I don’t consider myself a massive Bond fan, indeed the Sean Connery-ish nature of Tom Hardy’s voice in The Dark Knight Rises was enough to make me gag over repressed memories of a hollowed out volcano fight against ninjas (seriously, who ever thinks these are good ideas?)
However, when Casino Royale was released I started paying more attention: this was a Bond very grounded, very emotional and evolving in a world where we would no longer accept Pierce Brosnan wind surfing a tidal wave created by a falling glacier warmed up by a giant mirror as a normal thing to have happened.
Quantum of Solace then came along to teach us that everyone makes mistakes, like a gunman shooting someone in the wrong part of the skull and inadvertently giving them an invulnerability to pain. In more ways than one, the film was something of a step backwards, to say the least.
But then Skyfall brought with it such a monstrous reputation that it was impossible not to get excited about a Bond that looked to bring every inch of Casino Royale back, with some added stylish panache and further opportunity for Judi Dench to show off her acting chops.
It’s a shame then really that Sam Mendes’ take on the franchise came as close to its target as anyone who has ever tried to fatally shoot 007, ever.
But, just how did such a mega smash hit fail so tragically in its execution? Click within to reveal my four biggest criticisms of Skyfall…
We are currently seeking Film contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Film contributor, click here.
30 Comments
what about that the trees on the road to Skyfall are all still green (therefore should be summer), but the lake is iced over? I’m from Scotland, but it aint that cold in July!
I stopped watching this worthless movie after 007 watches the man who stole the hard drive walk into a skyscraper shoot at least two security guards, completely assemble a sniper rifle, shoot another person and THEN decides to go after and interrogate the guy. How absolutely absurd. At least Austin Powers intended to be utterly ridiculous. I haven’t been able to sit through a full Bond movie for 20 years. After this one, it will be 20 more before I try again.
The filmmakers got creamed last time for taking away a lot of Bond’s traits (he’s Bourne!Bond)– the one-liners, etc. Now that they put them back, they’re still getting creamed. They can’t win.
The Craig Bond films are a reboot of the series and are set in their own continuity. So, the 21 films before Casino Royale weren’t set between CR and Skyfall.
I’m not sure what the point of this article is? If you don’t like the series or understand its past then why write such a pithy observation piece? Maybe you should simply stick to writing about what you like such as the merits of the Wayans Brothers poor comedies or your gamer lifestyle. Just to answer one of your inane questions, the motivation of Silva is one of revenge, plain and simple. Maybe if you stopped playing games on your mobile phone during the film you’d have noticed that!
I must add that some of your previous features consist of attention-grabbing headlines such as: “The Avengers 2: 5 Ways To Make It Suck Less” and “The Hobbit Trilogy and The Death Of Originality” plus “The Dark Knight Rises: 4 Things That Sucked, 2 Things That Ruled” which makes one wonder whether you’re just writing to provoke a reaction.
agreed much!!! pls. excuse the man’s trolling… he certainly had not much fun watching the film while writing instantaneous blabs bit by bit.
You’ve mixed up elements of The World Is Not Enough with Quantum of Solace and the continuity of Die another Day. I understand you’re not familiar with all of the films but its hard to take your criticism seriously when its obvious you haven’t really paid attention when viewing them. The majority of the audience for Bond films already know Bonds back story, many have read or are familiar with Ian Fleming’s novels. The films opened up a new audience to the character. The old producers of the films realized that each adventure had to match or top its predecessor. The new producers followed that formula culminating in Die another Day’s technology overload. They decided to reboot the franchise after heavy criticism from the very vocal fanbase and professional film reviewers by selecting a new actor and more grounded direction for the character.After two films in a more serious tone. The very vocal fan base complained about the lack of traditional Bond film characters and Bond style. The producers added them to this 50th anniversary of the character on film. The attempt to blend both styles will be determined a success or failure by the style and direction of the next film.
This proves that listening to what the audience says is not always a good thing. As Steve Jobs used to say, “people don’t know what they want until they see it”. In my opinion, Bond movies cause polarity: either you like them and you’re a fan or you hate them because you think they’re not real and full of bluffs.
