Skyfall

I'm in.

I think the first 2/3rds of the movie up though the clearly Dark Knight/Joker inspired "capture" of Silva ranks right up among the best Bond films but the last act at Skyfall house kind of fell flat for me. Loved the photography in Shanghai and the iconic use of silhouettes during Bond's fight with the mercenary. I don't think this movie is quite as great as some of the raves make it out to be and would rank it just below Casino Royale but it's certainly well worth checking out and I will be picking up the BR.

I'll probably skip this. Surprisingly, I found a lot of the movie kind of dull... much like The Dark Knight Rises, a bit too much ponderous chatter for me. Nice photography though, and it's better than QoS, at least.

Indeed. I think that if I bought it, it'd be out of some strange OCD reasoning, like having to fill the disc space in the Bond 50 set.

I will ultimately watch it again on BD, maybe it'll change my mind. TDKR certainly didn't.

QoS kicks ass, haters!

^^ Me too. Skyfall is a day 1 for sure. I watched QoS a few days ago and while I think Mathieu Amalric is not the best Bond villain, I always enjoy (re)watching the film quite much. On the other hand, Javier Bardem was, um, delightful I'm confident Skyfall will look and sound fantastic on Blu-ray. I'm glad we get (at least) 2 more Bond with Daniel Craig.

US release date: March 12, 2013.

US release by Sony or Fox?

How about the UK release?

That sits pretty closely to my opinion as well. The straight up Scooby Doo moments with the flashlight really hurt my already stretched suspension of disbelief.

It's ok, but does not rank up there with the Connery Bonds (not counting Never Say Never Again), the over the top super-action at the beginning turned me off (something the Connery ones did not bother with) and it was out place to the rest of the film. Pacing was a real problem with Skyfall, as was building momentum (again thanks to the beginning). I did not pay for the ticket so I guess I got my money's worth.

So you want it to be like Expendables, all super-action, lots of explosions, awful dialogue, no story, no characterization, no acting, no pacing.

Haven't seen this yet, but one reason I haven't is that I totally agree. The current trend towards ludicrous action sequences, connected only by the barest amount of story to get to the next beyond-belief action sequence is boring to me. This is a problem with many films...the STAR TREK movie, for example, had characters in unbelievable (given the genre) action scenes that would have killed William Shatner's Kirk many times over!
Edited by cinema13 - 11/24/12 at 12:47pm

How was the camera work in Skyfall? I tried to watch QoS but ejected after several minutes. I very much dislike rapid cuts and jerky, shaky handheld camera work!!

I have Casino Royale and several other James Bond movies (Goldfinger to Casino Royale).

No, that's the problem: Skyfall is not on an elevated cinematic plane from the Expendables.. A few nice action sequences, padded with dreary, banal dialog in service of a not a particularly compelling plot.

Camera work and overall style of photography is very different from QoS. Very little handheld tomfoolery and more traditional editing (at least compared to QoS). However, the last 3rd of the movie takes place in very poorly lit night time settings, so it gets a bit murky for my tastes. I expect some complaints about black crush in those scenes when it makes it to home video.

Sounds like you went to a crummy theater with a dim projector. I saw the movie twice and had no problems seeing anything that was intended to be seen.

Polar opposites. Skyfall is one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. As of now, I feel like if anything wins Best Cinematography over this, I would have to change my shorts after seeing such a film.

You will have zero problems with the way Skyfall is shot.

How did you determine intended ?

Art

You seriously gave up on an entire movie because you didn't like the camera work in a single chase sequence?

I can imagine him shaking his fist, as he wobbled over to his player, mumbling "Pesky kids!"

lol

I hate shaky cam and I did not notice any in SkyFall. Like I wrote before, it starts absurdly fast and then puts on the brakes.

You must mean the Blade Runner complainers. The last sequences had lots of blacks, sure, but it was not 'poorly' lit.

You read like a Film Farm Report:
'Things did not blow-up real good?'
'No, you see they was peasants...'
'Im poor but I aint no peasant.'
'Well they was peasants and the king got them real mad, so theys blew him up'

Yep me too

Well, the scene takes place at night, so obviously it's dark for that reason. Beyond that, I'm at a complete loss as to what he's complaining about. I had no problems seeing anything in the shadow detail of the scene. Saw it in two different theaters.

The scenes toward the end are some of my favorite in the film, cinematography-wise. I didn't find them muddy or unduly crushed. Stuff that's lit, you can see. Stuff that isn't, you can't.

re Skyfall:

I was absolutely amazed at the beauty of Roger Deakins cinematography. Such gorgeous lighting and composition from one frame to the next. I constantly felt I was watching a master crafstman at the top of his game. I really enjoyed almost all aspects of the movie (I agree the pacing started to sag in the last 3rd of the movie) but it would have tremendous re-play value in my home theater even just on the cinematography.

Thanks to all who responded to my question. I am really glad to hear the answers, Skyfall most likely will be a blind BD purchase for me.

I'm pretty sure the projection was fine, I saw... or rather didn't see exactly what the film makers intended.

If you found that too "murky," then I just don't know what you expect a nighttime scene to look like.