kongisking said:
But back to Skyfall, I was hugely impressed. I previously was a Casino Royale lover, and would always say that was my favorite Bond film whenever asked. But this? I thought it got every single thing right. I didn't mind the nostalgic references; in fact, I loved them, as I felt they were sincere and clever. I really don't care about the CGI dragons. I've never been one of those guys who whine about CGI in films, so I simply didn't find it annoying at all. And the long, drawn-out talking scenes? I thought they were all compelling character stuff. I was thoroughly entertained by Skyfall, and am deeply proud of the guys that made this. At last, I have gotten the perfect Bond film that fits my admittedly strange tastes.
Hey, at least you're admitting it might be just you, instead of trying to feed it to us as an universal truth.
Now, there might be an explanation as to why you feel this way. It's called memorability myopia. Every once in a while a small debate between Bond fans break out which is the better out of the two most classic Connery films,
From Russia with Love or
Goldfinger. The ones who like
Goldfinger usually claim it's because it has tons of classic Bond imagery, such as the girl in gold paint, the first Aston Martin (that makes a comeback in
Skyfall) and far more memorable setpieces (Miami, golf club, Fort Knox, etcetera).
From Russia with Love, however, is a better film telling a better story. It's just hard to remember too many 'Bond moments' from it.
I think the same is true between
Casino Royale and
Skyfall. On purely cinematographical aspects,
Skyfall is arguably a masterpiece. It just rolls before us one great set of views after another. Overall, however,
Casino Royale still edges out as the better one in overall quality. In fact, one might say that even
Quantum of Solace manages better in visuals department. The Tosca scene lauded by Joe Brody among others is a fine example of this.
But indeed. Some of us are visually centered. And I have no trouble figuring why they see
Skyfall as one of the better ones in the series. But if one is to concentrate on pacing and storytelling aspects (like me), they might still prefer
Casino Royale.
AndyLGR said:
You just have to love the Bond gun sight sequence. Love the montage featofstrength. Am I right in thinking that Connery didnt do his, that was an extra or a stuntman that did it?
Partially right. Connery's stunt double, Bob Simmons, did indeed perform the gunbarrel in
Dr. No,
From Russia With Love and
Goldfinger. Since
Thunderball though, it's always been the main actor.
See the first two minutes
here. The one that moves a little stiffly and hops a little in the first three is Simmons. From the fourth onwards you can see that Bond's movement becomes more fluid and he kneels a bit before shooting. That's Connery. (Oh, the useless knowledge a man can have.)
AndyLGR said:
Back to skyfall, the only thing that felt out of place was the addition of the classic car. Yes it was very cool to see it and have the ejector seat in-joke, but I couldnt help but think why is it there and when did Bond get it with those gadgets in?
Like I said, this, along with the lazy writing while setting up the finale was my main gripe as well. It clearly broke the continuity.
Hand waving: Perhaps there was an unseen Desmond Llewellyn/John Cleese type of Q in the years between the films who supplied Bond with gadgets and it was the new, young Q who found the use of them ridiculous.
But again, when you have to do these kind of explanations yourself, it is a sign that there clearly are weaknesses in the film.
