Skip to main content

I did call you an exemplar of British fortitude.

Skyfall
(2012)

(SPOILERS) My thoughts on Skyfall haven’t changed a whole lot since first viewing. It looks better than any other Bond movie, courtesy of Roger Deakins’ cinematography, and Sam Mendes assembles a strong cast, but rather than an all-out Bond 50th celebration this is The Bond and M Show, a consequence of Dame Judi Dench’s over-glorified 17-year stint as 007’s boss. It also fundamentally lacks the precise storytelling – both in terms of screenplay and Martin Campbell’s direction – that makes Casino Royale the exemplar of what a modern Bond can do if really tries. 


The only thing they tried here is leading the plot by the nose, back engineering it to give M a send-off. The villain Silva (Javier Bardem) has all of two good scenes (one on his Inception island and one in his Silence of the Lambs cell), just enough time to establish that the series, with its new propensity for backstory, has perversely become the tale of an orphan looking for surrogate parents; into which comes Silva the wayward sibling (and from which springs more filial obsessing with Blofeld in Spectre). It doesn’t necessarily take a lot for a villain to make an impact – Donald Pleasance hardly shows up in You Only Live Twice, although that one’s a bit shit anyway – but Silva’s entrance into the annals of Bond villainy is rather undercut by his obsessing over “Mommy”. Instead of making the threat personal, (again see Spectre for wearing such things into the ground) it makes it studiously unremarkable.


Silva’s elaborate plan is also pretty daft. Although that’s nothing new for a Bond movie, the Craig era had sought to pride itself hitherto on sticking a bit more closely to the feasible, or at least vaguely real world. Silva would have got his claws into M much more effectively if he hadn’t had himself caught, instead just turning up on her doorstep (and all that business with the effects spectacular subway train crash?)


But Bardem’s mannered performance is effective in a way Waltz’s in Spectre isn’t. He carries natural menace on his shoulders (see No Country for Old Men) and, while I don’t think all that much of his rat story, the account of the effects of hydrogen cyanide – complete with visual evidence -  is a better twist on the disfigured villain than any amount of stolid exposition regarding the flawed establishment; the system makes the villains, and you can see how right there.  It also explains why Brosnan’s Bond threw his capsule away years ago.


Of course, Silva’s unparalleled skills as a cyber terrorist lead one to wonder why he took so long to launch his plan (months by the look of it, since Bond got to play dead for a decent spell). And his character – the opposite of Bond – has already been covered with class (Christopher Lee) and unmemorably (Sean Bean), and even as a side order of heavy (Robert Carlyle). Added to which, there are familiar elements of hoodwinking the good guys and blowing up MI6 HQ (The World is Not Enough, curiously plundered throughout the Craig era). The result? A character and plot that are really about the window dressing rather than offering anything truly striking within.


Silva’s not-quite advances on Bond (“What makes you think this is my first time?”) also feel contrived, laid on purely for the column inches the old misogynist dinosaur resorting to a bit of bisexuality will drum up. And he’s not really, is he, while Bardem’s almost mincing performance could equally be accused of falling into the camp (ahem) of stereotypical villainous homosexual degenerates of yesteryear; not really progress at all, then.


Talking of which, it’s slightly alarming, even by the series’ standards, that Mendes lets Bond have his way with Severine (Bérénice Marlohe) in the form of a (particularly arty, particularly steamy) traditional Bond shag, just after he has gone to all the trouble of analysing her abused upbringing and sale into sex slavery. Way to go, James, you scored there! (And then Severine is killed because Bond can’t shoot straight – with a gun that is –and he’s making quips a minute later.)


The déjà vu invading Bond’s plotline of being over the hill and betrayed also derives from the Brosnan era (his injury in The World is Not Enough, his captivity in Die Another Day; the title sequence even segues into Bond falling just as The World is Not Enough one does). One might argue Eon is trying to regain the Bond-as-underdog footing of Casino Royale, but it comes across more as the desire of the lead actor to prise nourishment from a non-part.


It’s also too soon, only three movies in, for Bond turn to the booze and get the shakes when he raises his weapon; we’ve only really seen him on one mission so far. More, these scenes, revolving around conflict with M, have been so played out by this point that there’s nowhere new to go. I keep going back to The World is Not Enough, where we’ve had M’s culpability thoroughly raked over more than a decade earlier, while Die Another Day also added unnecessarily to that pot. The only route left open is mawkishness over losing a stern but devoted surrogate mother.


There’s also the chance of exploring Bond’s childhood, this being Bond 50. The thing everyone had been demanding that the series do for the movies’ shallowest of spies. The drive to the Highland home is visually splendid, and much of the lighting during the showdown is impressive, but the sequence fails to catch fire dramatically. Silva is reduced to status of hampered heavy, his plans undone. Bond is forced into quipster mode as he destroys his heritage (“I’ve always hated this place”).


