Skyfall 4K Blu-ray Review & Comments

Firstly I will say I do think that Casimir does a fine job.

Do I think that perhaps too much franchise stuff is reviewed. Yes
Do I think that stuff gets to high score. Yes (only because it leaves so little room to differentiate between the good, very good, excellent and the pinnacle of all time cinema)

But these are my opinions.

What isn't a opinion but fact is that the film studios have realised that the biggest way to make money is through these franchises. Perhaps the biggest long term franchise blueprint is the bond films.

There is one good point about Bond films though. Generally speaking every one can be viewed alone without needing to have previously invested in the franchise.

But here is a problem something like 'My Brilliant Friend' (HBO/Sky) Italian/subtitles which is one of the finest TV productions in the last few years was never even reviewed.
Yet Watchmen has been spoon fed us and dare I say is far inferior.

Agreed. And while I haven't seen My Brilliant Friend, you could also add highly worthwhile shows on Sky Atlantic & others like Patrick Melrose, Succession, Big Little Lies, Sharp Objects, Barry, Atlanta, even Twin Peaks The Return. None of these I would regard as classics, but very good nonetheless, and were all major releases (be it stars, directors etc), so yes, the constant stream of reviews of uninspiring Netflix fodder seems odd.
 
Agreed. And while I haven't seen My Brilliant Friend, you could also add highly worthwhile shows on Sky Atlantic & others like Patrick Melrose, Succession, Big Little Lies, Sharp Objects, Barry, Atlanta, even Twin Peaks The Return. None of these I would regard as classics, but very good nonetheless, and were all major releases (be it stars, directors etc), so yes, the constant stream of reviews of uninspiring Netflix fodder seems odd.

Well, it's a little more complicated than that. I try and cover all the *movie* releases by all of the streaming services, which includes all of the dross (Hotel Mumbai notwithstanding) that Sky churn out, not just Netflix. It just happens that Netflix have 2 a week rather than 1 a quarter.

For TV, Sky is immediately at a disadvantage because it has this pesky habit of generally releasing just one episode, which makes reviewing *some* shows harder (AHS84 - steered clear). Netflix invariably drops the lot, so the only arduous task is binging. Netflix also have much better AV (which is kinda the point of the site, unlike, say, The Telegraph) than NowTV, and I'm not going to stump up the exorbitant amount required to get Sky UHD because it's, frankly, not worth it.

In general, though, the answer is more material equates to a bigger share of the reviewing pie, and Netflix does favour quantity over quality. My job is to *try* to help identify what's good (The King, Dolemite) from the countless average flicks they churn out.

And the other streaming services do get a pretty good look considering their output:

Amazon - Jack Ryan, Modern Love, Goliath, Undone, Mr Robot, Carnival Row, Preacher, The Boys, Suspiria, Good Omens, Too Old to Die Young, Homecoming, Hanna;

Sky/HBO - Chernobyl, Euphoria, Deadwood, Watchmen, Big Little Lies, The Affair, Big Little Lies, Warrior, LA's Finest, Extremely Wicked, Game of Thrones, Serenity, Tin Star, Final Score, Anon, Hurricane Heist, Westworld.

Perhaps you just didn't notice some of these reviews?
 
A shame this isn't available on it's own as I would definitely buy to see Deakins' work in full fat 4K. Can't quite justify £56 for an incomplete collection.
 
Skyfall for me is just perfection. Absolutely love everything about that film but especially the cinematography.
I can’t get past the lack of an Atmos audio upgrade so will leave these for now. I bought the blu steelbook when that was released so it’ll do until the inevitable complete collection of Craig films comes out with audio upgrades (hopefully)
 
a broad range of films by genre, language and provenance.
I think it's a little unsporting to re-frame the discussion regarding scope to one encompassing all productions and their country origins, and all languages etc...

There are plenty of venues / groups to celebrate and discuss film generally for art's sake, e.g. Cannes film festival type content.

As far as I'm aware, this site rarely misses anything that will be of broad interest, and it's rare to come across such candid and knowledgeable reviews, which going by the success of the site and the comments here are generally well-received and valued.

Perhaps you prefer to read elsewhere; in which case why bother to criticize with a shallow veneer of high brow? :)
 
Thanks for your reply.

My post was somewhat tongue in cheek and yes I have heard many Bond fans not share the widespread view that "Skyfall" is a brilliant film (and I personally believe it is by any metric) and stands comparison to any Bond film in the franchise.

It is a Bond film that just about covers all bases so perhaps that very broad appeal is part of the issue as you see it? OHMSS often appears towards the top of Bond fans lists but I just don't see it unless they are deliberately being obtuse......as certain factions of film fans can often be perhaps?

Having opposing views is great and I welcome it. No one is wrong or right, just differing views which is ideal.

I have to confess another soft spot for Skyfall in that it was filmed (Hankley Common - last 30 mins or so, filling in for Scotland) very close to where I live and spend a lot of my time and it's my favourite place.

