FILM: Skyfall

[gkgyver 1,645]

2012 was really quite a thrilling year for moviegoers, one of the most interesting in a long time. The Hobbit, Amazing Spider-Man, Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers, and ... Skyfall, marking the 50th anniversary of James Bond, a historic marking in film history.

Despite being that old, the character never lost any of its appeal - remarkable when you consider that the series was in production almost continuously for five decades. Many tried to explain the magic of 007, but in the end, my point of view is this: movie magic is like love. If you can explain love, it's not love.

Skyfall, like the two previous Craig outings, firmly positions Bond in the year 2012. But this time, it harkens back to his past, his childhood. So, while the plot itself doesn't use prominent source material, the film extensively explores the character's past as written by Ian Fleming.

You could rightfully say that the plot plays almost second fiddle to Bond's personal characterisation, the confrontation with his age and his relationship to M. This gives Daniel Craig a vast playing field to portray James Bond like he never was before, a fully fledged dramatic character. Indeed, what you will most likely take with you from this film is the acting and character scenes by Craig, Dench, Bardem and Fiennes.

However, this is where the good news probably end.

With all the hype, and reviews calling this the best Bond film since Goldfinger, I rarely left a theater so dissapointed.

You know, ever since Casino Royale, and even in the Brosnan era, we were confronted with always the same tagline: Break out from the formula!

With every new Bond movie, it appears like the producers say there will be something special. However, if you announce something special 10 times in a row, it's not that special anymore. And that is a trap the guardians of the Bond heritage should not fall into: replacing one formula with another.

When was the last time James Bond was sent on a regular, straightforward mission until the end? Well? That was precisely 17 years ago: GoldenEye.

That was the only movie that did not feature "specialties" such as "Stockholm Syndrome", Bond "going rogue" or Bond falling in love "for real" or Bond being constantly at odds with M.

The quintessential mistake the Bond producers made (and make) is their thinking that the formula didn't work anymore because of the lukewarm reception of the later Brosnans. It wasn't the formula that was wrong with these films - they were just averagely produced action films with average scripts.

That mistake was mended when Craig took over, and still they feel like they can't just send Bond on a regular mission without detours or psychological WMD.

The motto of these films may be "away from the formula" and "more realistic", and still there is that nagging feeling deep inside that says been there, done that. When Bond feels betrayed by M, when the villain hints at being Bond's darker side ...

But fine, these are deeper flaws, let's assume it's a given, and you are not bothered by it. Then Skyfall still has many flaws.

First and foremost, the plot. It was almost a miracle that the same guys who "wrote" Die Another Day also contributed to the Craig scripts. This time, however, Purvis and Wade let their Die Another Day mindset shine through.

Skyfall focuses on Bond being too old and failing his test, even though Quantum of Solace showed a Bond who just received his 00-status. Makes no sense. Even less sense makes the fact that even though focusing on a list of all undercover agents worldwide for more than an hour, leading even to M's retirement, it disappears in a magic cloud of smoke, never to be mentioned again.

Silva's scheme to kill M relies on so many coincidences that it even insults the term "deus ex machina".

He gets captured. Deliberately. Then he escapes, also planned (let's forget for a minute that his escape seems to rely on the assumption that MI6 would hire exactly the guy who invented Silva's choice software for encryption), and I ask myself why he wants to get captured in the first place; apparently, to see M. But since he seems to know out of nowhere where and when she will have a semi-public hearing (that coincidentally happens when he gets captured), why would he bother?

Indeed, I have come to accept many impossibilities in Bond movies - they simply belong in there.

But: we see Bond being shot twice, once hitting organs (as hinted at later), falling 500 meters to his demise, drowning on top of that. 10 minutes later, we see him banging a woman on some beach, conveniently focusing on the wound at his shoulder and forgetting the one that seems to have punctured his liver, and back in action. Gloss over much?

I have an easier time believing Jaws could have actually survived the freefall in Moonraker.

Then Berenice Marlohe's character. She's introduced in utterly brilliant scenes in Macau and Shanghai, making you believe she could be the best Bond girl since Natalya in GoldenEye. And then? Killed in the very next scene. What an awful waste.

Being a film music fan, Thomas Newman's score remains dull and generic, without the faintest memorable thematic wisper or hint at Bondian romanticism, strings chopping away every 30 seconds in an attempt (!) to generate thrill - the most forgettable Bond score since the original Dr. No score by Monty Norman.

