James Bond: Skyfall

[MarkJohn]

I actually liked Quantum of Solace, too (not as well as Skyfall and Casino Royale), though the whole evil plot to steal the world's water was sort of far-fetched. But I enjoyed how Bond's character was motivated by revenge. I think it was more of a character-driven movie than plot-driven.

I agree... I liked Quantum too, but not as much as Craig's other two outings. I don't mind things being far fetched, as Bonds always have been to some degree, but, at least the new films don't descend into the levels of farce of the later Brosnan movies.

I had my doubts when he was announced, but I now wonder if Craig might just be the best Bond yet, and I can't wait for more.... also loved Skyfall's soundtrack by Thomas Newman and Adele's main theme.

 

[ButteMT61]

I agree with you both. I like Craig immensely. I also liked Moore - the different Bonds' have always had their own character, depending on the actor, script, and decade. That's why I like it so much - not the same thing decade after decade. We got dark Bond for a dark time - I likes it!

 

[MisterCairo]

I actually liked Quantum of Solace, too (not as well as Skyfall and Casino Royale), though the whole evil plot to steal the world's water was sort of far-fetched. But I enjoyed how Bond's character was motivated by revenge. I think it was more of a character-driven movie than plot-driven.

I think trying to corner (rather than "steal") water resources is rather realistic. Canadians of a certain, ahem, political persuasion believe America is potentially going to do just that to Canada's supply (nearly 25% of the world's total). If it had been oil or gold, that would have been reminiscent of a 1960s James Bond plot. Indeed, the generalisimo makes a sarcastic comment to Greene on just that point.

Agreed, the "plot" was secondary to the characters, and in that regard QoS is a very good film in my humble opinion (when was the last time you read those words???).

 

[Benzadmiral]

Watched Skyfall again this weekend on SyFy. It is STILL a dynamite film, and the richest in character and "flavor" (however you want to define that) in the franchise.

 

[AmateisGal]

Watched Skyfall again this weekend on SyFy. It is STILL a dynamite film, and the richest in character and "flavor" (however you want to define that) in the franchise.

I agree with you. It's terrific. I cannot wait for SPECTRE!

 

[MisterCairo]

Craig is probably back:

http://www.slashfilm.com/james-bond-25-release-date/

One of several sites stating he has agreed to return for Bond 25.

Guess he thought twice about slicing his wrists.

And realized he has done essentially nothing since SPECTRE.

 

[Edward]

Still not seen SPECTRE. Of his previous three, though, a hit rate of 2/3 is pretty good. Glad he's staying on for another - the first halfway credible Bond since Connery.

 

[Fading Fast]

My guess is they offered a silly amount of money - so much so that he couldn't pass it up. And while he's been fine in some non-Bond movies I've seen him in - he also doesn't read major star to me in those either. So, why not take the money and fame for another one or two before - like most Bonds - making a bunch of okay (some good, most bad) movies that no one really cares much about.

 

[MisterCairo]

Still not seen SPECTRE. Of his previous three, though, a hit rate of 2/3 is pretty good. Glad he's staying on for another - the first halfway credible Bond since Connery.

I wonder when it will finally be admitted that Connery played Connery. And not Bond...

 

[MisterCairo]

... and Quantum of Solace is better than SPECTRE.

Discus...

 

[Seb Lucas]

I liked the first Craig Bond outing but really he walks through them now like an impassive cypher. SPECTRE to my taste was lacklustre and its ham-fisted approach to building the Bond legend and establishing Blofeld's identity is like the juvenile psychologising found in one of those overblown, underwritten superhero films. I've been disappointed by all of them since Casino Royale. To say Craig is a better Bond than Brosnan or Moore is like saying Michael Keaton was a better Batman than George Clooney or Val Kilmer.

For me Connery works because the genre is a museum piece of amusing but crass consumerism and violent camp. Once you leave the 1960's it doesn't really feel right.

 

[Edward]

I wonder when it will finally be admitted that Connery played Connery. And not Bond...

I don't think any of them really play the character in the book. Flemming liked Connery a lot, though granted his opinion is suspect because he also liked Moore in the role.... Hard to judge on Connery, though - Bond made him an A-lister, and created something of a persona which he was then directed to play so often in his career thereafter. As happens so may A list actors. I do think ,though that Connery showed later in his career that there was more to him that playing to Connery-Bond role, thinking of Henry Jones Senior, or some of his lesser-known work like Finding Forrester. Probably not the Hollywood Actor with the widest range, but I think he gets unfairly boxed in as 'limited' owing to his unchanging accent. Bit like Michael Caine in some respects - Like Connery, Caine later in his career showed much more depth as a performer.

... and Quantum of Solace is better than SPECTRE.

Discus...