Have a great weekend Chris.
You might be onto something with the broad appeal. But I think Casino stands up as a Bond film, and also a great film. Whereas skyfall maybe just isn't a Bond film in the same way. OHMSS is definitely an odd one. There might be somewhat of a contrarian mentality to the love it gets. But I've watched it with my other half and she was moved by it in a way I've not seen before with other Bonds. It might be just that ending. It's really something.
Good weekend to you too!
 
I think it's a little unsporting to re-frame the discussion regarding scope to one encompassing all productions and their country origins, and all languages etc...

There are plenty of venues / groups to celebrate and discuss film generally for art's sake, e.g. Cannes film festival type content.

As far as I'm aware, this site rarely misses anything that will be of broad interest, and it's rare to come across such candid and knowledgeable reviews, which going by the success of the site and the comments here are generally well-received and valued.

Perhaps you prefer to read elsewhere; in which case why bother to criticize with a shallow veneer of high brow? :)

I'm not reframing anything.

I was merely responding to a pretty declarative assertion of these being the best reviews in the world, by pointing out that the scope is narrower even than even other non-specialist publications, be that the Guardian, Ft or whatever I quoted above. They chose to pick a few releases across a broader spectrum. That's not really a matter of debate, any perusal of their review coverage over the years will underline that point.
 
I always thought the SDR BD was a great image ( Hong Kong , Macau scenes ) so it's nice that the 4K HDR is a nice upgrade . Unfortunately I won't be purchasing as the buggers once again left out immersive audio it seems and deal breaker for myself.
 
Much like Craig's Casino Royal I thought Skyfall a great moment in cinema history for this franchise and Skyfall for me should be the sequel to Casino than the rather poor QoS . I remember at the Cinema that we all clapped and cheered with old school bond theme and the DB5 coming out of the garage . But Bond films remain true to type , good film ,poor film so next film should be great .
 
Last edited:
. But Bond films remain true to type , good film ,poor film so next film should be great .
I thought Dr No - Live and Let Die was a good run some better than other and The Living Daylights - Goldeneye an other good run. And you could say Connery, Moore, Dalton did better Bond films after their first Bond film, Brosnan or Craig never bettered their first outing.
 
I'm not reframing anything.

I was merely responding to a pretty declarative assertion of these being the best reviews in the world, by pointing out that the scope is narrower even than even other non-specialist publications, be that the Guardian, Ft or whatever I quoted above. They chose to pick a few releases across a broader spectrum. That's not really a matter of debate, any perusal of their review coverage over the years will underline that point.
Who decided that scope was the most important factor in review coverage? That's re-framing the context.

Regarding any 'perusal' of review coverage as being definitive proof not up for debate, and somehow also backing up your original position that a broad spectrum of material is inherently more important than the quality of the content itself...that is absurd.
 
Seeing as "Skyfall" & "Spectre" were both filmed in 4K, how much diffrence is there between blu ray version's & the 4K discs ? I can't imagine they look that much better, compared to the already impressive blu ray's ??
 
Seeing as "Skyfall" & "Spectre" were both filmed in 4K, how much diffrence is there between blu ray version's & the 4K discs ? I can't imagine they look that much better, compared to the already impressive blu ray's ??

At least 117.8% better, 134.2% if you have DV (percentages may vary depending on a number of factors, one of which is your tolerance for sarcasm)
 
Who decided that scope was the most important factor in review coverage? That's re-framing the context.

Regarding any 'perusal' of review coverage as being definitive proof not up for debate, and somehow also backing up your original position that a broad spectrum of material is inherently more important than the quality of the content itself...that is absurd.

The other publications I cited cover a broader range of releases - whether that matters to you or not is up to you of course. But the broader point is that, referring to whoever it was earlier, its hard to call someone the best reviewer in the word when others cover a broader range of releases. How could one assert that one sport, or one cuisine is the best , without being immersed in the full range. Thats just logical.

As a regular reader of the Guardian and FT, and spending a decent amount of time here, it doesn't take long to see the differences in focus and coverage. Sure they cover some of the dross released weekly as part of a schedule of covering new releases, but they also dont just cover a lot of Netflix because its easier to do so. You're never left with the impression that those reviewers are just parked in front of Netflix and churning out reviews, which to some extent is the impression here.

Anyway, each to their own. Personally I prefer something with a broader scope, and as I mentioned earlier, I dont envy the task given the avalanche of content.
 
Well i do have DV.....& it was a genuine question, without any sarcasm, either way ! ;)

Sure, but the answer's in the review, no? Blu-ray versions might be great, but you know that HDR, WCG and - as you yourself must know - Dolby Vision make all the difference.

Skyfall Blu-ray vs. Skyfall 4K DV is just not a competition at all, it's merely another reason to get all Deakins in 4K.
 
The other publications I cited cover a broader range of releases - whether that matters to you or not is up to you of course. But the broader point is that, referring to whoever it was earlier, its hard to call someone the best reviewer in the word when others cover a broader range of releases. How could one assert that one sport, or one cuisine is the best , without being immersed in the full range. Thats just logical.

