Tuesday 30 October 2012

Review: Skyfall

  
   

Right this isn't really part of zombie week, and nor does it really have anything to do with what my Blog is normally about. However, I feel I simply must write a review of this film. Plus as I said yesterday I know zombies aren't to everyone's tastes. Firstly if you haven't seen the film yet and intend to, do not read past this introduction. All I will say is this, if you are a fan of the previous two Daniel Craig Bond's, and like the direction the reboot was taking, there's a damn good chance you'll positively hate Skyfall. If you like Roger Moore's Bond though and thought all the gadgets and dodgy plot hole bollocks from that era of Bond's was great, then you might actually like this film. I did not.

Spoiler alert, if you continue reading you will spoil the film if you haven't already seen it... not that you couldn't predict where this turgid predictable bollocks was heading right from the off.

Right I need to get this out of the way right now, I am a fan of the previous two Daniel Craig Bond films. For me Casino Royale actually is the best Bond film ever made. Period. No question, and Daniel Craig's Bond was the most in-depth, and believable of them all. Genuinely I was worried when he was named as the new Bond, not because I didn't like him as an actor, because I do, but because I wasn't too sure what the hell they were planning on doing with 'Bond'. The Brosnan era Bond had imploded in a ball of ridiculousness, product placement and pomposity, and as such many felt Bond was dead and would always remain so. Then I watched Casino Royale, and in those post Jason Bourne days it spoke to the modern world. It was gritty, yet still witty, it was emotional and it was still full of suave James Bond moments that other film franchises could only hope to emulate. It struck the balance perfectly. The fact that Quantum of Solace continued that story arc was a bit of a shock to me, but actually one that I thought was an interesting deviation for a Bond film. True Quantum of Solace wasn't the best film, and at times it was overly bloated, lost its way and seemed a bit too dark for it's own good... but the Bond it presented was still believable and above all else damaged, flawed and therefore interesting.

I sort of wish I'd left the cinema after this case scene had ended.

So my concerns for where Skyfall was heading were first raised before the title credits started to role. Literally 60 seconds into the film and there was a facepalm moment. We learn that a HDD from a laptop has been stolen from a British operative, yes that tired worn out old chestnut again... no it wasn't in London, or anywhere else within the UK... but in Istanbul. OK, fair enough, but that the HDD was important because it contained all the names of British and American agents currently embedded in terrorist organisations around the world, makes the whole idea seem utterly *bleep*ing bonkers. Fact is in the previous two Daniel Craig Bond films the various secret service organizations were portrayed as competent well run outfits that might be playing catch up, but were always on the ball. A HDD full of top secret information, and information that MI6 is unlikely to have, i.e. the whereabouts of CIA agents, just seemed like the cringe worthy and over used set up it was. Sorry Mr Sam Mendes are you kidding me? I could have believed some MI5 dimwit losing a laptop on the tube, that sort of crap actually happens. But, an intelligence agency putting that sort of information out there on foreign soil, in a laptop? No. Sorry, just no. Why was it there? What was the reasoning? It's never explained in the film, and we're just expected to swallow this claptrap set up, that you learn as the film creaks on was itself utterly sodding pointless any way!

Why? Well we learn later on that the bad guy, an incredibly camp Javier Bardem, who it must be said did the best job he could with the awful script and terribly conceived character they gave him, is in fact a super clever, totally awesome hacker. Who can actually hack into MI6 anyway. So why the hell didn't he just steal the information right off of the feckless MI6's servers? Hmm Mr Mendes? Perhaps blaming Mendes for that God awful lapse in internal consistency is unfair, perhaps I should aim my ire at this crass piece of story telling at the script writers. So who of the script writing team of John Logan, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade thought this whole pointless endeavor was worth it? Or failed to see the flaw in their own set up? I don't know. However, it did serve to set up arguably the best moment of the film, no not Adele signing the theme tune, but a car / bike chase through Istanbul that was actually a piece of classic Bond that was merged with Daniel Craig's modern Bond to brilliant, if over the top effect. But, even this went on too sodding long, and we got Daniel Craig following the HDD thief on to the top of a moving train. I have to be honest and say at this point I expected the train to jump a shark infested river while men with jetpacks shot at Bond with lasers.

