Skyfall

[cinemabon]

“Skyfall” directed by Sam Mendes

To say they saved the best for last would be an understatement. Some may consider this sacrilege – move over Goldfinger and From Russian With Love – if this isn’t the best James Bond movie ever made, I don’t know what is. So if you want to see the film and see it fresh, stop reading this review right now. I’m serious. Don’t read any reviews. I don’t want you to know a thing. I want it to be fresh so that when you walk in, every surprise will be a real one for you – and this movie’s got ‘em, a plethora.

First off, we have Sam Mendes at the helm, the first of many Academy Award winning people connected with this film who know quality and bring their art form to bear. The movie simply looks lush, from start to finish. The location shots are a treasure to savor like a vintage wine served with Chateaubriand. Mendes takes you in and allows the viewer time to breathe and absorb the world he opens. Bond is constantly thrown from one exciting local to the next. Even in the most boring places, Mendes brings his eye to work magic on the most mundane settings. From camera angles to the cuts to the level of superior acting, Mendes knows his craft and has brought an incredible level of quality to the Bond franchise.

All through the film one theme repeats in a final way, is James Bond past his prime? Has he grown too old and stale? Daniel Craig, arguably just as potently and manly as Sean Connery, turned fifty this year. He’s the best damn naked fifty year old man I ever saw. Judy Dench is also approaching her top age for such a demanding role as M. Yet she has that certain spark of wit and delivery that will forever leave her stamp on the role of M as perhaps the most profound of the typically masculine part that she mastered for her own. When the two old pros come to confront the problems of growing old, they laugh it off. But inside, both Bond and M know that all things come to an end. With a fantastic supporting cast, this Bond movie raises the bar for every film that follows. Ralph Fiennes playing the new bureaucrat will most certainly play a part in the future of the franchise. A new quartermaster or Q branch played heroically by young Ben Whishaw adds his brand of English panache. Another new surprise cast member is Naomie Harris, whose strong supporting part is just another aspect to the high level of drama presented. Just when you think you’ve seen the best in the cast, like a ghost arising out of the mist, Albert Finney (another Oscar winner) steps in and brings his inimitable warmth to fine role. (I don’t want to give away too many secrets) Villain Javier Bardem doesn’t disappoint either as the psychologically twisted (aren’t they all) manic out to seek a type of revenge/justice more than wreak havoc on the world.

The film’s guaranteed opening stunt sequence will not disappoint the most ardent Bond fan. The chase and exciting conclusion take us into the opening credits with this wonder on our lips; is this the last outing for James Bond? The credits themselves were a joy a watch and include the usual bevy of naked babes along with a score brought to us by yet another Newman of the famous film composing family. Thomas Newman is the son of the great Alfred Newman. His score is as good as any John Barry score and at one point, may evoke cheers from the Bond fans when a bit of nostalgia arises at a crucial moment in the film.

This is what great movies are all about – entertainment on a grand scale, with superior acting, great action, good story, beautiful score and photography, spot on editing and lights, incredible sets, and most important at the helm, excellent direction by Sam Mendes. Producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson have put everything up on the screen, including a clever homage that will have Bond fans cheering. Rest assured, this is one time you won’t be disappointed in parting with your money to see a fun and exciting movie. Highly recommended and Five Stars.

[Chris Knipp]

Sam Mendes: SKYFALL (2012)

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/901/5x4u50.jpg
DANIEL CRAIG AND JAVIER BARDEM IN SKYFALL

Dashing with Daniel

[ S P O I L E R S ]

When they chose Daniel Craig as the new James Bond they forgot how Ian Fleming conceived the character. Craig isn't really "dashing" unless you just mean by that somebody who dashes. He's simply tougher, more ramped up, more macho. While Fleming described Bond as "cruelly handsome," Craig only gets the cruel part. He's a pug-faced man. He has physical dash, his proportions are good, his muscles are impressive. But who ever said anything about 007's muscles? He was meant to outwit and outsmart his devilish enemies. He was a high liver, a constant womanizer and a connoisseur of fine wine, liquor, and all things sensual and beautiful. The laconic Daniel Craig Bond hasn't time to bed a woman, sniff a good wine, mix a martini, or savor a moment. (He does stop to adjust a cuff, after jumping into a speeding train, a quick nod to the traditional debonair Bond.) Craig and this new Bond avatar were chosen to fit the Bond franchise into a new more pumped up, generic kind of action movie. Craig acts with his biceps and his pectorals. That and the grim twist of his mouth and his uncanny blue eyes. The music reminds us every so often that this is a Bond movie. The series has become homogenized, even as it's kept up with the competition.

But this Bond still gets in some nice, dry lines, and in many respects, the plotline, the gadgets, the chases and escapes, the encounters with babes, Skyfall is big and fun and fast and dazzling, and the new director, Sam Mendes, doesn't get in the way at all, and Ralph Fiennes is a promising new addition to HQ. There are some splendid set pieces, notably the Shanghai-to-Macao gambling casino one, Silva's lair, and the memorably stark and grim Bond family castle in Scotland where the final showdown transpires. But there's nothing here in the action as fun and exciting as Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, or any of the Bourne movies except for the new dud without Damon. But those movies lacked the James Bond trappings that fans love.

Overkill has become the rule of the day. Thus before the opening credits, when commercial audiences are already exhausted from watching six or eight action blockbuster trailers, it throws a full-on chase scene at us, somewhere in Turkey, supposedly, but who really cares? We don't even know who the bad guy is. But Bond chases him, on motorcycles, improbably across tile rooftops. Don't try that at home. Don't even try it in the studio. And then there's a pursuit on the tops of train cars, like (most recently) Hit & Run. And finally there's an underwater sequence. And it's all followed at central HQ, like the Bourne movies' Langley, only it's London, and Judi Dench.

Skyfall doesn't need to try quite so hard. If today's actioners were more sparing with their action sequences and spent more time on memorable characters and dialogue, they'd be more distinctive and more memorable. But the new Bond nonetheless has at least some good characters (with fine actors to play them) and a well-devised plot-line.

We know we're in good hands with Judi Dench as "M", Bond's boss. But when she tells a ravishing operative called Eve (Naomie Harris, a nice addition to the cast) to "take the bloody shot," it's not at all sure Bond is any longer in good hands with M. Thus the opening plotline: Bond is dead, or missing, and M is disgraced for a prize cockup. The failure of this mission moreover has jeopardized all of MI6. Someone very nasty has got hold of a list of all the agency's undercover people all over the world. The plot, perhaps appropriately for a text with at least four authors, restarts itself repeatedly: but that works. When Bond reappears and is retested and goes out into the field with Eve again, making his way through the flashy casino and a sad, beautiful prisoner there (Bérénice Marlohe) to a bombed-out looking island city and the arch villain Silva (Javier Bardem), it leads to a triumphant capture. We know we've got a good villain in Bardem, if we don't remember the one he played in No Country for Old Men too vividly, and disregard the tired device of making an evil character effeminate.

Back to London, for an excellent many-layered sequence in which Bond pursues Silva while M is elsewhere being harangued by a cabinet minister and at a third location Q (Ben Whishaw) directs Bond through a chase in a crowded Tube. Q is the "quartermaster" who's really a computer genius. He stands in for all of Langley, a nice simplification: it's tidier and gets in the way of the action less.

Then, never mind how or why, the final reboot comes when Bond (to franchise fans' cheers) jumps into his specially equipped Astin Martin DB5 and drives to that grim castle in Scotland from which the movie gets its name. It's like staging a shootout and blowup at Wuthering Heights. The Astin Martin is at least one iconic fine thing the new Bond still appreciates.

