Finally saw Skyfall, and saw it twice in a row same day (yes...i've got no life...)
This movie gives you a A LOT to chew on...there is so much and it is all done so well and subtlely, a wonderful James Bond film!
First, Sam Mendes finally shot a bullseye on how to use Daniel Craig CORRECTLY!
CR and QoS were good films, but they almost didnt work for me because Craig was being used in the same essence as Brosnan. The directors in my opinion failed to bring out the awsomeness in Craig to its fullest, even though it was right there on the surface the entire time (screaming to be liberated!).
Wether this was done in CR and QoS on purpose, perhaps, but in many scenes in those movies i found myself wishing it were not Craig playing Bond...
In Skyfall all those wishes dissappear. I wanted Craig to succeed as Bond, and thanks to Mendes he absolutely does in this film. Craig has too many 'old school, craggy, uber-male ' features to be used like Brosnan or Moore even Dalton. His face reminds me of a Dick Tracy comic strip character, and thus i felt that he should be used as such.
Watching Craig in CR or QoS (good films) was as jarring as seeing Dick Tracy drawn into a Jim Lee pencilled issue of XMen. But Mendes nails the 'Craig' look (short haircut, cut of suits) and then surrounds him with a 'throwback' feel of a film, perfect!
No wonder Mendes states the events of this film could of happened in 1962, as so many scenes feel like its FRWL or GF. No problem there, as those films are what made Bond, Bond.
That interview is highly edited to make it look like he's saying something that he isn't. I'd love to see the whole thing to see what was actually said.
My bad mr Connery.
Still a w@nker though.
I'm not defending him. Just pointing out that it's a misleading video. I agree he has been a prize pr!ck at times, but let's be honest, who hasn't :v
1- On Her Majesty's Secret Service 2- Casino Royale 3- Licence To Kill 4- Goldeneye 5- From Russia With Love
<Warning! Very negative review ahead (sorry). And spoilers too, naturally. >
In my extremely limited and unimportant opinion, Skyfall is the least Bond-like movie of all so far, and actually a pretty bad movie overall. With respect, the effort and planning that went into is clear and impressive, but the outcome is not. I hope no one will be offended by what I am saying - it has been said by a few others already that the movie felt like a long PTS (again!) for Bond 24 but mostly everyone here thinks it is top-notch - so please forgive my feeling very differently and expressing that scathingly here.
The good (very few):
-The DB5 reveal is heart-stoppingly perfectly done
-The very last scene is unbelievably comforting, even for someone (me) who started with GE and didn't grow up with the whole padded door, etc. motifs
-The moments of modern dialogue mixed in within the nods to lovely classic elements ("Are you going to complain the whole way?" while flicking the gearshift cover) is just wonderful, even if so utterly few in number
-The entire Scotland chapter is nontheless very gripping, even if more action/suspense thriller than Bond
The bad (everything else):
-My beloved Craig-Bond just doesn't look (or dress) the part anymore. DC does act really well, but this is going in an I-want-an-Oscar direction (can't say I blame him), and he's becoming quite a "but-his-face"
-The girls weren't nearly good-looking enough. I'm an ugly, short, balding guy myself and no one to talk, but Bond movies should have beauties, not averages. Naomi may do well as Moneypenny, and Berenice did actually convey her fright and distress quite well - but they don't remove the need for being just outright lovely to look at, which both miss. (My opinion, of course; not everyone agrees, I know.)
-The plot wasn't much stronger than that of QoS which everyone universally derides. Unimpressive and much too many holes to be enjoyable for very long.
-Except for the DB5 reveal, nothing about the movie felt perfectly bespoke, polished and grandiosely proffered like Bond movies are known for. Ok, maybe Silva is an exception. That's not enough, sorry.
-I understand the need for the grayness and darkness throughout the film given its plot and subject lines, but it got tiring. Some unblemished sun or blue water scenes (other than a transplanted hotel-top pool scene) were needed sorely. Even QoS had the Talamone scene, at the very least.
-The tux scene, often considered the main Bond scene in these films, at the Macau casino, was much too un-glamorous and small, and, if that wasn't enough, ruined by a campy rendition of a fight amonst Komodo dragons. It could have been done much better I feel. I know MGM was almost bankrupt in 2010 and we're lucky to have Bond at all, but how tight was the budget exactly?
-I personally thought the banter (or maybe it was just the delivery) in most scenes was very forced and downright terrible, except the few ones embedded in classic moments as mentioned above. "A Volkswagen Beetle, I think." "What were you expecting, an exploding pen?" etc. etc. Most Brits on average are far wittier than this on a slow Wednesday afternoon.
Sorry, I can't think of a worse Bond film. Not nearly enough eye candy, and too little of SC's handsome, devil-may-care smirks and unapologetic amusement in the face of danger.
I was left excited for Bond 24 though! Well done that bit.
Finally seen it today, loved it, not sure if it tops Casino Royale but defo on the same level, and better than QOS (which i also liked and thought very underated).
Thought Bardem was a great villain.
Only major problem was M's death, i thought it would have been better if Silva had killed her directly and not her being slotted from what seemed like a flesh wound.
Other than that top marks, not my fave Bond but defo in my top 5 or 6.
I hope no one will be offended by what I am saying -
- so please forgive my feeling very differently and expressing that scathingly here.
I loved the film but I do enjoy reading why others didn't, provided that the negativity (for want of a better word!) is well explained and thought out. What I hate is people who will simply write "Skyfall sucks!" or "Skyfall - Worst Bond ever!!!!!!!" without any justification of why or where they feel it is weak.
I quite enjoyed reading what you didn't think worked and you definitely shouldn't apologise for your well reasoned opinion!
1- On Her Majesty's Secret Service 2- Casino Royale 3- Licence To Kill 4- Goldeneye 5- From Russia With Love
<Warning! Very negative review ahead (sorry). And spoilers too, naturally. >
Sorry, I can't think of a worse Bond film. Not nearly enough eye candy, and too little of SC's handsome, devil-may-care smirks and unapologetic amusement in the face of danger.
I was left excited for Bond 24 though! Well done that bit.
Well, scroll back for my review, it's very negative. That said, surprised you like the Aston, it's out of place in the new reboot. Makes no sense. The film has an autumnal feel, and plods a bit despite the frequent changes of scene. But we appear to be in a minority.
I know what you mean about the eye candy. It's amazing just how much mileage that Severine actress has got out of a, what, 15-min role on screen. Last night I was vaguely watching The Hour, a BBC series with the new Q, Ben Wilshire, in it, and a woman popped up far better looking, Oona Chaplin. It's odd how just about everyone else pulls it out of the bag with this stuff.
I was thinking I was going to have the last review-finally saw it last night with my brother and sister. I had so much expectations for this movie, and to tell the truth it was so hard not looking up a few spoilers
Cutting to the chase, it was so epic, my brother and sister, (who only like Craig's Bond, and who think all the others a old and sleazy) said they enjoyed immensely and that it was EPIC. Because it was epic, they put so much work into the film, and you could tell that. First, the pre-title is my favourite Bond pre-title. Right from the start, when I was sat down at the cinema with my popcorn, and the trailers had finished the MGM logo appeared. The only thing was that the MGM logo was different this time, a close-up thing?, probably got to do with MGM going bankrupt. The thing is, the MGM logo was different, pointed to me, that this film was going to be different, I was right.
At the start, the screen is blurry and we see Bond, walking towards the screen, from light into darkness and is face goes right up to the screen. No gunbarrel at the start, was I pissed?
No, not at all, because I didn't have time to be pissed because the action which followed was awesome, pure Bond.
The titles were really cool, and reminded me of the old titles-Adele's song was even better in the film.
I can't go on like this-so I'll post my top highlights.
-The whole thing about 'think on your sins' and MI6 being underattack was cool.
-Severine was a good character, and I loved the scene where she died, with the guns-and the music.
-Raoul Silva is, in my mind, the best villian to be in a Bond film. He was so creepy and his opening speech about rats and coconuts was a great entrance. Anyone else cringe when he took his teeth out and showed what the cyanide capsule did to him?
-Q was awesome, and I thought it was a very clever thing to do making him a young kid, and the actor Ben did a fine job. The 'its a bloody big ship' scene was brilliant.
-Bill Tanner was at his best, I love this character, and this man places it the best.
-Aston Martin DB5-Awesome scene how the Bond theme played when this was unveiled, the auidence cheered.
-Kincade-I loved this character, it would be nice if they brought him back for Bond 24. Finney played him perfectly, and the audence, including me, were all laughing at the "welcome to scotland" moment.
-Skyfall Lodge-really good to see, and I always thought that tracing Bond's roots would always be cool
-Komodo dragon fight-thrilling and funny as well.
Silva- death scene, did anyone else giggle when he made these weird noises when Bond stabbed him?
-The whole tone of the film was done perfectly, reminded me of FRWL because it had the same tone and humour.
The acting skills were superb as well.
-The ending was epic, I'm hyped for the next film. Hopefully the old office, Q, Moneypenny, Tanner and M will return with Bond.
“The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning. "
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
<Warning! Very negative review ahead (sorry). And spoilers too, naturally. >
Sorry, I can't think of a worse Bond film. Not nearly enough eye candy, and too little of SC's handsome, devil-may-care smirks and unapologetic amusement in the face of danger.
I was left excited for Bond 24 though! Well done that bit.
Well, scroll back for my review, it's very negative. That said, surprised you like the Aston, it's out of place in the new reboot. Makes no sense. The film has an autumnal feel, and plods a bit despite the frequent changes of scene. But we appear to be in a minority.
I know what you mean about the eye candy. It's amazing just how much mileage that Severine actress has got out of a, what, 15-min role on screen. Last night I was vaguely watching The Hour, a BBC series with the new Q, Ben Wilshire, in it, and a woman popped up far better looking, Oona Chaplin. It's odd how just about everyone else pulls it out of the bag with this stuff.
Nothing wrong with a negative review, each to their own. The eye candy is definitely down in the Babs & Craig era, in fact, the eye candy is basically Craig. Was there any reason to have the swimming pool scene in SF other than to get Craig in his swim suit again. Not too many scenes with women in bikini's anymore.
Severine got mileage out of here small role because she was very good and the scene in the bar in Shanghai was memorable.
I saw Skyfall this evening, and overall I'm impressed. It took me a long time to get into the film (probably because the trailer spoiled the PTS), but when I finally did (when Bond stalks the guy up the elevator shaft) I became really engrossed. I like the homages to the past, especially the DB5 (it was obvious it was going to be this car when Bond opens the garage) and I guessed early on that M was going to die. It's sad to see Judi Dench leave the role, and I think Ray Finnes and anyone else after him is going to have a hard job replacing her.
Good performances all round, the soundtrack was great (it did seem to be missing something, but perhaps I'm too use to Arnold's signature style - which might be why it took a while to get into the film), a good story, characters, and some memorable scenes. For example, the scene in the building with the signs flashing in the background, the one in the Shanghai bar, the introduction of Silva, and probably one of the series' best climaxes.
At this stage I think it would end up within my top ten list, probably around 8th place. I'm looking forward to watching it again.
I agree Dame Judy drench will be hard to replace. She played the role like a female version of Cowley from the professionals, I’m not sure bond should be like Bodie though which seem to be the direction Daniel Crage has taken it.
I also think Tinker Tailor Soldiers spy was an influence on the styling and feel of parts of sky fall. This is good but its as mater of degree and how far can bond go in these directions.
