It didn’t take long to break one of my blog rules, did it? I’ve only seen Skyfall once.
…
There are so many things wrong with Skyfall that I’m going
to try and make this post about something other than that film. I’m going to
apologise from the off about this post because it may come off as angry. I don’t
mean to be, believe me - I’m just bitterly disappointed.
James Bond isn’t only an important British institution, the
franchise is important in my family. I know I talk about my late father a lot and
for good reason, he introduced me to the movies and one of the first films he and I saw together was Goldfinger. Like many people in the UK, I’ve
probably seen every Bond film at least once and although that doesn't make me a
Bond expert, it at least gives me a foundation of knowledge to roughly assess
where new Bond films land in the “best of Bond” list.
I know and I truly appreciate that film can be a very
personal experience and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but every time I
see, read or hear something about Skyfall, I’m constantly being told that it is
one of the greatest, if not the greatest Bond film. God help me, I find this
insulting.
…
I’m one of those obnoxious idiots who eats up all the hype
of a big blockbuster film. I'm usually one of the first in line to watch these
movies, but for one reason or another, I wasn’t for Skyfall. This gave my
friends the unique opportunity to give me their opinion on the film and
recommend it to me before I had eyes on it.
To a man/woman, they all compared Skyfall to Christopher
Nolan’s The Dark Knight. I thought nothing of this, in fact, I took it as a
positive thing. How can it be a bad thing for a film to be compared to a modern day classic like TDK?
The problem is, Skyfall takes more than just notice of TDK,
it damn near ripped it off. Skyfall does not feel like a Bond movie at all – it
feels like a bastard child of the Nolan Batman franchise and this is just sad. I'm not only basing this on the dark tone of the film, but mostly
on Javier Bardem’s character Silva. Everything about Silva screams Heath Ledger’s
Joker and it gets erksome real quick.
…
Skyfall is a deeply confused film; I mean, ask yourself what
it is actually about? Is it about recovering the hard-disc that can compromise
undercover secret agents? Is it about Silva’s vendetta toward Bond and M? Is it
about Bond being old? Bond’s back-story? I know a film can and often are about
more than one plot point, but when a film can’t keep all their balls in the
air, it’s a problem.
I think what the makers of Skyfall tried to convey is a
changing of the guard; a new Bond for a new age - hence the killing of M which
was telegraphed for most of the film. We get a new Q, a new M, a new Moneypenny
and an invigorated and vindicated Bond. All of this is fine apart from the fact
that they did a better job of achieving this two movies ago.
…
Casino Royale is utterly fearless. I think this is born from the fact that it was made
with a clean slate and hardly anyone had any high expectations. The idea of
Bond in the 21st century was almost laughable. We had Bourne and
Jack Bauer – both of them could have kicked Bond’s ass in a fight. This low
expectation allowed the producers to get away with hiring a “blonde Bond”.
Daniel Craig, unlike his performance in Skyfall, is eye
wateringly brilliant. He’s just not being broody, miserable and dreary,
there is an actual intensity to his performance in CR. He’s also gets the point
across that Bond is essentially a ruthless assassin, which for me is absolutely
key. You actually believe that the Royale Bond will stop at nothing to kill his
target, regardless of any diplomatic/ political implications – just look at the
embassy scene near the beginning of the film. You really don’t get this impression
with Bond in Skyfall. He feels like a neutered killer which doesn’t sit well
with me.
…
Despite effectively portraying Bond as a cold blooded
killer, Casino also manages to humanize this man – something that I feel no
Bond has ever managed to do. The love story in this film is absolutely brutal
and it refreshingly takes an essential element of the Bond experience,
Bond’s womanising, on its head. It’s a clever way to establish why Bond is
cold and mistrustful of women.
…
It’d be criminal not to mention Casino Royale’s villain who
is a chillingly simple but effective Character. Mads
Mikkelsen’s Le Chiffre doesn’t have a convoluted plot to rule
the world or a plan to kill X character – he is simply some bloke in financial
difficulty. Those difficulties may involve owing money to terrorists, but that’s
besides the point.
He doesn’t have a secret layer, he doesn’t speechify, and he doesn’t leave the torturing of Bond to some henchman or super machine. He really is some bloke, with an eye impediment and this makes him believable.
…
It’s frustrating because as well as being an outstanding film;
Casino Royale could have been the start of something special. The film could
have been a vehicle to deliver a radically different Bond, who isn’t shackled
by the older Moore
and Connery films. Yes they botched it up with Quantum of Solace but that isn’t
reason enough to get lazy and unoriginal like they did in Skyfall.
Casino Royale is the real gem of the new Bond series. All
that Skyfall did was remind me how good Royale is and how its is Casino Royale that
should be considered the best Bond of our, or maybe anytime.
@ChocoTeddyFilms
@ChocoTeddyFilms
