Skyfall "Most over-rated film of all time"

Kent007 · April 2014

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/10767345/10-most-overrated-films-of-all-time.html

The Telegraph list Skyfall as the most over-rated film of all time.

I disagree and though it does have it's faults, "of all time" is ridiculously harsh in my opinion.

However, I know there is a lot of people in the Bond community who don't like the film and would probably agree.

Thunderpussy · April 2014

Is Skyfall the most over rated film of all time ? ......... NO!

)

I guess it's a slow news day, so out come the "silly stories "

AlphaOmegaSin · April 2014

Always thought that Star Wars is the most overrated Film Franchise of all Time -{

David Schofield · April 2014

SKYFALL's problem, though - and I don't think history will be too kind to it - is that it is an average, middling Bond film, but just can't accept itself as such.

Unfortunately, with all the talent involved it has too take itself way too po-faced seriously and hence comes across a pretentious drivel which its overall quality can't overcome.

Blackleiter · April 2014

I think SF is a fine addition to the Bond franchise, superior to many films that came before it. Is it "the best Bond film in 50 years"? Not as far as I'm concerned, and to that extent I will agree it's over-rated. But the most over-rated film of all time? Not even close.

The Domino Effect · April 2014

An interesting list, but one which includes a few films that I thought were superb - like Network. Everything's subjective. I really dislike Sci-Fi and fantasy so the chances of any film in those genres ever making a list of my Top 10 is highly, highly unlikely but I know that's just my personal taste. I have reached the point in my life where I no longer waste time unnecessarily. If I'm really not enjoying something now I turn it over, turn it off, or in the case of the cinema, I leave. I also find that sometimes I'm just not in the mood for something and when I see it again later, it wasn't half as bad as I originally thought. This writer doesn't have that chance as it's his job to watch them, and for that I pity him, but I also wonder if part of the reason that Skyfall is his 'most overrated film in the history of the world ever' is because he had very high expectations and left disappointed. Perhaps if he saw it again he'd feel differently. It may not have been perfect, but I don't think it's worthy of that particular accolade.

always shaken · April 2014

that's a massive statement to make (of all time) what data do they have to back up such a bold statement

Gassy Man · April 2014

I think it's a bit overrated -- I just watched Casino Royale again, and it clearly is the superior film.

Thunderpussy · April 2014

After OHMSS, CR is the Best Bond film. ( and I'm never wrong )

)

Blackleiter · May 2014

Gassy Man wrote:

I think it's a bit overrated -- I just watched Casino Royale again, and it clearly is the superior film.

Clearly! -{

Gassy Man · May 2014

I am in the company of esteeemed gentlemen. {[]

Blackleiter · May 2014

Gassy Man wrote:

I am in the company of esteeemed gentlemen. {[]

The feeling is mutual! {[]

Thunderpussy · May 2014

As this thread is getting very sickly sweet, I'd like to warn
Any diabetics, from reading it.

)

AlphaOmegaSin · May 2014

'You are both as mad as Hatters!'

'So was Frederich the Great! So was Van Gogh! We are indeed, in good Illustrious Company Mr Bond!'

delicious · May 2014

Heres what the Telegraph had to say:

What They Said
“One of the best Bonds ever. This is a full-blooded, joyous, intelligent celebration of a beloved cultural icon” – Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times
Awards
Winner of Alexander Korda Award for Best British Film at the Baftas, and Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music. Nominated for six other Baftas, and five Oscars, of which it won two (for Original Song and Sound Editing).
What We Say
Gulp. Let's first admit that Javier Bardem has three great scenes in Skyfall, before the film decides that Silva, his magnificently creepy-camp villain, wants nothing more than to chase Judi Dench up to the Highlands and bombard Bond’s ancestral pile with a Merlin helicopter. This is his masterplan? In the plus column, it may be the best-looking Bond film ever made – high-five there for Roger Deakins – but it’s nowhere near as sure of itself, or sure where Bond should be going this decade, as evangelists on its release liked to think. Awkward in shape and thrilling only periodically, the film’s a fraught salvage job for which Sam Mendes got far too much of the credit.
Look closer and the scars of indecision are painfully obvious, especially in that third act. Ben Whishaw’s Q allows the MI6 server to be hacked by… plugging a pair of ethernet cables into Silva’s laptop? The tube crash is a shambles. The disposal of Severine, after Bond has had his wicked way with this maltreated sex slave, is brutally callous. Daniel Craig seems hardened, waxy, and humourless, with no gift for floating a weak punchline, and the uninspired script (“Got into some deep water”, anyone?) gives him a morass of them. The drift of the movie is interestingly reactionary – it’s about reverting to old certainties, like having men in charge, in a confusing new world (and a world which hated Quantum of Solace). But we’d prefer the old certainty of a Bond movie that’s light on its feet, satisfying right to the end, and puts more than the security services in brief jeopardy. It’s the biggest hit in British box office history, to which we say, with apologies: better luck next time.
See instead… The Living Daylights (1987), Timothy Dalton’s gritty debut as Bond, which still feels like one of the most underregarded in the series, and has that ridiculously good stunt sequence dangling out the back of a Soviet cargo plane.