Could this have lost 25 minutes? Sure it could. But if people pay for iMax, maybe they like getting 143 minutes in the deal.

Skyfall released in France and the UK Oct. 26, in the US Nov. 9, 2012.

P.s. Walter Chaw is of course right when he begins his review (http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2012/11/skyfall.htm)of this movie by saying, "James Bond films are the literalization of a very particular Conservative fantasy in which a suave, quippy, emotionally-arrested sociopath battles Cold War foes, beds beautiful women without consequence, always has the latest technology, and engages in the endless murder of foreigners. Just suggesting a 'license to kill' reveals a certain level of arrogance. . ." And he may be right that several recent Bond films have staged an effective confrontation with these attitudes that Skyfall fails in not staging. But I was too exhausted to go that deep. I do remember, though how wittily Michel Hazanavicius with his star Jean Dujardin lampoons the attitudes in his OSS 117 series.

[tabuno]

Chris loves this version of Bond.

I found it boring and without a lot of connective tissue and emotionally disconnected even though it was so, so apparent that the script and the director really attempted to push Bond in a more humanizing way. But for me it didn't work at all and fell flat. Instead Sean Connery's Never Say Never (1983) and Matt Damon's Bourne Supremacy (2004) really captured the human and the cerebral note so well respectively. For me this was a warmed over version of espionage movies, I didn't find much new in it. Or what I experienced as new was a frantic attempt at innovation that didn't seem to be consistent with the humanizing element of the movie. It was almost as if the director himself knew this and attempted to blow away the audience with in my mind with overly sappy emotional scenes (that missed the authentic empathic and compelling nature of human relationships) or mind-blowing explosions that supposedly are to capture our innate lust for excitement, flaming, brilliant loud blowing things up. I even found myself wishing Roger Moore back as the incorporation of so much humor really didn't fit with Craig's characterization of Bond. Sorely disappointed in this latest Bond incarnation. There's a lot I would have hoped to have been directed and scripted differently. It was painful to watch and experience.

[tabuno]

In the beginning scene, the audience gets a vague shadow shape coming down a blurry hallway that eventually leads to a surprisingly passive scene of dead people with a mysteriously missing hard drive and a lot of electronic communication chatter and then leads to the BIG CHASE scene opening. Unfortunately, from the very beginning shot, Mendes fails to capture a vibrant, intriguing, and sophisticated opening like one the ones in Bourne Supremacy (2004) with the amazing, riveting drop off and the CIA surveillance, but perhaps the British don't have the funds to operate such a sophisticated operation even though James Bond movies seem to make light of the CIA or Enemy of the State (1998) directed by the late Tony Scott. Instead the audience is dropped into a vague, murky opening shot scene that likely little resembles what James Bond is purportedly experiencing from his vantage point walking down this darkened hall. It's frustrating when apparently all the key players, even the dead ones seem to have much more knowledge of what's going on than the audience. This is what made Three Days of The Condor (1975) with Robert Redford so suspenseful in those opening scenes even though albeit the scene included just as stunned Robert Redford character when he entered the death scene which may the scene only much more eerily sinister. It's not like as even in Enemy of the State where Wil Smith is just an innocent bystander. Unfortunately in Skyfall the set up is offered up during the very moment when Bond (much like a horror show) supposedly is moving stealthily down this darkened hallway and then into a room with dead bodies. What's missing is an opening scene with live people and the hard drive, the apparent entrance of the assassin (of whose talents are not known until later in the scene) and are only presented bit by bit as the scene unfolds so that the skill-level interplay between the assassin and James Bond is unclear, except that somehow the assassin took out three or four people of whose abilities were never clear. Then there's the sudden appearance of a 4-wheeler vehicle out of nowhere, suggesting that this op really had more going on than the audience knew. Again the audience is left in the dark. From the opening scene onwards this movie just keeps pushing out the supposedly special thrilling scenes interspersed with long supposedly sophisticated dialogue that is supposed to represent some qualitative presence in this Bond Movie with the inclusion of the supposedly dry British humor lacking in Craig's first two outings as Bond and a Bond that may be too old for the job (but failing the capture substance of the more carefully crafted and directed Sean Connery in Never Say Never Again (1983) .

[Chris Knipp]

I would agree that the opening sequnces of SKYFALL leave something to be desired. But I think their main fault isn't that the first shots are dead or like a horror movie but that the whole chase scene tires out the audience too early. It's a bad new habit of blockbusters: try to bring the viewer to his knees in the first ten minutes. It only diminishes the effect of later climaxes.

You note that Daniel Craig's Bond is given more dry British wit this time and I think that may be true, and welcome. I like the scene in the British Museum* (but doesn't it show the new Bond as one who perhaps fails to respond to art?) when Q gives him the pistol and the tiny radio and Bond comments, "It's not exactly Christms." But as I emphasized at the beginning of my review, I just think the Daniel Craig version of Bond lacks much of the "suave, quippy" arrogant charm of the original character that made 007 fun and distinctive -- what Michael Sragow calls in a new short piece about this for The New Yorker "The Lighter Side of Bond" (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/11/roger-moore-and-the-lighter-side-of-bond.html). Sragow celebrates the Roger Moore version of Bond.

But frankly I lost interest after Sean Connery. And even Connery wasn't quite adequate. I read the first couple of James Bond novels. And frankly Ian Fleming's creation was too ridiculously perfect -- and absurd -- for anyone to embody on screen --not that it isn't fun trying. Often the villains come through better. Walter Chaw makes sense when he wishes SKYFALL were all about Silva.

___________________________
*An English blogger who identifies himself as THE FINE ART DINER has a quite wonderful discussion (http://thefineartdiner.blogspot.com/2012/11/skyfall-englands-greatest-painting.html)of the scene, and not only gives the title of the J.M.W. Turner painting, The Fighting Temeraire Tugged To Her Last Berth To Be Broken Up, 1838, but the room in the BM (No. 34) where it hangs. And its symbolic significance. Of course! The painting shows an old warship being pulled away to be scrapped. It's what Bond is being threatened with.

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/2473/turnerjmwthefightingtmr.jpg

[cinemabon]

Well, you gentlemen are falling in the seven percent of those critics who did not like the film. But for someone who has followed the franchaise from the very beginning, this Bond film had all of the elements that worked and even surpassed. Connery's Bond, pushed to emphasize the "cultural" aspects of Bond's education from the start were the result of Terrance Young's association with Ian Fleming. (I read all of the Fleming novels when they were in the forbidden "Adult" section of the library). Bond was a rough and tumble character, right out of World War II. And while dry martinis were part of the lexicon, Bond was an action kind of guy, which is why Young brought intro fight sequences into the films' opening sequence in "From Russia With Love." Since that time, each opening sequence seems to top the next, and other film genres that attempt to copy the Bond formula (such as Jason Bourne and many others) have duplicated the action with mixed results.

Over 90% of the critics agree with me, however, that this Bond has one of the finest presentations to the genre as we have seen in a generation; certainly as good as "Casino Royale" if not better. I'm sorry you feel so jaded. I thought Chris's review was certainly more balanced, though still highly critical in an unfair way (but I am on the run today and can't list them all right now... but if you insist, senor). Odd you should pick the one picture in the movie that reflected the most uncomfortable moment, when the villain is "seducing" Bond in a gay way. I thought Bond's comeback humorous - "You're under the delusion it would be my first time."