Sky fall is a very haunting Bond move. it stays with you after you leave the cinema and makes you want to see it again ,which is a great attribute for a film to have, but for the next one I think they need to edge back to a bit more fantasy.
<Warning! Very negative review ahead (sorry). And spoilers too, naturally. >
Sorry, I can't think of a worse Bond film. Not nearly enough eye candy, and too little of SC's handsome, devil-may-care smirks and unapologetic amusement in the face of danger.
I was left excited for Bond 24 though! Well done that bit.
Well, scroll back for my review, it's very negative. That said, surprised you like the Aston, it's out of place in the new reboot. Makes no sense. The film has an autumnal feel, and plods a bit despite the frequent changes of scene. But we appear to be in a minority.
I know what you mean about the eye candy. It's amazing just how much mileage that Severine actress has got out of a, what, 15-min role on screen. Last night I was vaguely watching The Hour, a BBC series with the new Q, Ben Wilshire, in it, and a woman popped up far better looking, Oona Chaplin. It's odd how just about everyone else pulls it out of the bag with this stuff.
I had read and really liked your review and if it wasn't for yours and one or two other ones here, I would likely not have posted mine. Or just have worded it very.. diplomatically.
I actually agree with you that the DB5 is out of place. I think it's just that when it went growling out of the garage and the familiar theme started going (for the first time in the movie, I think) I thought to myself: finally, the movie starts! Of course, I realized right away that I already knew where they were headed and that it would likely not be very classic-Bond-like, even if beautifully shot.
Ultimately, I agree with your fundamental premise - I am not a fan of Sam Mendes, never was. And the rest of your criticisms in your review are spot-on.
<Warning! Very negative review ahead (sorry). And spoilers too, naturally. >
Sorry, I can't think of a worse Bond film. Not nearly enough eye candy, and too little of SC's handsome, devil-may-care smirks and unapologetic amusement in the face of danger.
I was left excited for Bond 24 though! Well done that bit.
Well, scroll back for my review, it's very negative. That said, surprised you like the Aston, it's out of place in the new reboot. Makes no sense. The film has an autumnal feel, and plods a bit despite the frequent changes of scene. But we appear to be in a minority.
I know what you mean about the eye candy. It's amazing just how much mileage that Severine actress has got out of a, what, 15-min role on screen. Last night I was vaguely watching The Hour, a BBC series with the new Q, Ben Wilshire, in it, and a woman popped up far better looking, Oona Chaplin. It's odd how just about everyone else pulls it out of the bag with this stuff.
Nothing wrong with a negative review, each to their own. The eye candy is definitely down in the Babs & Craig era, in fact, the eye candy is basically Craig. Was there any reason to have the swimming pool scene in SF other than to get Craig in his swim suit again. Not too many scenes with women in bikini's anymore.
Severine got mileage out of here small role because she was very good and the scene in the bar in Shanghai was memorable.
Your right about the Bab's/ Craig era feline eye candy Barry. One should NEVER, EVER have to watch another movie to find out how STUNNING a Bond woman is, which was the case with me and Olga from QoS. She is a KNOCK OUT in " Magic city " and everything else except QoS for that matter. With the way Craig's Bond has progressed I'm afraid bond 24 is going to cast for Bond men instead ) ) )
The last six weeks has been an agonising wait as in South Africa we had to wait until November 30th for SkyFall. I tried to avoid stumbling on major spoilers whilst still being in touch with the Bond online community during this period, so I inevitably did have a few things spoiled but these certainly didn't ruin the experience. The film was great. It was everything I hoped it would be. It delivered in the promise of Casino Royale which QoS had failed to do.
I won't go into all the specifics which have been repeated many times on this thread, but I'll just briefly outline my major thoughts. I though Bardem was a fine villain, and his character was the classic Bond adversary that I expected he would be. This was Judi Dench's finest hour as M and she goes out with a great film, leaving a legacy of quality performances in her seven Bond adventures. I also enjoyed Ralph Fiennes' Mallory and look forward to his tenure as M. The fact that they reintroduced the classic M office with a new male M is an interesting move, since M's offices have more and more hi-tech over the last few films. Having Moneypenny back is a huge plus as well. I thought Severine was a beautiful, and very memorable addition to the ranks of Bond ladies despite the brevity of her role in the film.
On a cinematic level, there was also much to like. Hiring a top director like Sam Mendes was a huge benefit to the film, and luckily wasn't the misfire that previous 'arty' directors have been. I think Mendes brought a lot of his own ideas to the film, blending them with classic Bond, and also tipping his hat to Christopher Nolan. Also, the contribution of Roger Deakins to the film is enormous. I will repeat what others have said, the best Bond film ever in terms of cinematography. I think Thomas Newman's score is adequate without being very good. The lack of clear thematic development hurts the score in my opinion. I'm glad that he gave the James Bond theme a couple of decent appearances in the film though.
On a Bondian level, the film is hardly a classic Bond film in the sense of sticking to the formula. But it is a classic in the sense of reinventing the formula to some degree. It does feel like more of a reboot than CR to me. And yet it also manages to feel like a classic Bond. A tricky balance I'm sure, but it works for me. The anniversary nods also work better than in DAD which is great, because they do add to the film this time. Also the humour is welcome, and well balanced here.
I suppose the best compliment that I can give the film is that it satisfied me completely, yet at the same time leaving me hungry for more. I hope we don't wait four years for the next adventure!!
Bond is becoming more and more tired and out of date. Jason Bourne has replaced him because Bourne knows that killing is wrong and wants out. Bond is someone who kills for a living without being too concerned about it. I know there was a bit of soul searching in Casino Royale but the whole franchise feels increasingly lost. Bond is an icon of the 20th century when "I" (the Hero) was important - in the 21st century "We" is what's important and the most interesting and successful action films feature teams of people working together. The debonair figure in the tuxedo walking across the casino has lost its charm, its meaning and its mystique. Skyfall is well made and entertaining at times but it is constantly trying to not doubt itself and convince us not to doubt it either. Maybe you won't but I did.
3. Who is the bad guy?
The days of the action hero who can kill without compunction or by rationalising his deeds are gone - the system itself is the enemy now and the recent Bond films even reflect this to a degree - but Bond is a part of that system too. In the days of Connery's Bond, the bad guys were the bad guys and we cheered when Bond killed them and thought nothing about the effect of killing on his psyche or soul. Now we are much more sensitive to such things and it is the attempt by the films to try to allow Bond to exist as both a likeable character and a psychologically authentic one that fails. Real people who kill lose part of themselves and whereas this didn't used to bother us, now it makes us flinch deep down. Hannibal Lecter of Silence of the Lambs is the epitome of this - a loveable and sophisticated anti-hero who is also a cannibal. And Bond was not an anti-hero to start with but a hero, defending what was right for Queen and country. But on the upside we now have gorgeous characters like Dexter who has an addiction to killing and has to channel his murderous impulses as well as he can. The kind of people who do Bond's job in real life are closer to Dexter than anything else.
3. Rule 1 of Screenwriting - make us care about the hero's quest - make it meaningful to us
If they want to resurrect Bond well they need to create a villain and a threat that we care about so that we want Bond to succeed. This will better justify his means because of the urgency of the end goal. The last two films have had very odd villains and Skyfall's villain was hardly taking over the world - I personally didn't give a rat's arse about the stolen hard drive and the consequences of its contents being leaked. The Bolivian water supply issue is QoS was much more significant but even it was a bit flabby as a Bond villain's plot.
4. Witty or gritty?
The movie shifted uneasily between gritty seriousness and witty one liners and this does not work tonally or thematically.
5. What is there to care about?
M's death did not move me at the end, any more than the threat of agents being exposed. The move does it's best to make us feel something but advertising tries to do the same thing and I don't fall for that either. Nice try but I like to be in charge of my emotional responses.
6. Too contrived
The planning by the villain to escape from MI6 and then have explosives ready to divert a train to fall on Bond was absolutely preposterous. And how did the villain kill his guards? Weak, weak, weak.
7. Coming full circle
When Bond enters the old-fashioned office that M had in the pre-Dench days and find that Ralph Fiennes has become the new M, are we supposed to believe that the franchise has been successfully rebooted and we can go back to the pre-psychoanalyzed Bond of the Dalton and earlier Bonds? Sorry about the feminist interruption of the last 20 years but now we can pick up from where we left off in License to Kill. ???
My biggest complaint is the CGI, which there was way too much of and most of it was awful. It really doesn't enhance the movie going experience at all in this type of film, in fact it only detracts from it. I almost never see CGI and think "wow that looks awesome", I usually think "wow, that looks really fake" and I get taken out of the story/experience.
Also like delicious mentioned, they couldn't keep the tone straight, too many one-liners in moments when there shouldn't have been.
There were also certain scenes that just seemed really out of place. One that comes to mind is the fight with the Komodo Dragons, it was ridiculous and over the top in a really bad way. A missed opportunity to have a really cool scene of Bond being tailed and then taking those guys out in a really brutal fight like the stairwell fight in CR.
The airport scene was clearly a throwback to the airport scenes from Dr No/FRWL, but felt exceptionally undeveloped. That another big minus for SF in my eyes, they had a lot of good ideas, but many of them were executed poorly. Most of the first two acts felt rushed and underdeveloped as well.
Silva's island base thing was severely underutilized, and were those CGI helicopters? That vertical panning shot was pretty bad, there were some pretty questionable shots at some points, and I'm usually pretty forgiving about that stuff. That CGI shot of Bond falling down the waterfall actually made me laugh.
That being said, the DB5 reveal and onward was all awesome, especially the cinematography in Scotland. Silva's death could have been better though. I also really enjoyed the final scene in M's office, I'll admit that I couldn't stop smiling at that part.
I guess I was expecting something closer to CR, and this was just completely different. I mean, I was completely blown away coming out of the theater after CR, every moment of it was amazing. It felt very lean and tightly crafted, where as SF felt underdeveloped and rushed. SF has some of the best moments of Bond, but it also has a lot of parts that just didn't work for me. I liked it overall, and definitely think I'll like it more on repeated viewings, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't let down just a little bit.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,746Chief of Staff
My biggest complaint is the CGI, which there was way too much of and most of it was awful. That being said, the DB5 reveal and onward was all awesome, especially the cinematography in Scotland.
My biggest complaint is the CGI, which there was way too much of and most of it was awful. That being said, the DB5 reveal and onward was all awesome, especially the cinematography in Scotland.
Plenty of the Scottish background was CGI
Nonsense!!!
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,746Chief of Staff
My biggest complaint is the CGI, which there was way too much of and most of it was awful. That being said, the DB5 reveal and onward was all awesome, especially the cinematography in Scotland.
Plenty of the Scottish background was CGI
Nonsense!!!
Believe what you will...most of it wasn't even filmed in Scotland.
The shots of the Scotish landscaspe were shot in Scotland!!!
In films, interiors cutaways, close-ups would be shot in a studio else where,
That’s just standard practice in all film.
The Scottish shots looked amazing and they were shot in Scotland.
As I said, believe what you will...Skyfall Lodge isn't even in Scotland....and the backgrounds to it were CGI.....and they are not interior shots or cutaways...sorry to burst your bubble....
The shots of the Scotish landscaspe were shot in Scotland!!!
In films, interiors cutaways, close-ups would be shot in a studio else where,
That’s just standard practice in all film.
