Skyfall

Skyfalls Flat

Skyfall - 2.5 Stars (out of 4)

Skyfall, for those of you who have been living under a rock, is the newest entry into the storied James Bond series (23rd in the Broccoli-famly produced versions, 24 if you count Never Say Never Again and the 1960s Casino Royale, or 25 if you want to include the original American live TV Casino Royale starring Barry Nelson).  Anyway, I have to preface this review by saying that I have seen EVERY Bond there is (except the David Niven Casino Royale) and am a HUGE fan of the series.  I have seen every single one since The Spy Who Loved Me in the theater in 1977.  I am very much a Bond purist, so I may have a little bias here.  But enough about with the disclaimers, on with the review.

First, this is not a bad movie.  When I left the movie, I was quite elated.  Considering what a mess its predecessor, Quantum of Solace, was, this outing was a welcome change.  It was thrilling in all the right parts, had a comprehensible story unlike its predecessor, had a least a couple of exotic locales and Daniel Craig keeping the great new brooding Bond firmly in place.  But the more I think about it, the less and less I liked the movie.  Without giving away the story, this is probably the closest we will ever get to a Bond origin story.  And that is its almost fatal flaw.  More on that later.

First the good stuff.  The director, Sam Mendes, is quite good.  He produces some very unforgettable images in this film without being too overly arty.  From the thrilling open chase in the rooftops of Istanbul, to the surreal beauty of Shangai at night, this is a beautiful movie and a visual delight.  I especially liked the Shanghai scenes, with its neon-infused night, it looks like something out of Tron.  I love it when I am not bored by the scenery in the background.  Unfortunately with some Bond movies, they do not take advantage of the exotic backgrounds and use the natural and manmade scenery to their advantage because we want to move on to the next thrill ride.  This movie, for the most part, is not like that until the end.  Next, apparently during MGM's bankruptcy (which delayed the production of this movie for 9 months), the producers wisely used the time to punch up and focus on the story.  The key to any good movie, be it comedy, romance, drama or thriller relies first and foremost on a good story.  A bad script can ruin what could otherwise be a great film.  Case number one,  Quantum of Solace.  I have watched Quantum of Solace all the way through three times now, and damned if I still can't tell you what happened in the movie.  It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  Not that that is always a prerequisite for a Bond movie (Moonraker, Die Another Day, The Man With The Golden Gun, You Only Live Twice), but your better Bonds tend to be the better stories (From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, For Your Eyes Only, Goldeneye, Casino Royale), stories that focus on what Bond does, and that is spying.  Another good aspect of this movie was mentioned in The Washington Post: that is there is a certain reverence for the past in cute little one-liners and knowing winks.

And that is also where this movie flies off the rails.  What starts out as a great chase after a mysterious enemy who has stolen the names of every undercover operative in the world, turns into a strange and frankly, unsettling descent into revenge.  While this may work for most movies, it is strangely out of place in a Bond movie.  Bond movies, in the end, are about a British spy who is stopping bad guys for Queen and Country.  This quasi-origin story morphs into a weird mish-mash of Saw and The Most Dangerous Game.  When I think back on the movie, I realize not very much happens in the whole movie, but especially the last 15-20 minutes.  It is more than a little disappointing.  While my expectations for Bond movies are never very high as far as excellence goes, I do expect there to be some kind complex happenings.  This movie starts out fast and then slams on the brakes and tone about halfway through and never recovers.  I have heard dumber critics saying this could be a contender for Oscar, but that is ridiculous.  It's not that good.

A few final notes.  I really like the direction the new production team has taken Bond since Casino Royale has been stellar.  I like the fact that they have not been listening to the fanboys saying, where's Q?  Where's the gadgets?  Where's Blofeld?  I also like Daniel Craig's Bond, the brooding and dangerous guy, not the wink and a smile made popular by Roger Moore.  His acting choices for Bond have been great, and the general tone of the stories is great.  However, in this movie, he seems to be suffering from a malady that requires him to take off his shirt every 10 minutes, not unlike William Shatner in Star Trek.  Unfortunately for the guys, none of the actresses seem to suffer from this same malady and tragically keep thier clothes on for the most part.  Unfortunately, it also has a dearth of beautiful, exotic women in the movie.  There is only one this time, in addition to Bond's sort of partner.  The new Q irritates me, but not as much as I thought he would from the previews.  The story is grounded, sort of, in reality, and makes it interesting.  Unfortunately, in the end, it is only good, but not great.  I put this somewhere just above the middle in terms of how good it is.