WE’RE ALL IN LOVE with James Bond again. Maybe it’s because we nearly lost him when MGM virtually went bankrupt in 2010. Or perhaps it’s due to the general global unease of the day, when there’s something pretty appealing about a hero without superpowers. Maybe, and most likely, it’s because Daniel Craig has now fully assumed the mantle, with his grim, tightlipped, almost thuggish 007 a worthy reinvention of Ian Fleming’s character. (The phenomenal sky-jumping publicity stunt at the Summer Olympics surely didn’t hurt.) For whatever reason, Skyfall—the 23rd “official” Bond film—is the most anticipated in decades, and for the most part it doesn’t disappoint, although it isn’t as thrilling as 2006’s Casino Royale.
In a solid pre-titles sequence, Bond chases a stolen hard drive containing the names of embedded agents through the streets of Istanbul. He’s mistakenly gunned down by fellow MI6 operative Eve (Naomie Harris), who’s under orders from M (Dame Judi Dench) to take the shot. Believed dead, Bond spends the early stages of Skyfall hiding out in the tropics, drunk, unshaven, and resentful. It’s fun to see 007 so unhinged, and just as great to see him whip himself back into fighting shape once he reports for duty. Bond goes to Shanghai, then Macau, but most of the action in Skyfall takes place in the UK, including a lengthy sequence in the London Underground and a protracted, somewhat sluggish climax on the Scottish moors.
This means the typical exotic settings are pushed aside for gray, gloomy Blighty—Skyfall could be the dourest picture in the franchise’s history. Gadgets are summarily dismissed, and the customary harem of Bond girls is reduced to the lone Sévérine (Bérénice Marlohe, who’s plenty). As such, it’s the preposterous, over-the-top villain—a creepily blond Javier Bardem—that remains the only touchstone from the established Bond formula. Bardem’s hilarious and fantastic, and a welcome relief from doddering ol’ Dame Dench, who’s in this movie an awful lot.
A big chunk of Ian Fleming’s backstory for Bond (revealed in the novel You Only Live Twice) becomes a plot point for Skyfall, but for the most part, the film is intent on stepping out of the shadow of 007’s immense legacy. That means Skyfall lacks the series’ typically giddy charm, but there’s enough cold-blooded intrigue to replace it. And it means Bond isn’t finished evolving. Here’s to a long, action-packed future.
The opening sequence of Skyfall was dangerous, old school stunt work, with CGI limited to providing continuity. Thumbs up for that. Of course they had to resort to cuts with dirt bikes for some of the action, just like back in the day.
In Skyfall, James Bond looses everything he ever owned. The villain, Raoul Silva has already embraced that lifestyle, as demonstrated with his girl friend who Bond seems to have had his way with. Bond and Silva are the same personality types. They had the same traumatic, orphaned childhoods, held the same professional positions, and had each been forsaken by the same M. Twin brothers from different mothers, yet with differing responses to the same set of circumstances and different attitudes about the same reality.
There is real potential for the villain to be sympathetic, but again it’s played down. He doesn’t do nearly as much damage as he could do and he makes no demands. In fact his threat could have been completely neutralized, but MI6 would have to decide for itself on it’s own, to abort all of it’s missions and recall all of it’s agents.
There is an apparent fatal flaw at the end of act one, which turns out to be the real genius of the film, made poignant in the chapel scene during the grande finale, when M fails to apply the same logic to her own situation that she used in issuing the directive to Bond’s backup.
This high concept movie makes economical reference in lieu of satisfying character development, which leaves the film bordering on melodrama. The audience is expected to feel sympathetically for the hero and villain alike, but instead, one is left rather indifferent towards them both.
Perhaps it was hoped, that after fifty years, James Bond would need no introduction, but with the introduction of new history, some flashbacks to childhood, as well as to his predecessor’s childhood, relationship with M, and the Silva’s final mission would have provided much more effective character development and empathy. Nevertheless, Skyfall is a very, smart movie, for making these bullet points at all. In action movies, there is generally not much interesting dialogue. Here, there are the traditional long sequences of suspense and/or action, with no dialogue at all. James Bond usually has lots of snappy short retorts. This film has a few good ones, but for the most part, it’s a darker film than previous of the franchise.
