig is in it, and if they produce it along these lines.
The movie focuses on James Bond, the man himself, and not the trappings that we have come to think are an integral part of James Bond. Also, I felt the movie takes an anti-bond-accessories stand. When push comes to shove, if Bond can't rely on himself and has to rely on the gadgets, what kind of a secret agent is he? I think the movie wants to show that Bond is more than the gadgets and the technology that we think supports him.
All along the movie there allusions to Bond's "humanness". The fact that he is not superhuman, the fact that he too would fail tests, the fact that he was getting too old for it all, and the fact that he was like everyone, a fundamentally flawed human.
WARNING: There are a few spoilers below.
<SPOILERS> The only real "gadgets" he uses are the personalised PPK and the wireless transponder. Both being quite not-so-awesome tech. I cringed a bit when he identified the pattern that decrypts the disk, but then again it was the human that did what the computer was struggling with and failing. In this way and in other small ways along the length of the movie, it stresses that when push comes to shove, it is the human that gets things done, and not the technology that we've all learnt to rely on so much.
He resorts to his old trusty Aston Martin during the getaway, and not the new fangled Jaguar that M was using, or some such car.
Continuing along this line, the movie shows him going back to his roots, to where he came from, when he needed to make a final stand. I find that very spiritual. We always find ourselves and resolve all problems best when we go back to the basics, inward, to the source, to the beginning.
When he needs to defend himself, he arms himself with his father's hunting rifle, not a high-tech weapon. Yes, he does have to resort to a submachine gun taken from the enemy after the attack starts, but his being comfortable with a back-to-basics weapon while anticipating the attack does go with the main theme, IMHO. Even the final kill is with a knife: One that was earlier introduced to us as "Sometimes the old ways are the best" or something like that.
Also in other ways, the franchise itself seems to have turned back to the roots, with the introduction of Moneypenny and the male M. Perhaps this movie was intended as a "Bond Begins" movie a la "Batman Begins". </SPOILERS>
I liked the attention to detail in many places. For example, in the scene when Bond clambers up the lift, you can see that he left a dirty palm-print on the floor. It is there just for a second before the scene cuts away, and something like this would normally not happen naturally while the scene was being shot: It was most likely deliberately added.
I think all of the cast did a great job. It was good to see more prominence being given to M. I also liked the score. There were enough allusions to the Bond theme towards the end, and the music did enhance the viewing experience.
I guess the movie had to be this way (lack of special effects and gadgets and what not) because it was produced by a studio that was basically broke. But I think they did turn that limitation into a wonderful strength. I'll definitely pay to watch the next Bond movie if Daniel Craig is in it, and if they produce it along these lines.
Last edited:
ajay124
Well-Known Member
The movie focuses on James Bond, the man himself, and not the trappings that we have come to think are an integral part of James Bond. Also, I felt the movie takes an anti-bond-accessories stand. When push comes to shove, if Bond can't rely on himself and has to rely on the gadgets, what kind of a secret agent is he? I think the movie wants to show that Bond is more than the gadgets and the technology that we think supports him....I guess the movie had to be this way (lack of special effects and gadgets and what not) because it was produced by a studio that was basically broke.
hydra
Most viewers will immediately sense that the action sequences in Skyfall are less spectacular than the ones in his earlier films. The focus is more on human interaction rather than on stunts. But the comparatively low budget feel of the movie could be due to lack of funds or it could be deliberate. There is more to a picture than meets the eye. Especially a blockbuster made in the west. Every consciously created work of art (even mainstream art) has a text and a sub text. The text is usually paper thin and simple enough for even a child to understand. But the sub text is not meant to be understood. It is meant to be unconsciously imbibed by the masses.