As a regular reader of the Guardian and FT, and spending a decent amount of time here, it doesn't take long to see the differences in focus and coverage. Sure they cover some of the dross released weekly as part of a schedule of covering new releases, but they also dont just cover a lot of Netflix because its easier to do so. You're never left with the impression that those reviewers are just parked in front of Netflix and churning out reviews, which to some extent is the impression here.

Anyway, each to their own. Personally I prefer something with a broader scope, and as I mentioned earlier, I dont envy the task given the avalanche of content.
Really? Ive read a lot of the Grauniad's "reviews" - I dont know why, perhaps I like torture. Anyway, Bradshaw's "reviews" are almost a running joke in that he usually gives away massive spoilers. I have seen other "reviews" there that barely warrant a paragraph and are littered with errors.

The Watched in HD thread has better reviews by a mile not to mention the proper user reviews and the official AV reviews.
 
You want another example? I saw a "review" of Midway there yesterday. It mentioned "jet fighters" :rotfl:. Honestly. I suspect the person who reviewed it must know absolutely nothing about WW2 or indeed the film she apparently watched. And the "review" itself was barely longer than what you are reading right now!
 
You want another example? I saw a "review" of Midway there yesterday. It mentioned "jet fighters" :rotfl:. Honestly. I suspect the person who reviewed it must know absolutely nothing about WW2 or indeed the film she apparently watched. And the "review" itself was barely longer than what you are reading right now!
I'm guessing the reviewer didn't like it given the this macho war **** from Roland Emmerich comment.
Although jet fighters are not mentioned. Perhaps since been corrected. The reviewer missed the chance though to go for a quadruple w score with 'this macho wanton wearisome war **** from Roland Emmerich'.
 
Last edited:
Really? Ive read a lot of the Grauniad's "reviews" - I dont know why, perhaps I like torture. Anyway, Bradshaw's "reviews" are almost a running joke in that he usually gives away massive spoilers. I have seen other "reviews" there that barely warrant a paragraph and are littered with errors.

The Watched in HD thread has better reviews by a mile not to mention the proper user reviews and the official AV reviews.

The G is more than just Bradshaw though, what with Kermode's contributions and others. And the point. still stands, their breadth of coverage, be it Bradshaw alone or the collective, is far greater.

Be it the G or the FT, where they have proper arts / culture sections as opposed to the Telegraph for example, they don't leave the impression that they are largely watching Netflix and churning out reviews. I may well have missed a few of Cas' other reviews, but a glance at this site on average will yield yet more reviews of streaming platform material and very mainstream releases.

You'll see the best of foreign language releases covered there, and independent cinema, something you dont see here.

No crime in that of course. - I was merely responding to the declarative statement that these are the best reviews in the world, by pointing out that the scope isn't that wide here, there will be reviewers out there with perhaps a better way to contextualise and with a broader perspective.

But lets not go down the rabbit hole of "critic as cultural gatekeeper" debate.
 
@Casimir Harlow Are you able to just sit and enjoy a film like us mortals, or do you find yourself reviewing them, even if you don't need to?
 
The G is more than just Bradshaw though, what with Kermode's contributions and others. And the point. still stands, their breadth of coverage, be it Bradshaw alone or the collective, is far greater.

Be it the G or the FT, where they have proper arts / culture sections as opposed to the Telegraph for example, they don't leave the impression that they are largely watching Netflix and churning out reviews. I may well have missed a few of Cas' other reviews, but a glance at this site on average will yield yet more reviews of streaming platform material and very mainstream releases.

You'll see the best of foreign language releases covered there, and independent cinema, something you dont see here.

No crime in that of course. - I was merely responding to the declarative statement that these are the best reviews in the world, by pointing out that the scope isn't that wide here, there will be reviewers out there with perhaps a better way to contextualise and with a broader perspective.

But lets not go down the rabbit hole of "critic as cultural gatekeeper" debate.

Really? Have you not read the Grauniad lately? Bradshaw's reviews leave much to be desired. The other "reviewers" are by and large awful and as for Kermode - yes he is good but I often don't agree with him or his reviews.

So you've chosen to ignore the other film reviewers I see. Most of which seem not to have watched much at all going by the laughable Midway review for instance. This site is way ahead of those - its not even a battle in all honesty.
 
I'm guessing the reviewer didn't like it given the this macho war **** from Roland Emmerich comment.
Although jet fighters are not mentioned. Perhaps since been corrected. The reviewer missed the chance though to go for a quadruple w score with 'this macho wanton wearisome war **** from Roland Emmerich'.
It was edited as many people were laughing at the "jet fighters" comment. And its hardly a review in any case. No surprise that the Graun hated this film though... ;)
 
It was edited as many people were laughing at the "jet fighters" comment. And its hardly a review in any case. No surprise that the Graun hated this film though... ;)
Yes, but there is another much longer review there as well. And that one is open for comments (or was).
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom