Sign on Options
Theme: [Light Selected] To Dark»
18Nov 12

skyfall01.jpg

When a list of MI6's agents falls into the wrong hands James Bond (Daniel Craig) pursues the man who stole it. But during a tense standoff on a train, M (Judi Dench) makes the call for a shot to be taken. Bond is accidentally wounded by fellow agent Eve (Naomie Harris) and the list vanishes with the man. With Bond presumed dead, M takes the fall and is set to be replaced, with the relevancy of the 00 agents questioned by the Intelligence Chairman Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes). Bond briefly takes to drinking until there is a terrorist bombing against MI6. Returning to Britain, Bond remerges, bitter at M, but determined to serve his country. Although weakened, Bond vows to get the list by travelling globally to places like Shanghai and is given some help by a younger agent codenamed 'Q' (Ben Whishaw) and the mysterious Severine (Berenice Marlohe). He eventually discovers that his nemesis is Silva (Javier Bardem), a criminal mind of the computer age, who has a personal vendetta against M herself.

skyfall02.jpg

Some will argue that in the 50th year of the James Bond franchise Skyfall is the spy's pinnacle adventure, taking us into a new age of invisible terrorism, far beyond Ian Fleming's post-war espionage novels, while also reintroducing staple characters from the series and finally teasing at Bond's past. The film's craft alone, at the hands of British director Sam Mendes, rates as a series highpoint. However, true greatness still remains another entry away. This is the most overtly political and conservative Bond film to date, which is jarring for a franchise that defined the term "reboot" in mainstream cinema not long ago. This conservatism harps back to the Bond novels and their fear of the declining British Empire. Fleming was a journalist and a naval intelligence officer. He prepared intelligence units and modelled Bond on various agents and commandos he met. Fleming wrote at least a dozen Bond novels, some of which were criticised for a lack of ethics, being "sado-masochistic" or adolescent. The film series rarely grew up either. It's been spoofed, imitated and even toyed with self-parody too. The stunts and gadgets grew silly and the puns were increasingly lame. What separated this once colourful franchise from production line blockbusters anymore? The Daniel Craig era looked to rectify this: a darker tone, less CGI and Bond projected as a human being. Skyfall shares this attitude, along with the same visceral nature and physicality as Casino Royale (2006). It's an exciting, often funny adventure, but even as it postures towards a changing era, it's still Bond. In this half-century of vodka martinis, little has changed, and here Skyfall doesn't follow-up on some enticing threads and possibilities, signposted in the first half.

skyfall03.jpg

What can't be faulted however is the photography by Roger Deakins. He frames this movie beautifully, with more width than we've ever seen in a Bond film. It makes Bond resemble a smaller piece of a much greater spectrum of world terror. There are some gorgeous sequences in this film, my favourite being a martial arts battle fought in a glass building. The blows are photographed with dark shadows, like a silhouette, and the screen is shrouded by a blue filter lens. Action sequences like this, selective in a strong, leisurely first half, have more weight to them, fused with questions over Bonds fitness and the relevancy of M and the 00 agents - clever metaphors for the franchises own relevancy. Though the first half is witty and promising, with Dench and Craig's sparring sessions a delight, the second portion is bombastic, tense but unsatisfying. The cracks in the screenplay coincide with the introduction of Bardem's Silva, whom the film gambles heavily on. French actress Berenice Marlohe is thrown by the wayside; her character is a mere waypoint leading to Silva. As for Bardem, his villain in No Country for Old Men (2007) was a case of less is more. He's been cast to do the same, to be scary, but the character is underwritten. His acting style is broader and over the top to compensate and it's an unusual concoction of humour and weirdness. At most, his character provides an interesting suggestion about M's poor treatment of her agents.

skyfall04.jpg

A great seed of conflict between Bond and M is planted by this, only to be diluted by a number of action set pieces, several of which owe too much to The Dark Knight (2008). Huge plot holes become startlingly visible too: If Silva is a wizard in electronic sabotage and can place bombs on MI6's doorstep, why does he personally go to such extraordinary lengths to attack M himself? If he specialises in cyberterrorism, and has a sophisticated background, why are his tactics in the final climax so lead-heavy? Bond wants to be a serious franchise, it wants to be Nolan's Batman, but we're expected to ignore the plot inconsistencies. Bond still dazzles, but there's disunity around the direction and future of the series too. It's repackaged beautifully, but inside is a political tool, with references to the London bombing, shots of the British flag and a main character that is decidedly immobile, though not through circumstance. In Casino Royale, Bond returned to the circus out of personal tragedy and revenge. Now he's back only because Britain needs him. He's not ready yet to be called the spy who came in from the cold.