Other things dragging the film down: an opening titles montage that feels like you are being sucked into an animated Tim Burton film, a finale on a graveyard that feels like a Tim Burton set, unintentional comedy when Bond plays "Bond Home Alone" at his family lodge, complete with exploding floorboards. And a dangerous reminder of better days when Bond drives M to safety in the old Aston Martin DB5, seemingly parked randomly in the city because we don't have enough hommages to freaking Goldfinger piled up, the last significant one was only in the very last movie!

Speaking of continuity, at the finale, a weeping Bond holds M in his arms and kisses her forehead. Really. An emotional Bond is one thing, a wimp another. This isn't the same man who threw Mathis' body into a garbage can in Quantum.

At some point I was praying that Bond's housekeeper wouldn't lead M to Bond's room and show baby pictures or a photo of his parents dancing in falling leaves.

Skyfall is not a bad film by any stretch of the imagination, but it surely isn't the revelation people are making it out to be.

We have now spent *three* entire movies to set up James Bond as we know him! For Christ's sake, enough with the Stockholm syndromes, the psychoanalysis of Bond's mind, the mother complexes and the broken hearts! After 10 years of this stuff, one is longing for a bloody Roger Moore escapist adventure.

It's time Bond walks right into the office to learn his mission again. That doesn't mean the movies can't be down to earth as they are now, and Bond sticking to Fleming's characterisation, but Bond being personally involved in everything for 15 years now is tiring beyond belief. Connery's films never needed that heavy stuff despite not resorting to pure comedy.

Despite contrary statements, the feel of the Connery films was never reproduced. Don't be fooled into believing it isn't possible.

Perhaps the Broccolis should actually watch Goldfinger to search for something else than the possibility to pay hommage to it.

*** / *****

[Jay 37,364]

Wow. You bring up a lot of interesting points I hadn't thought about before.

I betcha ET & E shares your opinion on this one.

[Fozmo 13]

Good review, I think you hit the nail on the head.

Personally, I'd like to see a return to the mega-villain / vast hidden lair / legions of henchman style a la You Only Live Twice!

[Naïve Old Fart 9,533]

A knockout review, Gkgyver! It really brought home all the discrepencies and shortcomings that the film has. it's not a bad film, by any standard, but it is a bad Bond film (I thought I was the only one who didn't think much of "Skyfall"). O.k., so it's better (much better) than "QOS", but...that's about it. It looks and sounds like a million dollars, but even Stuart Baird's crisp editing, and Roger Deakin's often breathtaking photography cannot disguise that there really isn't much more to this film than a 2-hour-plus navel-gaze. But that's modern acton films for you. Once upon a time, the hero (or superhero) did stuff simply because that was what they did. Now you have all this namby-pamby "soul-searching" ("Superman Returns", "Spiderman" - all that "with great power s**t! - "Watchmen") and trying to figure out their place in a world that seems to neither know, nor care, who they are, or what happens to them. Well, so what? If this mind-set continues, then we will start to have "real" stories, with "real" characters, and not cardboard cut-outs that neither know, nor care about, their audience. I suspect though, that 1 billion dollars box office says I am wrong...

[Quintus 5,399]

Yeah I agree with almost everything you said gkgyver (especially the ridiculous plot-holes and ginormous coincidences); and yet I had a lot of fun with it and probably came away feeling a bit more positive about it than you, possibly because I've never been invested in the character and franchise as much as yourself. 'Tis a silly film, even with its aspirations of being something a lot more... deep. But I don't think depth and farce are workable bosom-buddies, never have been. Which is why Skyfall is nowhere near as sophisticated as it might think it is, or as classy as Casino Royale. But then again: there's nowt wrong with a smart farce, either.

Skyfall is good action movie and a million times better made than most of the entries in the series... so long as you don't go in expecting John Le Carré's 007.

Thanks for your review gkgyver (shame you didn't paste post it in the Last Film Watched thread as well).

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Bond films are supposed to be a bit ridiculous.

Even the serious ones.

[Quintus 5,399]

There's ridiculous and then there's bullshit. There was a ton of hilarious bullshit in this, from the resurrection from drowning in the intro to the perfectly timed/placed bomb in the Tube. It was buuullshit. All ov it!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Dude!

Its a Bond film!

[Brónach 1,302]

I missed this in theaters but I want to see it.