I think I was probably a bit too harsh on Craig’s handling of the humour previously. While he is at his best adjusting his cuffs rather than attempting quips, if the lines suit him he carries them off with aplomb. The Q stuff (Ben Wishaw is great) is good fun, but the likes of “Well, I got into some deep water” and his banter with M falls flat. So too does his weeping over her corpse, and the attempt to invest compassion in the guy who threw Matthias in a dumpster as (in the opening sequence) as he is ordered to pursue a villain rather than hang back and save a fellow operative’s life.


It’s probably clear I’m unsympathetic towards honouring M they way Skyfall does, since Dench’s national treasure status has gradually encroached on the series to its detriment. The (otherwise very good) pre-credits sequence has her constantly interrupting the flow by asking what’s going on like an idiot (STFU and let them get on with it). There are attempts to lighten the character (“Oh go on, eject me. See if I care”, her softening with Albert Finney’s gamekeeper) that flounder miserably, and the last half hour seems to be an exercise in waiting for her to finally cark it. Which she does, leaving Bond her bulldog paperweight. Oh, and a videotape. But not yet, that’s the next movie. And then, in Bond 25 she’ll also have left him…


The irony of complaining about the overuse of M is that her replacement Mallory is used incredibly well, set up as a thorn in the side of M and Bond before it’s revealed he’s on the side of the angels (and is good at killing people too!) There is a rather unfortunate “assembling the gang” feel to Skyfall, though, particularly with the trio of Tanner, Q and Mallory getting behind Bond’s plan at the end. This isn’t Scooby Doo, and Bond should essentially be out on his own, unencumbered by family and friends.


There’s also Moneypenny, as far as we can tell a platonic Bond girl relationship (curiously, the second in a row after Camille). While Naomi Harris is always very good, and her character at least makes sure Bond finally has a shave, the bloody scruff bag, her characterisation is strangely regressive (well, you might argue not at all for this franchise), since she acquiesces to Bond’s advice that fieldwork is not for everyone and so takes up the role of flirtatious desk totty. It’s also fairly unlikely that Bond would be working in the field with her and never catch her name until he does so for the reveal gag (also, since everyone guessed anyway, like they did with Waltz, it’s a completely pointless exercise).
  

The best thing the movie does, in terms of its wallow in nostalgia, is blow up the Aston Martin. Hopefully Bond doesn’t get a replacement. Otherwise, Skyfall is a strange mixture of innovation and navel gazing. Mendes isn’t the methodical craftsman Campbell is, but several of the action spots are rather fine, and there’s even the odd occasion (the silhouetted fight in Hong Kong, M quoting Tennyson) where he comes close to visual poetry. There's also a CGI Komodo dragon. Or two.


I’m less impressed by Thomas Newman’s score on revisit; the moments where he introduces electronica are arresting, but he seems to wilfully resist a Barry-esque symphonic approach or bringing in the Bond theme, as if he’s begrudging the legacy (something David Arnold embraced). And, much as I like Adele’s “Crumb-o” song, the opening titles are merely so-so; time to get the lead character out of the credits, as they end up encumbered by him (it also can’t be a coincidence that the best title sequences of the last two decades are both from Martin Campbell entries).


Also not terribly successful (and on, into Spectre) are Mendes’ attempts at political commentary. He’s basically giving a dry run to his arguments about drones in the next entry, supporting Bond as the guy who has to know when to pull the trigger or not. However, I can’t help thinking they’ve bottled it, since Casino Royale managed to present a guy who wasn’t such a nice guy at all as the lead character and still bring the audience along for the ride. Commentary remains possible within that context (if you feel Bond is a suitable forum for such things, and Mendes, as a staunchly liberal filmmaker who also wants to cash an enormous pay cheque, clearly does).


Which means there’s a sense here, much more so than in Casino Royale, where the tweaks to formula were surprisingly seamless for the most part, that mixing things up and attempting a veneer of depth (undermined by the casually offensive sexual politics) serve only to expose how rudimentary Eon’s and Mendes' approach is; Moneypenny, she’s black now; Q, he’s a maybe-gay tech nerd; M… No, we’ve got nothing. Guess we’ll make him a bloke again. But nice this time.


So Skyfall is much akin to Spectre for me, even given the latter has received an unending rain of brickbats while the former basks in the glow of fervent adoration (which one edges which, I probably won’t decide for definite until the dust settles); they're both entertaining Bond pictures, each furnished with a raft of spectacular action sequences, but they aren't top flight 007s. If Spectre is Craig’s final outing, he at least has only one outright turkey in his collection. Get past all the hype, and huge box office, and the thing the 23rd Bond really has going for it is that it’s sporting an immaculate suit. Not quite the emperor’s new clothes, granted, but Skyfall can’t quite fill out its glad rags.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.