Skyfall

*Rubbish ** Ok *** Good **** Excellent ***** Unmissable
Skyfall****
Not got time to read the review?
Then it's all in a nutshell below;
Verdict
Great cinematic entertainment, making up for some disappointing year of blockbusters this year!
Biggest Pros
Bond is back, winks and nods to the past films, plus two fantastic finales.
Biggest Cons
After a good opening, a slow first hour and a silly strange timeline of convience that makes absolutely no sense.
Oh yeah and massive weird man eating lizards?....Yes very Ian Fleming.
Outcome
Bond franchise has found his feet again and Skyfall is a great contribution to the fifty year history.
Skyfall
Review
Bond… James Bond t back in his 5oth year in the latest outing Skyfall! A lovely simplistic title after the horrendous Quantum of Solace (Title and film for that matter…)
We
begin as Bond is trying to recover a missing hard drive that reveals
the identity of Spys across the world. This does provide one of the most
unintentionally hilarious moments in the film where M asks Bond if his
sure the Hard drive isn't in the room. Bond then conducts a throuher
search by simply lifting up the laptap looking underneath and repprting
back Yes.
Well
it’s fair to say the mission dosn't go well, the hard drive is lost in
hands of terrorists with Bond is shot and left for dead by one of his
own.
The opening sequence is defiantly the best out Craig’s three films a real high stakes, high octane packed opening , plus Adele’s chart topping Skyfall soundtrack works really well in Credit sequence visuals that drops the hint future Bond films might be in 3D (With Skyfall being the first IMAX outing).
The
coming months aren’t brilliant for MI6 “M” reprimanded for her role in
the missing hard drive is forced into oncoming retirement, the press are
condemning MI6’s role in the modern world and Bond is still missing.

After the opening Bond goes on the usual travels starting with London and moving to across the globe to find the mastermind behind the attacks.
However here’s when for the first hour we have the usual refinements Bond routine;
a) Shags women,
b) Dons the tux,
c) Travels the globe,
d) Battles huge man eating lizards… well maybe not the last one.
I
felt it kind of dragged out a little more than it should have done and I
became a touch bored. The main reason for this is that we have no
visible villain to occupy ourselves with and it takes good an hour for
him to arrive. Having said that same trick applied itself in Dr. No and worked quite well, however it wasn’t pulled off here with same effect.
However
when our mysterious grand villain finally arrives, the film now really
gets going with pace… and once the pace starts it never lets up keeping,
you going all the way to the end credits.
The villain in question is played by the excellent Javier Bardem
who completely relishes his part in the film and Bond History giving a
wonderfully theatrical yet very personal performance as bitter twisted
terrorist. This makes up a hell of allot for the bland previous villain
from Quantum of Solace “Dominic Greene”, a very plain villain that even the actor that played him (Talented French actor Mathieu Amalric)
had concerns about. He asked the director whether he could have a scar
or something to make him stand out. The director declined saying you
only need your eyes… well it’s fair to say he was wrong.
But it’s equally fair to say with Skyfall
they treat the villain to a surprise disfigurement that is one of the
creepiest in Bond history but intelligently enough this hasn’t just been
written in for spectacle it is very much emotionally linked to the plot
showcasing a cruel reality.
The greatest success of this film was the opposite of the Bond’s last outing which simply was that it wasn’t a Bond film.
It was too concerned with fitting into the modern market which consisted of becoming more Bourne than Bond and in return lost;
A) It’s identity,
C) It’s class.
In
all fairness it was not a Bond Film and why be something your not, or
try not to be something only your franchise can do? It was an absurd
move frankly.
A) No Q,
B) No gadgets,
C) No Moneypenny,
D) No decent villain,
E) No decent plot… Come on stealing water??
F) No famous Bond introduction line.
When Daniel Craig was asked about the point Bond never introduced himself with that famous line in Quantum of Solace,
he defended it and saying that the character has to earn the right to
say it. It’s in fairness Daniel it’s not a degree it’s his name.
Its
obvious lessons have been learnt, because when I say Bond is back, Bond
truly is and are so are Bond films. They bring back what was missing
and reinforce their Bond legacy and become proud of it once more.
They
do now also fit into the modern world more by making it also part of
the plot and showcase the skills Bond and the franchise have. They do
make changes, but everything is in per portion. For example they
increase the plot/emotions making this at times a really character
driven story, but don’t forgot it still a Bond film and match it with
explosions and the usual refinements.
The
biggest weakness with the script and the “Bond World” is this very
strange timeline they have installed within the franchise since Casino Royale
(2006). This was when the producers acquired the rights to Bond’s first
official adventure (Casino Royale) and they decided they would reboot
the franchise from scratch matching the story. This meaning they would
take Bond back to the start of career showing the transition from being a
normal spy to the graduation to “00” status.

However they retained Judi Dench as M.
When Martin Campbell
was asked about this he said that made absolutely no sense in terms of
the new “Timeline” but they just thought she best person for the job.
That’s the problem with the brave move of introducing the timeline
factor is that it isn’t an all or nothing transition or it’s a move of
convenience.
They
retain whatever is convenient and bin the rest. There’s no attempt to
hide plot holes in fact they draw more in every second of running time
that passes and in fact don’t seem bothered in the slightest.
For instance they now bring reference to past events that Bond has never meant to have had, such as the bomb pen from Goldeneye or the gadgets from Goldfinger’s DB5. It makes no senses. So help me out writers is this Bond’s 3rd mission or is his 23rd?
Or
maybe I got it wrong and what they’re trying to say is Bond’s past is
his future which is now his present unless he goes back to the future
which will be his past set in the present…? Ahh of course now I get it,
yes very clever touch.
Throughout Skyfall
they deal with personal and public issues that to me put this Bond film
ahead of others. They look at the way terrorism has evolved and where
MI6 and the “00”s fit in to this new world of technological advancement.
An
argument which is defended by M is a touching moment of poetry where
she explains that today the enemy is born and lives in the shadows and
that is where we must fight it, with people that know where and how.

One thing is for sure what Goldfinger was to Connery, Skyfall will be to Craig.
This is the peak of his Bond career. They end the film almost rebooted
all over again with now going into the whole 1960’s MI6 Bond feel, not
sure how they take on from there.
That is the nature of the only concern at this point which is where do they go from here? Are we going to have another Casino Royale / Skyfall or are we now due another Quantum of Solace?
Wherever
they are going they are heading there very confidently so good luck to
them and I say this in all sincerity… keep up the good work!... Because
we will all be disappointed if you don’t….
No comments:
Post a Comment