Skyfall - Bond 23

[MacGuffin]

[RegularKarate]

I feel like Adele is the most obvious choice for a Bond theme, but sometimes the most obvious choice is the best choice.

[pete]

has any of our Europen brethrens caught this yet?

[Drenk]

Yep. I'm not confortable enough with english in order to write a good review, but I loved the film a lot. Sam Mendes is Sam Mendes: some shots are just breathtaking. It's atmospheric. Casino Royal was a reboot, Skyfall is a resurrection. It's an homage of the saga, but it also brings something new. It's not trying to be Jason Bourne anymore, it's what I mean. Oh, and Javier Bardem is great. A really good Bond.

[max from fearless]

Saw it last night. It's good. Very entertaining. Roger Deakins makes it look great, especially the lighting, it feels less glossy and more grounded, which works well with this particular Bond story. It's a bit too long though, nearly three hours (and you feel it) and it doesn't have the nerve to push all the buttons it should do, in relation to the relationships at the core of the movie. (certain relationships just weren't tested enough) Bardem steals the film, along with another great actor who turns up for the film's climax. Daniel Craig is strong, especially in the first half. Judi Dench is Judi Dench. A cool movie but I still think Casino Royale is the better Daniel Craig Bond movie.

[pete]

were the action sequences all overedited and and over-moved like the last one?

[max from fearless]

The action sequences are shot really simply and not over edited. There's one really good fight, one shot, camera pushing in on the action, reminded me a lot of the Kill Bill silhouette fight. The visual style of the movie is a lot more grounded.

[Drenk]

Yes, Sam Mendes takes its time with the action sequences.

[samsong]

very satisfying.  i'm not very well versed in the bond universe but from what i'm able to infer, skyfall a greatest hits that doesn't play like one that then breaches what as far as i can tell is new ground for the franchise... by basically turning him into bruce wayne for a while.  it's a huge, expertly crafted movie that teems with love and reverence for the tradition of bond movies, and i'm more than happy with it.  i did feel the length at times but i'm not sure that i minded after all was said and done.  especially after the shitfest that was quantum of solace it seemed appropriate to have this one stupid expansive and overcompensate.  deakins is a god among men.  sam mendes, whodda thunk.

[pete]

this is a beautiful action movie, probably the most beautifully shot action film I've seen. ballsy too - it dares to let characters just fall into the dark, and it dares to let the camera linger.
it's a script with a lot of ballsy choices that come together well enough that the choices don't stick out. for example, it's actually one of the most clearly conservative films I've seen in some time, but the message is succinct, in-character without being jingoistic, so you just go with it. this is also a bond that had to take the london subway at one point, as a part of a chase, not as a joke (like the avengers eating shwrama). and everything's just structured in a way that, when the classic elements of a bond film is introduced, you don't take them for granted, and you're appreciative of the payoff. for example - heineken has paid bond to drink beer instead of his classic drink, and how the film gets around that was very clever and satisfying. you'll see.

also - I was actually very pleased spotting hipsters throughout the movie - from Q to that background bad guy wearing red levis jeans.

[©brad]

Mendes, Deakins, Pete-approved action sequences, 4 great xixax reviews in a row... Okay I'm really excited now.

[pete]

the action sequence in the first scene was as outstanding as any in recent memories - and though there are a lot of running and shooting and explosion in the subsequent scenes, they weren't going for the kinetics, but instead, they were more about the shots - from the smoke-and-fire-backlit explosion to the silhouettes of people clumsily fighting (atop a skyscraper or underwater) - but they're so well shot and so captured the essence of whatever you were looking at, that you didn't care necessarily care for the stunts - not in the same way that quantum of solace or casino royale were movies that belonged to the second unit, and if you read the interview with the cinematographer for casino royale, you'd be bored to death 'cause he just kept talking about lighting the gambling scenes while admitting all the effects and the chases were filmed by somebody else.

[RegularKarate]

I dove in with a Bond weekend... rewatched Goldfinger to get that nice "third film for a Bond" flavor then rewatched Casino Royale.

I know it's probably controversial amongst true Bond fans to say, but Skyfall was absolutely the best of these three. It's the right balance of ridiculous fun and playing it real.

It also felt like it was wrapping up the idea of the reboot (which is a silly thing to call a franchise that has had as many cycles as this one has). Like it was saying "don't worry, you're getting your old Bond back".

[©brad]

It's a bit too long though, nearly three hours (and you feel it)...

Hmm not sure which version you saw but the movie is barely 2 hours and 20 minutes. My showing was at 9:40, and even with one mercifully short trailer and some IMAX logo porn, the end credits were rolling by 12:05.

Anyway, I agree with you boys.This was a lot of fun. Definitely my favorite of the Craig series. One thing I found silly though...



SPOILS

That was a horrible plan at the end there. "Yeah let's just go to my old secluded house just the two of us and booby-trap it to fuck and wait for Javier and his army to attack us." I get the whole 'sometimes the old ways are best' theme but come on, how was that ever going to work.

[Cloudy]

SHPOIL

Was anyone curious how the film just moved on with 007 surviving that ridiculous fall in the beginning of the film? I mean, I know he's James Bond and all...but? I tried to just ignore it.