In my case, I love (should I say loved?) Bond movies for all the things that made them great: the gadgets, the macho-man attitude, the spectacular female partenaires, the fact you can’t kill Bond, in fact you can’t even get him seriously damaged…All this is gone in Craig’s movies. I think they’re on the way to completely ruin the character if they continue this way. Casino Royal was not a bad movie at all, although it started to show the new character features I don’t like. But the other following two have exacerbated those and turned Bond into what he is not: a regular human being.
Pretty poor article. Cant believe you’re actually giving out about the timeline. First off, CR was a reboot, but apart from that, the whole “codename” thing is just a stupid theory that doesn’t hold up if you actually watch the films. Lazenby marries Tracy, Moore visits her grave, and Leiter tells his wife about how James was married once. Then theres the whole gadget scene in Die Another Day etc. Bond’s timeline isn’t logical, but people just accept it.
Also the characterization was not shoved into two minutes. It was applied in the psychologists office, when Silva reads the results to Bond, when M asks how they died, when Albert Finney says he hid there for 2 days. You’re looking for flaws that aren’t there. But criticism from someone who clearly can’t fathom the idea that Silva is just insane, and not logical being the entire point of his character probably isn’t worth the time reading. I just thought you should know so you find a better use of your time
I agree with the above posts, this article should be renamed 4 signs I missed the mark with Bond.
Unfortunately, not well thought out. Lack of knowledge apparent
I want to know how he survived the ice cold water of that lake??? Even Captain America, with all those steroids, couldn’t handle the cold!
Apart from the timeline point (which doesn’t bother me at all), I agree with everything in the article. I was afraid I was the only one who just could not engage with this film.
It was unfortunately, well below the benchmark set by Casino Royale and i am sadly convinced that will be the last great Bond movie I get to see. It’s such a shame.
As for Keen Ivory’s points above, well I haven’t read those articles yet, but judging from the titles they sound bang on rather than deliberate reaction provocation. Avengers was a terrible film, The Hobbit is a cynical, re-hash of TLOR method (Jackson could have changed tack completely as the Hobbit is a very different book) and Dark Knight Rises was very hit and miss.
I’m going to go and read the articles now.
Just a quick point; the timeline mention was more a question to you fine people than it was an open this is WRONG. The fact was I never became clear on what Casino Royale, a reboot, a reinvention or some other stupid hollywood words starting with re. Thanks for helping qualify that for me you wonderful people.
I don’t know what you’re talking about, person who wrote this inane article that clearly doesn’t have a future in writing about movies. It’s pretty obvious that you’re 19 years old. Not only is Casino Royale is a reboot (so you don’t really know what you’re talking about already), but your analogies to Lady Gaga are completely facile and irrelevant.
Fact of the matter is that this is a really, really good movie, and it’s a great James Bond movie. It’s cool, it’s slick, it looks great, the actors are phenomenal, the pacing is perfect, and the direction is top notch. It’s entertaining for all (near) 2.5 hours – what else do you want, child? It gives us some new elements in Bond movies that are interesting and makes the character multi-dimensional while, simultaneously bringing back some of the roots of the Connery and Moore movies that made the series great in the first place.
Perhaps you mistakenly watched the Cinemax porn parody, Skyballs.
Ahhh, the accident of your birth happened earlier than the accident of mine. This is definite just cause for you to be better than me.
Also; I’m twenty. Suck it.
I agree with pretty much everything you have said, Luke…to a point. I am somewhat mystified by the timeline of the Bond films myself. Skyfall brings Miss Monneypenny into Craig’s Bond which would lead us to believe this film is set before the first of Connery’s bond films but in previous Craig films it would made us think it was set after…so is it a sequel to a prequel sequel or a prequel to a sequel prequel…let the confusion reign. Whilst watching the film on Saturday past (27th) i also passed comment on the bad guy. When we first meet Silva, he’s an intelligent bad guy, the best kind of bad guy IMO. Much rather have this than a nutter with a machine gun..which sadly he turns into. We are somehow led to believe that a man who took years planning to be captured by M & Co is idiotic enough to follow Bond to a desolate house in Scotland (just as a side note, the weather anomolies of Scotland are nowhere near as mystifying as the weather anomolies of Bond’s Scotland). In Scotland, Silva goes from a cold, calculating (homosexual?) mastermind to an all out assault machine..and all to kill a women that old father time was creeping up on. Who needs an apache helicopter, a dozen minions, years of planning and a deserted island when mother nature could have bumped her off for you in a year or two. Just think, that time could have been better spent with a Harley Street dentist…..