[cinemabon]

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118062014

[cinemabon]

http://movies.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/movies/skyfall-with-daniel-craig-as-james-bond.html?_r=0

[Chris Knipp]

I would not say I "did not like" SKYFALL, though my dry (if "more balanced") response may feel that way to as big a fan as you, cinemabon. Look over my review, and you'll find many positive remarks. I say Bond "gets in some nice, dry lines"; that the film is "fun and fast and dazzling," "has "good characters (with fine actors to play them) and a well-devised plot-line," that we're "in good hands" with Judi Dench, and have "a good villain" in Bardem; that the London segment contains "an excellent many-layered sequence"; that Q's directiing of the chase is "a nice simplification"; and I noted with appreciation the return to the iconic Astin Martin. These are not the word of someone who does not like a movie.

I tend to be a little on the dry side about any film I don't rank what I consider the year's best. It doesn't mean I "did not like" them. I didn't rave over SKYFALL and say it's the best Bond film ever. Perhaps I don't have a view on that. There are 23 of them, I hear... I would give it a 7/10. I know that is a provocation to a fan like you, but it's certainly no pan and doesn't put me in that alleged small and odious minority of the "did not likes."

Back in the day the Bond books were selling on drugstore paperback racks. One didn't have to brave the "adult" section of the library.

I chose that shot of the very uncomfortable moment between Silva and Bond because I thought it was unusual and I thought that set was fabulous. I probably should have mentioned Roger Deakens' cinematography, because it's beautiful, particularly the neon at night in Shanghai. He is a conventional dp but still one of the best. His most notable association may be with the Coen brothers. He achieves more poetry here. i guess for Silva's lair I ought to give credit to the set designers, Thomas Newton. Another nice touch THE FINE ART DINER notes is that the woman with the fan Modigliani painting being examined by the gangsters is one that was stolen a year or two ago.

As to what Ian Flaming's Bond is like, obviously he's a man of "action." That is not debatable. But in his smart suits and with his good looks, is he a "rough and tumble character"? One of the things I most liked about him -- I think most people did -- was that he was a connoisseur of fine cars, fine women, fine drink, fine things of all kinds. A dashing fellow, in the usual sense. Much attention to brand names. The Daniel Craig version of Bond has chosen to eschew this whole aspect to a very large extent, just as the new episode's updated management consciously eschews a lot of tools and toys for Bond to fight and play with, cutting him down to only a coded pistol and a miniature signal radio.

I had already consulted Debruge's and Darbis' reviews. I read reviews, especially the higher profile ones. However I don't look at them too closely till I've written my review. Debruge's has a lot of good stuff in it.

[tabuno]

It's curious that Cinemabon seems to be going in two different directions when it comes to movie evaluations. On the one word, he seems to rely less on the source material when it comes to Cloud Atlas and appreciating the movie on its own, while on the other hand, when it comes to Skyfall, he seems to relate much more to the source material when commenting on that movie. I'm wondering if Cinemabon has a strong preference for various movie genres and has different ways of enjoying them based on what kind of movie they are.

To continue my rather scattered criticism of this movie because there was so much to be concerned with that I can't and don't have the time and energy to even begin to put them in any semblance of order:

Another problem with this movie is its main evil character who while Javier Bardem did a decent job, his presentation never reached the lofty heights of say a strong counter foil as Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight (2008) or Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs (1991) or even the much more subtle but effective performance as Hannibal Lector by Brian Cox in Manhunter (1986). Perhaps one of the best performances suited for James Bond as an evil character who has the intellectual heft would be John Malkovich in In the Line of Fire (1993) where he actually has the disguises and careful craftsmanship that is shown in detail with fascinating and compelling interest. If humanizing and offering a rough and tumble movie is a criteria for greatness, I would also add, probably something not in the source material, a humanizing element even more so for Javier Bardem's character - and the only time I really felt connected to this character as opposed to the usual worn out caricature of evil that we've all experienced in these movies is at the end where he seemed to really be moved by M's injury. [SPOILER]. I was actually turned off by Javier Bardem's less than sophisticated and over the top entrance into the Parliament hearing...pretty unbelievable to me with no real guarantee of success I must say, not in character that was presented throughout most of the movie. [SPOILER].

The emotional connection between a more rough and tumble James Bond and his femme fatales in this movie was remarkably flat and remote, removed and most opportunities to do so were subdued and even omitted such as the shot that killed Bond's less than love interest. And Mendes' attempted portrayal of a Bond in recovery felt forced and pretty much standard fare, except for it being a Bond movie. What really seems to have captured the imagination of film critics is the apparent divergence of the strong Bond character to something less than perfect, but just this divergence which has an element of shock value in itself doesn't mean that such a performance when compared to other espionage movies means that this version is that much greater standing on it own. In my mind, this new Bond is a work in progress and I see a lot of room for improvement but in a direction that holds a lot of promise.

[tabuno]

The latest version of Bond attempts to incorporate (in addition to its many attempts at innovative physical chase scenes that just don't have the polish of Bourne movies) the more contemporary computer internet angle that in some respects were more successfully taut and gripping as found in Enemy of the State (1998), The Net (1995) with Sandra Bullock, and Antitrust (2001) with Ryan Phillipe who does the job that Ben Whishaw as Q should have done. Really, the Predator (1987) - like ending in the Castle with lo-tech versus high tech or at least The Specialist (1994) capture the craftsmanship and style of espionage on the run or in contemplation. And the ending with the torch (or flashlight) so obviously leading Javier Bardem to M isn't Bond a sophistication model, why not simply elevate this and mark M have to move in the scary dark, scratches and falls and all while Javier simply uses a night-scope or heat-sensitive device to seek her out? At least Robert Downy Jr. had a competent adversary who was able to put together a much more delightful and more plausibly more successful execution of British politicians in Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011). To call Skyfall the best of Bond when so many other less than brilliant espionage movies have better intensity, sophistication, and and gripping, sustained suspense is really stretching one's credibility with all the evidence of these other movie's and their more penetrating impact even as they aren't considered among the top movies of their respective years.

[cinemabon]

You really don’t want to compare the Downey Holmes to the novels, do you Tab? Because if you do, I will really bring out the books! So let’s not discuss Sherlock Holmes. Save that for another thread.

Mr. Knipp - I did read your review before I replied last time, Chris. I found your review balanced (I believe I said that but I will reiterate it again.) and the fact you emphasized the successful parts (dry?) was the positive aspect of your review. I happen to treasure your perspectives on film and you are the main reason this site has continued through the years as we seem to have lost Oscar and Howard and Johann (who pops up occasionally).

I believe, Tab, that Chris and I were referring to the Terrance Young version of Bond verses the Ian Fleming version of Bond. Earlier, when I spoke of “Cloud Atlas,” that was in direct reference to the novel. In this case, there is no “Skyfall” novel written by Fleming. The original novels, most of them, were published in the 1950’s and sold from behind the counter as “adult” fiction. Only later in the 1960’s when the paperback editions came out (the result of the films) did Kennedy and others decide to read them as pulp fiction (the popcorn of their day). They are fun and easy to read. Bond is a rough and tumble guy, right out of World War II, and definitely involved in the Cold War stuff with the Russians (along with SPECTRE – Special Executive Counterintelligence for Terrorism Revenge and Extortion – his nemesis). Young, who knew Fleming and palled around with him, were both “bon vivants” men about town, who loved fine wine, good food, fast beautiful women, sports cars, luxury bachelor pads, etc. Young fashioned Bond after his own lifestyle, adding elements that Fleming gave the proverbial nod to. He embellished on Bond. That became part of his sex appeal, his ability to control women, have the fine things and still come out on top in the end, triumphing over his villains. Bond comes first, before Bourne and all the other copycats that have followed. But to be contemporary, producers Wilson and Broccoli went back to “Casino Royale” and brought back the original Bond via Daniel Craig, something both readers of the novels and those who liked those elements in Connery, applauded.