How can a film with Javier Barde as the bad guy be so... weak?

So on and on it went, getting increasingly tedious and boring, as a fist fight took place and a JCB digger got involved... I don't even want to talk about that. To the writers and director it was serving its purpose. It was telling us that the Daniel Craig Bond re-boot project was totally and utterly dead. As it got more and more ridiculous and ponderous I slowly realised I wasn't going to be enjoying this film very much at all. Don't get me wrong I have a soft spot for all the camp, and horribly sexist Bond films of yesteryear, I really do, but that's where they belong, in the past. If I want a bit of Connery or Moore I can always watch those films. The reason the Craig Bond reboot happened in the first place was because it was a dinosaur of a franchise that was rapidly becoming irrelevant in the modern world. So when they finally climaxed this over the top fight / chase / farce scene with Bond being shot by a colleague and falling hundreds of feet into a river below I think the rather none subtle message was clear, gritty, real and emotionally damaged Bond was dead... long live Austin Powers, I mean James Bond. As always though the direction work was impeccable, I'll not criticise Mendes on that score, the man knows how to frame a camera shot.

So the HDD thief got away and Bond was dead, but obviously not, otherwise it really would have been the crappiest Bond film ever. So here we have the set up, some highly sensitive information has been stolen, it's an embarrassment for MI6 and Great Britain in general. M is in trouble because she's to blame for all this. Obviously she didn't know HDD's could be stolen. D'oh! Bond meanwhile is sulking at a beach resort after being shot by a colleague. Then M's computers get hacked by said villain looking for the codes to decrypt the HDD... erm... script writers are any of you spotting the implausibility of this whole plot set up? No. Let me explain it to your antiquated brains. Right, if the bad guy can crack MI6 servers and take whatever information he likes, and then rig the building using said hacking skills to explode, he really didn't need to steal the sodding HDD in the first place now did he. He could have just hacked the server, took the information and left a virus behind... obviously a camp virus with a laughing Judi Dench head. God it's painful when people with no understanding of computers try to write hacking and techie stuff into scripts, it all ends up sounding like a bunch of bollocks.

Step away from the computer and use another plot device... please for the love of God!!!

So MI6 is under attack by a cyber terrorist. OK, fine I'll ignore the obvious plot hole and pointlessness of stealing the HDD for now. But, get anymore ridiculous and I'll tear you a new one I was thinking. Bond hears of the attack and decides his country needs him, why I don't know, he's a fecking soldier not a computer expert. No, who MI6 need is Gary McKinnon! Now I'm going to blow another plot hole open for you here right now. This whole set up is designed to get the bad guy, some chap named Raoul Silva, in a position to kill M, but first like all dodgy Bond villains his plan needs to be overly complex and utterly bloody pointless. You see, James Bond can break into M's house with consummate ease, so why the hell Silva, who we are told was the Bond of his day, didn't do the same is utterly beyond me. Sure I get he wanted to humiliate her, well you've got your HDD now, so drop the information on the world wide web and show her up for the incompetent doddering fool she is... then bloody kill her! If they'd killed M off at the start of the film I'd have been more shocked. That they dragged it out in this utterly lame way just disappointed me. We knew it was coming, the whole film appeared to be a swan song for Judi's character and I hated it, it just dragged on and on, and when it did come it was just so forced and flat.  They even gave us her none to subtle replacement early on in the form of Ralph Fiennes. Only a dimwit couldn't see what was coming.

