Skyfall review

[JasonEvans]

You know we used to joke about Rocky 17 or Friday the 13th part 21? Well, this is Bond 23 and no one seems to mind it. Part of that may be because this really feels like Bond 3 as the Daniel Craig versions of Bond are very different – much darker and more serious – than the ones we saw for decades of Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan.

This Bond story focuses on a threat not to the world, but to the British spy agency MI6. The bad guy is played by Javier Bardem, a former spy who is now a cyber terrorist. Bardem is always fabulously menacing when he plays a bad guy and he does a really nice job in this film. Bardem’s target is Bond’s boss, M, played by Dame Judi Dench getting a bigger role in this movie than M has in any Bond film. Dench is a remarkably confident and strong-willed actress and is fabulous here. Her relationship with Bond is a touching one and you can tell they are close. The movie needed an actress as strong as Dench at it's core. The cast also includes Ralph Finnes and Albert Finney as well as an up and coming actor named Ben Whishaw who I really like… he was great in Cloud Atlas which just hit theaters a couple weeks ago.



There film starts with a fun chase/action sequence. Even though there isn’t a ton of action throughout the rest of the film, they sprinkle it around enough to keep the story moving. Craig is great as Bond -- cool and determined to the end. This movie tries to play him as more vulnerable and wounded than he has been in the past, which didn't really work for me. Plus, the movie pretty much abandons the "Bond is fractured and not himself" theme about halfway through. I guess they decided it wasn't working either.

There are a lot of lighter moments in the film that hearken back to earlier Bond movies. This is the 50th anniversary of the Bond movie franchise—Dr. No opened in theaters on October 5th, 1962 – and they put in a number of props and amusing reminders of Bond’s past. Fans of the franchise will get a real kick out of it. If you aren’t a fan, they set this stuff up in a way that makes sense to you too.

That said, Skyfall actually breaks from some of the Bond formula – the “Bond girls” aren’t as prominent as they usually are and there are almost no cool spy gadgets (unless you consider a GPS tracker to be a cool gadget). For example the modern version of Q is more a cyber sleuth than an inventor. I sorta missed that aspect of the Bond tradition. This is a more nitty, gritty spy film – it feels like it was influenced by the Bourne movies and perhaps The Dark Knight as well.

The bottom line -- It is a quite good spy movie—though not a great one. I am a little surprised the critics are falling all over themselves over it as much as they are. It lasts almost 2 ½ hours and does drag a bit at times. I thought the ending was pretty uninspired and I did not like it. I was really bothered by a bad guy who always seems to have another henchman up his sleeve or who always seems to be at exactly the right place at the right time to pull off his crazy schemes. This is one of those movies where they engage in a random chase for a while and then they arrive at exactly the right place at the right time for the bad guy to push a button and get away. I really rolled my eyes a couple times at that kind of stuff. I also felt like many of the characters had motivations that I did not understand and that don’t make sense. The “Bond girl” in the middle of the film does a few things that seem ridiculous and foolish upon reflection. Bardem's character similarly does crazy things that felt unreal to me. One of the strengths of the Bourne films was a sense of realism and honesty in the character's choices. This movie was missing that.



All that said, this is an “event” film that everyone will be talking about and is worth your $10 for a ticket. The pace is good, the action is fun, and the acting is first-rate. That's enough to make it an enjoyable time at the movies. Bond fans will like it a lot and will debate where it falls in the ranks of the best Bond films (I say it is probably top 5). Even if you are not a Bond fan but just like a good spy, action flick, you will find plenty to like here.

-Jason "I am probably being overly harsh in my criticism of this movie... In think my expectations were too high" Evans

[Jderf]

-Jason "I am probably being overly harsh in my criticism of this movie... In think my expectations were too high" Evans

Agree with just about every word you've written here. Going into the movie, I think I may have had the same problem, expectations-wise. I guess I just saw a bunch of reviews that were throwing around the "Best Bond Ever" line and so I was oddly disappointing when it ended up only being a "Very Good Bond" instead.

