Skyfall: Bond #23

same thing with the dark knight rises

(more with the latter)

moore in the latter

would see a Nolan batfilm with Roger Moore as Wayne

regarding the "seriousness" of Skyfall, I wonder if it really is more than most of the previous ones (like the T. Dalton ones weren't exactly big fun !).

like the T. Dalton ones weren't exactly big fun

Er, Living Daylights has a chase scene with Bond riding a cello case as a sled, and a villain who kills people with explosive milk bottles.

ahah, oh yeah ? I don't remember any bond post Moore, I think ! (except the one with Denise Richard as a nuclear scientist).

its hard to say "it's just a silly action movie, who cares about PLOT" when the movie takes itself soooo seriously

― Author ~ Coach ~ Goddess (s1ocki), 14. december 2012 07:54 (9 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't get this? It might take itself seriously, but it doesn't care about it's plot... It cares about themes, characters and visual thrills, and it delivers on the last two things. Plot is a complete afterthought. Plot progression in Skyfall is Bond finding a chip from a casion -> cut to said casino...

'doesn't care about its plot' is not really a good excuse, I mean it has a plot, that came from somewhere, people spent millions of dollars making scene X or Y happen, why not spend 10 minutes figuring out a way to explain why scene X or Y is even happening. it doesn't have to be a *good* plot, and it definitely doesn't have to be a believable plot, it just has to be a sequence of events that have some reason to follow each other.

like 'oh man they were just too caught up in making a rad action movie' doesn't cut it, there are lots of rad action movies that have completely unbelievable plots, plot holes, deus ex machina whatever - but at least they contain sequences of events that make sense on a certain level, clear character motives etc.

whereas everything from bond finds casino chip to helicopters arrive at island just adds up to total nonsense

Bond is trying to meet her boss why because radio + gunships -> he convinces her that he can kill her boss -> she tells him about the ship going to meet her boss -> Bond arrives on the ship and basically gives himself up, possibly because fuck finding Silva in a place that size when he can be just taken to him, possibly because he is sure that he can escape why because Bond -> she has judged poorly.

― Andrew Farrell, Monday, 12 November 2012 19:58 (1 month ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

what doesn't make sense is why bond doesn't kill silva at earliest opportunity (or vice versa)

what doesn't make sense is why sam mendes gets work let alone cool work like bond movies

I don't get this? It might take itself seriously, but it doesn't care about it's plot... It cares about themes, characters and visual thrills, and it delivers on the last two things. Plot is a complete afterthought. Plot progression in Skyfall is Bond finding a chip from a casion -> cut to said casino...

― Frederik B, Friday, December 14, 2012 11:46 AM (29 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you were too distracted by the awesome themes is what you're saying?

thats another terrible nolan thing, action movies with important ~THEMES~

I would have preferred it if this had a coherent theme instead of hinting at like 5

I said quite clearly, that the themes aren't as good as the characters and the 'visual thrills' (ie cinematography etc). They are quite rubbish, and really the worst thing about the film. Much more damning than the failings of the plot.

'doesn't care about its plot' is not really a good excuse, I mean it has a plot, that came from somewhere, people spent millions of dollars making scene X or Y happen, why not spend 10 minutes figuring out a way to explain why scene X or Y is even happening. it doesn't have to be a *good* plot, and it definitely doesn't have to be a believable plot, it just has to be a sequence of events that have some reason to follow each other.

― iatee, 14. december 2012 17:51 (26 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Because those ten minutes would have been boring? And superflous, because who cares? The sequence in Singapore, the scenes in Scotland from the helicopter onward, the chase in Turkey. It had several scenes that was as stunning as anything in any movie released this year. None of it made sense, so what? Neither does the car-scenes in Solaris, which Skyfall ripped off in the Singapore-sequence...

I sorta do care about the plot, because I find most of it hilarious. But really, in an action movie, I want spectacle. Real spectacle, not just CGI-creatures and explosions. I want stunning stunts, incredible imagery, tense suspense. Skyfall has this at different turns, plus it's fun to pick apart afterwards. Who could ask for anything more (except that they hold it with the misogony next time, though that is probably wishful thinking for a Bond-movie)

movies that turn out to be clueless about basic stuff like cause and effect, time, motivation, or women, are bad. this is a bad movie!

stunning scenes where you spend the whole time grumbling 'yeah but why are they here doing this, this is so dumb kinda spoils those scenes imo

I didn't mean the movie needed 10 more minutes - it clearly did not - I meant some writers could have spent 10 minutes thinking about this and changed the existing dialogue.

xp

I actually agree with you fred, I did enjoy a lot of this movie, but asking for a movie to not be dumb is not too much to ask imho. my favourite action movies are all very smartly written.

They are too much to ask from bond movies though --
It is their own fault for raising that expectation by going broody parkour bond in casino royale.
Should have gone Mitchell and Webb route with Thunderwang or something.

movies that turn out to be clueless about basic stuff like cause and effect, time, motivation, or women, are bad. this is a bad movie!