What really got me though, what absolutely shattered any hope of making any sensible future reboots, or trying to blank Skyfall from the history of Bond, is that we now know that this James Bond, Daniel Craig's James Bond, is the same Bond as Connery's, Lazenby's, Moore's, Dalton's and Brosnan's Bond's. They are the same person. Why? Why was it necessary to make that fact? Was it not better to let the audience decide whether they were different Bond's all using the same agent code name, or the same Bond? The idea that there is a golden thread now, that all the Bond stories committed to film are the same man just seems preposterous to  me. All that hard work from the Casino Royale reboot completely undone. Daniel Craig's Bond would need a Zimmer Frame to move about if he was the same Bond as was in Dr No. So the mystery at the heart of the films is blown. We've got Moneypenny back and we're back to lame gadgets that quite frankly any recent mobile phone could knock into a cocked hat. Why does he need a rubbish looking radio transmitter? Seriously, why? For kitsch value and nostalgia? What about the gun only Bond could fire? Hmm I wander how these wizards of script writing will use that then?

That's it love, stand there and pout and try to look sexy... beutiful. Top directing that!

Then there's the Bond girl. You know, the tradition of having some hot young actress play Bond's bit of crumpet. In Skyfall it is the turn of Berenice Marlohe to get naked in the shower...No, no, no. I thought we'd entered the modern world with Bond 'girls' with Eva Green's portrayal of Vesper Lynd. She wasn't just a sexy body there to fill out some sparkling evening gown, she was a clever, competent and capable individual in her own right. She wasn't just there to get naked and look good, she actually had a role other than the place Bond would park his genitals... and the film was all the better for it. Yes Camille Montes wasn't the best strong female character to have ever been written into a spy film, but the Quantum of Solace Bond girl was again a character in her own right. Berenice Marlohe's portrayal of Séverine is so weak and flaccid that it was difficult to watch. Bond could tell she was a frightened little kitten because her hand shaking could have been measured on the Richter Scale. There's nothing to her as a character apart from a nice curvy figure and a half decent wardrobe. The only saving grace being she was hardly in the film. Huge step backwards for me. But, Naomie Harris' version of Ms Monneypenny was hardly any better either. She existed as a foil for dodgy double entendre and leering eyes too. Plus here's the thing, Daniel Craig isn't very good at delivering the witty one liners like Moore was, many just fall flat.

However, get Daniel Craig's Bond fighting and he steals the show. It is in the fighting and killing that Daniel Craig exceeds above all other previous Bond's. He also Broods far better than them to, and is quite frankly far better at all round acting... but, sadly not at the light hearted stuff. I still think that on the whole the Bond in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace is the best and most 'complete' character Bond has ever had, and here too there are still hints at the dark menacing assassin. It's just his back story has been blown open so it's now boring and they've tried turning him into some 60's / 70's playboy again. The final fight at Bond's ancestral home of... wait for it... Skyfall, while well directed was also slightly over the top. The re-emergence of the DB5 complete with ejector seat and machine guns may have ticked nostalgia boxes, and elicited some laughs from the audience I watched the film with, but there were as many audible groans too. Raoul Silva got a small army and a helicopter to the Scottish highlands... erm... hang on isn't that where much of the SAS training takes place? As I said utterly pointless and M dies any way.

Why? Just why?
Overall score 4 out of 10

So I say this to all those reviewers out there who have heaped praise on this film for going back to the Bond roots of old, was it really needed? Bond had rapidly become over the top to the point that even diehard Bond fans were calling it silly by the time Die Another Day was released. The world has moved on, and Bond needed to as well. That's why we had the Daniel Craig reboot in the first place, or have you all forgotten that? No I don't want the Bond films to be the Bourne films, but to not acknowledge that they exist, and have been incredibly popular and well received is just dumb. To take a backwards step and run to the comfort blanket of crap one liners and hammy acting at the first sign of criticism that the new grittier Bond received after Quantum of Solace shows a lack of bravery and cowardice on the studio's, and the production teams parts. Will it do well at the box office? Yeah it will, and no doubt buoyed by this we'll get an even camper Bond next time around, but honestly mark my words, Skyfall is the beginning of the end of James Bond. That so much has been tied up in this film as 'cannon' and that much of the cannon is so rubbish and regressive is I feel a disaster for the franchise. Peace out!