The "indecision" echoes my previous posts that the film was put together by a committee. And the rest rings true as well. I don't care for best/worst lists but Im glad were finally getting some realistic criticism.

Gassy Man · May 2014

Thunderpussy wrote:

As this thread is getting very sickly sweet, I'd like to warn
Any diabetics, from reading it. )

We love you, too.

)

Thunderpussy · May 2014

Your're only human.

)

AlphaOmegaSin · May 2014

How can you not Love TP?

)

Gala Brand · May 2014

delicious wrote:

Heres what the Telegraph had to say:

What They Said
“One of the best Bonds ever. This is a full-blooded, joyous, intelligent celebration of a beloved cultural icon” – Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times
Awards
Winner of Alexander Korda Award for Best British Film at the Baftas, and Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music. Nominated for six other Baftas, and five Oscars, of which it won two (for Original Song and Sound Editing).
What We Say
Gulp. Let's first admit that Javier Bardem has three great scenes in Skyfall, before the film decides that Silva, his magnificently creepy-camp villain, wants nothing more than to chase Judi Dench up to the Highlands and bombard Bond’s ancestral pile with a Merlin helicopter. This is his masterplan? In the plus column, it may be the best-looking Bond film ever made – high-five there for Roger Deakins – but it’s nowhere near as sure of itself, or sure where Bond should be going this decade, as evangelists on its release liked to think. Awkward in shape and thrilling only periodically, the film’s a fraught salvage job for which Sam Mendes got far too much of the credit.
Look closer and the scars of indecision are painfully obvious, especially in that third act. Ben Whishaw’s Q allows the MI6 server to be hacked by… plugging a pair of ethernet cables into Silva’s laptop? The tube crash is a shambles. The disposal of Severine, after Bond has had his wicked way with this maltreated sex slave, is brutally callous. Daniel Craig seems hardened, waxy, and humourless, with no gift for floating a weak punchline, and the uninspired script (“Got into some deep water”, anyone?) gives him a morass of them. The drift of the movie is interestingly reactionary – it’s about reverting to old certainties, like having men in charge, in a confusing new world (and a world which hated Quantum of Solace). But we’d prefer the old certainty of a Bond movie that’s light on its feet, satisfying right to the end, and puts more than the security services in brief jeopardy. It’s the biggest hit in British box office history, to which we say, with apologies: better luck next time.
See instead… The Living Daylights (1987), Timothy Dalton’s gritty debut as Bond, which still feels like one of the most underregarded in the series, and has that ridiculously good stunt sequence dangling out the back of a Soviet cargo plane.

The "indecision" echoes my previous posts that the film was put together by a committee. And the rest rings true as well. I don't care for best/worst lists but Im glad were finally getting some realistic criticism.

The Telegraph seems to have forgetten that part in Dalton's "gritty debut" where he and the Bond girl slide down a mountain on a cello case. If SF had tried anything half as daft, the critics would've had a collective coronary.

I actually like TLD, by the way. It just points out the difficulty of makling a movie in the Bond Universe, which lies somewhere very close to, but not quite in, reality.

The rest of the Telegraph's "realistic criticism" is a bunch of subjective hoo-hah of the type best reserved for AJB message boards.

David Schofield · May 2014

Not true. Had the critics seem through the MOONRAKER-esque lunacy of SKYFALL initially, it wouldn't have fooled the fans into thinking it was something it wasn't in the first place. The behaviour of Bond, M and Q is ludicrous, though not remotely as bonkers as everything associated with Silva.

Shove Rog in Craig's placem in SKYFALL and it could easily have been played for 2.5 hours of eyebrow raising laughs.

The crits fell for the "artistic credibility" of Craig, Bardem, Logan, and Mendes . That's not what's essential in a great Bond film.

Sir Miles · May 2014

David Schofield wrote:

Not true. Had the critics seem through the MOONRAKER-esque lunacy of SKYFALL initially, it wouldn't have fooled the fans into thinking it was something it wasn't in the first place. The behaviour of Bond, M and Q is ludicrous, though not remotely as bonkers as everything associated with Silva.