Yes, I have the hard bound versions of the books (but there is no comparison to the films as they are as different as night and day... I’ve no complaint there). I have every Bond film on DVD and Blu-Ray. I watch them all the time. I’m a huge fan and 100% biased. I admit it. But there are so many elements to this movie that make it a great film as well, and Chris, you hit on Deakins photography as one of them (he has a great history of filmworks to his DP rooster).

So before you begin to compare Bond to Bourne and say one is better than the other, you should instead just admit you prefer one over the other and call it a day. I prefer Bond because I also happen to collect Lafite Rothschild, have a tin of Pate Fois Gras, enjoy a bottle of Bollinger’s now and then. I know that Fleming had the gin stirred and not shaken because shaking bruises the gin, and I love sports cars. Those are Bond things, not Bourne. Jason could care less if his Saki is served at 98.4 degrees or if his cognac has an overdose of bon bois. But I do. And when I say that this Bond is the best, it is not something I say lightly. I say it out of years of reading the novel, watching the films, comparing them to one another, the elements, the Q’s, the M’s, the Bond’s, and knowing that somebody has to come out on top. Skyfall works in so many ways, there is no question in my mind. It’s a winner!

[Chris Knipp]

cinemabon,

It may well be true that in a sense any action spy movie owes debts to the 50-year-old oldest franchise of them all, but it is not fair to call the Bourne books (I assume; I hane't read Ludlum) or movies "copycat" to Bond. I like the Bourne movies a lot, but not because I don't like fine wine (I've had my fair share of first growth bordeaux) or sports cars (I drive one) or good food (I've had plenty of that); but simply because the Bourne movies are muscular and smart and fast and up to date. The Bond stories, their Cold War mentality, are a bit out of date. In fact they were always politically incorrect, even when they were new. I'd say SKYFALL is succesfully copycating Bourne, instead of the other way around, with the rebooting and the searching for an identity (though that copycats all the franchises now, Batman, for instance, the obligatory prequel may be coming). I don't feel it is a choice that has to be made. I see you are a major Bond man. But I'd say like Donnie and Marie, I'm a little bit Bond, and a little bit Bourne. But I am not saying Bourne is better than Bond. As entertainment, Bond has stood the test of time.

Yes, I read the paperback Bonds in the mid to late Sixties. That was the time. No, of course there is no SKYFALL novel. Have you read CLOUD ATLAS, the novel? I had not realized that. As different as the movie CLOUD ATLAS is from the book, I felt there was a big effort to capture the book for the screen, despite the chopped up editing and the very different effect. With an adaptation of a novel of high literary merit, you really can't win. Either it is too slavish a copy and has no cinematic qualities, or it's very free and can be accused of violating the book. Perhaps as you imply Terrence Young was the perfect man to bring Ian Fleming's James Bond to the screen in his own way. But anyway the Bond books were hardly imperishable masterpieces, but just light silly entertainment, written as a lark (so different from John Le Carré's spy books), and Fleming meant them as such and thought himself unusually lucky that they became popular.

I think you are repeatedly sidestepping the issue that many have pointed to from the start about Daniel Craig. That he loses a lot of the debonair, dashing, light quality of Bond. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/11/roger-moore-and-the-lighter-side-of-bond.html. That is Michael Sragaow's piece on the "Lighter Side of James Bond," and Roger Moore. Moore says Craig is the best Bond ever, but he's 85; he doesn't want to be grumpy. He's British: he's modest.

I'm not an expert on any of this, Bourne or Bond. I've only seen a few of the nearly two dozen Bond films. I don't even think I saw the 2006 CASINO ROYALE. I did see QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but while I was impressed by parts of it, I was not moved to nor did I feel particularly qualified to, write a review of it. I like to keep up with the big movies and I felt there was a lot of buzz about this one so I both saw it and wrote a review of it and I have no regrets. I may come to like it better in time, but as you saw, I commented favorably on many parts. In fact I was more critical of the casting of the lead than of the film. The only main criticism of the film is that it's too long -- and I offered a justification of that. I saw it in iMax. I don't like 3D, but I like iMax just fine. And I thought maybe people want a movie to be long if they've paid extra for it. But the pre-titles chase is unnecessary and the Scottish finale goes on too long. Otherwise it's a superior movie of its kind. But I'd rather see THE MASTER, or MOONRISE KINGDOM, or SISTER, or THE KID WITH THE BIKE, or AMOUR, or HOLY MOTORS, or even LOOPER.

But speaking of expertise, you make a major gaffe in your last post: it's SHAKEN, NOT STIRRED. I know it's counter-intuitive, but that's the way it is any the saying is famous. Note that in the SKYFALL Macao casoni sequence Bond approvingly views a female bartender mixing a martini by shaking it.

We have indeed probably lost Howard, who is a touchy fellow and has stopped speaking to me; but we have surely not lost Oscar -- he's just busy. As for Johann, he posted in the Lounge section today, and we have exchanges on politics there. Come and join in.

[cinemabon]

Actually, I was correcting an error that has gone on for a long time. Originally, Bond's line was "stirred, not shaken." That is an old way of making a martini for conoisseurs of the beverage going back to the 1920's when it was illegal and Gin came from England. Fleming had it right. The Bond movies had it wrong. But Fleming had it correct in the novels. Unfortunately, once they shot the line as "shaken not stirred" Cubby insisted they keep it in and so it goes (GOOGLE IT!) As an ex-bartender from that era when gentlemen walked in and asked for a dry martini, it was the easiest drink to make (First, place the glass face down in the ice while you grab the Beefeaters Gin. Then rinse the glass with vermouth only, then pour it out (the classic recipe is 5 parts gin to one part vermouth - my customers preferred the rinse method). Add two jiggers of gin and a drop of bitters into a glass pitcher half filled with ice and stir, gently for about a minute before you strain out the ice and pour into the glass. Add an olive - voila! A dry martini! Never, under any circumstances, SHAKE gin. It dilutes the drink! A shaken martini is the sign of an uncultured oaf. That is the way it was done in the 1950's... and I should know. I grew up in a bar.

We have nothing to argue about in terms of Bond. I never read the Bourne novels. I'm certain they were written better than the Fleming novels, which he churned out a novel a year for ten years. No, Bourne wasn't a copycat... exactly. Fleming did beat everyone to the punch on the spy novel thing. Bourne is simply pumped for action in his time. They couldn't let Connery do the kinds of things Fleming allow Bond to do in the books. Now they can. I still like the movie and I've got lots and lots of people to back me up on this one.

[cinemabon]

Oh, ps... Quantum of Solace wasn't that good. For a great time, go watch "Casino Royale" with Daniel Craig as the Bond Fleming had in mind all along. That is one very good Bond movie, tux, drink, and all. BTW - watch the bartender in the background. Craig's Bond does not ask for the drink to be shaken. The bartender stirs the drink, as he should!

[Chris Knipp]

Stirred or shaken?

I remain confused about this issue. Because what you say is right, and all mixologists agree (http://www.menuism.com/blog/shaken-vs-stirred/) , a martini should be stirred, not shaken. Various online mixed drink advice articles state unequivocably that for a martini, stirring is better. I now recall also a Somerset Maugham story, perhaps several, enunciating the wisdom that stirring avoids "bruising" the gin. So in this cinemabon, you are utterly correct. But that does not appear to be what Ian Fleming wrote. in the books, after all.