The Scottish shots looked amazing and they were shot in Scotland.
As I said, believe what you will...Skyfall Lodge isn't even in Scotland....and the backgrounds to it were CGI.....and they are not interior shots or cutaways...sorry to burst your bubble....
Not including interiors. Most of the Scottish scenes were actually filmed at Hankley Common in Surrey, England. The Bond/M scene where they survey the landscape while discussing his childhood, followed by a couple of overhead and long shots of the Aston Martin DB5 driving through the barren landscape were filmed in Glencoe, Scotland.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
I have seen minarets in a Turkish skyline. I have seen decrepit buildings in London and crowded passageways of a bazaar in Istanbul. I have seen darkly lit rooms and old secret service officials striding in murky corridors. I recall seeing fireworks in an Oriental festival that sort of resemble the Disney animation Mulan. I have heard a dirge play over the titles, and I gather its meaningless lyrics are meant to be “arty.” I remember silhouette figures talking in dark rooms. I remember a helicopter hovering at night. I have seen what’s obviously English countryside standing in for Turkish landscape. There are grimy chambers, dark hallways and rooms throughout this movie, and I have seen them all with shadows of people, or people almost obfuscated in the murky atmosphere. And all the while—143 minutes, to be exact—I was reminded of the recent Batman films, the last Mission: Impossible entry, the Bourne series, even the trinity of Transporter action hysterics.
Four years in the making, I recall. Four long years of developing a story set in dark rooms and corridors, night scenes and somber color, a development suspended at one point, in the second year or so, by the financial collapse of the associated studio. Just the deep pit to drop some filmmakers as they take another crack at a long running series. Four years marked with indecisions, script rewrites, the dread of uncertainty, and, for one of the screenwriters at least, anger and disillusionment and his consequent exit—a tapestry of human folly that somehow culminates as a movie, rendered in said dark interiors and super dark night scenes, and, for variation, jammed with trite dramatic scenes of actors so convinced they are in another cool and moody Christopher Nolan Batman film.
In the midst of it all, I did see a bulldozer demolishing sections of a train. I now know that Heineken beer is available in the underground confines of MI6. I’ve also learned that the British Secret Service thinks so little of itself that it actually appointed Ben Wishaw as its quartermaster. To this end, it did not surprise me to see its glorious building explode in gloomy daylight. It also didn’t excite me to watch the shenanigans occurring beneath the city: with redundant scenes of tunnels and underground passageways, the filmmakers were free to use almost no lights in this film, which is an effective way not to show incidents worth caring about, simply because, well, nobody can see anything. Fortunately, there was just enough lighting for me to see a London subway crash in a subterranean corridor. I have also noticed dark figures throwing grenades into dark rooms of a crumbling country house. I have seen some chap fall down a dark elevator shaft. I have watched said country house go up in flames at night. And I have learned that the British Secret Service does not subscribe to a cloud storage backup service to protect highly classified secret agent data.
I’ve got to say I barely noticed the female leads, though I believe a character named Severine is one of them, wandering in murky sets. I did catch a glimpse of Naomi Harris near the beginning of the film, driving a land rover through a bazaar, and she reappears clutching a razor blade in another darkly lit room before she essentially disappears, along with the rest of the cast, in the inky blackness of the cinematography. I was, however, surprised to see Vladimir Putin visiting his family estate in Scotland—for how did the Russian statesman come to possess Scottish ancestry? Just as surprising, I have seen a bushy blonde wig on a greasy gay foreigner, who happens to be well equipped to conduct cyberterrorism from a ruined island. It is he who is the villain (though upon his introduction he resembles a hairdresser), flaunting homoerotic impulses in one of the kitschiest performances in the last 182 years. These scenes, these smattering of images, collide and whirl with my sense impressions to constitute the latest Bond film, Brokeback Skyfall.
E-tu, Sam Mendes?
What hath Eon done? Handing the reigns over to Shakespeare’s reincarnation, Sam Mendes, signaled a looming wreckage early on in the production. The entire film seems like an excuse for Mendes to play “visionary director” for the series, and he’s crafted something that attempts to be a serious intellectual Bond movie but never strikes any coherence in its ambition. The title is already symptomatic of nonsense: Mendes, just like his predecessor, Marc Forster (the maestro behind the kitschy Quantum Of Solace), relies on a title that is meant to give the film sophistication but has very little significance to the story. To clarify: the actual title is Skyfall, which translates to Skoofguttencrapp for the all important Slovakian market.
Either way, the title unintentionally points to a film steeped in numerology: for Skyfall is the 23rd Bond film; it commemorates the 50th anniversary of the series; and as the third Putin-esque 007 movie, it underscores the great tradition of trilogies such as Jaws 3-D, Jurassic Park III, and Transporter 3. Before the film’s release, I received emails from fans who were puzzled by the meaning of the title. Fortunately, the Elizabethan poet known as Adele provides a description in the title song (inspired by a batch of Nostradamus quatrains):
Skyfall is where we start
A thousand miles and poles apart
When worlds collide, and days are dark That should clarify any confusion. My take, on the other hand, is not as erudite: Skyfall was chosen by the filmmakers because it is an easy-to-market title for the inevitable video games and other merchandise tie-ins. Or it is a dreadful movie starring the deified Daniel Craig. Personally, I would accept either answer.
In the film’s fantasy, the term “Skyfall” refers to a master planned community in the Scottish Highlands, developed by the builders of The Villages (which just happens to be “Florida’s friendliest home town”). This is where we find Vladimir Putin playing in the many links golf courses or shooting red deer stag in the craggy hills. It’s disturbing to think that the Russian president prefers Scotland over his native Russia. But then the film reveals, in a gripping plot twist, that this is not the Russian leader we’ve all come to know but a lookalike who comes from a long line of Scottish 007 agents—and their family legacy is a rundown country house known as Skyfall. Not to be punctilious, but I ought to point out that none of the family members have bothered with the upkeep, and the place is mostl likely infested with deer ticks and roaches. I can attest (based on experience, of course) that when your toilet is teeming with roaches and the rest of the house has deer tick infestation, such a condition could degrade the property value. The wise course is not to get into one of those I-can-wait-longer-than-you-can disputes with your family members: just put aside your ego and clean the place. Nevertheless, as director Mendes would like us to believe, the whole notion of a Scottish setting is truly akin to Macbeth.
The best thing about Skyfall is how lousy it is. I don’t mean “lousy” because it’s directed by Mr. Mendes, a specialist in kitschy political polemics. Colossally overrated and reliably pretentious, Mendes can be counted upon to deliver a terrible film—and Skyfall is professionally terrible, its story glaring with holes, depending heavily on recycled elements from the 007 canon, while beset with an overly forlorn mood, forcing the cast to present “serious matter” and bringing themselves into sappy dramatic antics, but the result is a narrative struggling for the dark look-and-feel of Nolan’s Batman franchise, though frantic in action scenes that are shaped (once again) by Bourne style editing, yet skillfully woven together into glossy blockbuster nonsense. Where once the series innovated and set certain trends in the adventure genre, it now follows others in its struggle for relevance. Thus, the state of the 007 series on its 50th anniversary.
The film begins in Turkey, whether we care or not. Right away, we’re treated to a motorcycle chase through a crowded bazaar (replete with the requisite fruit-stand damage), which leads to a fight between the Craig-Bond and a stunt man, choreographed on top of a fast-moving train that occasionally enters a tunnel. It all has to do with the Craig-Bond attempting to recover a stolen hard drive that supposedly contains information about undercover agents in terrorist organizations. (I suspect it’s the same NOC list that everyone was seeking in Mission: Impossible. Somebody ought to tell the Bard of the BBC that this plot device isn’t exactly original.)
The hard drive itself is a bit of a mystery: is it solid-state or serial ATA? Sadly, we never learn. Moreover, had MI6’s IT personnel been aware of online data protection services and how readily available they are from numerous cloud service providers, the data would not have been stolen in the first place, and we all could have gone home just after the studio logos appeared on screen, our minds free of the video game animation that constitutes the main titles. The shenanigans surrounding the hard drive just reminds us that big bureaucratic government is inefficient—so inefficient, in fact, that MI6 fails to realize that its Double-O agent is trapped in a fight scene that has been done in Octopussy. I refer to the scene where Roger Moore’s Bond battles Louis Jordan’s henchman on top of a train that enters a series of tunnels. From here on, Skyfall essentially unfolds according to rehashed scenes from previous Bond films. In this sense, the film hails the spirit of 2002’s Die Another Day—yes, that most horrid of Bond films, according to the fan boys locked in the Internet forums. For DAD (as its fans call it) essentially alluded to many Bondian elements to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the franchise.
A Remembrance of Things Past
Skyfall’s plot, or rather the crux of the villain’s scheme, is pure homage to Die Another Day: Raoul Silva, a former British Secret Service agent, holds MI6 chief M responsible for his torture and imprisonment by the Chinese, just as Brosnan’s Bond, in DAD, undergoes 14 months of captivity and torture by the North Koreans, only to feel betrayed by M, who just happens to resemble the female M in the Craig tenure. This sense of déjà vu surfaces too frequently in Skyfall. Take, for example, the whole notion of an ex-British agent with an agenda: this is, in itself, lifted from Trevelyan's death and “resurrection” in GoldenEye and expresses shades of Bond’s existential death in Licence To Kill, when he functions as a rogue agent to pursue the drug baron Franz Sanchez. Moreover, the Craig-Bond’s “resurrection” in Skyfall (after being shot off the train by Naomi Harris’s character) is nothing more than warmed over You Only Live Twice. The shoulder injury he sustains is a throwback to The World Is Not Enough, where Brosnan's Bond is hampered in his derring-do by a damaged shoulder. And just as an explosion is set off within MI6 headquarters in that film, we see the organization infiltrated again in Skyfall, culminating with an explosion in the building.
Now consider another element from the past: the Craig-Bond faces a newly reorganized MI6, as signified by the young effeminate Q. In other words, the world of 007 has changed, which recalls the reorganized MI6 that Bond confronts in GoldenEye. In that film (released in 1995, many years before Madam Barbara Broccoli went temporarily insane with the reboot of the franchise), the filmmakers embraced how the world was a new stage for Bond—we have the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War, the shifting social mores—and presented the secret agent as a static element in the uncertainty of the so-called new world order. Change, then, is one of the main themes of GoldenEye, underscored by the introduction of the female M, as portrayed by Judi Dench. Her clashes with Brosnan’s Bond was one of the hallmarks of the film and an intriguing way for us to see 007’s reaction to this new world. This is reworked for Skyfall not only in the conflict between the Craig-Bond and M but in her clash with her bureaucratic overseer, played by Ralph Fiennes (he reprimands her after the MI6 bombing, but she refuses to resign). So here we are, almost twenty years later, and the Bond makers have repackaged the GoldenEye theme with a new Q (rather than a new M), as well as some MI6 office turmoil to emphasize the instability of things.