25 comments:

  1. "If you are a fan of the previous two Daniel Craig Bond's, and like the direction the reboot was taking, there's a damn good chance you'll positively hate Skyfall"

    This little bit deflated every good expectation I had for this film. Too bad, I was looking forward to seeing it. I probably still will, but at least I'll know not to expect too much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you turn your brain off, ignore the dialogue and try as hard as you can to not try to follow the plot there are plenty of pretty pictures to look at. Plus explosions, people like explosions, right? It's a no brainer (how apt during zombie week) film that thinks it's smart... and that's also part of the problem for me. If it knew it was just a dumb action film with attractive ladies in it, it wouldn't be so bad. The problems arise because it thinks it's more than that.

      Delete
  2. Very good review.

    I was disappointed with QoS, since I felt like it was a regression in terms of story, characters, and tech-dependence compared to CR. But this sounds even worse. Do the Bond producers even understand what they achieved with CR? It seems not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really don;t know whether they get what they had on their hands with CR. Honestly take away the fact it was a Bond film and it still bloody rocked. throw in the fact that it was still clearly a Bond film and they hit a rich vein of gold in my opinion. I shame they seem to have lost it again.

      Delete
    2. Well, at least it can't be as bad as Prometheus. :)

      Delete
    3. Don't you DARE mention that film on my Blog ever again, or I'll have you cursed by a horde of Gypsies!!! Bloody Prometheus... so far up it's own badly written pompous ass it was licking it's own tonsils.

      Now I hear he wants to ruin Blade Runner as well... George Lucas MkII. Except Ridley Scott's films were actually very good, whereas Georges films were just crap, but cool.

      Delete
  3. I lost all respect for the film when with her first shot moneypenny shoots bond off the top of the train and then sits there with 29 rounds in the magazine and watches the bad guy get away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sigh... I forgot to mention that, but in the cinema, I thought under my breath, but clearly it wasn't as I got an elbow in the ribs, I said "keep bloody shooting women". Yeah that was irritating too.

      Delete
  4. Interesting. Fair points all. But you know what? I enjoyed it. A lot. It was absolute tripe, but entertaining tripe nonetheless. Of all the things you rant about, the one thing that did really grate on me was the one-Bond thing, totally unnecessary and yes, pointless.

    Quantum of Solace, however, was an absolute shocker. Dreadful, utter tripe, a terrible villain, too slow, too long and oh-so boring. I did actually fell asleep.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm glad you enjoyed the film Phyllion. As I say in my response to eria, if you turn your brain off and just accept it I'm sure all the fight scenes and stunts will be entertainment enough. Perhaps I just need more from my films. Or if I'm going for pure action films I want them to be pure action films like The Raid.

      I wouldn't disagree on QoS, there were some redeeming features, but it was in and of itself a miss step. It was too long and too bloated... but so to is Skyfall. It's 143 minutes and towards the end it felt like 1430 minutes. QoS was 106 wasn't it and CR 144? I can't remember.

      Delete
  5. Been saying for some time Bond should have been relaunched as a 60's period piece and based far more closely on the flemming novels...

    Going tonight, will add my 2p here then.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah as a 60's period piece it might work, but I thought the Casino Royale reboot was an interesting one, and one that explained why there were so many James Bonds. Simply put it was a code name designated to the 007 agent. Simple. They were all different agents operating in different times. Fully acceptable and allowed for the franchise to move with the times and reconcile any inconsistencies. Mendes has totally blown that out of the water in a cack handed way.

      Do report back with your thoughts once you've seen it. Just remember what has been seen can not be unseen!!!

      Delete
  6. I do not think I have seen the last one. I might even have my in-laws dvd copy around my house someplace. My wife and I do not get out to the movies much. Good to know I am not missing much here. I do not expect to see a non-animated movie again until the Hobbit come out. I pushed off taking my daughter to any of the halloween type movies this year but I think I am going to have to take her to see Wreck it Ralph this weekend or next.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah yes but you're on daddy duty so that's your own fault! :P

      I can't feel sympathy for you. ;)

      But no, you aren't really missing much with Skyfall in my humble opinion. I think Javier, Daniel, Judy and Ralph did the best they could with the roles and scripts they were given. But even that array of undeniable acting talent couldn't fix what was a poor script, and terrible story.