[Quintus 5,399]

Dude!

Its a Bond film!

According to some people it's much, much more. *cough* BAFTAs *cough*

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

No. I love the film to death. Think it's absolutely brilliant.

But that script would not have worked if it wasn't written as a Bond script.

Part of my love for it is because (with Casino Royale) its the Bond Film i always wanted.

[Quintus 5,399]

I just prefer far less plot holes and daft coincidences (yes even in a Bond flick). I prefer Casino Royale.

I'm not really supportive of this notion that all the silliness (read: shortcomings) is excusable because "it's a Bond movie!"

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I hear ya!

And i agree that parts of the plot don't bear to close scrutiny at all.

But if i really like a film, things like that don't ruin my enjoyment.

I love LOTR despite its many flaws, ill defend it to the hilt!

The SW prequels on the other hand...

I ripped it flaws apart simply because those films do nothing for me.

[Quintus 5,399]

Same reason I still walked out of Skyfall with a great daft grin on me head and talked about it all the way home

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

After ROTS i walked home glad that i did my duty towards Lucas and vowed to never be lured in again.

[gkgyver 1,645]

I still think the one big mistake they made when rebooting the series and tried to make it seem fresh in Casino Royale was that they kept Judi Dench as M. It doesn't matter how great an actress she is, she is a strong reminder of the Brosnan days because she was so integral to those flicks.

It's also an enormous continuity hole. I am ready to suspend my disbelief, no problem, but the woman who ripped Brosnan a new one in GoldenEye and called him a sexist dinosaur is now handing the 00-license to that very same person.

Sorry, no, it doesn't work.

[Quintus 5,399]

Nah Dench is superb in these, with the Brosnan/Craig transition being entirely seamless. Was it a problem when Desmond Llewelyn carried his role through the decades and changing faces? No.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I've heard people bitch about this. That it doesn't make sense etc etc...

It doesn't make sense to reboot Bond in the "naughties" anyway. And in my mind the series kinda rebooted itself with every actor change anyway.

By rebooting they got rid of some of the clutter that had build up in the franchise over the last few decades. That was good. But keeping the elements that worked was even better.

Dench was great as M in the Brosnan era and superb in the Craig films.

I agree with Lee.

(continuity Nazis will hate the fact that according to Skyfall, M was "running"things in Hong Kong, while in the Brosnan era she was already head of MI:6)

[Jay 37,364]

Casino Royale is a reboot. A REBOOT. It's not the same Bond as the prior movies, and it's not the same M. It's just the same actress.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

It's also an enormous continuity hole. I am ready to suspend my disbelief, no problem, but the woman who ripped Brosnan a new one in GoldenEye and called him a sexist dinosaur is now handing the 00-license to that very same person.

Sorry, no, it doesn't work.

Come on, you really can't complain about continuity in a Bond film...especially with regards to continuity changes in the Bond "universe" that come from one person in the lead to another. Just doesn't work.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The Bond films have never been known for their continuity anyway.

Should they have recast M after Lazenby took over? The series has always been pretty loyal to it's supporting cast anyway. Desmond looked seriously old and decrepit in the Brosnan era, but they kept him until he elected to retire.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

The Bond films have never been known for their continuity anyway.

Should they have recast M after Lazenby took over? The series has always been pretty loyal to it's supporting cast anyway. Desmond looked seriously old and decrepit in the Brosnan era, but they kept him until he elected to retire.

Yeah...maybe a little continuity within each leads "series" of films...but outside of that, forget it. They've made some nods to continuity (Roger Moore putting flowers on Lazenby's wife grave, for example), but have never seemed to be too canonical about it.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Well, many of the Bond films are just the same story re-told anyway....

You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker are the same film.

[Jay 37,364]

You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker are the same film.

Funnily enough, all directed by the same guy!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yep.

5th viewing of Skyfall about to begin

[gkgyver 1,645]

Casino Royale is a reboot. A REBOOT. It's not the same Bond as the prior movies, and it's not the same M. It's just the same actress.

How is that different?

It's not like Dench is so terribly different in Casino Royale in comparison to, say, Die Another Day (neglecting for a minute that this movie didn't even give Dench the opportunity to act in any significant way).

Would it still be a reboot with Brosnan? Of course not.

Nah Dench is superb in these, with the Brosnan/Craig transition being entirely seamless. Was it a problem when Desmond Llewelyn carried his role through the decades and changing faces? No.