Shove Rog in Craig's placem in SKYFALL and it could easily have been played for 2.5 hours of eyebrow raising laughs.

The crits fell for the "artistic credibility" of Craig, Bardem, Logan, and Mendes . That's not what's essential in a great Bond film.

In your opinion...

And that's what people have to understand...everybody's opinion is credible in their eyes....if you love it - great...if you hate it - fine....somewhere between the two ? That's ok.

Nobody has the definitive call on this...its just YOUR opinion....so don't 'dress it up'... -{

David Schofield · May 2014

Sir Miles wrote:

David Schofield wrote:

Not true. Had the critics seem through the MOONRAKER-esque lunacy of SKYFALL initially, it wouldn't have fooled the fans into thinking it was something it wasn't in the first place. The behaviour of Bond, M and Q is ludicrous, though not remotely as bonkers as everything associated with Silva.

Shove Rog in Craig's placem in SKYFALL and it could easily have been played for 2.5 hours of eyebrow raising laughs.

The crits fell for the "artistic credibility" of Craig, Bardem, Logan, and Mendes . That's not what's essential in a great Bond film.

In your opinion...

And that's what people have to understand...everybody's opinion is credible in their eyes....if you love it - great...if you hate it - fine....somewhere between the two ? That's ok.

Nobody has the definitive call on this...its just YOUR opinion....so don't 'dress it up'... -{

Well, obviously it's my opinion, Sir Miles.

Not sure how you feel it was "dressed up" - merely an attempt to justify it.

But you don't agree with it which is quite fine. As you say there is no right or wrong opinion,

Sir Miles · May 2014

David Schofield wrote:

Sir Miles wrote:

David Schofield wrote:

Not true. Had the critics seem through the MOONRAKER-esque lunacy of SKYFALL initially, it wouldn't have fooled the fans into thinking it was something it wasn't in the first place. The behaviour of Bond, M and Q is ludicrous, though not remotely as bonkers as everything associated with Silva.

Shove Rog in Craig's placem in SKYFALL and it could easily have been played for 2.5 hours of eyebrow raising laughs.

The crits fell for the "artistic credibility" of Craig, Bardem, Logan, and Mendes . That's not what's essential in a great Bond film.

In your opinion...

And that's what people have to understand...everybody's opinion is credible in their eyes....if you love it - great...if you hate it - fine....somewhere between the two ? That's ok.

Nobody has the definitive call on this...its just YOUR opinion....so don't 'dress it up'... -{

Well, obviously it's my opinion, Sir Miles.

Not sure how you feel it was "dressed up" - merely an attempt to justify it.

But you don't agree with it which is quite fine. As you say there is no right or wrong opinion,

Ah yes....sorry...didn't mean you 'dressed it up' per se...but people in general tended too...I guess I should have explained that better...sorry for the confusion ;%

But, yes....I don't agree with your points at all....

Blackleiter · May 2014

David Schofield wrote:

As you say ther

delicious wrote:

I don't care for best/worst lists but Im glad were finally getting some realistic criticism.

e is no right or wrong opinion

By "realistic criticism" do you mean an opinion with which you happen to agree? Because that's really all it is.

Thunderbird 2 · May 2014

Its funny, I liked Skyfall at the cinema, but because its Bond gaffs made me more irritated than if it was an other film. (Put out that LIGHT!!) springs to mind in particular.
However, after going to Bond In Motion last week and walking round London, I popped in the DVD and thought right, chill. Its a 007 film like all the others. See it in that light. The result is I do enjoy it more, and the writing blunders seem far less significant. Also the evolution of the franchise means I am warming a bit to Thomas Newmans score, esp M-Manf's theme and Q's "data rifling" melody. However, that does not change the fact the hooh-hah from the premiere, the critics reviews etc was a bit over the top. - But its not just Bond that suffers for this.

Just today I saw a bus go past advertising a Zac Effron / Seth Rogen comedy called Bad Neighbours. "Best Comedy Of The Year!" said the bus. I immediately thought how the hell can they claim that? May has only just started! Best Film of the Decade, One of the Best Films ever made, etc etc. Hype out of control. But it works. It gets expectations up, and bums on seats. Skyfall is one of many that suffer from this kind of nonsense. Irronically it actually puts me off films, but I was born with my poles reverse. Many people were uming and ering over The Lego Movie. Ignoring any potential hype I saw it, loved it. Captain America II was very good, but the amount of advertising was a wee but excessive in my eyes.

