Skyfall (possible spoilers)

[delericho]

Just back from seeing this at the cinema. Outstanding film - the best of Craig's three outings by some way.

That said, there is one major issue I had with the plot:

[sblock]A key segment of the plot involves the old "villain gets captured as part of his plan" trick. The problem is, nothing in his plan actually relies on him getting captured - it would work just as well if he just bought a plane ticket. So why the need for a risky "fake capture" gambit? After all, there's always the risk that the escape just won't work out perfectly![/sblock]

But that's forgivable, given the rest of the film.

 

[horacethegrey]

I must concur. This is a great film. While I still feel Casino Royale is Craig's best outing as Bond, this is a close second. My detailed thoughts...

[sblock]
LIKES

Daniel Craig - I'll say it out now, Craig is the best actor to carry the mantle of 007. He can maintain Bond's cold exterior but there's always a hint of the humanity under it. His Bond feels less like a superhero as he's often portrayed in the films and more like the rough and tumble bruiser from the Ian Fleming books.

Judi Dench - I was not a big fan of the Pierce Brosnan era, but I'm damn glad they kept his M. It's a shame because of her detoriating health Miss Dench will no longer play the role. But damn, what a great sendoff.

Javier Bardem - Holy S**t. Did I just see the most evil and sadistic villain to appear in a Bond flick? What a bravura performance from Bardem. And the funny thing is, his many goal is very understandable. He merely wants revenge on the woman (M) who betrayed him. In a way he's a dark parallel to Bond.

Supporting cast - When you go into a Bond film, you don't really expect his mates from MI6 to hold the spotlight. But what a revelation they are here. Ben Wishaw as Q, Naomie Harris as Moneypenny, and Ralph Fiennes as Mallory ( who by the film's end becomes the new M). Each of them get a chance to shine within the story.

Skyfall - Halfway through the film I was wondering what the hell was the significance of the film's title. But by the third act of the film it's revealed. Skyfall is actually the name of Bond's family estate in Scotland. But since the death of Bond's parents it's fallen into disrepair, and left in the care of an aging steward played by the wonderful Albert Finney. It's also the setting for the film's thrilling finale. One of the best action sequences in a Bond film.


DISLIKES

Slow pacing - If there's one thing I dislike in a Sam Mendes film, it's the slow pacing that's a signature in many of his films. Let me make it clear, I think Mendes did a tremendous job, but is it too much to ask that he punch up the pace in some scenes? The film felt unecessarily long because of it.
[/sblock]

 

[Morrus]

I can't believe I've had to wait to see this. My wife didn't want to see it, and the friend I usually see such things with is in Japan. However, he gets back tomorrow, so the first thing he's gonna hear is a phone call and me warbling "Skyyyfaaallllll!" down the phone at him. Can't wait!

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Hope you enjoy the film today, Morrus!

Saw it on Monday and I agree it's a great film. Had all the requisite Bond-ness about it, plus some excellent in-jokes. The reveal on the old car and Bond threatening to use the ejector seat on M were priceless.

 

[Joker]

Welcome to Scotland!

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

You lucky buggers in the UK ... it doesn't premiere here in the US for another week!

 

[Morrus]

Damn, that was good. I managed to go in spoiler free, too, which I'm glad I did.

SPOILERS BELOW




Looks like it's a kinda reboot - by the end, the setup is exactly like it used to be, even down to the layout of M and Moneypenny's offices. Plus Q.

Bit weird that a guy on a commission investigating M becomes the new M.... conflict of interest, anyone?

Oh, and that poor, poor car. The DB5 has always been my favourite Bond car: so pretty.

 

[Morrus]

That said, there is one major issue I had with the plot:

[sblock]A key segment of the plot involves the old "villain gets captured as part of his plan" trick. The problem is, nothing in his plan actually relies on him getting captured - it would work just as well if he just bought a plane ticket. So why the need for a risky "fake capture" gambit? After all, there's always the risk that the escape just won't work out perfectly![/sblock].

Yup. And, when it came down to it, what was his plan (excepting the escape)?

[sblock]To shoot his way into the hearing and shoot M. That's it- the whole grand scheme! Definitely doesn't require being captured first![/sblock]

Frankly, the whole movie works a lot better if you just remove that one line by - was it Q? - who says that.

I also like the way the main villain is a failed Bond --

[sblock]He thinks he was a better agent. He wasn't. M left both Bond and him to die. Bond returned to duty; the bad guy failed to do so and instead lost the plot. The fact that after both were left to die by M in the name of duty, Bond ends up defending M against the villain shows who is the better agent.[/sblock]

And the theme of resurrection? They're not referring to any characters in the movie. They're referring to that final scene and setup.

 

[MarkB]

That said, there is one major issue I had with the plot:

[sblock]A key segment of the plot involves the old "villain gets captured as part of his plan" trick. The problem is, nothing in his plan actually relies on him getting captured - it would work just as well if he just bought a plane ticket. So why the need for a risky "fake capture" gambit? After all, there's always the risk that the escape just won't work out perfectly![/sblock]

One possibility occurs to me:

[sblock]The purpose of the "fake capture" plot wasn't to kill M, it was to confront her. Simply killing her in cold blood was never the plan, could never have granted him satisfaction. What he needed from her was that conversation in the glass cage, a meeting in which she's willing to stay and talk because she thinks she holds all the cards, so that he can confront her with the consequences of her betrayal.

But he knows that afterwards, he'll still need to kill her, so he also has an escape and attack plan pre-arranged.[/sblock]

 

[JustinAlexander]

A key segment of the plot involves the old "villain gets captured as part of his plan" trick. The problem is, nothing in his plan actually relies on him getting captured - it would work just as well if he just bought a plane ticket.

It's a common mistake to look at something like this and say, "Things had to happen exactly as they did and it would be impossible or nonsensical for the villain to have a plan like this."

Most of the time, though, it makes more sense if you look at the villain as making constant adjustments to their plans and planning for contingencies.

For example, in Skyfall it's pretty clear that the entire capture-and-escape plan is a contingency plan. "If I get caught, what will I need to do to escape?" Notice that the plan works just as well if he gets captured after killing M. Or captured at any other point after he gets emergency protocols engaged. And that it's unlikely he planned to be captured by Bond in the moment that he was captured, because that hinged on Bond suborning the girl.

Q does say this was all planned, but that's true whether it's just a well-prepared escape plan or a crucial element in killing M.

You can see similar moments in The Dark Knight: What happens if the Joker isn't captured and taken to the ICU? Well, then he probably succeeded in killing Dent and possibly revealing Batman's identity and would just need to figure out some other way to take out the accountant. (Which he probably could, since he has access to both of the traitors working for Gordon.)

And The Phantom Menace: What happens if the Jedi don't miraculously escape at the beginning of the film, rescue Amidala, and bring her to Coruscant? Palpatine would have a lot fewer ulcers.