While I'm not sure if the "influences" were intentional, you're definitely right that Skyfall has many parallels with The Dark Knight. Bardem is certainly a very Joker-like Bond villain in the sense that he is an outlandishly psychotic criminal mastermind, with convoluted plots that are always impossibly well-orchestrated. It's amazing how trains always show up exactly when and where you want them to, right?**

And as to your point about the Bond girls taking a bit of a back seat this time around, I hadn't really noticed it or thought about it while watching the movie, but in retrospect I have to agree. Actually, you could even argue that in a certain sense Judi Dench was the main Bond girl -- with a motherly relationship rather than a sexual one.

Overall the acting and the action are more than good enough to ensure that all the little hiccups get smoothed ever, making for a very fun experience and a great addition to the franchise. Get out and see it if you can.

**Having taken MARTA to work the last couple of weeks, I can confirm that this rule ALWAYS holds true.

[moonpie23]

i've been a bit disappointed with the lack of gadgets lately....


time to re-make FLINT

[JasonEvans]

If you want to listen to it, here is the Skyfall review I did on the radio this morning.

-Jason "eager to hear what all of you think about it now that it is in theaters" Evans

[DevilAlumna]

words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words



words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words.

-Jason "more words" Evans

I'm sorry, I was a little distracted. Did you have something to say about the movie?

[Jim3k]

I'm sorry, I was a little distracted. Did you have something to say about the movie?

Car caught your eye?

[bjornolf]

Car caught your eye?

Heck yea.

[Wander]

While I'm not sure if the "influences" were intentional, you're definitely right that Skyfall has many parallels with The Dark Knight. Bardem is certainly a very Joker-like Bond villain in the sense that he is an outlandishly psychotic criminal mastermind, with convoluted plots that are always impossibly well-orchestrated.

I liked the movie a lot, but it was way too similar to Dark Knight, particularly the final third. Off the top of my head (spoilers):
1. Silva wasn't just Joker-like psychologically, he looked a ton like the Joker in the scene where he removes his teeth (similar to the Joker's smile-scars)
2. The villain intentionally lets himself be captured, and has a planned escape scheme.
3. The hero's home is a large manor (which, like in Batman Begins, gets set on fire).
4. Bond has an Alfred.
5. The hero is an orphan.
6. The last fight scene is nearly the exactly same scene as the Two Face scene at the end of Dark Knight.
7. The villain executes part of his plan by pretending to be a cop.
8. Trying to interrogate someone while holding them off a building's edge.

Anything else?

[Jim3k]

Saw it this afternoon in full, glorious XD. I'm not a big fan of paying extra, but the panoramic scenes of Istanbul, London, Shanghai, Macao, and the Scottish Highlands made it worthwhile. The screen is wide and has outstanding color clarity and definition.

The plot is a bit on the thin side, but was an enjoyable film. One of the very best Bonds ever done. The original Aston-Martin makes an appearance, too, as shown in the pic posted upthread. And, of course, the stunts are great fun.

[OldPhiKap]

Saw it last night. A really fun film if you don't think about it too hard.

[Mike Corey]

Spoiler alert:









tumblr_md8xp3I1ST1qexexlo1_400.jpg

[brumby041]

i've been a bit disappointed with the lack of gadgets lately....

Bond: "It's not exactly Christmas, is it?"
Q: "What were you expecting, an exploding pen?"

I, too, miss the gadgets. I really feel that they are a major part of what makes the Bond movies iconic.

Did enjoy the movie, however.

[Duvall]

Pretty but dumb. Roger Deakins is amazing.

[Udaman]

Yeah, pretty much agree with JE here....was a perfectly fine movie, but also disappointing. It was very much like The Dark Knight, as others have pointed out. I did really like Bardem...but he's a tremendous actor. My complaints:

1) As others have said, the perfect timing is just so hard to get over. To plan it exactly when M is going to testify, and get away with it perfectly?

2) Inconsistencies. Why couldn't Q simply shut down the subway once Barem got on it?

3) The super great bad guy who's not the mastermind. The whole first 15 minutes...I mean come on! Bond is the best spy in the world, and the best at fighting...and yet the guy he fights is just as good as he is (all the time)?

