 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 29, 2015 - 4:05 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ralph
(Member)
|
Became clear in “Casino Royale” that nihilism was going to be a strong underpinning in Daniel Craig’s revamped Bond. Absent svelte, emphasizing the rule that the smaller the adversary the more menacing the buffed bravo in duty-bound determination. His limited expressiveness is shield, yet he’s equipped with an immersive vocality as tool to engender capitulation. Even showing his age in “Skyfall,” the camera gobbles up his coarseness but never for long: too much of him causes sizable tremors on the brutality scale — he’s the least schmoozing of the Bonds. Craig’s staccato toughness no doubt rubs against traditionalists wanting the comfort of the past as escape. Like Sean Connery’s smirky speciality, which was bagging the broads between ridiculous heroics to save mankind from effete megalomaniacs. George Lazenby wasn’t around long enough to hanker for or get sick of; Roger Moore’s masculinity was consistently in peril of sliding into poof spoof; Timothy Dalton had the shifty looks of bad boy shyster working against character; and Pierce Brosnan a sensational clotheshorse the first time out and then met his icy waterloo in “Die Another Day.” Those hoping for a revival of outlandish techno flash must be very disappointed that the “prestige” of Sam Mendes directing “Skyfall” meant that the comic fanfare would be further diminished and in its place a long-coming conclusion to a character given a much stronger presence since “GoldenEye.” The love/hate of Bond and his boss M gave Brosnan and Craig something to hold in contempt (after all, she puts a hit on her own agents when they misbehave) but grudging respect, if not eventually come to have affection for. The moldy psychology of a mother/son thing isn’t farfetched but thankfully without any linkage, so far. (The inkling that Bond will retrograde comes early on — when we see M’s digs being quite a throwback from hers in “Casino Royale” — and becomes manifest when an old boy toy shows up for duty, accompanied by a familiar musical refrain.) Far be it from me to explain why “Skyfall” is the biggest grosser in the franchise — $1.2 Billion. Aside from inheriting Craig’s mammoth and obviously receptive audience — “Casino Royale”: $600 Million; “Quantum of Solace”: $586 Million — the reviews were generally kind, a few overblown with praise and a few brought out the knives. Some attribute the success to Javier Bardem’s villain, a sort of Guy Burgess as Blondie Hannibal; they heard the chat about his inclination and wanted to see for themselves how Bond would respond. (Rather cleverly.) Others might have wanted to see Judi Dench, a treasure similar to Maggie Smith and Betty White, in what is assumed her final Bond picture. Or simply the appeal of Craig. The eye-popping nightscapes of Shanghai — a Chinese Epcot as a blend of past and future — help enormously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 30, 2015 - 5:25 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike_J
(Member)
|
The first time I saw Skyfall, I convinced myself I actually quite liked it. No idea why, although I suspect it is down to the fact that I went in with zero expectations, having really disliked the last 3 Bond movies and absolutely detestied Daneil Craig's interpretation of the role.
So, with some reservations, I was reasonably caught up in Skyfall the first time around. I even found Craig not quite as insufferable as I had in his previous 2 outings as 007.
I've watched it a few times since, on Blu Ray and unfortunately my initial tolerance of the film has been entirely lost. In the cold light of day, with my more analytical head on, I find Skyfall to be quite an awful movie.
Don't get me wrong, Skyfall isn't without some good points. For starters, it is far and away the best looking Bond movie ever - the cinematography is simply stunning. And there are a couple of decent lines (the ejector-seat joke between M and 007 is good fun). And I liked the shoot out in the Court room.
But overall I consider the film to be pretty poor, largely due to some incredibly empty-headed writing. Now, I appreciate that Bond films are never necessarily recognised for their tight plotting and that, right from Dr No, events have often be moved forward by screenwriting contrivances. Overall I have no issue with that as long as I'm swept up enough in the film, so on that basis I might have been willing to give Skyfall a pass for the ridiculous set-up for Silva's escape from MI6. But what is unforgivable is what happens next;
Bond needs to protect M but also wants to use her to flush out Silva, so his idea is to get Q to lay bread crumbs to lure the baddie to Scotland. Ok so far so good. But wait a second... why for goodness sake does M actually need to be there?????? Q's false tail doesn't include a live camera feed inside the DB5 or Skyfall itself so they could simply pretend M was with Bond, whilst actually she was in a top secret safe house.
And then, since M, Q, Tanner et al all know where the final confrontation is going to take place (they laid the bread crumbs after all), why not have a small army battalion waiting for Silva? No, instead they simply sit back and let Bond, M and Groundskeeper Willy defend themselves with some old shotguns and a few half-hearted MacGyverisms. The whole set up is a comprehensive fail in logic and insulting to the audience.
Surely, it would have been far better if the screenwriters had had Silva capture M and take her to Skyfall to taunt both her and Bond?
The are loads of other things wrong with Skyfall too but it is the stupidity of the third act that really gets me. The shoot out and destruction of Skyfall is mildly exciting in a seen-it-all-before sort of way but the whole thing is just so incredibly dumb I can hardly watch it.
Ive never hidden my abject hatred of the way the current crop of Bond films have gone all Jason Bourne and my loathing of Daniel Craig is legendary. But I am still capable of judging Skyfall on its own merits as a movie (rather than as a Bond movie) and on re-assessment I think it fails as both. What with the derivative and silly plot, the endless naval-gazing from the bland hero and a villain who has all the menace of Frankie Howard, all Skyfall has going for it is that it looks pretty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
