a terrible movie..


how it has such a high rating is beyond me. we except some campiness and sillyness with bong (albeit less with the craig ones)

but some of the stuff was so ridiculously bad and boring it suspends all disbelief and just annoys you at the stupidty...

so the bad guy escaped.. somehow the bad guy knew he would be captured by bond, have a bomb placed ahead of time under the train system, and knew he would set it off just as he was escaping making the train fall and distract/bond from shooting him... umm what??????

why not jsut have him escape with a far more logical and creative way??

from the begining train sequence til the very end, this was a boring over contrived film that never delivers.

reply

The point of this movie is that Bond gets all three people he tries to rescue killed. They made it the way De Palma made Blow Out - as a realistic Bond movie, tragic.

The tunnel under Skyfall is a symbol of rebirth and blowing up Skyfall is doing away with his childhood trauma. And Silva as his alter ego. For as they said in Golden Gun and The Trip: "Come come Mr Bond you enjoy killing as much as I do" - and that dark side of Bond is what they are playing with here, some of the best men in the movie business teaming up, Deakins, Mendes, Logan.

You may, however, find these aestethics boring. But then, that's what gives a movie its worth to me.



"You couldn't be much further from the truth" - several

reply

The point of this movie is that Bond gets all three people he tries to rescue killed. They made it the way De Palma made Blow Out - as a realistic Bond movie, tragic.


aweomse..... so its realistic and gritty (like CR and the other craig ones were compared to the older bonds)

this doesnt make it good.. youve simply offered a description. the problem with saying "its realistic" is when all the other ridiculously unrealistic things happen. and we are still left with a boring story.

The tunnel under Skyfall is a symbol of rebirth and blowing up Skyfall is doing away with his childhood trauma. And Silva as his alter ego. For as they said in Golden Gun and The Trip: "Come come Mr Bond you enjoy killing as much as I do" - and that dark side of Bond is what they are playing with here, some of the best men in the movie business teaming up, Deakins, Mendes, Logan.


blowing up a tunnel and having a train fall is a symbol of rebirth?? please stop talking.

you are the worst of the film analyscists.. you stretch more than a mdiget in a grocery store..

yes, the villian is the opposite alter ego of the hero, this trope is over 70 years old.. and was not done in any new, interesting, intelligent or innovative way.. infact its done so poorly the bad guy was also a former spy, also betrayed by the spy agency, also with the chick bond banged..


You may, however, find these aestethics boring. But then, that's what gives a movie its worth to me.


what gives a movie worth to me is when these things are done well, innovatively, intelligently, origionally, or in some way a new take on an old trope/symbol..

this movie was bad. im sorry you are so easily entertained and have to put your simpleness in the cloak of pseudo film intellectualism

this film offered nothing new, just retread the old but not as creatively as other films in the past have done.

reply

What the symbols mean and if they are original are two different things. Symbols are the filmic language that you don't appreciate in your adrenalinic thirst for what you perceive as new to you.

In fact the latest movie in top 20 is from 1979.

As Polti pointed out there are only 36 dramatic situations to film.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirty-Six_Dramatic_Situations

If I am an intellectual about film, you are a filmic peasant that devours both art and entertainment without tasting any difference.

"You couldn't be much further from the truth" - several

reply

What the symbols mean and if they are original are two different things. Symbols are the filmic language that you don't appreciate in your adrenalinic thirst for what you perceive as new to you.


you are sad sad man trying to make a non existent arguement to jsutify crap on film....

yes obviously the definition of symbols or symbolism, and new are different. the point is we have seem these overly done symbols so much they.

yes we get it, symbols, tropes, cliches, and iconography in general is the alnguage of cinema that the audience uses to translate and understand what they are seeing so things dont have to be explained from scratch


hahhahaha omg you gave me a wiki link.. you must of won then........ ya we get it there are only so many dramatic situations.. just like there is only really seven different plots.... that doesnt make someone good or bad....

"its not the story, its how you tell it"


but this still goes over your head doesnt it??? you sit at a movie with a clip board, checking off whether it meats a certain threshold of symbolism, without actually caring about the quality of them, and how well they are presented and support the story

hahah look at this wanna be pseudo intellectual. you think cause you are dumb enough to buy into this crappy film means anyone else who didnt just "doesnt get its art"

all films use symbols constantly..... every single one of them. from trash like howard the duck to goodfellas... its about how well they do, or how the originally they reveal and present them.


you are sad. a pathetic film snob who thinks he has discovered things that others cant see. other people have taken film classes too.... you are no roger ebert

reply

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/skyfall-rant/

it can have all the symbols you like. hell bond can represent jesus or redemption and a slow motion of a bullet flying and almost hitting bond can represent his slow dangerous life. who gives a crap.

but the amount of problems in this boring film are unforgivable

reply

You are being deliberately contrary.