I've yet to see Spectre, but I'd be surprised if it's not better than Quantum. I tried to watch the latter twice on television, and both times got very, very, bored very, very quickly with the overly convoluted plot. Doubtless, though, in some hardcore Bond circles it'll already be hip to claim that it's the best of Craig's Bond outings for no better reason than it seems to least popular over time.

To say Craig is a better Bond than Brosnan or Moore is like saying Michael Keaton was a better Batman than George Clooney or Val Kilmer.

That's perfectly true, though. Keaton, crucially, made both a credible Batman and Bruce Wayne, understanding that they are different personalities. The former is not the latter in a costume. Kilmer looked like an actor in great fancy dress as the Bat, and like a man in a commercial for a constipation cure as Wayne. Clooney was, to give him his due, a reasonable Wayne and a dire Bat, but it's hard to fully compare him to the others because by that point Joel Schumacher had turned the franchise into the disastrous, pathetic joke that the Adam West show mad made of it, and from which Burton's two films had rescued the Batman brand.

For me Connery works because the genre is a museum piece of amusing but crass consumerism and violent camp. Once you leave the 1960's it doesn't really feel right.

I think that's been the main problem with Bond for a very long time. They kept trying to contemporise something that was inevitably of its time. This became most painfully obvious by the Dalton era, when the misogyny felt very out of place (and I'm sure I recall there being much less emphasis on the girls, and only one leading lady in each - rumoured to have been a demand of Dalton's, if memory serves). By Brosnan, the Cold War was over and they had no real idea what to do with Bond in that era. Rather, however, than make him a relic and view him exactly as what he was, they tried to persist. It seems it took the cinematic adaptation of Bourne (itself an update of 1980s source material) to show them the way. It'll be interesting to see where they go from here. I can't help feeling that Bond is pretty much played out by now, but there's no way they'll let it die while it still pulls in the big money. I'd still prefer to see them take it back to the books and do it as they were, as period pieces, rather than the contemporising of an older book, which is what they've been even since Connery.

 

[scottyrocks]

I do think ,though that Connery showed later in his career that there was more to him that playing to Connery-Bond role, thinking of Henry Jones Senior, or some of his lesser-known work like Finding Forrester..

Don't forget Zardoz!

 

[Seb Lucas]

That's perfectly true, though. Keaton, crucially, made both a credible Batman and Bruce Wayne, understanding that they are different personalities. The former is not the latter in a costume. Kilmer looked like an actor in great fancy dress as the Bat, and like a man in a commercial for a constipation cure as Wayne. Clooney was, to give him his due, a reasonable Wayne and a dire Bat, but it's hard to fully compare him to the others because by that point Joel Schumacher had turned the franchise into the disastrous, pathetic joke that the Adam West show mad made of it, and from which Burton's two films had rescued the Batman brand.

Ha, that's a cheeky positive re-frame of my point. I disliked all three with Keaton only a marginal lead. But I think your point about period Bond films is valid. I have often argued myself they should be done like that to make them vital and culturally appropriate.

Whatever the merits of the actors and scripts, the Bond films have never really gotten past being elongated marketing opportunities for brands and essentially an ambitious teenage boy fantasy involving watches, wardrobe and women.

 

[zebedee]

I thought Dalton was good- he had the touch of cruelty which you find in some of the novels. It's also interesting how certain originals become automatically redundant or seemingly false-derivative (filmically-speaking). In the aftermath of the Bourne films, could a (re)remake of 'The Day of the Jackal possibly appear interesting? I enjoyed the Karl Urban take on Judge Dredd which struck a chord with my memories of the odd line between camp and deadly serious which British science fiction seemed to do very well.

Oddly enough, the Batman comics in their earliest incarnation (and the later West TV series, which actually emphasised the camp aspects even more) had a huge sub-cultural following as gay comedy. Burton's 'Batman' and 'Batman Returns' arguably gave us the 'serious' Batman that Andy Medhurst's article finds so risible (and made superhero films ok for adults to watch). We've also 'dignified' the Bond franchise in this way, although...

 

[Edward]

Whatever the merits of the actors and scripts, the Bond films have never really gotten past being elongated marketing opportunities for brands and essentially an ambitious teenage boy fantasy involving watches, wardrobe and women.

Certianly true that the product placement - what watch is Bond wearing? Who made his suit? Is he driving a Lotus or an Aston? - has long outstripped the films themselves as what you hear about when a new one is anticipated. That said, the clumsiest, most in yer face product placement I've yet seen was in the first of the Matrix films. So blatant as to be utterly invasive.

I enjoyed the Karl Urban take on Judge Dredd which struck a chord with my memories of the odd line between camp and deadly serious which British science fiction seemed to do very well.[/quotew]

It was indeed fantastic. The outside look of the Mega City was a bit of a Nolanised version and the Judges' bikes looked a bit aneamic, but for all that, they really captured the spirit of the whole thing. Olivia Thirlby was outstanding as Anderson; Urban the perfect Dredd. Made up a lot for the dreadful Stallone version (which had one or two nice moments, but was fatally flawed). I'm looking forward to seeing how they develop it for 'television' (I think it's Netflix behind it, in the works.)