Skyfall is a lengthy movie, yet the time passed quickly for me. I enjoyed the film, and the relatively, low tech and make shift weaponry, contrasting with the virtual reality weapon in the style of Wikileaks.
James Bond = Batman: Two long-outdated, fascist characters used to bilk lazy people out of $11.
In both cases, the jokey, quirky, exotic bits in both franchises were the only things that ever made them interesting. After Adam West and Roger Moore, both died. That was decades ago.
I thought The Mercury was an alt paper. Not so much, I suppose…
Comment Pulled: Terms of Use violation.
How about an specific explanation of the Terms of Use violation, so that I may edit and repost another review?
Sure thing: Don’t throw the term “fag” around.
Is that the only prohibited word, or is there a list?
James Bond is dead.
Ian Fleming has been dead since 1964 and all of his Bond books have been made into pictures. Skyfall is not one of them. It’s an entertaining movie, but it’s not a James Bond.
Don’t make James Bond into something he’s not. James Bond is not the Dark Knight and he’s not homosexual; hyper-sexual behavior, notwithstanding. Skyfall writers, Purvis, Wade, and logan may have foreshadowed their agenda for sequels in that regard, however.
Contrary to M’s monologue, Bond flicks have always featured individual super villains. Raoul Silva is the rule, not the exception. Osama Bin Laden was not a super villain. He was a strawman for Russia. Julian Assange may be a terrorist or he may be a journalist, but under American law, he is innocent until proven guilty, and so far at least, he hasn’t been charged with murder.
Skyfall attempts to make James Bond more contemporary, and in this recent age, the possibility for the emergence of Bond super villains is becoming more a likelihood. Perhaps that’s the reason for chaining the World economy to limited production of refined oil? If everybody had access to unlimited free energy, then there could very well be a vast number of Bond type super villains to have to deal with, as well as World super powers and their proxy rouge nations?
Ian Fleming’s James Bond is an escape from reality, where the audience is empowered in empathy for the lead character who can dodge a bullet, fall down stairs and land on his feet, without either so much as creasing his tuxedo, or spilling a single drop of his shaken martini; offering no complaint, but for too much vermouth.
James Bond is dead, but Ian Fleming’s work, lives on.
There’s no list, just common sense. TOS enforcement is quite arbitrary, but we try to pull racist and homophobic language when we see it.
Comment Pulled: Terms of Use violation.
Even “Alt” zines have to pay the bills, and there sure are a lot of movie theaters getting conspicuous notoriety posted above. Fine by me, even if the owners are a bunch of banana eating homosapiens.
Film making by committee. Propaganda in support of the War on Terror as justification for the erosion of civil liberties, with the agenda of promoting homosexuals as benevolent dicktasters.
Holy shit, who the fuck are you creeps who still think there’s a gay “agenda”? Jesus christ. Also, this sort of thing is why we’re pulling your asinine comments.
I know what you mean, Erik. There has been an article floating around the Internet for a long time by a self-described “gay left-wing man” named Johann Hari, a columnist for the London Independent. The article is titled “The Strange, Strange Story of the Gay Fascists,” and you can read it for yourself at the vehemently pro-”gay” Huffington Post website.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-strange-strange-story_b_136697.html
The strange, strange story of ‘gay fascism’ deniers
Comment pulled: off topic.
I’ve used the word ‘fag’ here before, sparingly. But it’s really a matter of CONTEXT. If you’re referring to someone who’s just being a belligerent douchnozzle, then the word might be called for. But if you’re using it as a hateful slur against Gay people, then that makes you a homophobic shithead.
The word has developed multiple meanings over the years. Now-a-days, fag simply means you’re a jerk. However, if the Merc. decides to pull all comments with the word – context not withstanding – in the interests of fairness, i’d totally understand. Bottom line: think carefully about what you type before hitting “post comment”.