The Wikipedia article "Shaken, not stirred" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken,_not_stirred) contradicts what you say about Fleming's novels. It cites a number of quotations from the Ian Fleming books that advocate shaking to mix a cocktail. The article says Bond says "shaken, and not stirred" in Dr. No in 1958, but in the movie You Only Live Twice a host prepares a martini stirred and not shaken and Bond politely ignores the "gaffe."

The Oxford Reference quotes for Ian Fleming online also give: A medium Vodka dry Martini—with a slice of lemon peel. Shaken and not stirred. --Dr No (1958) ch. 14

Wikiquotes, for Ian Fleming/Casino Royale (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ian_Fleming) cites as do others as illustration of Bond's proclivity for shaking drinks in the books this passsage:

Bond insisted ordering Leiter’s Haig-and-Haig ”on the rocks” and then he looked carefully at the barman. ”A Dry Martini", he said. "One. In a deep champagne goblet.” ”Oui, monsieur.” Just a moment. Three measures of Gordons, one of vodka, half a measure of Kina Lillet. Shake it very well until it's ice-cold, then add a large thin slice of lemonpeel. Got it?" ”Certainly, monsieur.” The barman seemed pleased with the idea.

And so, in the Bond books, what is it? "Stirred, not shaken," or "shaken, not stirred"? There are claims on both sides for the Fleming books. Or at least from you, and the others. Not having any of the books at hand I can't check the texts of the books to verify.

I will note that you recommend the Daniel Craig CASINO ROYALE and that it may reconcile me to his Bond as being not so far from the suave one of the books as I thought.

[cinemabon]

As usual, your literary eloquence rises to the occasion, Chris. I believe you are correct, sir. Fleming did have Bond insist on shaking the drink in Dr. No. However, in "You Only Live Twice," the agent says, "That was stirred, not shaken... correct?" To which Bond agrees.

My father was old school. He may not have been upper class but he came from a family with money and manners (my family history is a rather colorful one... great grand father one of the founders of Nebraska - see the history of Hall County Nebraska; grandpa helped invent the artificial fishing lure with one James Heddon, etc). Liquor was something we had in droves and father drank to excess at times. But he was not an abusive drunk, just an ostentatious one. Big, fat, and slow; his name was Richard, so they used to call him Big Dick! I know... TMI!

I knew about mixing drinks when I was just a boy - an old fashion, a Manhattan, and martinis were the drinks of that era (Tom Collins was also popular). Business men who came into my father's place often drank martinis. I was told that gin was difficult to detect on a person's breath and often the drink of choice for those who wished to hide their alcoholism. That James Bond preferred "vodka" martinis instead of "gin" martinis flies in the face of what it means to be British. The British drink gin and not vodka, usually associated with being Russian. I believe the idea became corrupted through the years and turned into vodka martinis shaken not stirred as the popular culture had changed.

Just as Bond changed from the less violent and more suave Roger Moore Bond who had so many double entendres they were coming out his ears to the more polished but balanced Pierce Brosnon Bond and finally full circle back to the rough and tumble Bond in Craig, more like the original Jimmy Bond - straight out of English boarding schools, having played "football" was a soldier in the military and learned espionage from his special forces training... therefore, recruited into MI6.

I was also wrong about Bond being around before other spy characters. Spy novels were common pulp fiction of the 1950's; Fleming being one of several writers who touched on the Cold War's goings on between the east and west. The fact he became popular attested to the list John F. Kennedy made in his run for the White House in 1960. Kennedy gave the press a list of novels he read. One of those was Ian Fleming's "From Russia With Love." The press scrambled to find the work and so it goes... Cubby Broccoli wanted to make the film but Harry Saltzman had the rights - hence their partnership was born and the rest is history.

We have a great list of films coming up in the next few weeks. I expect your usual and superior flare. See you in the dark. Cinemabon out for now...

[tabuno]

One thing this website usually isn't - Place that shuts people up and that's great. When I read cinemabon's comments, he is discrete but open with solid subjective honesty. It's really a tribute to this site that most times, one can actually comment and report what one believes with having to wear a two-inch thick coat of armor. It people like cinemabon that allows discussion to flourish here.

[Chris Knipp]

True, tabuno. But we don't confess everything. I mentioned my father's choice of gin. He never drank vodka. I think various commentators say James Bond was an iconoclast and his drinking vodka mixed with gin is an example of something departing from British norm. Ian Fleming went to Eton and Sandhurst so he knew what the establishment's habits were. The Wikipedia "Shaken, not stirred" article mentions the You Only Live Twice stirred, not shaken moment but gives it a twist. So I'll just quote that whole opening paragraph of the article. I'm ready to go on discussing Bond, though. He's a fascinating subject and an embodiment of mid-century manners and morals and establishment attitudes as well as popular fantasies. And of course as Fleming always said, the stories were just intended to be fun.

There is a New Yorker interview (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1962/04/21/1962_04_21_032_TNY_CARDS_000268062) with Fleming from 1962 where he mentions someone stopping their taxi so he could meet Jack and Jackie and JFK's declaring his enthusiasm for the Bond books, and Fleming's theory of why they appealed to him.


"Shaken, not stirred" is a catchphrase of Ian Fleming's fictional British Secret Service agent James Bond, and his preference for how he wished his martini prepared. The phrase first appears in the novel Diamonds Are Forever (1956), though Bond does not actually say the line until Dr. No (1958) but says it "shaken and not stirred" instead of "shaken, not stirred." It was first uttered in the films by Sean Connery in Goldfinger in 1964 (though the villain Dr. Julius No offers this drink and utters those words in the first film, Dr. No, in 1962). It was used in numerous Bond films thereafter with the notable exceptions of You Only Live Twice, in which the drink is offered stirred, not shaken (Bond, ever the gentleman, ignores his host's gaffe, telling him the drink is perfect), and Casino Royale, in which Bond, after losing millions of dollars in a game of poker, is asked if he wants his martini shaken or stirred, and snaps, "Do I look like I give a damn?"

[tabuno]

I just finished watching Casino Royale (2006) for the third time two days ago, I have to admit that each time I've watched it it seems to get better and better. The first time I saw it, I rated it 6 out 10 and now its up to 9 out of 10. There's something to watching this movie and disconnecting it from other Bond movies and watching it on its own merits without comparison. Something similar happened with Mission Impossible (1996). If one hasn't seen Casino Royale, it would be worth the risk, because this movie appears to really have solid performances and a plot that brings together so many elements into a neatly, well crafted package.

[cinemabon]

Tab, you positively amaze me. For not liking the film, you've taken a sudden interest that puzzles me. I love Bond and only saw it once (although my wife is trying to get me to go again this week while she's in Chicago).

My son went over the weekend. He said the Saturday show was sold out. Being 17, he had questions for his Dad. When Judi Dench (SPOILER ALERT) was in the alley and protested sleeping in some warehouse, why did everyone cheer at the car? Was it an old Bond car? We watched "Goldfinger" together. "Oh, I get it," he told me when Q brought out the "new" ride. He got the ejector joke, too - delayed.

Biggest opening for a Bond picture in the history of the franchise with end of weekend BOR totalling nearly 90 million. Sam Mendes must have done something right. Kudos to my fellow reviewers for jumping on my enthusiastic bandwagon.

I'm looking forward to Speilberg's "Lincoln" on Friday. I still haven't seen his "War Horse" picture. I wrote my senior paper in film school on Speilberg, the vunderkind. After seeing my underclass projects, my fellow students and faculty labelled me, "the next Speilberg." If it was meant to be, it would have. All water under the bridge.