Which is partly ok, because you want to express how much you hate Godard & Co.

But it really doesn't matter if somebody loves a film or hates a film.

All that matters is, does the film have a meaning beyond the narrative and the visuals and if yes, what is the meaning?

I mean The Birds was oedipal and about the mother, so if someone saw it, and only got scared or bored, then they would miss out on what's beneath, because they would not understand the extent of Mitch's struggle for love and freedom from the mother. I don't think you miss out, but you just tread your great big foot where film people really tried to show sensitivity. That is not very kind.

Isn't it exactly the new aestethics that Mendes, Deakins & Co. gave the Bond figure that you detest? So from that point of view the movies are new.

"You couldn't be much further from the truth" - several

reply

You are being deliberately contrary.

Which is partly ok, because you want to express how much you hate Godard & Co.


wow make more assumptions when you dont even know me... but keep trying.. you clearly have no arugement, so "you just hate goddard and co" is your only fallback....

But it really doesn't matter if somebody loves a film or hates a film.

All that matters is, does the film have a meaning beyond the narrative and the visuals and if yes, what is the meaning?


actually it does matter is someone loves or hates a film, especially when they give good reasons...

as i said EVERY SINGLE FILM has meaning beyond jsut the narrative and visuals......... Every single one, from the worst of the worst to the best..

some of the films most steeped in meaning beyond visuals and the narrative, are the most criticized and disliked because they get so caught up in their own "artistry" they fail to tell a coherent and interesting story...

I mean The Birds was oedipal and about the mother, so if someone saw it, and only got scared or bored, then they would miss out on what's beneath, because they would not understand the extent of Mitch's struggle for love and freedom from the mother. I don't think you miss out, but you just tread your great big foot where film people really tried to show sensitivity. That is not very kind.

Isn't it exactly the new aestethics that Mendes, Deakins & Co. gave the Bond figure that you detest? So from that point of view the movies are new.


you are truly as dense as reinforced concrete arent you?

WE GET IT> MOVIES HAVE DEEPER MEANINGS. LIKE THE BIRDS.

The birds HAD A DEEPER MESSAGE. DEEPER SYMBOLS AND MEANINGS.


ALLL FILMS DO THIS.


ITs whether it did it well.. skyfall clearly did not. it was so on the nose, and such a rehash already done by far superior directors it was boring.

man you are really dumb.....


reply

In Skyfall's case, you don't accept the tunnel as rebirth, even though it's a common symbol, like e.g. De Palma used in Mission Impossible, M2M, Body Double etc. If you had said you hated the rebirth theme in the tunnel, it would have been ok, but this is just not a trustworthy objection, if you don't accept or understand the theme.

People who says movies are boring are in fact often saying more about themselves and their sloth.

You have a world full of wonderful experiences in movies if you just abandon your hostility towards art. I have had this kind conversations for 13 years here, so I have a pretty good picture of who you are. But you are welcome to list some of the directors you love, to discuss - clearly that can't be a problem since you feel so strongly about film.

"You couldn't be much further from the truth" - several

reply

obvious trolls obvious

i see that now

reply

You see as much as you saw in Skyfall.

"You couldn't be much further from the truth" - several

reply

In Skyfall's case, you don't accept the tunnel as rebirth, even though it's a common symbol, like e.g. De Palma used in Mission Impossible, M2M, Body Double etc. If you had said you hated the rebirth theme in the tunnel, it would have been ok, but this is just not a trustworthy objection, if you don't accept or understand the theme.



AGAIN. you are so dumb and thick you cant even understand.

-the fact something symbolizes something doesnt make it good
-the fact someone doesnt agree or understand a symbol, doesnt mean they would automatically think it was good, even if they agree with your analysis of it

the scene was trash because it was. it made audiences have to suspend disbelief so much (the fact that the bad guy had set up a bomb predetermined in time to go off at the exact moment so that it stopped bond or another agent shooting him and dropped a train down) that it takes audiences out of the movie and leaves them scratching their head at how someone could think that was actually good film making (symbols aside)

AGAIN WE GET IT< EVERYTHING IS SYMBOLIC. doesnt mean this is automatically good.

reply

I will write in such a manner that it gives the impression of a very slow pace, and simplistic explanation for your tiny brain.