More remakes: the Walther PPK, modified with a palm-scanner to ensure that only the Craig-Bond can use it, is a retread of Bond’s rifle in Licence To Kill—the so-called signature gun, embellished by Q-Branch to include an optical palm reader that identifies the hand print of the designated agent. The shrapnel that the Craig-Bond removes from his shoulder wound becomes a clue that he uses to track the hard drive thief to Shanghai, a plot device taken from The Man With The Golden Gun: Moore’s 007 uses a spent golden bullet (retrieved from his stomach, if you catch my meaning, after swallowing it from the abdomen of a belly dancer) to trace its manufacturer in Macau. (Golden Gun is also invoked when the Craig-Bond finds a gambling chip that leads him to a casino in Macau.) And when we see the Craig-Bond escape from the pit of Komodo dragons by stepping on the back of one of the gruesome creatures to hoist himself over the railing, isn’t this a replay of Moore’s Bond, in Live and Let Die, stepping over the backs of alligators to flee a small island surrounded by the reptiles? Even an underground MI6 headquarters makes its way in Skyfall, which reminds us of Vauxhall Cross, the fictional tube station in Die Another Day (yes, once again, that film!), where the invisible Aston Martin makes its entrance. There must be some sort of inverse law at work—for the more the fans despise DAD, the more the Bond makers thrust elements of that film into Skyfall. In any case, this catalog of similarities is enough here to grasp that Mendes and company were not exactly brimming with creativity and resorted to cobbling together elements of old 007 films to pad out their flimsy plot line.
007 No More
The movie, after whizzing its attempts at rehashing scenes from previous films, tries to deepen the Bond character by presenting him as emotionally vulnerable and, of course, politically correct in his effort not to be a voracious womanizer. Oh, we do see him, in a very dim scene near the beginning of the film, locked in coitus with what appears to be an island girl (and their beach house, incidentally, recalls the one in which we find Jason Bourne in the opening of The Bourne Supremacy). There is also the romantic interlude with the doomed Bond girl, Severine, in a steamy shower stall. In both scenes, we sense not only Craig’s discomfort to play a romantic leading man but the discomfort of the filmmakers to tackle such scenes, which gives us the impression that these incidents were forced into the narrative to keep some semblance of the Bondian style. Still, the Craig-Bond is not the aggressive playboy 007 of yore. He offers instead a feminist-leaning, gay-friendly hero. This characterization is first hinted in Casino Royale, flaunted in Quantum Of Solace, and surfaces, rather unabashedly, in a Bondian commercial tie-in (produced by Madam Broccoli) that commemorated the centenary of International Women’s Day, where we find the Craig-Bond gadding about in full drag. The commercial, released in the spring of 2011, signaled the full intention of the filmmakers to downplay the playboy imagery that has long been associated with the series. As Barbara Broccoli states, just after Skyfall’s release, “[Bond] developed some rather distasteful pastimes but those have now receded into the past” (Singh). In other words, forget the teasing sexiness of previous Bond films, where the gorgeous babes were blatantly showcased and the virile, rebel of a hero sort of winked at the audiences to acknowledge that it’s all just a two-hour fantasy. No, the Bond in Skyfall is soft and, well, lacks balls: annoyingly, he keeps calling home to mommy M (Judi Dench) for guidance. He doesn’t seem to have any independence. This is a Bond who needs permission in order to act. I kept waiting for that classic rebellious moment where he would junk the headset, defy orders, and take matters into his own hands, consequences be damned.
Equally disturbing is this business of a sensitive Bond with painful recollections of his boyhood. I had underestimated the genius of Mendes and company, but they managed to force all this prissy metrosexual claptrap with actual Fleming material. So the Bond-as-orphan bit from the novel You Only Live Twice is brought out again, only this time with lingering shots of the graves of his parents at the Skyfall country house and vague allusions to the loss of his parents at a young age, a sorrow that he has apparently never made peace with. It is absurd: Fleming himself was hardly concerned with the man’s origins, and no such Skyfall country house exists in his fiction. The filmmakers, on the other hand, are so desperate to assert such a wussified Bond while grasping at straws to stay in touch with the trend of super-hero origin films. (And just as ridiculous, the office scene with the Craig-Bond and Harris’s character at the end of the film reveals the origin of Moneypenny. It won't be long when the filmmakers will present the humble beginnings of all the staff members, and I personally look forward to the day when we get to see the origin of Tanner, the Chief of Staff.)
Above all, the efforts of the filmmakers don’t accord with the character in Fleming’s fiction: the literary character seems to be aloof about his family background, let alone any sorrows from his childhood. If anything, he sees warm nostalgia in his boyhood, an innocent time that he finds comforting:
It was one of those beautiful, naive seaside panoramas for which the Brittany and Picardy beaches have provided the setting. . . . To James Bond, sitting in one of the concrete shelters with his face to the setting sun, there was something poignant, ephemeral about it all. It reminded him almost too vividly of childhood [and] always in those days, it seemed, lit with sunshine. . . . It was all there, his own childhood, spread out before him to have another look at. What a long time ago they were, those spade-and-bucket days! How far he had come since the freckles and the Cadbury milk-chocolate Flakes and the fizzy lemonade! Impatiently Bond lit a cigarette, pulled his shoulders out of their slouch and slammed the mawkish memories back into their long-closed file. Today he was a grown-up, a man with years of dirty, dangerous memories—a spy. (Fleming 9-10)That is Bond, in the opening scene of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. This solitary figure, trapped in the dark world of spying, finds refuge, however momentary, in the serene innocence of his childhood. In a few striking paragraphs, Fleming adapts the age-old theme of innocence and experience in a unique way to the framework of a thriller.
Skyfall, though, goes on for a while with this maudlin sensitivity approach to Bond, failing miserably as a movie-of-the-week drama on the Hallmark Channel. So then it tries out court room drama and, failing at this as well, dabbles in the drama/thriller realm of Homeland but resorts to its overall template, the dark and moody canvas of the Christopher Nolan Batman series. Even Mendes unabashedly admits that the role model for Skyfall is Nolan’s technique:
“In terms of what [Nolan] achieved, specifically The Dark Knight, the second movie, what it achieved, which is something exceptional. It was a game changer for everybody. . . . That did help give me the confidence to take this movie in directions that, without ‘The Dark Knight,’ might not have been possible.”That Skyfall patterns itself too self-consciously to the psychodrama and overall style of Gotham is one of the main faults of the film and reinforces the feeling that we’ve seen it—or something very much like it—before. Hence, the Aston Martin is presented as a vehicle to be marveled, just like the bat mobile; and when the Craig-Bond opens the garage door to reveal the car, it’s as if we’re peering into the bat cave. Other similarities: the Skyfall family estate is akin to Wayne Manor; the aged Scots gamekeeper (a pointless character played by Albert Finney) is meant to be Alfred the Butler; and the villain Silva has the Joker-esque ability to be a master of disguise. It seems that once Mendes joined the production, he quickly realized he had no idea how to approach an adventure film of this magnitude. Bankrupt of ideas, he chose to make Skyfall a follower of contemporary trends.
The Beauty Shop Villain
It all gives Javier Bardem, as the villain Raoul Silva, the freedom to overact with a zest that makes Kevin Bacon, as the campy gay hair-salon owner in Queen Latifah’s Beauty Shop, appear dignified and profoundly reserved. None of the scenes are safe from Bardem’s craving jaws (which, incidentally, he can yank from his mouth, a repulsive thing best viewed on an empty stomach, or best not viewed at all). Mendes attempts to give him a dramatic entrance—a long walk after coming out of an elevator to confront the Craig-Bond—but the camera work is so deep-focused that it’s distracting, and when we finally see him up close, we can barely look at the character without laughing. If you ask me, the Bond makers are fighting an uphill battle to present a spy thriller with a villain who resembles Stuart Smalley. Moreover, the script and direction reduce the character to a ridiculous harmless entity, and forces Bardem to spend too much time attempting to evoke sympathy when the audience is told of Silva’s suffering in the hands of the Chinese. The backstory itself is equally useless: the aforementioned ex-MI6 agent was betrayed by M for essentially being overenthusiastic in his duties during pre-handover Hong Kong days.
Bardem’s character is also a variation of the flamboyant, pansexual villain in Quantum Of Solace, Dominic Greene, and we wonder whether Silva, at one point in his Bond villain career, was ever involved with Greene’s gay group Quantum. It seems the Bond makers regard these twisted characters as the epitome of Eurocoolness. The scene where Silva amuses himself by unbuttoning the Craig-Bond’s shirt and caressing the agent’s chest and legs will live on as the most revolting display of blatant political correctness in the series. Not only is it an awkward homoerotic scene, it also serves zero purpose in the plot, forcing us to wonder if it was inserted in the movie to heighten pre-release publicity with a risque buzz. Yet Craig’s Bond is more at ease in this scene rather than in his romantic interludes with Severine and the island girl—once again, the filmmakers are implying a quasi-gay Bond, calculated to draw the widest possible demographics by appeasing feminists and, at another level, appealing to gay audiences.
The Highlands Retreat
Skyfall was set to be filmed in China and Bali but by early spring of 2012, the producers scrapped the plans to cut costs. The slashed budget is evident on screen, particularly in the finale where the limited scope of the production is obviously apparent. Cinematographer Roger Deakins presents a snarl of shadows and bursts of sepia-colored light, making everything difficult to see. From what I was able to discern, the Craig-Bond and M are holed up in the Skyfall country house, awaiting the arrival of Silva and his troopers by booby-trapping the house in the spirit of Home Alone. And why in hell are they neglected by the British Secret Service? In a film rampant with people using headsets, and with many moments earlier when the Craig-Bond and Q are incessantly communicating, why can’t he call Q to send reinforcements? The whole notion of the Craig-Bond and the 90-year old civilian gameskeeper as the sole defenders of M, the head of MI6, is preposterous.
Sure enough, somewhere in the dark scenes, the first batch of troopers arrive, throwing grenades into the country house and into the barren land, killing somebody lurking in the bushes. Unfortunately, it was neither the Craig-Bond nor M. It was just a squirrel, out for a peaceful evening stroll, admiring the constellations over the Scottish Highlands. Undeterred, the goons continue to throw grenades into the country house, damaging many recent home improvement projects. Finally, Silva arrives by helicopter, just to be an a-hole it would seem. His situation as a Bond villain grows desperate—so desperate in fact, that he allows Sam Mendes to direct him.
If there is anything unique about Skyfall, it does feature many actors who are as old as Cambrian rocks. It’s refreshing to see a major Hollywood movie that is devoid of a Justin Timberlake or a Kristen Stewart, or muscular teenaged werewolves and vampires. In this film, there are characters with graying hair, white hair, and lines on their faces—government workers with hefty entitlements awaiting them and to be paid by those young muscular teenaged werewolves and vampires. Yes, we have actors in Skyfall named Ralph and Albert and Judi. And Javier Bardem’s got at least several hundred years on him. As for the Anointed One, Daniel Craig—he looks as if he’s been around since Cromwell and the Protectorate, for crying out loud. The filmmakers do confront the notion of senescence, presenting the business of spying and those involved as something antiquated in a time of international terrorism. It’s an intriguing angle to explore but wasted in the hands of Mendes when he asserts it in both bold face and italics, so to speak, giving the effect of a grating, preachy tone.
The other downside to this theme is that it unintentionally makes the 50-year old series look very creaky, especially under the guise of Craig, who is astoundingly old in appearance and cannot play the British agent with any credibility. From the moment he appears on screen (oddly, without eyebrows), we have the uncomfortable feeling that he is a rambling performance that needs to be pulled from the stage. We simply cannot ignore the ridiculous discrepancy that the man we see in close-ups is the same agent caught up in the dangerous action. There are attempts to enliven his approach with humor; but his delivery of the throwaway lines—hampered by a poor sound mix and by his own voice (effete, light, almost indistinguishable from a female voice)—reminds us that humor is not his forte. All in all, he gives another sub-Jason Statham performance. It’s time to recast the role.
