Skyfall is a fitting title for a film that falls flat on its face...make that its back. See James above? He's flat on his back! Run for cover, James, lest your Bond franchise begin to wane!
Am I not the most irreverent film reviewer on planet Earth? Every single reviewer out there lauds this film. Most call it the best Bond film ever. I've seen nothing but the highest opinions of the film.
Do these gushing, sophomoric reviews tempt me to alter my opinion? Yeah, maybe a bit. OK, I'll try to be balanced.
First the good: The series does need to move its characters forward. We thus get a change in M, Bond's boss (which, without giving anything away, is the central thrust of the story). I think you'll like the new M...I do. You'll get a very weird change of profiles in Q, the master of Bond gadgets. More good: Much less silly sexism than in the old days, with Bond cavorting about like a teen who has just come into puberty. Bond is older and wiser. He's a serious dude. More multi-dimensional than the old days. Even more good: Javier Bardem is outstanding as the effeminate villain who has a joker-like quality about him, a la Jack Nicholson in Batman. Javier might just get a best supporting role nomination for his work. And Judi Dench, well, Judi is Judi...always fantastic.
On to the BAD: The plot is so contrived that its laughable. Oh, let's just meet up in the streets so we can have chase scenes! Bond is way too old for the role. If Ian Fleming could see his dashing young secret agent with a grey beard, he'd probably weep! Q as a young kid is downright silly. One of the Bond women is way too young to be a romantic interest, and the other, pretty and sexy, simply gets done in before she and James can get something going! So James may no longer be a silly skirt chaser, but the film is so devoid of sex it's like living in Victorian times! The weaponry is laughable. In an age of high-tech automatic ARs and AKs, Bond's little Walther PPK (.380 caliber back in the Ian Fleming days, 9mm today) is like a BB gun. Albert Finney's role as the old farm caretaker is a parody of itself. Speaking of which: Why do all the bad guys face off with James in a remote mini-castle? What ? Huh?
Yeah, it's a mix.
See for yourself.
Great entertainment, no matter what....which might just be the bottom line.
Declaration: I have never been a Bond fan. Yes, there are some of us out there. (Side note: when I was in 8th grade, a young classmate and I got into trouble - calls home - for him giving me a copy of From Russia With Love. hahaha Those were innocent times; or at least they were trying to keep us innocent!)
ReplyDeleteAnyway, went to see Skyfall to satisfy hubby.
I mostly agree with your views, David.
I like Daniel Craig's body of film work, but this contemporary morphing of Bond does not suit me. The fantasy of James Bond lies in his tuxedo (only one scene in this movie) and his unrealistic inability to sweat! This is what separates him from other celluloid heroes. I don't want to see him so "humanized" as in this film. I don't want to probe his childhood motivations. I don't want to see him in the gym. And I DON'T want to see him fail in his mission (of protecting M)!
As you said, where was the sex? Where was the glamour? And where were the gadgets??
Bond does not have to be pretty, but he has to be perfect.
I love Bardem as an actor, too, but found his No Country For Old Men meets the Joker character to be scene-stealing and a distraction.
I just saw nothing original here. And James Bond should ALWAYS, above all else, be an original!