― before and after broscience (goole), 14. december 2012 18:36 (42 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Who cares about cause and effect and motivation? Yeah, the woman stuff is bad, but directors who were clueless about women include Mizoguchi, Tarkovsky, etc, so... But Time? You can't deny, that the scene at Skyfall was pretty ambitious and spectacular in it's use of time? The only other stuff I've seen this year, that used time so well, was Once Upon a Time in Anatolia and Tsai Ming-liang's Walker (though admittedly I live on the periphery of the film-world, so I won't get to see most the good stuff until some time next year)

Skyfall isn't dumb. Most of it is extraordinarily well thought-out and realized. Not the plot though, that is stunningly bad. I just don't like plot, and think it is unimportant, most of the films I care about really don't have plots. And the fun thing is, while most of the time people think that is an elitist view, this time millions of people basically agree with me :)

nobody thinks that liking dumb movies is elitist :)

In the nineties, they sorta did :)

directors who were clueless about women include Mizoguchi

huh?

Who cares about cause and effect and motivation?

spies

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/366364/Screenshots/-le3.png

- Sansho the Bailiff

I don't get this? It might take itself seriously, but it doesn't care about it's plot... It cares about themes, characters and visual thrills, and it delivers on the last two things. Plot is a complete afterthought. Plot progression in Skyfall is Bond finding a chip from a casion -> cut to said casino...

― Frederik B, Friday, December 14, 2012 11:46 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark

not convinced it cares about characters tbh

Needed more Naomie Harris IMO

she's well set up as rafe's secretary, i'm sure we'll be seeing more of her hat stand

if anything action movies need a plot to hang together more than, say, a Paul Thomas Anderson movie does. When your whole movie is about Daniel Day Lewis wandering around being a psychopath or a visual essay about Joaquín Phoenix's face, tightly-written and well-paced plotting is not what you're focusing on. In an action movie, where I can't expect anything exceptionally complex to hold much water, I expect the characters to have reasonably clear motivations and for them to act how human beings might act in the circumstances, and for the events that transpire to have a thread of logic that ties them together. It's not a high bar! Make it simpler! I thought Mission: Impossible 4 was an incredibly tight film, and that movie has Tom Cruise crawling up the outside of the Burj Dubai in it! As I recall, the plot of that movie was: a dude wants to blow up the earth, Tom Cruise has to stop him from blowing up the earth. Skyfall was incredibly bogged down by its plot.

ya, i honestly can't think of a spectacle-ish blockbuster movie i really like where the plot WASNT awesome

I thought the plot to MI4 was some revenge money thing for a dead wife who isn't actually dead so there's no actual motivation in the first place?
you really have to rank skyfall's plot against other bond movies and bond movies all have plots that involve villains revealing secret plans to bond instead of shooting him. where skyfall really falls down is in product placement -- really going lowbrow with the caterpillar and sony logos. he'll be wearing jorts in the next movie at this rate.

lol

cmon even Austin Powers covered the talkative non-killing villain trope

they're not allowed to continue the tradition of bondian plotting if mike myers points it out?

i do wish they'd taken this to heart though:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAjXYfTtGas

at the same time, upscale flight magazine catalog lifestyle is part of bond dna at this point so it'd be weird to see a bond movie denuded of brands.

Yeah I think the Bond series is the ultimate example of why plot doesn't necessarily matter in action movies. I've watched every Bond movie more than once and with some of my favorites I can't even remember the plot, except what settings it took Bond to. Usually they're ludicrously convoluted.

The Bond Formula helps it and makes it a special case, though. Not saying plot doesn't matter a lot in most action movies.

well they still had to prevent him from releasing the undercover agents names, which was presumably automatic?

I love how it was just youtube videos and youtube didn't take them down

― iatee, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 22:01 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

YouTube has a shitload of online forms you have to fill out to get them to take it down, it's kind of a hassle. might as well just live with it.

Buried in a bit of self-pity from Ben Stein:

On the other hand, Skyfall came out. Not only is it the best Bond ever, but Javier Bardem, the “villain” is the single most interesting character I have ever seen on a movie screen. He may be the most interesting character I have ever seen in any drama. The depths of his personality go on forever. The vivacity and inventive playfulness of this murderer are overwhelming.
I saw it again tonight. I would call it the best movie since Blade Runner. Maybe better. I have seen it in the theater nine times and I could see it every day. You simply cannot miss this movie.

...uh?

What a weirdo

"Bardem? Bardem?"

Saw this over vacation, it ruled

my lord what a genuinely dreadful film

you're both wrong!

no it was really bad: boring, incoherent, ponderous, dumb - all of these qualities on display

heard Adele theme in supermarket yesterday, i started crouching in the dairy aisle.

albert finney popping out of the corner in a beard was p funny ill give it that