See you in the dark. cinemabon

[Chris Knipp]

All our discussion makes me want to see the newer Craig CASINO ROYALE, which I skipped at the time. I'll see LINCOLN as soon as it's showing in the East Bay. It's showing only in San Francisco at present. I'll probably go over to SF today though for a press screening of David O. Russell's SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK, winner of the "People's Choice" Award at Toronto; it opens (limited) Friday. Most pop world eyes will be on the TWILIGHT finale.

[tabuno]

After my original rejection of Mission Impossible (1996) when it first premiered, I had hated how it degraded Mr. Phelps and how it so dramatically deviated from the original television series (which strangely enough I've started watching the television series again on reruns that air a 1 a.m.). But when I detached myself from the original series and saw the movie version with fresh eyes, I came away with a totally new movie experience, as a stand alone movie. So now, I am somewhat more careful to be open to the possibility that a first time showing might not be the end of the matter. This was the case with Casino Royale (2006), it's standing up to repeated viewings.

[cinemabon]

Don't mention "Twilight" UGH! My wife and my daughter are going to the "marathon" which will have the show at 10 pm. I absolutely refuse to read the books or see any of the films. Although, if I were of a different persuation, I might find Taylor Lautner quite becoming... WHAT AM I SAYING????? AAAAHHHH!!!!! (notice the drama with all caps... clever, eh? That's what most people think. How drool.) If my wife could, she'd leave me for Mr. Lautner. If he took his shirt off, she'd lay down on the sidewalk in front of him.... I know, I know... TMI.

[Chris Knipp]

Let's leave discussion of the hotness factor of Taylor and Robert to other sites. The books surely are ridiculously lame and badly written, from excerpts I've heard. The movies have been stupid but varied in quality. They amused me at first. The last one was remarkably badly made. Astonishing. And nobody seemed to notice. Dargis of the NYTimes thought she liked it better than other ones. I see them to be aware of the phenomenon. HUNGER GAMES is the new replacement. Pattinson was fine in COSMOPOLIS.

[cinemabon]

Chris put up a link to your review of Cosmopolis.

[Chris Knipp]

http://www.filmleaf.net/showthread.php?3334-COSMOPOLIS-%28David-Cronenberg-2012%29&highlight=cosmopolis

[Chris Knipp]

Skyfall and Crossfire Hurricane herald 007 and the STONES: Britain's remaining empire of pop

Another new movie occasions a comparison of the Rolling Stones with James Bond by John Powers, Vogue magazine film critic.

Here's an excerpt below. Read or listen to the whole PBS commentary here. (http://wrvo.org/post/new-british-empire-pop-culture-powerhouses)


in the same three-day period I recently saw the new James Bond picture, Skyfall, and Crossfire Hurricane, a new HBO documentary about The Rolling Stones. And because the Bond movies and the Stones both turn 50 this year, I began thinking about how they might fit together.

After all, half a century on, 007 and The Rolling Stones are still alive and kicking in a way that nobody in 1962 would have ever imagined. And in very different ways, both were fantasy reactions to the decline of the British Empire.

James Bond is the loyal servant of a class-bound establishment, a loner who's equal parts swashbuckling heroism and snobbery — he demands his martinis shaken, not stirred, and insists on Sea Island brand cotton. Generationally, he leans back toward the '50s, which was when Ian Fleming first created him. His heroism confirmed his country's continuing power, which made him "the man who saved Britain," to borrow the title of Simon Winder's terrific book on 007. Bond inhabits a moral universe forged by the stark clarities of World War II.

In contrast, The Rolling Stones leaned forward into a more ambiguous era. As Crossfire Hurricane reminds us, the Stones were consciously designed to occupy a less reputable place in the pop zeitgeist.

With their scruffiness, racy lyrics and drug use, the Stones represented the rejection of the social order that Bond was so devoutly defending. Like 007, they too offered a sense of danger, but not in the guns-and-knives way, although that would eventually happen at Altamont. They embodied psychic danger, a Dionysian force flirting with all manner of uncontrollable sensuality and violence. That was their appeal.

--From "The New British Empire: Pop-Culture Powerhouses," by John Powers

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/7786/165058188.jpg
Keit, Mick, Charlie, and Ronnie [HBO Films]

[Johann]

SKYFALL


This movie has the best Bond theme I think I've heard.
"SKYFALL" is sung by Adele, a revelation for me. The new Bond theme kicks ass, and so does the movie, for the most part.
This new James Bond film can be sliced and diced by critics, it's so ludicrous.

You have an aging Bond being tested at all times, chased on Grand Bazaar rooftops, a locomotive train in Turkey (where he is shockingly "sniped" to death by a fellow agent at the orders of M.), chased on "the Tube" in London, and finally, hunted down at his home in Skyfall Scotland, where the big payoff is the obliteration of Bond's childhood home, the death of two main characters and an underwater finale that I enjoyed very much.

Bond fans should be very happy. Lots of Bond mythology is mined here- you can't fault Sam Mendes here. He really tried to make an authentic Bond film and he did. Thumbs up from me. The cinematography by Roger Deakins is exquisite. Oscar-worthy, actually. Visually Skyfall makes the grade. Where it gets tricky is in the script, which seemed a little corny at times. Agents being killed for covert reasons or for Command reasons has made the double-O agent program a target for the modern age. Are these field agents needed? Is the world still so hostile as to need such agents? According to M, we do. She makes it clear that threats are most commonly from individuals, not nations, and 007 is just the kind of man, just the kind of agent who can take the intelligence M specializes in and "get his man", such as rogue agent Javier Bardem, a tasty new Bond villain who is over-the-top but cunning enough to go mano-a-mano with Bond.

There were a few too many quiet scenes for my liking. This film could use a slight trimming, specifically the scenes where reflective downtime or pensive moments are amplified in order to "draw us in" to the characters and their situation. Lots of one-liners and a cufflink adjustment made me laugh.
You have your token explosions, gadgets, nice aerial photography of Scotland and Istanbul and of course product placements:
Heineken beer, Audi, Virgin, etc..

Great Bond film. I'm not bananas over 007, but when it's done right I like it. And I liked this one a lot.
A nice addition to the series. More will come. They told us in the credits one is on the way for Bond's 50th Anniversary.
Hope Sam Mendes does it again. This one was great, for what it was.

[cinemabon]

It's funny. After seeing it the second time, I realized that the little frozen over pond on the edge of the Scotish estate must have been incredibly deep as the struggling pair bypasses the usual weeds that clutter most ponds and sink into a great hole of clear water... makes for better cinema that way, I suppose.

[Johann]

You know what almost had me laughing out loud? Daniel Craig when he's running.
He's funny looking when he's running as fast as he can- arms chopping the air up and down.
Specifically, when he's on the London Tube platform chasing Bardem in the cop suit. I almost burst out laughing.
It seems like he was told to start running in place and then sprint in front of the camera! LOL

Judi Dench gives a really great performance here. I think she may be the most compelling part of the movie.
Her character M is also under supreme scrutiny, just like the currency of the field agents. People die as a result of M's actions or orders- this time she's responsible for killing Bond himself- something a little odd, as she is very fond of Bond, defending him to Ralph Fiennes. Why would she snap and shout "Take the Bloody Shot!!!" on a baddie that we don't even know? Why was it paramount to shoot at that moment?
Who was that fucker Bond was tussling with on top of the train to warrant Bond's possible death?
And later on, Bond confronts her about it and she snaps: "Do you want an apology?!"
All I could think was "M's lost it. The brains of the organization has been compromised".