46 comments
InquisitorCrox
InquisitorCrox like.author.displayName 1 Like

This was an extraordinary film review, one of the best articles i ve ever red in this site.

Kudos to the writer, whoever he is...

As for the film, it was IMO the best of the ones D.Kraig stars and the second best of the series.

The dark tone and turn on realism astonished me!

I generally do not like restarts but Nolan and Mendes did a damnn fine job!!!

Mends could not move away far too much from some core elements Bond has, not completely alienate the core fans.

And this creates what it is believed to be plot holes and points of criticism,

examples being, the limited role of the Bond girl (forgeting the fact that only one girl became the star in Bond's life and she betrayed him, so from then on, he wont let anyone else)

And that Silva still is an agent and still have his complexes.

He did his best and at his field, he beats M, he cose not to end it there, but he only knew it deep inside, because deep inside, all he really craved to do is hug M, like a child who is cast away from his mother,

on the same time his twisted thirst for blood demanded a close and personal, intimate contact..

Making us, the spectators realise that, gave a lot of credit to Mendes in my books.

And also justifies many things, most of the reviewers missed, because i believe that they never took this film seriously and seeked for an excuse to criticise it.

This justifies why Silva sacrificed efficiency and allowed Bond to take the upper hand of the situation, why we had the unique opportunity to shed some light on Bond's past, etc...

When i saw that film, 1/3 of the audience were middle aged and mature ppl, who grow up with Bond and after the end they were so excited that the character have finally matured with them, so much, that a 79 year old man, declared that <<i never thought that i would saw that, i can finally go in peace now>>...

the1Jugg
the1Jugg

*SPOILERS*  I loved the idea of bringing MI6 from the out in the open, over the internet info collectors, and into the shadows.  But, it was very jarring to me that M kept being referred to as a keeper of the old ways, and it was suggested that she did not understand the new age of information and that she was out of date.  In Goldeneye she was introduced as the "new" M and her methods were too modern, and Bond was referred to a dinosaur of the Cold War and stuck in the old ways.  Different chronology, I know, but it pulled me out of the movie.  The really suprising thing to me was that in the end, Bond lost. He failed to protect M, the point of the movie.  And it seems to me, that drive with the info of every agent is still out there, somewhere.  I dont remember it ever being retreived. *END SPOILERS*

InquisitorCrox
InquisitorCrox

 @the1Jugg 

*spoilers*

 

You need to understand though, that in the books, she was the old M replacing a far older M, in a different age, which was right after the end of cold war.

So in this series reboot, it was only fortunate to experience the old female M and particularly the one we know and love for the last time and from now on, we will have the newest M of the books, that one that the old Bond mostly used.

Consider this from this perspective and it will explain many things...

This comment has been deleted

Realmjumper
Realmjumper

 @Whole-Lotta The CIA appeared in Casino Royale and Quantum Solace, they got an agent in place and they are involved in corruption in Quantum Solace remember?

soulless4now
soulless4now like.author.displayName 1 Like

I'm not a Bond fan since the previous ones I've seen bored me, but I want to see this one because of all the hype it had. 

myungish
myungish like.author.displayName 1 Like

It was a decent film but I just don't think it was a good bond film. It lacked the fun of the old bond titles (and I don't just mean meaningless comic reliefs), the sophistication of Casino Royale, and turned the character of James Bond into somewhat of an incompetent fool. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it - thanks mostly to Javier Bardem's nice little take on The Joker - but the odd marriage of an absurd story with a dark tone of film just didn't work for me. There were also quite a number of stupid plot moments, but those are (sadly) present in almost all modern blockbusters, so I don't hold it against the film. All in all, an adequate, if not predictable action flick. 