I thought when you meant ‘mistakes’ it was cinematic errors like the leafy Scottish winter trees.
Best Bond film ever! N0 WAY. ‘On Her Majesty’s Secret Service’ still remains the best though this reviewer was probably too young to have seen it and has not caught up with it on DVD. ‘Skyfall’ is much too long … the opening third is merely there to take the action out of the UK though I suspect most of Shanghai is Canary Wharf! After ‘Taken 2′ the opening sequence looks too familiar!! If it really only did cost £90+ million even that was wasted … it does not use London well and apart from typical shots – Westminster, Trafalgar Sq etc. – could be anywhere (Birmingham or Cardiff, for instance) and often looks only as good as any routine TV drama, such as ‘Hunted’.
Look out for the Jeep during the opening sequence that gets some miraculous bodywork – having been crashed into and dented – is shown pristine as it chases the train and what about the ‘famous’ tube train crash that does not show a single passenger being thrown about on it. Such cheap effects do a disservice to Bond and I’d much rather have him skiing against a green screen than this. Possibly partially redeemed by a great Bond villain but even he, indeed, was poorly served by the writing at the end. Over-hype … definitely!
Back to ‘OHMSS’ people often mention George Lazenby BUT does it matter who plays Batman, Superman, Incredible Hulk, Bourne etc. etc. if the film is good … NO. So this is the same for ‘OHMSS’ – even then Lazenby does a fine job in the only emotional scene he gets – at the end for Tracy’s death. Regardless of when they were written, I am still happy to agree with the opening lines of the lead article on ‘Rotten Tomatoes’ for the DVD release – ‘It wasn’t as well received at the box office as the pictures that preceded it or followed it, but Peter Hunt’s On Her Majesty’s Secret Service was the finest of the James Bond movies and also arguably the last truly great movie in the series’!
I agree that there are elements of this film that in comparison to casino royale Nd qos make you think wtf? And I got a very 90s bond feeling from the bad guy. However I think it’s important to take on what Daniel Craig has said about his development of the character and I agree with him saying that if his first two had started with the way his bond is in skyfall then it merely would’ve been dismissed as a carry on from previous bonds. Bond is multi faceted and it is good that they are starting to explore his humorous side. It is still a far cry from the non physical champagne guzzling times of roger Moore (alas he is still amazing) and I think he is definitely modernised. As someone has mentioned I think the real verdict on the new bond will come in the next film. A repeat of skyfall would not work however I am excited to see where it goes. Also I am loving the young Q
Poorly written article.If you are criticizing something at least ake sure that you don’t sound too much like a troll.
Skyfall looks more like, an attempt to re-align Bond, to its original roots. Stepping in of new M, enter MoneyPenny, although it may not be necessarily a re-alignment to its timeline.
Skyfall’s Bond, is a serious, brooding, even weary. At a point he even remarks, he was enjoying staying dead and away from the usual stuff. It brings forth the relationship between Bond and M. Mallory remarks that M, has a soft corner for Bond, hence, the fitness result for a somewhat unfit Bond.
Silva, as Bond villain, has certain typical characteristics, facial distortion, effect of suicide drag, which did not work. Expert in cyber warfare, his angst towards M, keen to bring justice for the betrayal.
These are the characters, however, this is my personal feeling, that the Film’s script does not do justice to the above settings.
We see a typical Bond style, train chase sequence, which brings in the expected over the top set piece action.
Bond chasing Patrice, by hanging onto a high speed lift, scaling a skyscraper, not to mention surviving the freezing water. If we now like a believable Bond, sans the fancy gadgets, then the script does not do justice, by pulling in larger than life stunts, you may then argue, why the gritty, stripped of gadgets / even weapons, Bond in the second half.
