Monday, November 12, 2012
Skyfall
I viewed this film in Eugene at 2115 hours. I had originally planned on the 2030 showing but it was sold out. I knew at this point that this newest installment of the Bond franchise was if nothing else going to be popular. It was also no surprise that when we sat down the theatre around us filled quickly. To my left was a younger fellow who was flying solo. To my right my lovely wife. To her left was an older fellow with a young son chomping on his popcorn. I bring this up only to illustrate that there was a wide range of ages and types of people. I think this lends to the fact that for 50 years now Bond is still a popular and well-known brand.
Now the next question is was it any good. The short answer (for me anyway) is yes. I did have small issues with the film, but I think because it is Bond I forgave them pretty easy.
This is Daniel Craig's third Bond film. I must admit that I was highly skeptical about Craig playing Bond. I was and am a huge Sean Connery fan, while I grew up with mainly Pierce Brosnan as my Bond. After my viewing of "Casino Royale" I am a fan, and I may be pre-mature but he is shaping up (pun intended) to be my favorite. Now I know those are very large shoes to fill (again pun intended).
This film, for me, starts off at a blistering pace. We first see Bond entering a hotel room with several dead agents, and we find that a hard drive was stolen. Bond quickly has to make a choice that sets up the rest of film as to choices and calling into question loyalty. Loyalty of Country, fellow agents, and M.
We are then whisked away to a car chase scene, which quickly switches to a motorcycle chase scene, which then turns to a chase scene of sorts on the top and inside a freight train. At one point we see Bond make a leap of faith of sorts only to land and then adjust his cuff links and suit. I found myself smiling, and literally at the edge of my seat. I didn't even realize I was until the scene is over and Adele's Skyfall song accompanies the opening credits... I then had a chance to sit back and wait for the action to begin again. I think this feeling at least for me sums up what Bond is. He is a constant in a sea of change and turmoil. Bond is always Bond. He is unflappable, resilient, and will never give up. Without ruining the ending or the premise too much; we also see the vulnerability of Bond this time. I thought that an interesting touch.
Another interesting touch is the villain. I loved Javier Bardem as Mr. Silver. He was, as in true Bond villain fashion, one note. He was however layered and complex at the same time. Bardem brought a 'on purpose' humor that usually is lacking in Bond villains. I would also add that Mr. Silver is overtly homosexual. I liked that Bardem and Craig seemed to play off each other with this. Bond is the straightest of straightest, (Bond girls galore) while he seemed unfazed at Silver's (Bardem) advances, or thinly veiled ones. This is brought up, we as an audience and Bond as a character accept this and we move on. I liked this touch. We never get bogged down in this nor is it ignored.
I also liked the playing off the 'new' and the 'old' meeting head on. The 'new' trying to paint the 'old' as archaic, and out of touch. The 'old' trying to warn the 'new' that there are shadows and we still need people to fight those shadows. It was strangely relevant to today’s Progressive vs. establishment struggle. I also liked how the 'new' was slapped down and forced to admit that the 'old' is still relevant and still needed to do the jobs the 'new' will not or cannot stomach...
Okay my negatives... I can't stand the way Bond runs through this film. I know minor, but I had never noticed it before, in the first two Craig Bond's. He runs ALOT, and he runs very awkwardly. It stood out for me, and bugged me quite a bit.
I also found that this film was very predictable. I was never really questing what happens next. It didn't really ruin the film for me, but again I did notice it. Finally, some of the action scenes smacked of Michael Bay type editing and short cuts that render the action un-followable. Visually though absent a few of these scenes; it was brilliant.
So my usual film test is would I want to see it again. Would I buy it and watch it. The answer for me is yes. Action, visually stunning, geo-political themes relevant for today, and Bond, James Bond... What's not to love?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

Ooops, switch the on my right and on my lefts...
ReplyDeleteHey, great review. I also have to say I enjoyed the film. It's about as good as I can expect a Bond movie to be these days. Everyone I know seems to think it is some sort of masterpiece, while I think it is merely very good, but I'm okay with being the minority on this one.
ReplyDeleteThey always open strong, don't they? I loved the opening, I was very entertained, but this rush of excitement was never repeated in the rest of the film. It does set up the question of loyalty, you mention. To me the this is a strange entry in the series, where the moral implications of what these people do is questioned, and begins to wear on them. Very strange, spies thinking about the morality of what they do. What is this, The Sopranos? Are we going to get Bond talking to a psychiatrist later in the film? The answer, very surprisingly, is yes, but it doesn't dig very deep.
I think this is my problem, if we're going to bother asking these questions, why not probe them a little more? Frankly, if we're not going to seriously consider it, I would rather they not be brought up at all. I don't want to think of Bond as a damaged boy from a traumatic childhood, I just want him to be suave, sexy, and badass. Oh, and he is sexy, I kept getting distracted by Daniel Craigs hotness, but, I digress. Actually, I read that these are based on Ian Fleming's later novels, where Bond is more of a depressive, but I still hold the cinematic Sean Connery image in my mind.
Still, the morality of peoples actions keeps resurfacing. It was a strange decision to reveal that the Bond girl was a former sex-slave. The morality of M's character in particular is called into question, in regards to the villain. But, what a villain. Bardem's performance as Silva is jaw-dropping. At first I was a little put-off that he was so fey, but the nuance of his performance quickly won me over. I could feel the straight guys in the theatre around me begin to squirm a little in the chair scene, but Bonds reaction was priceless. He really is a modern man. The classic gay villain character is making a resurgence a lot these days. Of course Silva could easily be bi, but with him, and the new season of Dexter I wonder why these old standby villains are making a comeback. It would be nice to see a gay hero once in a while, just saying.
Anyways, I cannot deny the awesomeness that is Javier Bardem. He really has been wounded by M,and her ethics. He is really just a counterpoint to Bond, a Bond in more unfortunate circumstances, caught up when M has to sacrifice the few for the good of the many. Again, with the morals. Would it be too much, in this day and age, for a Bond film that's just fun? Watching Bond fistfight bodyguards in a pit in a casino in Macau while Kimono dragons lurk around them = FUN. Watching Bond retake skills tests and finding out he ain't what he used to be and getting pretty old and rusty = NOT FUN.
But I'm contradicting myself, on one hand I want to take these characters to a deeper lever, on the other I just want to enjoy the surface. In my defense, the film is also contradictory. For all the talk of old dogs, and old ways, it becomes an origin story. It's like an orig-ending, or a re-origin. I guess that somehow makes sense as this is the 50th anniversary. The film concludes, and I think the innkeeper character must have been written for Sean Connery, but he's retired. I don't think it ends as strongly as it begins, but it was awesome seeing the old car from Goldfinger.
All in all, it was a good time. Great acting, great visuals, sexy Daniel Craig, and enough of an homage to the past films that was reverential and respectful, while at the same time, being very different.
My husband was also bothered by the way he ran. Why does he run so weird?
I too would dig seeing a gay hero instead of a villain. I love John Waters, but gay heroes need a certain above the board-ness to be legitimate in the eyes of most viewers... Right or wrong I think it is slowly turning though. Remember when Eleen was run off of her show? Now just about every show has at least one gay role. Or at least deals with the subject in some way...
ReplyDeleteYes, as Ellen showed, even just being out can be an act of bravery. There are certainly a lot of examples in history of courageous gay people, and not just rights activists either. I am hopeful that future films will begin to reflect this reality.
ReplyDelete