A Farewell to Grandeur
“To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.” The line is from the poem that M recites (Tennyson’s Ulysses) during her hearing. Ironically, it doesn't apply to the series. In its half-century run, we find it yielding to other action films, most notably clinging to the coattails of the super-hero genre in its style and structure and in its assertion of a hero fashioned after Bruce Wayne—although with dashes of the bland Transporter mercenary—rather than Ian Fleming's vision. But 50 years ago, Dr. No burst upon the silver screen as something dynamic, unique, and even redefined the action narrative. It was pure cinema magic, a clever example of Romantic art, as displayed in the direction, the writing, the editing, and most notably, in the performance of Sean Connery—ruthless but nevertheless the dark romantic hero, immutably cool, dashing. The world had never seen such a screen hero until Dr. No, and the now famous introduction of the character still remains the great hallmark in the series. As Ayn Rand states, the introduction is a “gem of dramatic technique, elegance, wit, and understatement” (136). It’s this great legacy that I find myself thinking of and quietly celebrating on this anniversary.
Skyfall, on the other hand, is a tremendous misfire and underscores how far the 007 film empire has fallen from that apex of grandeur. The budget cuts are apparent in the limited scope of the villain’s caper and in the shortage of exotic locales. For most of the film, there is little reference to the stolen hard drive and little sense of very deep danger, but a devotion to political correctness abounds. Meanwhile, half-baked moral messages about the opaqueness of evil and the disorder and treachery in the spy business are dressed up in bland intrigue, all of it shot in super dark cinematography so no one notices how bad it all is. The film doesn’t even strive to be unique, or to be an innovator as it once did; instead, it recycles elements from previous Bond films and acknowledges and mimics recent adventure films, most notably the style and drama of Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight. Hence, it didn’t surprise me to see, in the theater lobby, that the final poster of Skyfall has a disturbing resemblance to the poster of the last Transporter film:
In other words, squint at Skyfall and you’ll think you’re watching Statham’s Frank Martin with some of the dark stuff from Batman thrown in. Unimaginative, utterly routine in its effort, and struggling desperately to be relevant in today’s movie landscape, Skyfall is a hollow, futile mess.
You got a bloody cheek to compare Frank Martin to James Bond, I may have one question: Why not leave this section of this great forum alone BTW i never saw Bond do a roundhouse-kick
Knowing who to trust is Everything in this business.
TIS - "The moment you think you got it figured - you're wrong"
Comments
This movie gives you a A LOT to chew on...there is so much and it is all done so well and subtlely, a wonderful James Bond film!
First, Sam Mendes finally shot a bullseye on how to use Daniel Craig CORRECTLY!
CR and QoS were good films, but they almost didnt work for me because Craig was being used in the same essence as Brosnan. The directors in my opinion failed to bring out the awsomeness in Craig to its fullest, even though it was right there on the surface the entire time (screaming to be liberated!).
Wether this was done in CR and QoS on purpose, perhaps, but in many scenes in those movies i found myself wishing it were not Craig playing Bond...
In Skyfall all those wishes dissappear. I wanted Craig to succeed as Bond, and thanks to Mendes he absolutely does in this film. Craig has too many 'old school, craggy, uber-male ' features to be used like Brosnan or Moore even Dalton. His face reminds me of a Dick Tracy comic strip character, and thus i felt that he should be used as such.
Watching Craig in CR or QoS (good films) was as jarring as seeing Dick Tracy drawn into a Jim Lee pencilled issue of XMen. But Mendes nails the 'Craig' look (short haircut, cut of suits) and then surrounds him with a 'throwback' feel of a film, perfect!
No wonder Mendes states the events of this film could of happened in 1962, as so many scenes feel like its FRWL or GF. No problem there, as those films are what made Bond, Bond.
I'm not defending him. Just pointing out that it's a misleading video. I agree he has been a prize pr!ck at times, but let's be honest, who hasn't :v
In my extremely limited and unimportant opinion, Skyfall is the least Bond-like movie of all so far, and actually a pretty bad movie overall. With respect, the effort and planning that went into is clear and impressive, but the outcome is not. I hope no one will be offended by what I am saying - it has been said by a few others already that the movie felt like a long PTS (again!) for Bond 24 but mostly everyone here thinks it is top-notch - so please forgive my feeling very differently and expressing that scathingly here.
The good (very few):
-The DB5 reveal is heart-stoppingly perfectly done
-The very last scene is unbelievably comforting, even for someone (me) who started with GE and didn't grow up with the whole padded door, etc. motifs
-The moments of modern dialogue mixed in within the nods to lovely classic elements ("Are you going to complain the whole way?" while flicking the gearshift cover) is just wonderful, even if so utterly few in number
-The entire Scotland chapter is nontheless very gripping, even if more action/suspense thriller than Bond
The bad (everything else):
-My beloved Craig-Bond just doesn't look (or dress) the part anymore. DC does act really well, but this is going in an I-want-an-Oscar direction (can't say I blame him), and he's becoming quite a "but-his-face"
-The girls weren't nearly good-looking enough. I'm an ugly, short, balding guy myself and no one to talk, but Bond movies should have beauties, not averages. Naomi may do well as Moneypenny, and Berenice did actually convey her fright and distress quite well - but they don't remove the need for being just outright lovely to look at, which both miss. (My opinion, of course; not everyone agrees, I know.)
-The plot wasn't much stronger than that of QoS which everyone universally derides. Unimpressive and much too many holes to be enjoyable for very long.
-Except for the DB5 reveal, nothing about the movie felt perfectly bespoke, polished and grandiosely proffered like Bond movies are known for. Ok, maybe Silva is an exception. That's not enough, sorry.
-I understand the need for the grayness and darkness throughout the film given its plot and subject lines, but it got tiring. Some unblemished sun or blue water scenes (other than a transplanted hotel-top pool scene) were needed sorely. Even QoS had the Talamone scene, at the very least.
-The tux scene, often considered the main Bond scene in these films, at the Macau casino, was much too un-glamorous and small, and, if that wasn't enough, ruined by a campy rendition of a fight amonst Komodo dragons. It could have been done much better I feel. I know MGM was almost bankrupt in 2010 and we're lucky to have Bond at all, but how tight was the budget exactly?
-I personally thought the banter (or maybe it was just the delivery) in most scenes was very forced and downright terrible, except the few ones embedded in classic moments as mentioned above. "A Volkswagen Beetle, I think." "What were you expecting, an exploding pen?" etc. etc. Most Brits on average are far wittier than this on a slow Wednesday afternoon.
Sorry, I can't think of a worse Bond film. Not nearly enough eye candy, and too little of SC's handsome, devil-may-care smirks and unapologetic amusement in the face of danger.
I was left excited for Bond 24 though! Well done that bit.
Mate, that's your opinion , don't apologise for it, you paid your money just like anybody else.
Thought Bardem was a great villain.
Only major problem was M's death, i thought it would have been better if Silva had killed her directly and not her being slotted from what seemed like a flesh wound.
Other than that top marks, not my fave Bond but defo in my top 5 or 6.
I loved the film but I do enjoy reading why others didn't, provided that the negativity (for want of a better word!) is well explained and thought out. What I hate is people who will simply write "Skyfall sucks!" or "Skyfall - Worst Bond ever!!!!!!!" without any justification of why or where they feel it is weak.
I quite enjoyed reading what you didn't think worked and you definitely shouldn't apologise for your well reasoned opinion!
Well, scroll back for my review, it's very negative. That said, surprised you like the Aston, it's out of place in the new reboot. Makes no sense. The film has an autumnal feel, and plods a bit despite the frequent changes of scene. But we appear to be in a minority.
I know what you mean about the eye candy. It's amazing just how much mileage that Severine actress has got out of a, what, 15-min role on screen. Last night I was vaguely watching The Hour, a BBC series with the new Q, Ben Wilshire, in it, and a woman popped up far better looking, Oona Chaplin. It's odd how just about everyone else pulls it out of the bag with this stuff.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I was thinking I was going to have the last review-finally saw it last night with my brother and sister. I had so much expectations for this movie, and to tell the truth it was so hard not looking up a few spoilers
Cutting to the chase, it was so epic, my brother and sister, (who only like Craig's Bond, and who think all the others a old and sleazy) said they enjoyed immensely and that it was EPIC. Because it was epic, they put so much work into the film, and you could tell that. First, the pre-title is my favourite Bond pre-title. Right from the start, when I was sat down at the cinema with my popcorn, and the trailers had finished the MGM logo appeared. The only thing was that the MGM logo was different this time, a close-up thing?, probably got to do with MGM going bankrupt. The thing is, the MGM logo was different, pointed to me, that this film was going to be different, I was right.
At the start, the screen is blurry and we see Bond, walking towards the screen, from light into darkness and is face goes right up to the screen. No gunbarrel at the start, was I pissed?
No, not at all, because I didn't have time to be pissed because the action which followed was awesome, pure Bond.
The titles were really cool, and reminded me of the old titles-Adele's song was even better in the film.
I can't go on like this-so I'll post my top highlights.
-The whole thing about 'think on your sins' and MI6 being underattack was cool.
-Severine was a good character, and I loved the scene where she died, with the guns-and the music.
-Raoul Silva is, in my mind, the best villian to be in a Bond film. He was so creepy and his opening speech about rats and coconuts was a great entrance. Anyone else cringe when he took his teeth out and showed what the cyanide capsule did to him?
-Q was awesome, and I thought it was a very clever thing to do making him a young kid, and the actor Ben did a fine job. The 'its a bloody big ship' scene was brilliant.
-Bill Tanner was at his best, I love this character, and this man places it the best.
-Aston Martin DB5-Awesome scene how the Bond theme played when this was unveiled, the auidence cheered.
-Kincade-I loved this character, it would be nice if they brought him back for Bond 24. Finney played him perfectly, and the audence, including me, were all laughing at the "welcome to scotland" moment.
-Skyfall Lodge-really good to see, and I always thought that tracing Bond's roots would always be cool
-Komodo dragon fight-thrilling and funny as well.
Silva- death scene, did anyone else giggle when he made these weird noises when Bond stabbed him?
-The whole tone of the film was done perfectly, reminded me of FRWL because it had the same tone and humour.
The acting skills were superb as well.
-The ending was epic, I'm hyped for the next film. Hopefully the old office, Q, Moneypenny, Tanner and M will return with Bond.
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
Nothing wrong with a negative review, each to their own. The eye candy is definitely down in the Babs & Craig era, in fact, the eye candy is basically Craig. Was there any reason to have the swimming pool scene in SF other than to get Craig in his swim suit again. Not too many scenes with women in bikini's anymore.
Severine got mileage out of here small role because she was very good and the scene in the bar in Shanghai was memorable.
I saw Skyfall this evening, and overall I'm impressed. It took me a long time to get into the film (probably because the trailer spoiled the PTS), but when I finally did (when Bond stalks the guy up the elevator shaft) I became really engrossed. I like the homages to the past, especially the DB5 (it was obvious it was going to be this car when Bond opens the garage) and I guessed early on that M was going to die. It's sad to see Judi Dench leave the role, and I think Ray Finnes and anyone else after him is going to have a hard job replacing her.