Oddly enough, the Batman comics in their earliest incarnation (and the later West TV series, which actually emphasised the camp aspects even more) had a huge sub-cultural following as gay comedy. Burton's 'Batman' and 'Batman Returns' arguably gave us the 'serious' Batman that Andy Medhurst's article finds so risible (and made superhero films ok for adults to watch). We've also 'dignified' the Bond franchise in this way, although...

Yeah, I dismissed Batman for years as a kid because I thought Adam West was all it was. Shame. The comic book did have its camper eras, but it was always pretty dark really.

 

[Fading Fast]

...I'd still prefer to see them take it back to the books and do it as they were, as period pieces, rather than the contemporising of an older book, which is what they've been even since Connery.

You've mentioned this before and I think it is a great idea and perfect for TV and for one of the Networks / "content providers" like Netflix / Amazon / AMC / Acorn / etc. that do these well-produced "short" season shows.

Period shows seem successful (and the better shows do the period details really well) and, with a short season, they'd have plenty of original source material, which is key, IMHO, and explains why "Casino Royale" is the best of the Craig Bonds and the best one done in decades.

Bond is of his time period, so going back and doing them set in that period (like the first three Bond films did since the actual time period of those movies was close enough to when Fleming was writing them) makes sense to the character, stories and drama.

 

[Fading Fast]

...That's perfectly true, though. Keaton, crucially, made both a credible Batman and Bruce Wayne, understanding that they are different personalities. The former is not the latter in a costume. Kilmer looked like an actor in great fancy dress as the Bat, and like a man in a commercial for a constipation cure as Wayne. Clooney was, to give him his due, a reasonable Wayne and a dire Bat, but it's hard to fully compare him to the others because by that point Joel Schumacher had turned the franchise into the disastrous, pathetic joke that the Adam West show mad made of it, and from which Burton's two films had rescued the Batman brand....

The first Burton / Keaton "Batman" did, as you note, redirect the brand in the right direction. At the time, I thought the first one was a credible effort that got some things right but wasn't fully there as it kept too much camp in the villains. Keaton surprised me as, before seeing the movie, I hated that he got the role, but thought he was very good in it - as you said, playing Wayne and Batman as truly different personalities pulling at each other.

Looking back, now, that first Burton film (disliked all of those that followed and stopped watching them after the third one, I think) seems like an interim step to the Nolan incredibleness. I'm open to anything happening, but IMHO, it will be very hard to top those three Nolan films, in particular, the second one.

 

[Edward]

The first Burton / Keaton "Batman" did, as you note, redirect the brand in the right direction. At the time, I thought the first one was a credible effort that got some things right but wasn't fully there as it kept too much camp in the villains. Keaton surprised me as, before seeing the movie, I hated that he got the role, but thought he was very good in it - as you said, playing Wayne and Batman as truly different personalities pulling at each other.

Looking back, now, that first Burton film (disliked all of those that followed and stopped watching them after the third one, I think) seems like an interim step to the Nolan incredibleness. I'm open to anything happening, but IMHO, it will be very hard to top those three Nolan films, in particular, the second one.

Burton, by his second film, had the aesthetic probably closest to "my" Batman; for me, visual perfection lies in the 1990s Batman : the Animated Series - just the cars all looked a bit too "modern" in Batman Returns. I love the timeless sense that TAS had with it. And yes, Burton's villains were slightly campy - though when I reviewed them a couple of years ago, they were much more brutal and sinister, especially Nicholson's Joker, than I had recalled. I think perhaps the perfect take on the Joker for me (not only my favourite Batman villain, but my favourite Batman character bar none) would be Nolan's Joker but with the aesthetic of Burton's. The Nolan films weren't my perfect aesthetic, but I enjoyed them very much, and the 'what if it was the real world?' aesthetic to it all really worked - well thought out, consistent, really well done. I like Bale in the lead. Somewhat disappointed that they didn't capture Wayne / Batman's schizophrenia, but the notion of Bruce Wayne being a disguise for Batman was an interesting one to see played out (very much the same ideas as expounded by Bill in Kill Bill with regards to Clark Kent being Superman's 'disguise' - as well as his judgement on humanity).

 

[Seb Lucas]

The Burton Batman film was a Hollywood soft-cock version of the Frank Miller Dark Knight graphic novel which was really responsible for recasting Batman as a flawed vigilante and turning Gotham City into a dystopian cesspit. Burton took that, added some lame, Blade Runner-esque post-punk aesthetics and, in the absence of anything else interesting in the world of superhero films, had a hit. The later films, including Bale's Batman flicks, have added little to this idea, Nolan's just added some style.