The issue isn't whether or not she is good in these films.

And Desmond Llewelyn didn't have as prominent a role as M did, especially not in the 90s and early 2000s, the era which the problem touches. It's not a 100% reboot, the reboot was mainly behind the scenes with an update in quality as far as the screenplays were concerned, together with a new face as Bond, an actor who was able to capture nuances, something the Brosnasaurus wasn't capable of doing in his heyday. Everything else stayed the same.

[Quintus 5,399]

Yep.

5th viewing of Skyfall about to begin

No wonder you're skint!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Lol.

All thanks to a handful of coupons given to me by my mum.

Free sauna yesterday!

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

You know, I think the guys who wrote Die Another Day really nailed the first 30-40 minutes of that movie. I'll have to review it to be sure, but I remember it being pretty good until he meets Halle Berry.

As for the villain's schemes to kill M...well, I was reminded of Joker in The Dark Knight, where it seemed that everything he did in that movie was surrounded by coincidence. What the hell would have happened at Bruce Wayne's party if it didn't turn out Bruce Wayne was Batman? What if Joker never got a hold of his girlfriend and threw, in essence, the both of them out of the window? He even gets deliberately captured with a ludicrous escape plan. It basically worked in that movie because the Joker was so cool and we were actually witnessing a pretty great interpretation of a classic character of pop culture not being raped like everything else in modern films. Quite the opposite, actually.

Okay, I'm focusing too much on other movies, but Skyfall is a movie that on the surface appears to be another "serious" and/or "gritty" Bond flick. However, there are so many points throughout where you have to basically turn off your brain and accept whatever's occurring as-is (like in, say, Nolan films). No questions asked. There comes a point where you stop analyzing it and just go along for the ride. You know, like Indy, Star Wars or, say, the older Bond films that did the thinking for you in between all the scenes that made the character and his adventures completely cool and iconic. As for whether the film delivered in that regard? Well, I was entertained. There were several moments where I just had no clue what the hell Bond was doing, but he looked cool doing it. Whatever he was doing also advanced the plot somewhere. Means to an end.

Perhaps I'm something of a simpleton, but for me, the Bond flicks have never really been about the plot (which usually amounts to whatever the villain is doing). It's more the character and all the things he does, the people he encounters, neat action scenes, awesome musical score and babes. The villains are usually inconsequential, unless the performance by whoever portrays them is really great. I mean, really, it's usually the same damn thing in almost every Bond movie. Villain with a plan, Bond investigates, kills guys, bangs women, car chase and Bond eventually defeats the villain. Always. So fuck the villain. I liked the focus on Bond himself, which is probably why I liked Skyfall.

Plus, it handled the hero getting older thing really well, unlike a certain sequel from another major franchise.

[Red 75]

I really enjoyed this movie, but the thing that bothered me the most about it was how the Bond girl (or at least the closest thing to one the movie had) was unceremoniously discarded. I wasn't even sure she had died and kept thinking she would show up again somehow because of how she was being set-up as a character and then abruptly cast aside. Also strange was Bond's reaction, or rather, lack of one. I understand that he is supposed to be a hardened veteran of espionage in the film but to have his only reaction be a quip was tonally inconsistent with the rest of the scene, which was very tense.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I found Bonds response to be very fitting actually.

It's certainly consistent with his response to Solange being killed in Casino Royale

[Jay 37,364]

Justin, well said, I really enjoyed reading your post

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Who is Justin?

[Jay 37,364]

ET & Elliot

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

I really enjoyed this movie, but the thing that bothered me the most about it was how the Bond girl (or at least the closest thing to one the movie had) was unceremoniously discarded. I wasn't even sure she had died and kept thinking she would show up again somehow because of how she was being set-up as a character and then abruptly cast aside. Also strange was Bond's reaction, or rather, lack of one. I understand that he is supposed to be a hardened veteran of espionage in the film but to have his only reaction be a quip was tonally inconsistent with the rest of the scene, which was very tense.

I think I felt the same way when I saw that scene. On one hand, I understand why Bond reacted the way he did...he almost had to in that situation. But I think it could have been handled a bit more deftly, and some nuance was probably in order here. His keeping his cool was necessary in the context of the scene, but I agree that a quip at that moment was probably unnecessary, and was tonally inconsistent with what was happening on screen. In any event, it took me out of the scene for a second.