      Delete
  7. Not going to bother watching it until I can rent it for a couple of quid, and even then only when there's nothing better on. I HATED Casino Royale, didn't even bother with QoS, and just have a massive "GET OFF MY SCREEN, CRAIG" problem.

    Silly Bond is still best Bond, Bourne is still best Gritty Bond.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well if you didn't like Casino Royale, you'd definitely hate QoS. I have to disagree though with you over Daniel Craig. He's the first Bond that actually looks like he was capable of looking after himself. Lets be honest Moore and Connery look like a gaggle of small children could take them out. Brosnan was a good mix of Moore and Connery, but still looked far to concerned with his hair. The only other vaguely competent looking Bond was Dalton.

      As for silly Bond being the best Bond... I'm not so sure. Those films are of their time and work because of that. But those Bond films don't really fit into the world as it stands in 2012. You are right though, the Bourne films kick Bonds ass right now for gritty espionage realism and cool stunts. But Casino Royale I felt managed to get close to that while still having the glitz and glam of the Bond franchise. Skyfall I'm not so enamoured with.

      Delete
    2. I'm not arguing against Daniel Craig as James Bond, I'm just arguing against Daniel Craig. I'm not even sure it can be called an argument - I just don't like him, I've got nothing to back it up with :D

      I grew up with Silly Bond, so to me, that IS what the franchise is. Even as a kid I knew that introducing yourself as "Bond, James Bond" when you're the guy who has upset every major criminal scheme in the last forty years was very silly (and that's the LEAST silly thing I could think of). When they try and mix that up and make it more realistic without a true "reboot" it just creates a dissonance for me I can't get around.

      Delete
    3. It's OK Ant, being irrational is a mans prerogative. You don't always have to have a reason in my book. Sometimes gut feeling is good enough. I happen to really like Daniel Craig as Bond.

      Delete
  8. Why make Naomie Harris’ character go from a field agent to Miss Moneypenny, the secretary? Why did they do that? To confirm the Bond fans’ belief that a female agent in a James Bond movie is not "his equal"? Why did they go this route?

    And why not allow M to retire, or like you said, kill her off at the beginning? Why paint her as a female authority figure who is too ruthless and out of control for her own good, who has to be saved by one man and replaced by another to bring back order?

    I don’t know. There is something disturbing about this movie.

    God, I miss "CASINO ROYALE" and "QUANTUM OF SOLACE".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah the move from field agent to desk jockey for Miss Moneypenny really, really pissed me off as well. As I said in the review, say what you like about Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace the females were powerful competent and complete characters. You can not say the same of the women in Skyfall. People have been saying M in this film proves shes in charge etc. etc. etc. I just did not view it that way at all. You might be right, there is something slightly worrying about it I guess, I'd just assumed it was a flip back to the tired old Bond Stereotypes, but hey, they're disturbing in modern society. Just so disappointing all round.

      Delete
  9. I respectfully disagree: http://comicbuzz.com/2012/10/skyfall-review/

    Taken outside the context of the anniversary you're spot on, but given the mystical number convergance see above.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are more than welcome to respectfully disagree Arquinsiel, but I stand by every single point I've made, and every criticism of it as a film. I also take issue with the linked review as well, cgaracter development? Who, where and what!!! Sorry I just don't see it. James Bond crying near the end of the film isn't character development. :P

      Delete
    2. You also know where he comes from now and it gives him that whole "orphaned at an early age" excuse for him being a dick.

      I didn't say it was good, just that it exists :p

      Delete
    3. Except we already new about being orphaned at an early age from Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and indeed some previous Timothy Dalton Bond films I think. It was hammy and badly done, the script writing team need to hang there heads in shame over how they handled it.

      Delete
    4. I totally missed it in the previous Craig movies to be honest. I watched them the week before seeing Skyfall just because I never got around to it but it did not register at all. If so then yeah, no character development at all for him. I don't remember the Dalton movies at all, other than 8-10 year old me not liking him and wandering off for most of them. I really enjoyed it and I think you kind of have to take it in the spirit of the anniversary. If you expect it to stand up as a piece of modern film then it's just.... old hat.

      Delete