Good performances all round, the soundtrack was great (it did seem to be missing something, but perhaps I'm too use to Arnold's signature style - which might be why it took a while to get into the film), a good story, characters, and some memorable scenes. For example, the scene in the building with the signs flashing in the background, the one in the Shanghai bar, the introduction of Silva, and probably one of the series' best climaxes.
At this stage I think it would end up within my top ten list, probably around 8th place. I'm looking forward to watching it again.
8. TMwtGG 9. AVtaK 10. TSWLM 11. SF 12. LtK 13. TND 14. YOLT
15. NTtD 16. MR 17. LaLD 18. GF 19. SP 20. DN 21. TB
22. TWiNE 23. DAD 24. QoS 25. DaF
I also think Tinker Tailor Soldiers spy was an influence on the styling and feel of parts of sky fall. This is good but its as mater of degree and how far can bond go in these directions.
Sky fall is a very haunting Bond move. it stays with you after you leave the cinema and makes you want to see it again ,which is a great attribute for a film to have, but for the next one I think they need to edge back to a bit more fantasy.
I had read and really liked your review and if it wasn't for yours and one or two other ones here, I would likely not have posted mine. Or just have worded it very.. diplomatically.
I actually agree with you that the DB5 is out of place. I think it's just that when it went growling out of the garage and the familiar theme started going (for the first time in the movie, I think) I thought to myself: finally, the movie starts! Of course, I realized right away that I already knew where they were headed and that it would likely not be very classic-Bond-like, even if beautifully shot.
Ultimately, I agree with your fundamental premise - I am not a fan of Sam Mendes, never was. And the rest of your criticisms in your review are spot-on.
(Woah! That's Charlie Chaplin's grand-daughter!)
Your right about the Bab's/ Craig era feline eye candy Barry. One should NEVER, EVER have to watch another movie to find out how STUNNING a Bond woman is, which was the case with me and Olga from QoS. She is a KNOCK OUT in " Magic city " and everything else except QoS for that matter. With the way Craig's Bond has progressed I'm afraid bond 24 is going to cast for Bond men instead
I won't go into all the specifics which have been repeated many times on this thread, but I'll just briefly outline my major thoughts. I though Bardem was a fine villain, and his character was the classic Bond adversary that I expected he would be. This was Judi Dench's finest hour as M and she goes out with a great film, leaving a legacy of quality performances in her seven Bond adventures. I also enjoyed Ralph Fiennes' Mallory and look forward to his tenure as M. The fact that they reintroduced the classic M office with a new male M is an interesting move, since M's offices have more and more hi-tech over the last few films. Having Moneypenny back is a huge plus as well. I thought Severine was a beautiful, and very memorable addition to the ranks of Bond ladies despite the brevity of her role in the film.
On a cinematic level, there was also much to like. Hiring a top director like Sam Mendes was a huge benefit to the film, and luckily wasn't the misfire that previous 'arty' directors have been. I think Mendes brought a lot of his own ideas to the film, blending them with classic Bond, and also tipping his hat to Christopher Nolan. Also, the contribution of Roger Deakins to the film is enormous. I will repeat what others have said, the best Bond film ever in terms of cinematography. I think Thomas Newman's score is adequate without being very good. The lack of clear thematic development hurts the score in my opinion. I'm glad that he gave the James Bond theme a couple of decent appearances in the film though.
On a Bondian level, the film is hardly a classic Bond film in the sense of sticking to the formula. But it is a classic in the sense of reinventing the formula to some degree. It does feel like more of a reboot than CR to me. And yet it also manages to feel like a classic Bond. A tricky balance I'm sure, but it works for me. The anniversary nods also work better than in DAD which is great, because they do add to the film this time. Also the humour is welcome, and well balanced here.
I suppose the best compliment that I can give the film is that it satisfied me completely, yet at the same time leaving me hungry for more. I hope we don't wait four years for the next adventure!!
1. It's more entertaining than QoS
But that wouldn't be hard.
2. It's unconvincing
Bond is becoming more and more tired and out of date. Jason Bourne has replaced him because Bourne knows that killing is wrong and wants out. Bond is someone who kills for a living without being too concerned about it. I know there was a bit of soul searching in Casino Royale but the whole franchise feels increasingly lost. Bond is an icon of the 20th century when "I" (the Hero) was important - in the 21st century "We" is what's important and the most interesting and successful action films feature teams of people working together. The debonair figure in the tuxedo walking across the casino has lost its charm, its meaning and its mystique. Skyfall is well made and entertaining at times but it is constantly trying to not doubt itself and convince us not to doubt it either. Maybe you won't but I did.
3. Who is the bad guy?
The days of the action hero who can kill without compunction or by rationalising his deeds are gone - the system itself is the enemy now and the recent Bond films even reflect this to a degree - but Bond is a part of that system too. In the days of Connery's Bond, the bad guys were the bad guys and we cheered when Bond killed them and thought nothing about the effect of killing on his psyche or soul. Now we are much more sensitive to such things and it is the attempt by the films to try to allow Bond to exist as both a likeable character and a psychologically authentic one that fails. Real people who kill lose part of themselves and whereas this didn't used to bother us, now it makes us flinch deep down. Hannibal Lecter of Silence of the Lambs is the epitome of this - a loveable and sophisticated anti-hero who is also a cannibal. And Bond was not an anti-hero to start with but a hero, defending what was right for Queen and country. But on the upside we now have gorgeous characters like Dexter who has an addiction to killing and has to channel his murderous impulses as well as he can. The kind of people who do Bond's job in real life are closer to Dexter than anything else.
3. Rule 1 of Screenwriting - make us care about the hero's quest - make it meaningful to us
If they want to resurrect Bond well they need to create a villain and a threat that we care about so that we want Bond to succeed. This will better justify his means because of the urgency of the end goal. The last two films have had very odd villains and Skyfall's villain was hardly taking over the world - I personally didn't give a rat's arse about the stolen hard drive and the consequences of its contents being leaked. The Bolivian water supply issue is QoS was much more significant but even it was a bit flabby as a Bond villain's plot.
4. Witty or gritty?
The movie shifted uneasily between gritty seriousness and witty one liners and this does not work tonally or thematically.
5. What is there to care about?
M's death did not move me at the end, any more than the threat of agents being exposed. The move does it's best to make us feel something but advertising tries to do the same thing and I don't fall for that either. Nice try but I like to be in charge of my emotional responses.
6. Too contrived
The planning by the villain to escape from MI6 and then have explosives ready to divert a train to fall on Bond was absolutely preposterous. And how did the villain kill his guards? Weak, weak, weak.
7. Coming full circle
When Bond enters the old-fashioned office that M had in the pre-Dench days and find that Ralph Fiennes has become the new M, are we supposed to believe that the franchise has been successfully rebooted and we can go back to the pre-psychoanalyzed Bond of the Dalton and earlier Bonds? Sorry about the feminist interruption of the last 20 years but now we can pick up from where we left off in License to Kill. ???
Also like delicious mentioned, they couldn't keep the tone straight, too many one-liners in moments when there shouldn't have been.
There were also certain scenes that just seemed really out of place. One that comes to mind is the fight with the Komodo Dragons, it was ridiculous and over the top in a really bad way. A missed opportunity to have a really cool scene of Bond being tailed and then taking those guys out in a really brutal fight like the stairwell fight in CR.
The airport scene was clearly a throwback to the airport scenes from Dr No/FRWL, but felt exceptionally undeveloped. That another big minus for SF in my eyes, they had a lot of good ideas, but many of them were executed poorly. Most of the first two acts felt rushed and underdeveloped as well.
Silva's island base thing was severely underutilized, and were those CGI helicopters? That vertical panning shot was pretty bad, there were some pretty questionable shots at some points, and I'm usually pretty forgiving about that stuff. That CGI shot of Bond falling down the waterfall actually made me laugh.
That being said, the DB5 reveal and onward was all awesome, especially the cinematography in Scotland. Silva's death could have been better though. I also really enjoyed the final scene in M's office, I'll admit that I couldn't stop smiling at that part.
I guess I was expecting something closer to CR, and this was just completely different. I mean, I was completely blown away coming out of the theater after CR, every moment of it was amazing. It felt very lean and tightly crafted, where as SF felt underdeveloped and rushed. SF has some of the best moments of Bond, but it also has a lot of parts that just didn't work for me. I liked it overall, and definitely think I'll like it more on repeated viewings, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't let down just a little bit.
Plenty of the Scottish background was CGI
Nonsense!!!
Believe what you will...most of it wasn't even filmed in Scotland.
when it's good, we don't notice it.
In films, interiors cutaways, close-ups would be shot in a studio else where,
That’s just standard practice in all film.
The Scottish shots looked amazing and they were shot in Scotland.
As I said, believe what you will...Skyfall Lodge isn't even in Scotland....and the backgrounds to it were CGI.....and they are not interior shots or cutaways...sorry to burst your bubble....
Not including interiors. Most of the Scottish scenes were actually filmed at Hankley Common in Surrey, England. The Bond/M scene where they survey the landscape while discussing his childhood, followed by a couple of overhead and long shots of the Aston Martin DB5 driving through the barren landscape were filmed in Glencoe, Scotland.
The location work at Glencoe in Scotland gave it the real WAW factor.
http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-skyfall/
I have seen minarets in a Turkish skyline. I have seen decrepit buildings in London and crowded passageways of a bazaar in Istanbul. I have seen darkly lit rooms and old secret service officials striding in murky corridors. I recall seeing fireworks in an Oriental festival that sort of resemble the Disney animation Mulan. I have heard a dirge play over the titles, and I gather its meaningless lyrics are meant to be “arty.” I remember silhouette figures talking in dark rooms. I remember a helicopter hovering at night. I have seen what’s obviously English countryside standing in for Turkish landscape. There are grimy chambers, dark hallways and rooms throughout this movie, and I have seen them all with shadows of people, or people almost obfuscated in the murky atmosphere. And all the while—143 minutes, to be exact—I was reminded of the recent Batman films, the last Mission: Impossible entry, the Bourne series, even the trinity of Transporter action hysterics.
Four years in the making, I recall. Four long years of developing a story set in dark rooms and corridors, night scenes and somber color, a development suspended at one point, in the second year or so, by the financial collapse of the associated studio. Just the deep pit to drop some filmmakers as they take another crack at a long running series. Four years marked with indecisions, script rewrites, the dread of uncertainty, and, for one of the screenwriters at least, anger and disillusionment and his consequent exit—a tapestry of human folly that somehow culminates as a movie, rendered in said dark interiors and super dark night scenes, and, for variation, jammed with trite dramatic scenes of actors so convinced they are in another cool and moody Christopher Nolan Batman film.
In the midst of it all, I did see a bulldozer demolishing sections of a train. I now know that Heineken beer is available in the underground confines of MI6. I’ve also learned that the British Secret Service thinks so little of itself that it actually appointed Ben Wishaw as its quartermaster. To this end, it did not surprise me to see its glorious building explode in gloomy daylight. It also didn’t excite me to watch the shenanigans occurring beneath the city: with redundant scenes of tunnels and underground passageways, the filmmakers were free to use almost no lights in this film, which is an effective way not to show incidents worth caring about, simply because, well, nobody can see anything. Fortunately, there was just enough lighting for me to see a London subway crash in a subterranean corridor. I have also noticed dark figures throwing grenades into dark rooms of a crumbling country house. I have seen some chap fall down a dark elevator shaft. I have watched said country house go up in flames at night. And I have learned that the British Secret Service does not subscribe to a cloud storage backup service to protect highly classified secret agent data.