Hitchcock's Marnie arguably has as much deep symbolism as many of Hitchcock's other far more popular, known and acclaimed film.

yet if i had gone up to any of my film teachers and said "professor, I crunched the numbers, and Marnie has 35 deep symbolic references and themes, pyscho only has 25. THerefore anyone who didnt like marnie more simply doesnt understand "art" and as you said, cant tell the difference between art and mass produced entertainment"

Had I said that, 100% of film proffs would of laughed me out of the room.

what any professor would say, or indeed any 18 year old who has taken a films 101 class knows (which clearly you do not and hence are less educated than 1st year film students. pretty sad eh?)

is that while filmic elements often have symbolic meanings (from a constantly reinforced one like the protaganist being a savior or messiah figure, to a single high angle shot implying vulnerability), they can have merit, beauty and value on their own, both attached to but also standing alone from their symbolic implications

-Actors may give amazing performances, not because their character better symbolized a messiah figure, but because their acting is more believable, immersed, and overall better.

-lighting in some shots may be simply gorgeous, such as in physcho and many tarintino flicks. often it implys something else, but on its own it may be beautiful aestetically

-the editing style may not nessecarily imply symbolism, but may be a throw back or homage, or jsut interesting in general because of how unique it is (Django unchained)

-sets or just frame compositions may be gorgeous lavish sets or perfectly balanced. Grand budapest hotel had some of the most perfectly balanced shots i have ever seen in a film.

-scores can set the mood and tone, but symbolism in musical scores???? by your definition the score has 0 merit and value to the film because it doesn not advance deeper symbolism

-the cinematography and what is filmed can be unbelievably beautiful mountain sides or other sets. Godzilla 2016 for example opened with some of he most beautiful shots I have ever seen... Unfortunately it killed off the interesting character played by bryan cranston and gave us a 2d archetype military guy whose character literally had no traits... he was in the military and had a son and wife... those arent traits. godzilla also had no real traits, he was rarely seen and a monster with 1 narrow goal.

so was godzilla bad because it simply didnt have enough symbolism?? or was it bad because maybe a film is madeup of more than just subtextual things like symbols, and MAYBE other aspects can contribute to make what we consider a good or bad movies, such as how the sets, editing, cinematography, acting, score all interact and effect the audience and our experience

reply

Thanks for your only slighly condescending and more explanatory answer.

You confuse the objective analysis and the subjective opinion. First you must analyse the movie and in this proces you reach the conclusion that the tunnel scene in Skyfall is rebirth. Then you can - next paragraph in you film school paper - express whether you like the themes that thus are shown. Clearly your professor have pointed that out to you.

You seem like a person who is strong on opinion but weak on analysis. Too much opinion is really a downward spiral even if I share your views on politics and religion.

Marnie has zero sybtext since everything is explained. The Birds, on the other hand, is loaded with narrative symbols and subtext.

I would agree that MI2 has the biblical subtext even if I hate it, because it doesn't have De Palma's playfulness and sensitivity.

If a mountain side is enough for you as a symbol (of what?) you should and could aim for deeper and more complicated values in cinema because it's there. Maybe when you grow older you will appreciate those things. The tilted mountain side in Brokeback Mountain is what I think of now in that beautiful film because it was so illustrative to the narrative but it really didn't add anything to the story, it just reflected it.

However if you stick to Wes Anderson, Hitchcock and Tarantino, you have a chance of coming out all right. The other movies you write about here and in your former profile will get you nowhere.

reply

You confuse the objective analysis and the subjective opinion.


because saying you believe something was symbolic of X isnt subjective......................

First you must analyse the movie and in this proces you reach the conclusion that the tunnel scene in Skyfall is rebirth. Then you can - next paragraph in you film school paper - express whether you like the themes that thus are shown. Clearly your professor have pointed that out to you.


noo......................... have you ever taken a film class or have any formal education???

you would analyze different elements (including ones i mentioned in my other post) and argue why they back up your belief that the tunnel scene in SKyfall is rebirth

THEN there would BE NOT DO YOU LIKE IT SECTION. because its a freaking analysis, not a blog....

its like writing an essay about some political event then writing a paragraph about "well did you like it"



You seem like a person who is strong on opinion but weak on analysis. Too much opinion is really a downward spiral even if I share your views on politics and religion.


you literally just said in a film essay, you would write a section saying if you "like the themes". you have 0 credibility.


