Dr Skyfall

Ah, the curse of expectations. Quite a few people had said to me, either in person or in impersonal radio-speak, that this was the best James Bond EVER!!!! and so I wasn’t able to go into the film with an open mind. The folks who had not said it was great had been fairly neutral about it.

There was a lot to like about this film, from the acting, to the cinematography, to the script, to the story, to the main villain; it was not without some problems, and I think that Chris correctly named the main one – it’s hollow. Now, you can never really expect a deep emotional experience from a Bond film [bonus question – why not? other films use the same story formulae and deliver the same basic experience with emotional depth and range too, why not Bond?] but that’s actually not exactly what we meant. It felt a little too much like all of those things. There were no rough edges, no unexpected story beats, the pacing and framing for scenes was roughly what you’d expect.

I don’t want to imply that this was a check-box experience of just going through the motions, because the film is much better than that, but the whole structure of the piece was far too inward looking, far too interested in its own past, in being the 50th anniversary film. That inward-looking nature meant that it made only safe story choices, only safe framing options. It never felt to me like it was taking any risks, or trying anything new at all. Indeed, several really major story beats, such as Bond’s apparent death in the opening chase sequence and subsequent failure to pass the fitness testing, felt distinctly tired – they were done in Connery’s day, and already re-done by Brosnan.

I guess the best way of summarizing my problem with this film is this. I think this would have been the best James Bond film possible, if all the other ones hadn’t already been made. 😉

Nevertheless, the sheer technical expertise that went into this film were impressive. It managed to look as beautiful as Quantum of Solace without being as inert. It managed to have a quip-packed script without feeling flippant a la Roger Moore. It managed to string together it’s chase sequences into a plot. It delivers on all all the things that would be in the check-list if we had one.

Finally in the positives column, there’s Javiar Bardem. In my mind, he ranks in the top few villains of the films – up there with Goldfinger and Alex Trevelyan, a big step above the second tier of Carver et al. His plan was brilliant, but not too ridiculously over the top, and he had a magnificent screen presence.

And now, to end – a point of ambivalence: Naomie Harris. I felt the screen crackle with energy whenever she was on screen, and her banter with 007 was one of the best parts of the film. She’s a fantastic actor – someone get her some bigger parts; I want to see her headlining something major. What I am ambivalent about is the way she ends the film, because while she was clearly not a direct peer of Bond’s, she was looking like a major character in the Felix Leiter mould. To have her end up where she does felt like a demotion to me, and what I wanted, what I was rooting for almost unconsciously, was a female 00 agent, rounding out a roster of characters that would appear in the next film. Off-hand, it’s hard not to see her final position as a demotion, at least in story power, and ultimately representing another “safe” decision from this film which could have easily gone a more interesting way.

This entry was posted in Film and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Dr Skyfall

  1. milites says:

    Too much of the bad guy’s plot depended on the good guys being stupid.

    Who plugs an unknown laptop into their secure network? I would expect someone who knew what they were doing would image the disk and then look at it in a way that stopped stuff running on it while you looked at stuff. I’d especially expect the very clever Q to know better. *sigh* computers in films.

    That said, I was pleasantly surprised at the end of the third act when Bond manages to stymie our bad-guy and the bad-guy decides to retreat instead of fighting to the bitter end!


    The start of the fourth act was therefore a surprise to me, since I felt like the usual 3 acts had been building to the finale, and then *bam*, there’s another act slipped in before the end.

    In general, the bad guy’s plot was fairly good, apart from failing to explain where he gets all his mooks from. Especially if he’s going to waste them the way he does.

    M’s decision to be all stoic was fairly stupid. I mean, shell dressings, they exist for a reason!

    That said, I rather enjoyed the whole thing. Judy Dench does a very good line in Hard-as-nails person who makes tough decisions.

  2. Pingback: Casino Royale [1953] | My One Contribution To The Internet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s