Skyfall may or may not have a consciously created sub text, but the viewer does come away with a vague knowledge that the world has become a more austere place. That it is time to tighten your belt and manage with less money. That austerity measures are the need of the hour. The same message which bankers and the bond markets are sending to nations ( Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain) who seem to have spent far more than they have earned. It is the right message for the present times. And for the decades ahead. Not just for Southern Europe, but for the entire planet. The world's engine of growth recklessly driven by easy lending for close to four decades has finally spluttered and stopped. Probably for a long, long time. It is not just the borrowers who seem to be fighting with their backs against a wall but also the lenders. Maybe it is time for all of us to do what Bond does in his latest avatar. Manage with LESS.
It is the sub text subtly woven into the text which makes Hollywood films mildly interesting. Unfortunately the ones being made in Bollywood have neither a text or a sub text. So they really have nothing going for them.
hydra
Most viewers will immediately sense that the action sequences in Skyfall are less spectacular than the ones in his earlier films. The focus is more on human interaction rather than on stunts. But the comparatively low budget feel of the movie could be due to lack of funds or it could be deliberate. There is more to a picture than meets the eye. Especially a blockbuster made in the west. Every consciously created work of art (even mainstream art) has a text and a sub text. The text is usually paper thin and simple enough for even a child to understand. But the sub text is not meant to be understood. It is meant to be unconsciously imbibed by the masses.
Skyfall may or may not have a consciously created sub text, but the viewer does come away with a vague knowledge that the world has become a more austere place. That it is time to tighten your belt and manage with less money. That austerity measures are the need of the hour. The same message which bankers and the bond markets are sending to nations ( Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain) who seem to have spent far more than they have earned. It is the right message for the present times. And for the decades ahead. Not just for Southern Europe, but for the entire planet. The world's engine of growth recklessly driven by easy lending for close to four decades has finally spluttered and stopped. Probably for a long, long time. It is not just the borrowers who seem to be fighting with their backs against a wall but also the lenders. Maybe it is time for all of us to do what Bond does in his latest avatar. Manage with LESS.
It is the sub text subtly woven into the text which makes Hollywood films mildly interesting. Unfortunately the ones being made in Bollywood have neither a text or a sub text. So they really have nothing going for them.
corElement
Well-Known Member
You have hit it on the nail. 100% correct on all accounts.
To be honest, I've seen much bigger budget films which didn't interest me nearly as much as skyfall did (Avengers & avatar anyone? I was falling asleep in avatar at the amount of reused designs from aliens and ridiculously predictable fight off invading force story. And avengers.... may as well not have had a script to begin with it, was that bad a story and that big a special effects fest. The same people when they watch this are bound to find it "low budget" and "cheap" and totally forget the context of the film. I don't blame them either, that's simply the media has pushed them to bar quality against.)
Just back from watching the movie on IMAX here and just winding down before hitting the sack. Not sure if I watched the same movie as others who didn't like it. I thought it was a great Bond movie. The Bond movie series has to adapt to changing times and sensibilities and the new Daniel Craig movies are a nod in that direction.
The new Bond movies have a hard core grittiness. Hand to hand combat where Bond kills a man with his bare hands is actually pretty raw. You see and hear bone and sinew break and tear. Fight and action scenes are tight with lightening quick moves. The action is breathtaking but believable. Great finesse in the dress department as well. Bond's suits are top notch and I think Ralph Fiennes looks great in those awesome blue suits. If you are looking for the style and finesse it's all there. High end Brit style up and centre.
Sky fall has some awesome shots of different locales. Great build up to the climax which I felt was weak. For a minute I thought we were getting Bond to follow a Batman type story. Bardem is an absolute badass villain. Would have liked a better ending considering its two "double Os" facing off. Sorry for the spoiler here. Still a great movie to watch and probably the best of the Daniel Craig series. I've grown to like him as Bond.
This is definitely a great Bond movie. Worth watching.
The new Bond movies have a hard core grittiness. Hand to hand combat where Bond kills a man with his bare hands is actually pretty raw. You see and hear bone and sinew break and tear. Fight and action scenes are tight with lightening quick moves. The action is breathtaking but believable. Great finesse in the dress department as well. Bond's suits are top notch and I think Ralph Fiennes looks great in those awesome blue suits. If you are looking for the style and finesse it's all there. High end Brit style up and centre.