Marnie has zero subtext since everything is explained. The Birds, on the other hand, is loaded with narrative symbols and subtext.


Marnie has zero subtext............... hahahahahahahhahaha my prof that gave me a 90 on the essay disagrees.

as well as all the other film articles i read from reputable sources..

But again, you didnt see it, so its not there. and everyones wrong except gorgs

If a mountain side is enough for you as a symbol (of what?) you should and could aim for deeper and more complicated values in cinema because it's there. Maybe when you grow older you will appreciate those things. The tilted mountain side in Brokeback Mountain is what I think of now in that beautiful film because it was so illustrative to the narrative but it really didn't add anything to the story, it just reflected it.


never said a mountain side is a symbol. god you are dumb arent you??

However if you stick to Wes Anderson, Hitchcock and Tarantino, you have a chance of coming out all right. The other movies you write about here and in your former profile will get you nowhere.


hitchock, tarintino, Scorcese and Wes ANderson are my favourites.

but again you just showed how inept at actually analyzing films you are..

if half the film textbooks i read were about subtext and symbols, the other half was about the things i mentioned in the post above..

and yet you choose to ignore a massive element of cinema...

Then you can - next paragraph in you film school paper - express whether you like the themes that thus are shown.


never going to forget this gem hahahahahhahahahah. professors wanting you to write if you "liked something" in what is supposed to be a formal and scholarly essay.

reply

We are taking about two different kinds of subtext.

I mean subtext, where there is a whole different kind of story told than the immediate narrative. The Birds is a great example.

Marnie however only contains symbols (e.g. the purse) that supports the narrative story already told, so calling it subtext would be an exaggeration - it's more fitting to call it symbols. It's one-dimensional. As Braad Thomsen, Hitchcock, p. 243, writes (my translation) "Marnie has both technically and thematically been criticized for being so naive that it borders on amateurism. ... There is no doubt that Hitchcock ... takes the privilege ... to tell a story as simply and directly as possible, to get bluntly down to business".

The reason I would place Skyfall in the first category is that those themes are not really part of the immediate story. Like Liman's Mr & Mrs Smith that really is about marriage, just covered in an assasination movie.

It's really shocking that the level of film school is as low as people not being able to interpret a metaphor as clear as rebirth in a tunnel sequence.

I'm not educated within cinema, even if it's a hobby that takes up far too much of my limited spare time, but in my profession as a lawyer, people also all the time mix their own opinions into what the law say. But I am a professional, so in taking about law matters, I really don't care who is good or bad, I am just interested in what the law says about it. And, about movies, so should you, besides working on how you address people in public internet fora.





"You couldn't be much further from the truth" - several

reply

Skyfall is the lowest of low art. A symbol of rebirth? Wow, your Marxist film professor has you hook, line, and sinker if you believe in that kind of crap.

Seriously, this is a Bond movie. I absolutely do not care about Bond's 'childhood trauma' or his 'dark side'. It will be forgotten in ten years just like every other crappy 'dark and edgy' movie of the 2000's like The Dark Knight and Logan will be.

Yes, it's boring...very boring.

reply

Weird, I'm not a Bond fan but I really enjoyed Skyfall. It was entertaining, exciting and well made.

Perhaps that explains its higher rating, it appealed to people like myself who had little to no interest in the series previously.

reply

You said it yourself. You're not a Bond fan. Bond fans do not like Skyfall. Bond is the longest running movie series in history precisely because it doesn't appeal to people who think crappy movies like Logan and The Dark Knight are high art.

reply

Ok, no need to bust a ball over it man. Obviously SOME Bond fans liked Skyfall, a movie doesn't make over a billion dollars and have a 92% rating on Rotten Tomatoes if none of the original fans enjoyed it.

But yeah, nice way to suggest I have bad taste in movies. That was called for.

By the way I also enjoyed The Dark Knight and Logan, but generally I don't see many films as "high art". Now go and play with your Bond action figures and calm the bloody hell down lol

reply

I've never encountered any person who has watched all 24 Bond films and believes that Skyfall is good. Never. I'm not going to bother arguing against its success, but the acclaim in inexplicable. It's genuinely one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Critics also gave shitty movies like Black Panther a 90+ rotten tomatoes score, so I couldn't give a damn what those fools think. A lot of the best Bond films have a pretty low tomato score, so it just goes to show how dumb they are.

If you enjoyed The Dark Knight and Logan, then you really do have bad taste. Watch The Living Daylights or On Her Majesty's Secret Service if you want to see a real Bond film and a real action film, but I don't think you do if Skyfall and its fake 'realism' is your type of thing.

reply

Ok man, I'm backing out now because I fear you will go nuclear soon and I'm scared...