4) The fractured Bond theme that got dropped. I really liked where it was going. Bond as a drunk. As a man over the edge. As a man who couldn't shoot straight anymore. Then suddenly...gone. Nothing. I don't get it. They could have really done something with that.

5) Believability. Sorry, but if you get shot while on a moving train, and fall 100 feet into the water below with a gunshot wound....you die. Period. There was no explanation of how he lived, because, I guess, no explanation would work.

It's all too predictable now, which makes sense to a degree (after all, this is James Bonds we are talking about)...but this franchise needs a makeover. Not sure how they would do it, but that's what they need. Still, it was worth seeing. Bardem made me laugh a few times, and the action was pretty good. But overall disappointing. It's a lock for the Top 5, though.

[dball]

It's all too predictable now, which makes sense to a degree (after all, this is James Bonds we are talking about)...but this franchise needs a makeover.

Thought Craig as Bond was the makeover. The first film seemed closer to a Bourne film and this latest evidently owes much to the Dark Knight. Quantum is arguably one of the worst in the series. While I liked Casino Royale quite a bit, it's possible that fifty years of Bond is enough. More gadgets might help, though

[Mike Corey]

I agree with all the criticisms here. The only thing I'd say is that I still thought it was awesome. This is one of those movies, and one of the few instances in which, you have to turn your reasoning off a bit and let your imagination run a little wild.

The lack of gadgets, the lack of action, and the Home Alone ending were all not ideal. But I still had a great time in the theatre.

Or maybe I'm just saving my enthusiasm and critical eye for the greatest movie of all time that surely isn't but has me more excited than any movie ever: Lincoln!

[Reisen]

While I liked Casino Royale quite a bit, it's possible that fifty years of Bond is enough.

Heresy. I haven't seen it yet, but even Casino Royale (which I didn't like) was better than 99% of the non-Bond stuff out there.

Craig is plenty of makeover. I'd like to see him do at least 8 or 10 films, and I'd like them to come a little closer together. A 2 year split feels about right.

[JasonEvans]

Heresy. I haven't seen it yet, but even Casino Royale (which I didn't like) was better than 99% of the non-Bond stuff out there.

Craig is plenty of makeover. I'd like to see him do at least 8 or 10 films, and I'd like them to come a little closer together. A 2 year split feels about right.

Quantum is, in my opinion, about a middle-of-the-pack Bond film. It is clearly better than dreck like View to a Kill or The Living Daylights but is not in a league with Casino Royale, Goldfinger, and the other greats of the series.

As for the franchise needing a makeover, I think that would be a major over-reaction. Craig is a fine Bond and the 3 movies he has done are all in the top half of the Bond cannon. He is signed on for 3 more movies and I believe they are trying to do them on about a 2-year timetable each. Bond appears to be in quite good hands.

-Jason "but they do need more gadgets" Evans

[Reisen]

Quantum is, in my opinion, about a middle-of-the-pack Bond film. It is clearly better than dreck like View to a Kill or The Living Daylights but is not in a league with Casino Royale, Goldfinger, and the other greats of the series.

As for the franchise needing a makeover, I think that would be a major over-reaction. Craig is a fine Bond and the 3 movies he has done are all in the top half of the Bond cannon. He is signed on for 3 more movies and I believe they are trying to do them on about a 2-year timetable each. Bond appears to be in quite good hands.

-Jason "but they do need more gadgets" Evans

Thanks for catching that, Jason. When I wrote Casino Royale, I meant QoS. I loved Casino Royale.

I'm also pleased to hear the timetable. If you can keep pumping out quality movies every 2 years, you've got a prime moneymaker on your hands.

[Udaman]

Maybe it's just me, but I was really disappointed by Casino Royale. Loved the beginning. Loved the end...but the middle was all about the poker tournament, and how good a player Bond was....and for me, a movie that has poker in it is just boring. There's no excitement because I know it's not real, and I know it's staged, and I know how it's going to turn out (EXACTLY as it did, with one player getting an incredible hand - 4 of a kind, then another getting an even more remarkable hand - straight flush, only to have Bond get a royal flush to stomp them all...ughh...I think it would have been much better if he won by bluffing. Incidentally, there have been only two poker scenes in movies that I truly loved - The Sting, and Maverick).