Just for a second, though. I thought the movie was fantastic, easily the best of the Craig Bonds and probably my second favourite 007 film.

[gkgyver 1,645]

Well, many of the Bond films are just the same story re-told anyway....You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker are the same film.

Huh?

How are they the same, save for the appearance of Jaws in two of them?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I was really surprised by Skyfall and absolutely loved it. Don't know why when you've got Mendes, Deakins, and Newman working together, but nonetheless I thought it was the best Bond film since GoldenEye.

Now that I'm reading the novels I've learned that Fleming's Bond and Broccoli's Bond are two very different characters. Skyfall does a pretty nice blend of both, retaining all the important aspects of the films' character while throwing in the personal relationships found in the novels.

Bond is a wimp because he kisses M? Really? He's human, which is why I've been loving the books so much. Fleming wrote him as a man with doubts, flaws, and giant balls who is more lucky than smart.

To me, Skyfall perfectly sets up the series to return to what Gk wants, serial stories. Mission of the year. I liked Casino Royale and hated Quantum Of Solace, but to me Mendes and team kinda just did their own thing. This feels more like a proper reboot than those two ever did. I know the same production team won't be back, unfortunately, but this one pushed the series in the right direction.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

Well, many of the Bond films are just the same story re-told anyway....You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker are the same film.

Huh?

How are they the same, save for the appearance of Jaws in two of them?

I don't know about You Only Live Twice, but yeah, Moonraker is essentially a remake of The Spy Who Loved Me, only in space, that's pretty obvious. And come to think of it, The Spy Who Loved me actually does have quite a bit of plot in common with You Only Live Twice.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I'm currently reading Moonraker, and at about halfway through, no space or Jaws

The novels are brilliant, each one is better than the last thus far. The casino scene with Drax is amazing.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Well, many of the Bond films are just the same story re-told anyway....You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker are the same film.

Huh?

How are they the same, save for the appearance of Jaws in two of them?

they are not, but they are essentially the villian with a fortress format. Tonaly those three are not the same at all.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Guess I was wrong, hopefully this happens. Mendes says he's 75% sure he's coming back, and is waiting for a final script before he signs on.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,533]

Sorry, guys. I hate to say this, but...Stefan's right: "YOLT", "TSWLM", and "Moonraker" are the same film. They are all, in essence, re-makes of "Thunderball".

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Why would one hate to admit I am right?

[Naïve Old Fart 9,533]

I hate to say it, because it simply demonstrates how tired, and worn-out the James Bond franchise has become.

Basically, all Bond films are the same: some-one bad has something bad, and Bond has to take it off them. No matter how one dresses it up, the premise has been the same for 50 (yawn) years. "Goldfinger" was a great film, but it marked the begining of the end for the series, as it introduced the set pieces that have become on-going staples of the series.

"OHMSS" at least tried to add a twist to this by having a genuine - not to mention, tragic - romance, but, oh, no, the audience didn't want change, so it was back to the same tired, and hackneyed cliches that have lasted for over 40 (yawn) years!

Are these films fun? Yes. Have I watched them? All of them several times. That doesn't make them original, nor even entertaining, sometimes.

I'd just like the series to do something truly different, for once, but one billion dollars says that is not gonna happen anytime soon...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I hate to say it, because it simply demonstrates how tired, and worn-out the James Bond franchise has become

You say it likes this has happened in recent years LOL.

The 007 films became formulaic very very fast.

When Roald Dahl wrote You Only Live Twice, he was already instructed to stick to some very specific plot points.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Sorry, guys. I hate to say this, but...Stefan's right: "YOLT", "TSWLM", and "Moonraker" are the same film. They are all, in essence, re-makes of "Thunderball".

no they are not.

they are the tried and true formula of the criminal and his fortress.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

TSWLM and Moonraker have the same villain.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Drax is the same villian in both films, I can't say I know much about the Brosnan films, other than they are awful and have none of the guilty pleasure of Moonraker. Which btw is very good looking on Blu.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I really love TND and TWINE. Goldeneye is overrated (with a horrid score). DAD is misguided.

Moonraker is a very good looking, but utterly lazy film.

Great special effects, great score. Boring Bond Girls, and no reason to have Jaws in there.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I disagree about Jaws, he's the best part of the film. He and that odd looking blonde chick, glad they survived reentry.