But for goodness sake, you would think that other people getting into a series you love would be a positive thing, regardless if it's your favourite entry or not. Instead you go on the attack when someone mentions that they enjoyed it. Like it's impossible for your authority on the matter to be questioned. Let's not forget you are in the minority here, if not among Bond fans, then among the rest of the cinema going world.

Let's not be bratty fanboys shall we.

reply

It's not a positive thing at all. Now we a 007 that is the wrong race and gender because casuals hijacked the series even though never liked it in the first place. Pure narcissism right there.

reply

Hang on now your blaming ME for hijacking the series? Because I watched a movie and had a good time. Whatever.

Your problems obviously run deeper than a dislike for this movie. Such a bad attitude!

reply

People like you, yes. People who actually enjoy contemporary movies, think that Christopher Nolan is a legitimate artist, don't seem to notice or care that Logan is blatant political propaganda, worry about whether a film is 100% politically correct or not; those kind of people.

reply

Oh my God.

reply

Look, I gave you two good film recommendations. If you actually want to see a real Bond movie, then I've given you the information you need. But if you want to keep living your life thinking that Daniel Craig is a good actor, then I really pity you.

reply

I've already seen both. They were ok.

Please point out where I said Craig is a good actor. In fact, go right back to the start of this thread and read my original comment and ask yourself if you think your reaction is reasonable.

And keep your pity, it's of no value to me angry man.

reply

I have seen all of the Bond films, have them all on blu-ray, and like the first half of Skyfall. Once Silva shows up it goes downhill for me.

reply

Yeah it sucked. The worst of all the Craig era films IMO. One of the most inexplicably acclaimed films I've ever seen. Weak, convoluted writing throughout with that silly Home Alone final act.

reply

I still rank Spectre lower because it attempted to create a interconnected cinematic universe. Until Spectre was released, Skyfall was just a crappy standalone that was easily forgotten. But now it is even worse after Spectre arbitrarily connected all the Craig films. These two are ranked as my two least favourites.

reply

Hmm but wasn't it Quantum of Solace that started the trend of the Craig era Bond films being directly interconnected? Either way I feel as its own individual film Skyfall fails harder. The fact that such a dumb, crappy movie managed to somehow be so overhyped & successful (commercially & critically) adds to my contempt of it. I probably feel less strongly about Spectre because Skyfall had already made me stop caring about the Craig era of Bond films.


reply

Not really. QoS is the first time they ever made a direct sequel, but then that was the end of it. When Skyfall came out we were told that this was a standalone film that didn't have any connection to the events of CR and QoS. People conveniently forget that now, but it's clear if you go back and look at media and interviews from 2012. After Skyfall was released, Eon reacquired the rights to the Blofeld character and jumped the gun in bringing him back. Because Quantum in CR and QoS was a fake SPECTRE and Mr. White was something of a fake Blofeld, Eon decided to arbitrarily make the events all of the films connect with each other during the creation of the film Spectre. They will try to take advantage of people's short memory spans to say that this was their plan all along, but it never was. They had no idea until after the release of Skyfall that Blofeld and SPECTRE would be returning, so then they just retconned everything when writing the script for Spectre. They were probably also influenced into this creative decision by the emerging success of other cinematic universes that were making a ton of money.

So no, I don't think QoS is the culprit for starting an interconnected episodic universe which has resulted in the dire state of the franchise today.

reply

Well you're clearly better informed than I on the behind the scenes shenanigans of the Bond franchise but even with all that Skyfall still holds a special place of contempt for me. At least I think we can still agree that both films are bad despite Spectre's retroactive collateral damage.

reply

No way, Quantum of Solace is the worst. This one at least has pretty sceneries. Also, Spectre is worse than this.

reply

Almost every defense I see of Skyfall is a superficial variation of "Well it looked good" because there is no real defense of the convoluted mess of a plot.

reply

Well, what else to say? But yeah, at least Skyfall has pretty pictures... Spectre has the same terrible plot but without the eye candy. It's only logical to say Skyfall is better.

reply

I have never liked any of Sam Mendes' movies. So, not surprisingly, I didn't like either of his Bond movies.

He just has such an antiseptic, unemotional approach to everything. I don't get what his appeal is.

The previous two Bond movies before his two were infinitely better, in my opinion.

reply

Agreed. Which is saying a lot since QoS was so bad.

reply