Was Skyfall overrated? Yes, I think it was, as the writing needed some work. Esp regarding Severine's treatment and in the penultimate scenes. But it was no more overrated than any other big film these days.
When I studied media, one critical lesson I learned quickly was there is no such thing as a professional critic. Only professionally recognised opinions. As M has pointed out a few osts ago, we each make up our own minds as we each have our own opinions, and no one is actually right or wrong. Art is subjective. On that note, not only do I think CR-06 is a better film, its my favorite Bond film.

Its irronic, since saying its the most overrated film "of all time," is itself an overrated statement!

)

Peppermill · May 2014

Blackleiter wrote:

David Schofield wrote:

As you say ther

delicious wrote:

I don't care for best/worst lists but Im glad were finally getting some realistic criticism.

e is no right or wrong opinion

By "realistic criticism" do you mean an opinion with which you happen to agree? Because that's really all it is.

I don't agree with this statement. There are some points made that go beyond 'an opinion' in this review. For instance, the fact that Q plugs in the laptop of Silva into the Mi6 network is something that is so unbelievably stupid for our "I invented it" super computer geek Q that it seems like something that could/should never happen. It might not have bothered you and that is okay. It is just that if we are supposed to believe that Q "can do more damage from his laptop before his first cuppa" than it is quite strange that he makes a mistake like that. And I would consider this fair criticism.

Gassy Man · May 2014

Thunderpussy wrote:

Your're only human. )

{[]

delicious · May 2014

BTW In a recent Simpsons episode about video piracy called "Steal This Episode", Carl and Lenny take the piss out of the latest Bond film. They like the new James Bond reboot because Bond is ugly now, he doesn’t use gadgets, he can’t shoot well, and he doesn’t do James Bond-type things. http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/steal-this-episode-106693 Good onya Simpsons for telling it how it is.

delicious · May 2014

Criticism is not simply subjective. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion and people have different likes and dislikes but film like literature and other art forms is governed by certain conventions and there are definite dos and donts. Placing an established character like Bond in a film universe which contradicts his character - is a definite dont. If we're going to make Bond into a sad boring loser we may as well make Homer Simpson the model of perfect fatherhood and force Daenerys Targaryen to be unjust and start enslaving people.

Gassy Man · May 2014

delicious wrote:

BTW In a recent Simpsons episode about video piracy called "Steal This Episode", Carl and Lenny take the piss out of the latest Bond film. They like the new James Bond reboot because Bond is ugly now, he doesn’t use gadgets, he can’t shoot well, and he doesn’t do James Bond-type things. http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/steal-this-episode-106693 Good onya Simpsons for telling it how it is.

Of course, Lenny and Carl are also idiots.

I wouldn't call Craig an ugly man by any stretch, but his nose is what seems to give his face less refinement. But, then, he's playing a Bond not afraid to get beaten silly to get the job done, so perhaps this is to his advantage. I do think, however, they should have darkened his features -- at least to brown hair and eyebrows. In Casino Royale, in particular, he looks best when the light makes his blond hair seem darker. When he's in bright light, he washes out, and it looks like he doesn't have any eyebrows. By Skyfall, with most of his hair clipped and with so many bright light scenes, he doesn't just fade out but also looks much older.

But with the features darkened, he very much has a classic Bond look:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/15/Casino_Royale_2_-_UK_cinema_poster.jpg

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=LPDcOHwF1XdYuM&tbnid=4DdwC1bE6yUs3M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscreenmusings.org%2FCasinoRoyale%2Fpages%2FCasino-Royale-0404.htm&ei=1HJlU8SBOsKSyAGi9oHIBQ&bvm=bv.65788261,d.aWc&psig=AFQjCNGJAyCuABzyJivspBgom34TM5KheA&ust=1399243854614311

GoldenEye85 · May 2014

I don't think Skyfall is overrated at all. Was it flawless? No, not at all! But what movie is? I liked that we finally have SOME back story for Bond. It changes him from continuing to be a one dimensional character like he has been in the rest of the movies.

Someone mentioned Star Wars as overrated. While I respect your opinion, I greatly disagree and cannot wait for the new movies to come out. Fall 2015 is gonna be pretty good for me movie wise. Bond in November and Star Wars Episode VII in December.

My opinion for most overrated and I know people will disagree with me and that is fine, but the Harry Potter series, both books and movies alike. I like magic and wizards and such, but these just didn't do anything for me.

Skyfall "Most over-rated film of all time"

Comments