Effect of Silva kinds of wears off, at one moment the script depicts him of an intelligent villain, playing cat and mouse with MI6, at next moment we find him all gun blazing, trying to break into an inquiry which M is undergoing. Surprisingly, there are very less security for top MI6 bosses / politicians.
The second half seems to be a complete different flavor, almost post appocalyptic settings, here again Silva, goes in for GI JOE attitude of blow em and kill em.
Anyways, the script do bring forward a different Bond and his relationships, elaborates on his background, depicts a Bond, who has got tired and looking for a cause which will bring around resurrection.
However, between typical set piece episodic action, predictable moments and story line, in my personal opinion it falls short of the WOW effect and leaves some loop holes.
It does have it moments, Bond jumping off the back of a Komodo in the casino, reminds of Moore jumping over crocodiles, in Live and let die. Bond getting shot in opening sequence, brings in similarity with You Only Live Twice.
50 years of Bond, it brings in a different flavor, but it could had been better.
This movie was hands down a disappointment. It was just a movie to transition in the new M. Bond was pathetic, and the plot was terrible. Bardems character was piss poor, and in my opinion did not receive enough screen time. It just seemed nonsensical, not like shoving a gas pill down a guys throat to make him explode nonsensical, but just that the motive and process of doing things was overly convoluted. It felt like M should have died in the courtroom, she even had the lead up to it. Then the remainder of the movie showed us the transition of the green horn bond, to the bond of the new era with all the new character replacements. This movie had such great potential which was wasted considerably.
“I don’t consider myself a massive Bond fan” – of course not, that’s all i needed to hear. Looper sucked compared to Skyfall
“All the old ways are best” This movie read like a Viagra commercial – gray haired man, still in shape but not quite what he used to be, but can still get the girl and the bad guy. This was a movie for my father’s generation.
How comes, when the baddie shoots the coupling between the coach and the wagon carrying the digger, and the vacuum brake line is ruptured, the brakes don’t go on and the whole train comes to a shuddering halt? This, plus the empty tube train in the middle of the London Rush Hour referred to only minutes before, are simply inexcusable. Surely, they have access to advisors who know how things work in the real world, and where are the Continuity department?
SO i take it he hated every single Bond Movie before CR.
Basically trying too hard.Too keen to make a mark quickly. Talent is with the creator not the critic. Change the names and Skyfall as a film can stand on its own merits. Luke’s critique is sub adolescent nonsense.
Why did Bond escape to the “middle ages” with M (the known TARGET) without any kind of weapons and/or plan other than leaving “beadcrumbs” for the bad guys to follow… it DOESNT MAKE SENSE.
Plus M, the HEAD of the MI6, doesnt know how to NOT TO USE A FLASHLIGHT IF YOU DONT WANT TO BE SEEN.
My theory is both Bond and M wanted M to die.
http://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/managementmusings/entry/sharma-james-bond-sharma-shaken-and-altered
You know, I’ve seen all the Bond movies, and I’m 25…most of them were great, but there are a few, like Moonraker and Die Another Day, that were good…but just left me very disappointed. SKYFALL unfortunately fits into that category.
I went in the theater with such high expectations because I loved both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. I loved the direction they were going in, both with the grittier, human Bond (you have to admit that he has the most substance out of most of his predecessors) and the storyline involving the Quantum organization.
SKYFALL was just a back pedal…and ode to the original films it seems. Not something to be taken seriously…like a filler episode. That’s a great way of describing it…a filler episode. So I hope they don’t get too big headed over the box office…its a Bond film, people are going to see it….but they need to consider how much of a disappointment the movie is compared to the previous 2.
And btw…the opening theme of a Bond movie is just as important as the movie itself. I cringed at the opening for SKYFALL with Adele. It was unbelievably horrible, from the song to the icky visuals, and I will probably skip it whenever I pop in the bluray version…if i even buy the bluray version. I have never had to do that with a Bond film until now. Bring back Sheryl Crow, please.