[cinemabon]

I believe that ambiguity is part of the charm and appeal of the film. Mendes doesn't dwell too long on details or explanations and lets the plot move forward without too much exposition. The pace makes for more suspense in a film that relies on too much on action and needs that edge during the lull.

[cinemabon]

Roger Deakins' cinematographer takes the ASC prize last night.

http://www.firstshowing.net/2013/skyfall-dp-roger-deakins-wins-ascs-best-cinematography-award/

Three years ago he was given the lifetime achievement award! He is 0-9 at the Oscars but is nominated this year. We'll see...

[Johann]

I watched 3 Bond films yesterday (marathon was on the telly) and I enjoyed all three.

On Her Majesties Secret Service was great, despite a ridiculous bobsled chase- I was howling at how Bond "got" Telly Savalas on that tree and how he missed with every shot he fired- that bobsled track was the longest track in human history. I was just laughing during the whole "chase".
I liked George Lazenby. He's a strapping man- kilt and all. The Bond Babes were yummy in this one too.

The Man With The Golden Gun I enjoyed even more, with a marvelous Christopher Lee as the baddie.
Roger Moore is a good Bond, not as good as Connery, but still good. The boat chase in Thailand was cool and so was the car chase with the Texan tourist in the passenger seat. Bond has humour...

The Spy Who Loved Me has obvious Kubrick touches, as he was an advisor on this movie, a little-known fact.
His production designer Ken Adam did the production design on it, and you can see the Kubrickian touches.
I won't tell you what they were- you TELL ME, Bitch! LOL Do you know your shit? Then lay it on me!
"Nobody Does it Better" than Stanley Kubrick.
NOBODY.

[Johann]

One bit of trivia: The character of "JAWS" played by Richard Kiel had his metal teeth designed by Kubrick's daughter, Katharina.

Betcha didn't know that.

[Chris Knipp]

The Spy Who Loved Me* has obvious Kubrick touches, as he was an advisor on this movie, a little-known fact.
His production designer Ken Adam did the production design on it, and you can see the Kubrickian touches.

Thanks for these notes. I'm glad SKYFALL got recognition somewhere now for its high level of accomplishment.

I think there whould be "Best Blockbuster" awards and that's why I've started adding that to my Best Lists. And if you give that award, you can focus on more serious and independent work for the Best Picture award without shortchanging anybody. Needless to say enormous work as well as money goes into the the AVENGERS, AMAZING-SPIDERMANs, SHERLOCK HOLMES IIIs, with varying success.

But then the question arises with certain marginal movies. Are James Cameron's or Chris Nolan's just blockbusters? How about just "Best Franchise Movie of the Year"?

[Johann]

That's a great idea. The Academy should have a Best New Franchise or Best Popcorn Movie category.
I don't think it would cheapen the ceremony.
It would in fact probably leave more room for nominees in the "legit" categories.

[Chris Knipp]

That is my thought. Too many categories are shoehorned into simply "Best Picture." We do have other places where the best indie film is chosen, and of course Best Foreign, which often just really does mean Best or Best Fine Art Film.

[cinemabon]

"Skyfall" is not only the most successful Bond movie ever made, it has now become the most successful British movie in film history.

[tabuno]

What's impressive is that even the British equivalent of the Oscars went with Argo for best picture and best director. As for Skyfall, even Javier Bardem in Skyfall, couldn't beat out Christopher Waltz in Django Unchained while the Cinematography award went to Life of Pi over Skyfall. All I can say is that perhaps, like Casino Royale, I might change my mind about Skyfall on a second viewing. We'll see.

[cinemabon]

Nominations for Supporting Actor were different for BAFTA. The British like Waltz and for that matter, I do too. However, I still feel DeNiro performed some of his best work ("Silver Linings) and the reason he was nominated (but he was not for a BAFTA). Have you asked yourself why "Argo" is up for technical awards and not acting (although Arkin's performance was nominated, it was hardly crucial to the film. If he wins, I plan to shit on my saved AA invite from years ago given to me by a friend and send it to the Academy)? It takes a great director to get his actors nominated (that's why some directors are so in demand - stars want to be directed by them). Name me one memorable moment from "Argo" acting-wise that stands out in the film... one (not a scene, a performance), and Arkin's angry outburst by saying "Argo fuck yourself" to the reporter does not count (that was probably the scene that got him nominated).

[tabuno]

What's great about ARGO is the very idea that no particular actor stands out in this movie for his or her performance. This movie isn't about the focus on individual actors or characters but rather it is the story and the overall film experience itself. This is a great ensemble effort just as it was recognized by the Screen Actors Guild as the OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY A CAST IN A MOTION PICTURE. Just like a beautiful skater, a great performer is able to create the illusion of ease and simplicity and its the very fact of masking the difficulty of the product that makes the performance so memorable. Too often great scenes with individual performances can be quite entertaining but distracting and create in imbalance in the movie, almost in a narcissistic way if the movies is about a story about an event and not about an individual like in Black Swan (2010).

This focus on individualism may too typical of American film audience penchant of American culture of the self as opposed to the more international cultural recognition of the group and societal values.

[cinemabon]

I'm baffled at how a film with one SAG nomination won for Best Cast. My only explanation is that SAG members were awarding the film as a whole and not the cast for outstanding performances. Clearly, the film with the best acting cast was "Silver Linings Playbook" as it was the only film whose entire cast was nominated in all the major "acting" award ceremonies but failed to garner the support needed to win (except Jennifer Lawrence whose win Feb 24 now appears in jeopardy).

[Chris Knipp]

What's great about ARGO is the very idea that no particular actor stands out in this movie for his or her performance.

Like the way the singing is so great in LES MIZ, tabuno, because nobody is really singing that well, as you seemed to be arguing at one point earlier? But your general principle is valid: good ensemble acting does deflect the need for notable individual performances -- if all the performances are notable; if they're all bland, not so much.

Actually ARGO is just not a movie about acting (which is a big lack) but there are brief comic turns that stand out, of course, by Goodman and Arkin. Nothing else leaves any impression, least of all Affleck's bland performance.

SILVER LINKINGS PLAYBOOK best acting? Maybe, cinemabon, but actually, I'm at least as impressed by the acting in DJANGO. Especially Leonardo DiCaprio's but everybody's. I did like DiNero and I do like Waltz, however. The ensemble concept works well for English movies, especially the ones of the Fifties, when everybody was good and there was a de-emphasis of any "star" concept. In American movies there are usually stars and notable turns, even in an ensemble movie. In the case of ARGO it seems as though the acting except for Goodman and Arkin is colorless. This may or may not be "ensemble" or help to advance the action better than more notable performances would. With better directors you get everything at once.

What about the acting in AMOUR? LINCOLN? The thing about SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK is maybe that all the performances are rather larger-than-life and each actor gets his or her chance to do his or her turn in the spotlight, pretty much. They sort of are larger-than-life in DJANGO too of course though. In LINCOLN they are in-character, historical, contestual. In AMOUR they are simply nuanced and realistic, and the product of a lifetime's acting experience as well, one might add, in the case of the two eighty-something principals, Emmanuelle Riva and Jean-Louis Tritingant.

[tabuno]

Oh my...the problems I had with this movie...tried watching a second time...it was worse...

Just in the first five minutes there were so many problems with the supposedly big opening scene...

The supposedly artistic "out of focus" hallway scene, the out of the blue sidekick and her SUV so conveniently placed. Contrast with The Bourne Supremacy (2004) opening sequence with the sophisticated CIA operative opening. No competition there.

