Everybody remembers their first James Bond movie. Whether
you grew up in 60’s with Sean Connery, the 70’s with Roger Moore, the 80’s with
Timothy Dalton, or the 90’s with Pierce Brosnan, everyone has their favorite
007. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the British spy series,
and with that, comes the release of “Skyfall”, the 23rd movie starring the
well-known and well-worn, sophisticated master of intelligence. For many born in the last few decades, Daniel
Craig’s grizzled and angsty interpretation of the character has not only become
their first and favorite, but he has also converted some older fans from across
the franchise.
Like
something of a culmination of all the previous 007 movies, “Skyfall” reaches a
new audience with a slightly darker, interior take on the hero. Though hints of this was flashed in the also-successful
“Casino Royal” back in 2006—only to be near-wasted in its follow up “Quantum of
Solace” in 2008—director Sam Mendez (“American Beauty”, “Road To Perdition”,
“Away We Go”) realizes which elements are essential to the series and which
elements beg to be challenged.
The
movie begins with a fantastic chase scene in Turkey, only to reveal that Bond
(Daniel Craig) is accidently shot by a fellow agent, while in close
hand-to-hand combat atop a moving train. Though presumed dead by MI6, he is actually
hiding in the tropics, where he can enjoy hard drinking and easy women, while
tormented by the apparent fact that his agency has always considered him expendable.
When a mysterious cyber-terrorist (played by Javier Bardem) kills many of the
other agents and begins to personally threaten their motherly leader M (played
by the Judy Dench), Bond decides to come out of hiding, where he is now out of
practice and perhaps out of his league against this modern kind of evil.
Fans of
the D-Craig Bond movies should find no fault with “Skyfall”. It’s well paced, immaculately shot, and
exciting in an understated and grounded way—though not without a smidge of camp
for those who appreciate the broader humor of its older predecessors. In fact, more than any other film in the
franchise, this installment casts its net wider for people who are normally not
as excited. Sam Mendez brings a class and clout to this newer adaptation to the
series and asks questions to the morality of espionage as well as the morals of
Bond as a character. Unusually, Bond is shot to look older and vulnerable, in a
state of emotional and psychological distress and even if he saves the day, his
mistakes cause fatal ripples through the plot. I found this to easily be the
most substantive Bond movie yet.
The
cinematography by Roger Deakins (whose previous work can be observed in the
Coen Brothers catalogue) is truly artful and worthy of nomination. The quiet and contemplative intensity of this
thriller is echoed by his minimal use of lighting and the dramatic use of ambiguous
silhouettes. Mendez is a visual director, and not since Deakins work on “No
Country for Old Men” has his collaboration with a filmmaker been so effectively
symbiotic.
Does
“Skyfall” make any missteps? Scarcely. Some may (and should) question the
political-correctness of Bardem’s lascivious portrayal as a sexually ambiguous
psychopath. Also, some may notice many similarities to the recent Christopher
Nolan Batman movies, especially the second act, which feels almost like a
beat-by-beat reinvention of “The Dark Knight”. However, it never registers as a
cynical or lazy choice and it seems to do so with a deliberate purpose. If Nolan, who is an admitted Bond enthusiast
himself, has written the book on how a movie’s anti-hero is supposed to behave
in a post-911 environment, then with “Skyfall” Mendez has added an equally
significant chapter.
Grade: A-
Originally Published in the Idaho State Journal/Nov-2012
No comments:
Post a Comment