I’ve got to say I barely noticed the female leads, though I believe a character named Severine is one of them, wandering in murky sets. I did catch a glimpse of Naomi Harris near the beginning of the film, driving a land rover through a bazaar, and she reappears clutching a razor blade in another darkly lit room before she essentially disappears, along with the rest of the cast, in the inky blackness of the cinematography. I was, however, surprised to see Vladimir Putin visiting his family estate in Scotland—for how did the Russian statesman come to possess Scottish ancestry? Just as surprising, I have seen a bushy blonde wig on a greasy gay foreigner, who happens to be well equipped to conduct cyberterrorism from a ruined island. It is he who is the villain (though upon his introduction he resembles a hairdresser), flaunting homoerotic impulses in one of the kitschiest performances in the last 182 years. These scenes, these smattering of images, collide and whirl with my sense impressions to constitute the latest Bond film, Brokeback Skyfall.
E-tu, Sam Mendes?
What hath Eon done? Handing the reigns over to Shakespeare’s reincarnation, Sam Mendes, signaled a looming wreckage early on in the production. The entire film seems like an excuse for Mendes to play “visionary director” for the series, and he’s crafted something that attempts to be a serious intellectual Bond movie but never strikes any coherence in its ambition. The title is already symptomatic of nonsense: Mendes, just like his predecessor, Marc Forster (the maestro behind the kitschy Quantum Of Solace), relies on a title that is meant to give the film sophistication but has very little significance to the story. To clarify: the actual title is Skyfall, which translates to Skoofguttencrapp for the all important Slovakian market.
Either way, the title unintentionally points to a film steeped in numerology: for Skyfall is the 23rd Bond film; it commemorates the 50th anniversary of the series; and as the third Putin-esque 007 movie, it underscores the great tradition of trilogies such as Jaws 3-D, Jurassic Park III, and Transporter 3. Before the film’s release, I received emails from fans who were puzzled by the meaning of the title. Fortunately, the Elizabethan poet known as Adele provides a description in the title song (inspired by a batch of Nostradamus quatrains):
Skyfall is where we start
A thousand miles and poles apart
When worlds collide, and days are dark That should clarify any confusion. My take, on the other hand, is not as erudite: Skyfall was chosen by the filmmakers because it is an easy-to-market title for the inevitable video games and other merchandise tie-ins. Or it is a dreadful movie starring the deified Daniel Craig. Personally, I would accept either answer.
In the film’s fantasy, the term “Skyfall” refers to a master planned community in the Scottish Highlands, developed by the builders of The Villages (which just happens to be “Florida’s friendliest home town”). This is where we find Vladimir Putin playing in the many links golf courses or shooting red deer stag in the craggy hills. It’s disturbing to think that the Russian president prefers Scotland over his native Russia. But then the film reveals, in a gripping plot twist, that this is not the Russian leader we’ve all come to know but a lookalike who comes from a long line of Scottish 007 agents—and their family legacy is a rundown country house known as Skyfall. Not to be punctilious, but I ought to point out that none of the family members have bothered with the upkeep, and the place is mostl likely infested with deer ticks and roaches. I can attest (based on experience, of course) that when your toilet is teeming with roaches and the rest of the house has deer tick infestation, such a condition could degrade the property value. The wise course is not to get into one of those I-can-wait-longer-than-you-can disputes with your family members: just put aside your ego and clean the place. Nevertheless, as director Mendes would like us to believe, the whole notion of a Scottish setting is truly akin to Macbeth.
The best thing about Skyfall is how lousy it is. I don’t mean “lousy” because it’s directed by Mr. Mendes, a specialist in kitschy political polemics. Colossally overrated and reliably pretentious, Mendes can be counted upon to deliver a terrible film—and Skyfall is professionally terrible, its story glaring with holes, depending heavily on recycled elements from the 007 canon, while beset with an overly forlorn mood, forcing the cast to present “serious matter” and bringing themselves into sappy dramatic antics, but the result is a narrative struggling for the dark look-and-feel of Nolan’s Batman franchise, though frantic in action scenes that are shaped (once again) by Bourne style editing, yet skillfully woven together into glossy blockbuster nonsense. Where once the series innovated and set certain trends in the adventure genre, it now follows others in its struggle for relevance. Thus, the state of the 007 series on its 50th anniversary.
The film begins in Turkey, whether we care or not. Right away, we’re treated to a motorcycle chase through a crowded bazaar (replete with the requisite fruit-stand damage), which leads to a fight between the Craig-Bond and a stunt man, choreographed on top of a fast-moving train that occasionally enters a tunnel. It all has to do with the Craig-Bond attempting to recover a stolen hard drive that supposedly contains information about undercover agents in terrorist organizations. (I suspect it’s the same NOC list that everyone was seeking in Mission: Impossible. Somebody ought to tell the Bard of the BBC that this plot device isn’t exactly original.)
The hard drive itself is a bit of a mystery: is it solid-state or serial ATA? Sadly, we never learn. Moreover, had MI6’s IT personnel been aware of online data protection services and how readily available they are from numerous cloud service providers, the data would not have been stolen in the first place, and we all could have gone home just after the studio logos appeared on screen, our minds free of the video game animation that constitutes the main titles. The shenanigans surrounding the hard drive just reminds us that big bureaucratic government is inefficient—so inefficient, in fact, that MI6 fails to realize that its Double-O agent is trapped in a fight scene that has been done in Octopussy. I refer to the scene where Roger Moore’s Bond battles Louis Jordan’s henchman on top of a train that enters a series of tunnels. From here on, Skyfall essentially unfolds according to rehashed scenes from previous Bond films. In this sense, the film hails the spirit of 2002’s Die Another Day—yes, that most horrid of Bond films, according to the fan boys locked in the Internet forums. For DAD (as its fans call it) essentially alluded to many Bondian elements to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the franchise.
A Remembrance of Things Past
Skyfall’s plot, or rather the crux of the villain’s scheme, is pure homage to Die Another Day: Raoul Silva, a former British Secret Service agent, holds MI6 chief M responsible for his torture and imprisonment by the Chinese, just as Brosnan’s Bond, in DAD, undergoes 14 months of captivity and torture by the North Koreans, only to feel betrayed by M, who just happens to resemble the female M in the Craig tenure. This sense of déjà vu surfaces too frequently in Skyfall. Take, for example, the whole notion of an ex-British agent with an agenda: this is, in itself, lifted from Trevelyan's death and “resurrection” in GoldenEye and expresses shades of Bond’s existential death in Licence To Kill, when he functions as a rogue agent to pursue the drug baron Franz Sanchez. Moreover, the Craig-Bond’s “resurrection” in Skyfall (after being shot off the train by Naomi Harris’s character) is nothing more than warmed over You Only Live Twice. The shoulder injury he sustains is a throwback to The World Is Not Enough, where Brosnan's Bond is hampered in his derring-do by a damaged shoulder. And just as an explosion is set off within MI6 headquarters in that film, we see the organization infiltrated again in Skyfall, culminating with an explosion in the building.
Now consider another element from the past: the Craig-Bond faces a newly reorganized MI6, as signified by the young effeminate Q. In other words, the world of 007 has changed, which recalls the reorganized MI6 that Bond confronts in GoldenEye. In that film (released in 1995, many years before Madam Barbara Broccoli went temporarily insane with the reboot of the franchise), the filmmakers embraced how the world was a new stage for Bond—we have the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War, the shifting social mores—and presented the secret agent as a static element in the uncertainty of the so-called new world order. Change, then, is one of the main themes of GoldenEye, underscored by the introduction of the female M, as portrayed by Judi Dench. Her clashes with Brosnan’s Bond was one of the hallmarks of the film and an intriguing way for us to see 007’s reaction to this new world. This is reworked for Skyfall not only in the conflict between the Craig-Bond and M but in her clash with her bureaucratic overseer, played by Ralph Fiennes (he reprimands her after the MI6 bombing, but she refuses to resign). So here we are, almost twenty years later, and the Bond makers have repackaged the GoldenEye theme with a new Q (rather than a new M), as well as some MI6 office turmoil to emphasize the instability of things.
More remakes: the Walther PPK, modified with a palm-scanner to ensure that only the Craig-Bond can use it, is a retread of Bond’s rifle in Licence To Kill—the so-called signature gun, embellished by Q-Branch to include an optical palm reader that identifies the hand print of the designated agent. The shrapnel that the Craig-Bond removes from his shoulder wound becomes a clue that he uses to track the hard drive thief to Shanghai, a plot device taken from The Man With The Golden Gun: Moore’s 007 uses a spent golden bullet (retrieved from his stomach, if you catch my meaning, after swallowing it from the abdomen of a belly dancer) to trace its manufacturer in Macau. (Golden Gun is also invoked when the Craig-Bond finds a gambling chip that leads him to a casino in Macau.) And when we see the Craig-Bond escape from the pit of Komodo dragons by stepping on the back of one of the gruesome creatures to hoist himself over the railing, isn’t this a replay of Moore’s Bond, in Live and Let Die, stepping over the backs of alligators to flee a small island surrounded by the reptiles? Even an underground MI6 headquarters makes its way in Skyfall, which reminds us of Vauxhall Cross, the fictional tube station in Die Another Day (yes, once again, that film!), where the invisible Aston Martin makes its entrance. There must be some sort of inverse law at work—for the more the fans despise DAD, the more the Bond makers thrust elements of that film into Skyfall. In any case, this catalog of similarities is enough here to grasp that Mendes and company were not exactly brimming with creativity and resorted to cobbling together elements of old 007 films to pad out their flimsy plot line.
007 No More
The movie, after whizzing its attempts at rehashing scenes from previous films, tries to deepen the Bond character by presenting him as emotionally vulnerable and, of course, politically correct in his effort not to be a voracious womanizer. Oh, we do see him, in a very dim scene near the beginning of the film, locked in coitus with what appears to be an island girl (and their beach house, incidentally, recalls the one in which we find Jason Bourne in the opening of The Bourne Supremacy). There is also the romantic interlude with the doomed Bond girl, Severine, in a steamy shower stall. In both scenes, we sense not only Craig’s discomfort to play a romantic leading man but the discomfort of the filmmakers to tackle such scenes, which gives us the impression that these incidents were forced into the narrative to keep some semblance of the Bondian style. Still, the Craig-Bond is not the aggressive playboy 007 of yore. He offers instead a feminist-leaning, gay-friendly hero. This characterization is first hinted in Casino Royale, flaunted in Quantum Of Solace, and surfaces, rather unabashedly, in a Bondian commercial tie-in (produced by Madam Broccoli) that commemorated the centenary of International Women’s Day, where we find the Craig-Bond gadding about in full drag. The commercial, released in the spring of 2011, signaled the full intention of the filmmakers to downplay the playboy imagery that has long been associated with the series. As Barbara Broccoli states, just after Skyfall’s release, “[Bond] developed some rather distasteful pastimes but those have now receded into the past” (Singh). In other words, forget the teasing sexiness of previous Bond films, where the gorgeous babes were blatantly showcased and the virile, rebel of a hero sort of winked at the audiences to acknowledge that it’s all just a two-hour fantasy. No, the Bond in Skyfall is soft and, well, lacks balls: annoyingly, he keeps calling home to mommy M (Judi Dench) for guidance. He doesn’t seem to have any independence. This is a Bond who needs permission in order to act. I kept waiting for that classic rebellious moment where he would junk the headset, defy orders, and take matters into his own hands, consequences be damned.