Sky fall has some awesome shots of different locales. Great build up to the climax which I felt was weak. For a minute I thought we were getting Bond to follow a Batman type story. Bardem is an absolute badass villain. Would have liked a better ending considering its two "double Os" facing off. Sorry for the spoiler here. Still a great movie to watch and probably the best of the Daniel Craig series. I've grown to like him as Bond.
This is definitely a great Bond movie. Worth watching.
just4kix
Well-Known Member
Off topic. At last, I have someone to relate to. I too feel asleep while watching Avatar. Watching the 11pm show may have contributed a little but not by much.
Sent from my GT-I9100G using Tapatalk 2
In my opinion...
Skyfall was a great experience though it was totally different from the regular Bond movies. I found it as a beginning of a new era where you have a new commander, new workplace, new enemies, new ways of doing everything. Hence, the story was told in whole and so it was not as excepted like an action packed bond franchise.
As, there would be more bond movies, based on Skyfall, call it sequels, they would be much broader compared to Skyfall following the specifications of past bond movies.
Overall, if one sees it as a separate bond franchise, it was excellent.
Skyfall was a great experience though it was totally different from the regular Bond movies. I found it as a beginning of a new era where you have a new commander, new workplace, new enemies, new ways of doing everything. Hence, the story was told in whole and so it was not as excepted like an action packed bond franchise.
As, there would be more bond movies, based on Skyfall, call it sequels, they would be much broader compared to Skyfall following the specifications of past bond movies.
Overall, if one sees it as a separate bond franchise, it was excellent.
corElement
Well-Known Member
Wow and here I thought it was his last. I'm glad it's not. I like the new M and Q. Looking forward to seeing them with 007 in future movies. Hopefully wont take another 3 years for another one.
n_sachin84
New Member
one of the worst movies i have ever seen .stop daniel craig or bond movie sequels will die forever.
corElement
Well-Known Member
Yeah, no.
Skyfall received a 93% on Rotten Tomatoes and an 84 out of 100 on Metacritic.
Nothings dying, let alone forever.
These are not easy ratings to achieve. Either the people who are finding this movie horrible has no idea how to comprehend it or have too many preconceived notions about a bond film. In which case it makes just as much sense to debunk the established repetitive film styles from previous bonds.
Last edited:
one of the weakest opening scenes ever, a very dull introduction to what was a stunning bond theme by Adele...typically the openign scene creates a rush which leads into the theme...here it did the opposite
i liked Daniel as Bond for whatever it worth, i felt he did justice. for me Casino Royale would be my ultimate reference point, technically, aesthetics, storyline and screenplay - perfectly aligned.
i had too much expectations from Skyfall - such a beautiful title. Javier Bardems entrance was anything but a joke - prior to his introduction, he was referred to be a gothic figure like Bane, but when he was finally introduced, he was shown as a gadget nerd and gay? they couldnt capitalize on the great Anton Chigurh?
finale was..jeez. even i could write a scene like that. cant believe this came from the same guy who gave us American Beauty..
i liked Daniel as Bond for whatever it worth, i felt he did justice. for me Casino Royale would be my ultimate reference point, technically, aesthetics, storyline and screenplay - perfectly aligned.
i had too much expectations from Skyfall - such a beautiful title. Javier Bardems entrance was anything but a joke - prior to his introduction, he was referred to be a gothic figure like Bane, but when he was finally introduced, he was shown as a gadget nerd and gay? they couldnt capitalize on the great Anton Chigurh?
finale was..jeez. even i could write a scene like that. cant believe this came from the same guy who gave us American Beauty..
Wharfedale Linton Heritage Speakers in Walnut finish at a Special Offer Price. BUY now before the price increase.
Similar threads