I dropped in on Bardem's character's capture which was not realistic in that under more reasonable scenarios except for having to have some scriptwriter plot and extending length of the film, Bond in most circumstances by this time would have just assassinated Jardem.

Later M is surprised while before a Parliament committee. It's not believable that she wouldn't be in direct, immediate contact with HQ. While Bardem is on the run in the city with one of the most video monitored countries in the world, the Summer Olympic city...and no face recognition scenes from video monitors...

And Bardem's really lame attempt to kill M...it's just so anticlimatic. These are just a few of the problems with this movie in the few minutes I managed to drop in and watch it... Somebody else wanted to.

If I even find the time and interest, I might try to watch the whole movie but my written criticism would add up to pages and pages of why Skyfall in my mind is only 6 out 10 stars.

One of the major disappointments of the year.

[cinemabon]

Tut, tut, Tab. You're sounding like a snob!

[tabuno]

Webster's New World Dictionary has formerly defined snob to mean a person of no wealth or social rank which aptly describe me, as the layperson writing about this movie which unfortunately attempts to be something that apparently it isn't.

[Chris Knipp]

Not really true. A snob is defined as a person who believes himself superior to others in any one of a great variety of ways, social, economics, intellectual, moral, athletic, educational, fashion, wine. The list is large, if not endless. Someone of wealth and social rank can very well be a snob. Maybe cinemabon is implying you are a Bond movie snob or a blockbuster snob. I would say your choosing to condemn SKYFALL after five minutes is an example not so much of snobism as of overly abrupt judgment (which can, of course, arise from various kinds of snobism, however). Despite the validity of the metaphor "It is not necessary to eat all of an egg to know that it is bad," I feel compelled to watch all of a movie, no matter how bad, before I rate it.

The classic little American book on this subject (there are others of course) is Russell Lynes' entertaining SNOBS (http://www.harpercollins.com/browseinside/index.aspx?isbn13=9780061871542) from 1950. He declares at the outset that social snobs (which was what people originally thought of when they used the word) had gone underground "except for professionals such as headwaiters and metropolitan hotel room clerks."

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/1281/url1g.jpg

[tabuno]

I suffered through the entire movie before I made my opinion of the movie as I indicated already before in my post, thus my opinion of the first five minutes of the movie the second time around was an even more careful consideration of the movie having the benefit of having had a careful examination of the movie. It seems presumptuous to call a person a snob, a person who took the time to experience the entire movie and then attempted to experience some of the movie more carefully again. That's more than I can say most people do.

I always find it curious when I have specific examples of why a movie is flawed that in many cases the response isn't about trying to explain why my examples are suspect but instead are based on some flaw in the individual. By avoiding a direct response to specific examples, makes me believe that the other person can't find a reasonable response to defend their own opinion so it's just about name bashing the credibility of the person the messenger so to speak as if that would somehow would make my examples suspect which I don't think they do. This is the lazy method of criticism. My examples stand alone even without me.

[tabuno]

Saw Quantum of Solace last night, my second viewing of this movie. Quite surprised at how much better the movie appeared to me this time around and how it connected to Casino Royale, a connection that was quite effective, more so that most movies that have had sequels. I'm curious how people compare Quantum of Solace with Skyfall.

[Chris Knipp]

Sorry, tabuno, my mistake. I didn't realize your review of the first five minutes was made after already previously watching the entire movie. Now I see your heading was "COULDN'T MAKE IT PAST FIVE MINUTES OF A SECOND LOOK." Careless of me not to notice that.

I'm also sorry if you think I am criticizing your methods -- or you -- rather than responding to your criticisms. But I find your approach strange here.

I often find it hard to watch a movie -- any movie, no matter how much I like it -- a second time. So what does that prove? Another day, you might be able to sit through all of it, with pleasure. Isn't that possible?

[Johann]

SKYFALL is a Fine Bond film.
Sam Mendes is a Master in his own right.
This movie is worth a watch.

[cinemabon]

Watching this film on blu-ray with my 55 inch 1080p screen and 6.1 surround sound renews my faith that as far as the Bond franchise goes, this one takes the cake, to use the British vernacular. It is also easy to see why dear Roger Deakins, taken out of retirement by director Sam Mendes, was nominated for so many awards for his photography – crisp, clean, sharp, beautifully lit, moving without jerkiness, and so artfully done. I find it flabbergasting that he never took home the golden statuette. Whereas Thomas Newman is able to pick up the Bond baton and wave in some of the best musical cues since John Barry stood before a studio orchestra. Kudos also to set designer Dennis Gassner who, like Ken Adams, knocked me over with his Macao sets and the villain’s island – entirely shot in the studio!

Poor Daniel Craig is beginning to show his age (unfortunately) and everyone reminds him of it by constantly wishing him luck, to which he non-verbally replies with his flair for subtle facial disdain. Despite the continued references to Bond’s and to M’s age (which in 1080p is very clear), the dialogue (thanks to Purvis, Wade, and Logan) has that 007 wit we’ve come to expect from this long running series that in my mind has seldom grown stale:

“Age is no guarantee of efficiency,” a very young Q says.

“And youth is no guarantee of innovation,” Bond shoots back.

As to action, the stunt coordinators were working overtime on this one, giving us plenty to grip the edges of our seats (although at some point the explosions, the car chases, the impossible leaps across ridiculous gaps become maudlin after a while). I’m enjoying my DVD version of “Skyfall” and even watched the new original documentary, “Everything or Nothing: the untold story...” showing on Netflix this month about the origins of Bond in the mind of Ian Fleming. I’m not ashamed to admit I’m a consummate Bond fan and will likely remain so. As Judi Dench so eloquently stated that the whole purpose behind the spy agencies is to keep us safe from those who lurk in the shadows (and a reason to continue the 007 series to boot!).

“We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.”

Alfred Lord Tennyson from the poem, "Ulysses"

[Chris Knipp]

"As to action, the stunt coordinators were working overtime on this one, giving us plenty to grip the edges of our seats (although at some point the explosions, the car chases, the impossible leaps across ridiculous gaps become maudlin after a while)."

Your praise is strengthened by this ounce of reserve. Despite tabuno's losing patience after five minutes, I think I'd enjoy watching SKYFALL again -- except maybe for the last part: the battle at the end is too long and draqwn out as I remember it. It's a Bond movie with many good things in it, though I'll stand by my opinion that it didn't need to try so hard. Deakins: definitely a good one. Drawn out of retirement, you say? But is that really true? I see he's actually a year younger (63) than Ed Lachman (64), another good cinematographer I've become aware of through meeting him at Lincoln Center screenings. Both Lachman and Deakins have been continually busy in recent years.

I particularly liked the island lair and didn't know it was all done in the studio. I see that's true, an actual place entirely recreated at the Pinewood Studios as mentioned here. (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Javier-Bardem-Skyfall-Island-Lair-Actually-Exists-34092.html)This is more fully described on Yahoo's UK movies site. (http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-editors/skyfall-island-revealed-104400813.html) I would give that an award. Despite missing the old, more elegant, more lighthearted Bond, I would agree with Johan that SKYFALL is a fine Bone film, and deserves a watch.

[cinemabon]

Deakins had retired and agreed to shoot "Skyfall." With the success of this film, he has signed on for two more additional projects. I guess he isn't retired any longer.

The island lair was shot in a studio with the exterior shot at Pinewood (sets built for the film) and the rest drawn in CGI - pretty cool, huh?

[Chris Knipp]

its based on a real place, though. Apparently the CGI adds that look. I liked it.