"Skyfall" (2012)

Bond Goes Dark and Everything Goes to the Brink

 "Skyfall" (2012) Review

Let’s start with the news, Daniel Craig (Bond) is desperate to end his tenure as Bond. Really, who’s to blame him. At the age of forty-four it’s a demanding role requiring a number of physical stunts a middle aged man might find hard to pull off, yet films like “Skyfall” (2012) prove why he’s essential to the franchise.

Opening in Istanbul, the film picks up quickly with a chase scene involving motorcycling along the rooftops of the Grand Bazar and a fight atop a train then quickly reveals it’s darker side, rearing it’s head at the light hearted classic Bond. Quickly falling into the plot of Silva (Javier Bardem) a former MI6 agent betrayed by M (Judi Dench) in her final Bond film. The plot quickly turns vial as the scheme to assassinate M unravels in surprisingly lackluster action sequences that lack the punch of Craig’s Bond debut in “Casino Royal” (2006) which had an amazing parkour chase scene. Rather the film strives to build a narrative and motivation for it’s central cast of characters; mainly trying to present Bond with a psychological struggle aside-from the loss of his beloved Vesper in his debut Bond film. The film also welcomes in some new faces such as the beloved Ralph Fiennes as Gareth Mallory, Naomie Harris as Eve Moneypenny, and Ben Winshaw (of Cloud Atlas) as the new iteration of the classic quartermaster Q. Together the ensemble cast work well together tying the story together nicely.

This being said, this is not a short film. The film consumes a whopping two hours and twenty-three minutes and nearly every minute is felt as seemingly additional action sequences and little interactions are tacked on to draw the story out. This is not bad but merely makes the experience seem like two or three different films tied together by the same cast.In addition to this, the story is dark as it examines the darker side of being a double o agent which gives the film a nice touch as film logic does not always apply to the film (though in most circumstances it definitely does) as well as creates true drama making the film seem slightly higher brow. Yet, despite its best intentions, the film still very much adhered to film logic with few exceptions making the film rather unoriginal, which was fine because it was still better than the awfully formulaic Pierce Brosnan or Timothy Dalton, or even Roger Moore Bond films.

As for the visual effects, the film delivered an action film with minimal CGI, yet also minimal action (for a bond film) relying on the mainstays of storytelling to make the film compelling, which it does, but only for so long before another action sequence is packed in to keep the audience’s attention. Most of the stunts are predictable without any, “how’d he do it?” effects thrown in to keep the audience on its feet. This is not to say the action was bad per say, but rather the action was a bit too predictable to be groundbreaking.

Rather this film desperately wanted to harken back to the past, throwing in old Bond jokes, cars, and characters and even music to complete the effect. This style of filmmaking delivered by one of the most overrated directors of the early twenty first century, Sam Mendes, is what most would have expected when he was announced to be the director of Bond 23, yet that is no excuse. Sure, watching the old Bond Aston Martin drive around the Scottish highlands was fun, but the film felt a bit too tied to it’s predecessors. To hammer the point over the audience’s head, the script included many rambling monologues about how the old ways are best and how even today with computers we still need old fashioned espionage.

Overall the best addition to this film was its villain, Silva (Bardem) who played a delightfully evil agent turned terrorist with an actual motive for trying to assassinate M, a refreshing addition to a Bond film. With subtle moments of interesting character development and a few laughs, Bardem delivers begging the question, why isn’t he doing more movies? The film also features the now incredibly obese Albert Finney as Kincade, the groundskeeper for Bond’s childhood home (it’s hard to explain how the story takes the viewer here, but it works so just go-along with it) where the film’s final showdown takes place. His performance was a nice addition and had some fine zingers yet was ultimately unnecessary and simply provided lines that helped feed into film logic plot points (plot points you can see coming from a mile away that are so overtly obvious because they are in nearly every film).

As for the cinematography, a recurring topic in my past reviews, little needs be said.

So what’s there to say? See it, don’t see it; with a film like this it’ll catch you at some point-in-time. It’s inevitable; a film this big. However, as a reviewer, the film can best be appreciated in a large theater, with good sound, and quality projection. Is the film a revelation like “Casino Royal”? No. Absolutely not. It may be a bit darker, but it’s still the same Bond as ever (though maybe with more fantastic suits)! But this film is entertaining as ever, and is thoroughly enjoyable with little to actually quibble about. Plus, this is seemingly the last franchise I still enjoy so there’s something to be said for that. And in the end, how much more can we ask of 007 than to entertain, seduce beautiful women (this film is no exception) make us laugh with a few zingers here and there (and there are those too), and kill a few people?

Rated PG-13 for intense violent sequences throughout, some sexuality, language and smoking

Stars: 9 /10