Equally disturbing is this business of a sensitive Bond with painful recollections of his boyhood. I had underestimated the genius of Mendes and company, but they managed to force all this prissy metrosexual claptrap with actual Fleming material. So the Bond-as-orphan bit from the novel You Only Live Twice is brought out again, only this time with lingering shots of the graves of his parents at the Skyfall country house and vague allusions to the loss of his parents at a young age, a sorrow that he has apparently never made peace with. It is absurd: Fleming himself was hardly concerned with the man’s origins, and no such Skyfall country house exists in his fiction. The filmmakers, on the other hand, are so desperate to assert such a wussified Bond while grasping at straws to stay in touch with the trend of super-hero origin films. (And just as ridiculous, the office scene with the Craig-Bond and Harris’s character at the end of the film reveals the origin of Moneypenny. It won't be long when the filmmakers will present the humble beginnings of all the staff members, and I personally look forward to the day when we get to see the origin of Tanner, the Chief of Staff.)
Above all, the efforts of the filmmakers don’t accord with the character in Fleming’s fiction: the literary character seems to be aloof about his family background, let alone any sorrows from his childhood. If anything, he sees warm nostalgia in his boyhood, an innocent time that he finds comforting:
It was one of those beautiful, naive seaside panoramas for which the Brittany and Picardy beaches have provided the setting. . . . To James Bond, sitting in one of the concrete shelters with his face to the setting sun, there was something poignant, ephemeral about it all. It reminded him almost too vividly of childhood [and] always in those days, it seemed, lit with sunshine. . . . It was all there, his own childhood, spread out before him to have another look at. What a long time ago they were, those spade-and-bucket days! How far he had come since the freckles and the Cadbury milk-chocolate Flakes and the fizzy lemonade! Impatiently Bond lit a cigarette, pulled his shoulders out of their slouch and slammed the mawkish memories back into their long-closed file. Today he was a grown-up, a man with years of dirty, dangerous memories—a spy. (Fleming 9-10)That is Bond, in the opening scene of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. This solitary figure, trapped in the dark world of spying, finds refuge, however momentary, in the serene innocence of his childhood. In a few striking paragraphs, Fleming adapts the age-old theme of innocence and experience in a unique way to the framework of a thriller.
Skyfall, though, goes on for a while with this maudlin sensitivity approach to Bond, failing miserably as a movie-of-the-week drama on the Hallmark Channel. So then it tries out court room drama and, failing at this as well, dabbles in the drama/thriller realm of Homeland but resorts to its overall template, the dark and moody canvas of the Christopher Nolan Batman series. Even Mendes unabashedly admits that the role model for Skyfall is Nolan’s technique:
“In terms of what [Nolan] achieved, specifically The Dark Knight, the second movie, what it achieved, which is something exceptional. It was a game changer for everybody. . . . That did help give me the confidence to take this movie in directions that, without ‘The Dark Knight,’ might not have been possible.”That Skyfall patterns itself too self-consciously to the psychodrama and overall style of Gotham is one of the main faults of the film and reinforces the feeling that we’ve seen it—or something very much like it—before. Hence, the Aston Martin is presented as a vehicle to be marveled, just like the bat mobile; and when the Craig-Bond opens the garage door to reveal the car, it’s as if we’re peering into the bat cave. Other similarities: the Skyfall family estate is akin to Wayne Manor; the aged Scots gamekeeper (a pointless character played by Albert Finney) is meant to be Alfred the Butler; and the villain Silva has the Joker-esque ability to be a master of disguise. It seems that once Mendes joined the production, he quickly realized he had no idea how to approach an adventure film of this magnitude. Bankrupt of ideas, he chose to make Skyfall a follower of contemporary trends.
The Beauty Shop Villain
It all gives Javier Bardem, as the villain Raoul Silva, the freedom to overact with a zest that makes Kevin Bacon, as the campy gay hair-salon owner in Queen Latifah’s Beauty Shop, appear dignified and profoundly reserved. None of the scenes are safe from Bardem’s craving jaws (which, incidentally, he can yank from his mouth, a repulsive thing best viewed on an empty stomach, or best not viewed at all). Mendes attempts to give him a dramatic entrance—a long walk after coming out of an elevator to confront the Craig-Bond—but the camera work is so deep-focused that it’s distracting, and when we finally see him up close, we can barely look at the character without laughing. If you ask me, the Bond makers are fighting an uphill battle to present a spy thriller with a villain who resembles Stuart Smalley. Moreover, the script and direction reduce the character to a ridiculous harmless entity, and forces Bardem to spend too much time attempting to evoke sympathy when the audience is told of Silva’s suffering in the hands of the Chinese. The backstory itself is equally useless: the aforementioned ex-MI6 agent was betrayed by M for essentially being overenthusiastic in his duties during pre-handover Hong Kong days.
Bardem’s character is also a variation of the flamboyant, pansexual villain in Quantum Of Solace, Dominic Greene, and we wonder whether Silva, at one point in his Bond villain career, was ever involved with Greene’s gay group Quantum. It seems the Bond makers regard these twisted characters as the epitome of Eurocoolness. The scene where Silva amuses himself by unbuttoning the Craig-Bond’s shirt and caressing the agent’s chest and legs will live on as the most revolting display of blatant political correctness in the series. Not only is it an awkward homoerotic scene, it also serves zero purpose in the plot, forcing us to wonder if it was inserted in the movie to heighten pre-release publicity with a risque buzz. Yet Craig’s Bond is more at ease in this scene rather than in his romantic interludes with Severine and the island girl—once again, the filmmakers are implying a quasi-gay Bond, calculated to draw the widest possible demographics by appeasing feminists and, at another level, appealing to gay audiences.
The Highlands Retreat
Skyfall was set to be filmed in China and Bali but by early spring of 2012, the producers scrapped the plans to cut costs. The slashed budget is evident on screen, particularly in the finale where the limited scope of the production is obviously apparent. Cinematographer Roger Deakins presents a snarl of shadows and bursts of sepia-colored light, making everything difficult to see. From what I was able to discern, the Craig-Bond and M are holed up in the Skyfall country house, awaiting the arrival of Silva and his troopers by booby-trapping the house in the spirit of Home Alone. And why in hell are they neglected by the British Secret Service? In a film rampant with people using headsets, and with many moments earlier when the Craig-Bond and Q are incessantly communicating, why can’t he call Q to send reinforcements? The whole notion of the Craig-Bond and the 90-year old civilian gameskeeper as the sole defenders of M, the head of MI6, is preposterous.
Sure enough, somewhere in the dark scenes, the first batch of troopers arrive, throwing grenades into the country house and into the barren land, killing somebody lurking in the bushes. Unfortunately, it was neither the Craig-Bond nor M. It was just a squirrel, out for a peaceful evening stroll, admiring the constellations over the Scottish Highlands. Undeterred, the goons continue to throw grenades into the country house, damaging many recent home improvement projects. Finally, Silva arrives by helicopter, just to be an a-hole it would seem. His situation as a Bond villain grows desperate—so desperate in fact, that he allows Sam Mendes to direct him.
If there is anything unique about Skyfall, it does feature many actors who are as old as Cambrian rocks. It’s refreshing to see a major Hollywood movie that is devoid of a Justin Timberlake or a Kristen Stewart, or muscular teenaged werewolves and vampires. In this film, there are characters with graying hair, white hair, and lines on their faces—government workers with hefty entitlements awaiting them and to be paid by those young muscular teenaged werewolves and vampires. Yes, we have actors in Skyfall named Ralph and Albert and Judi. And Javier Bardem’s got at least several hundred years on him. As for the Anointed One, Daniel Craig—he looks as if he’s been around since Cromwell and the Protectorate, for crying out loud. The filmmakers do confront the notion of senescence, presenting the business of spying and those involved as something antiquated in a time of international terrorism. It’s an intriguing angle to explore but wasted in the hands of Mendes when he asserts it in both bold face and italics, so to speak, giving the effect of a grating, preachy tone.
The other downside to this theme is that it unintentionally makes the 50-year old series look very creaky, especially under the guise of Craig, who is astoundingly old in appearance and cannot play the British agent with any credibility. From the moment he appears on screen (oddly, without eyebrows), we have the uncomfortable feeling that he is a rambling performance that needs to be pulled from the stage. We simply cannot ignore the ridiculous discrepancy that the man we see in close-ups is the same agent caught up in the dangerous action. There are attempts to enliven his approach with humor; but his delivery of the throwaway lines—hampered by a poor sound mix and by his own voice (effete, light, almost indistinguishable from a female voice)—reminds us that humor is not his forte. All in all, he gives another sub-Jason Statham performance. It’s time to recast the role.
A Farewell to Grandeur
“To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.” The line is from the poem that M recites (Tennyson’s Ulysses) during her hearing. Ironically, it doesn't apply to the series. In its half-century run, we find it yielding to other action films, most notably clinging to the coattails of the super-hero genre in its style and structure and in its assertion of a hero fashioned after Bruce Wayne—although with dashes of the bland Transporter mercenary—rather than Ian Fleming's vision. But 50 years ago, Dr. No burst upon the silver screen as something dynamic, unique, and even redefined the action narrative. It was pure cinema magic, a clever example of Romantic art, as displayed in the direction, the writing, the editing, and most notably, in the performance of Sean Connery—ruthless but nevertheless the dark romantic hero, immutably cool, dashing. The world had never seen such a screen hero until Dr. No, and the now famous introduction of the character still remains the great hallmark in the series. As Ayn Rand states, the introduction is a “gem of dramatic technique, elegance, wit, and understatement” (136). It’s this great legacy that I find myself thinking of and quietly celebrating on this anniversary.
Skyfall, on the other hand, is a tremendous misfire and underscores how far the 007 film empire has fallen from that apex of grandeur. The budget cuts are apparent in the limited scope of the villain’s caper and in the shortage of exotic locales. For most of the film, there is little reference to the stolen hard drive and little sense of very deep danger, but a devotion to political correctness abounds. Meanwhile, half-baked moral messages about the opaqueness of evil and the disorder and treachery in the spy business are dressed up in bland intrigue, all of it shot in super dark cinematography so no one notices how bad it all is. The film doesn’t even strive to be unique, or to be an innovator as it once did; instead, it recycles elements from previous Bond films and acknowledges and mimics recent adventure films, most notably the style and drama of Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight. Hence, it didn’t surprise me to see, in the theater lobby, that the final poster of Skyfall has a disturbing resemblance to the poster of the last Transporter film:
In other words, squint at Skyfall and you’ll think you’re watching Statham’s Frank Martin with some of the dark stuff from Batman thrown in. Unimaginative, utterly routine in its effort, and struggling desperately to be relevant in today’s movie landscape, Skyfall is a hollow, futile mess.
TIS - "The moment you think you got it figured - you're wrong"
Formerly known as Teppo
Would anybody really have classified data in "the cloud". Probably unlikely
With the MoD computers you are not even allowed to use a USB pen drive , so anything held elsewhere than on hard drive is a big no.
Some good points with which I would agree - but can't go back and pick them out... favourite bit:
'The hard drive itself is a bit of a mystery: is it solid-state or serial ATA? Sadly, we never learn.'
LOL !!!