Dominicobaggio
Dominicobaggio

Well written but a few major flaws. First off reviews are not supposed to contain plot spoilers. But thats not so important, the other two are. Fleming actually based Bond on himself, I dont know where you got your info from :/ and finally its a British character about Great Britain. It should contain patriotism and the British flag. Are you American per chance? The rest of the review is well written though and very high standard for gamespot!

biggest_loser
biggest_loser

 @Dominicobaggio Do you know how hard is it to write about a movie in detail, without discussing the plot? I put the plot synopsis first, which most people interested in this film already have a general idea of, so that you can skip it if you want to. I'm confident in my research that Bond was not just Fleming but agents he met. I don't find the patriotism to be as overt in the other movies as it is here. It doesn't let Bond develop as much in character as he did in Casino Royale. But thanks for the nicer points of the comment. 

baltim123
baltim123 like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @biggest_loser  @Dominicobaggio 

IMO Bond's patriotism is kinda obvious, just look at his parachute ;) Anyway, nice review , i skipped the first part cause of spoilers.

InquisitorCrox
InquisitorCrox

 @baltim123  @biggest_loser  @Dominicobaggio

 

He goes beyond patriotism, he is nearly a nationalist, but after losing his mentor, best friends, family and wife, with those tragic ways, the only thing left to him, is this broader sense of love for his nation.

This is what brings him back and helps him keep walking, while everything else colapses around him... 

shanethewolf
shanethewolf like.author.displayName 1 Like

I watched the whole movie waiting for an explanation about how Bond was brought back to life after dying in the beginning, who dragged his body out of the water and...well, so many questions that went unanswered or unacknowledged.

 

I found it such an intolerable film, although the cliches and Judy Dench were quite laughable.

-INKling-
-INKling- like.author.displayName 1 Like

I had heard that some of the CGI is a ropey enough that it actually spoils the immersion. Your criticism of an over-reliance on a big-bang second half is probably even stronger if it looks bad too! Nevertheless I have high hopes for this.

abarteau
abarteau like.author.displayName 1 Like

Maybe not the worst Bond movie for me but I really did not like this one. Even my friends didn't like it so I'm not seeing why so many people love this movie.

SPOILERS.....

Bond wasn't the badass he usually is. He seemed all washed up and off his game. I don't know if I missed it but strait from the get go he falls in the water and some how comes out unscathed. I somehow missed the transition of him making it out but whatever.

Who was the Bond chick this movie? The black girl? The girl with the tatoo on her wrist? Both of them you don't see much of.

Q is Harry Potter? Silva is Valdimort? They defend themselves in Hogwarts with Dumbledor at their side? Am I the only one that saw this?

I don't understand the main plot. Did Silva get caught and hack the computer just to kill M? Seems a little excessive. Why not take her out with a sniper bullet...much easier.

Lastly the thing that threw me off the most was the end where they protected M.  If they knew Silva was coming why not use the full resources of MI instead of just M, Bond, and Dumbldor barricading themselves in Hogwarts. It's like they wanted to make things difficult for themselves to make the story more interesting. Anyway, to each their own. Maybe I'm not giving it a fair shot, I'll have to watch it again when it comes out on dvd.

HIDDENMAFIA
HIDDENMAFIA

 @abarteau Why not take her out with a sniper ? thats simple because silva dont wanted to kill her just like that he wanted to give her a bad reputation first, and just like bond said in the movie They weren't targeting her, they wanted her to see it, After M is witness to the explosion at MI6 that killed all the agents, Bond realizes that she was intended to witness the devastation.

SlowMotionKarma
SlowMotionKarma

 @abarteau "Bond wasn't the badass he usually is" - Personally, and this is where I guess you could say the "Bond fandom" is divided, I prefer Bond NOT to be some BAMF superhero-esque persona. The books are very different from the evolution of the films. One thing the films never bought in to was Bond's fallibility. As the movies progressed (and it really exploded in Roger Moore's Bond) Bond became some kind of unstoppable force. He saved everyone, completed his mission, never lost anyone important, shagged every attractive female with screen time, and did it with a smile almost effortlessly.

The books are much darker. They're more violent, rarely humorous or lighthearted (like Roger Moore's Bond), and don't feature too many "gadgets." There is also quite a few instances of Bond "failing" or messing up royally. He's very human.

I think the Daniel Craig Bond strikes an almost perfect balance between the noir-ish mystery, suspense and intrigue of the novels and the more playful action-y style the movies have become.

I enjoy all the Bond movies, but I never could manage to say "They're good movies." I'd always describe them as "fun" or "action movie", which isn't a bad thing per se, but the Daniel Craig films I can actually say to someone, "this is a good movie." I hope you give it another chance, and maybe this time try to watch with an open mind instead of checking off that mental list of Bond movie tropes. I was resistant to a new Bond and didn't like Casino Royale at first, but I rewatched it wit an open mind and it really surprised me. Now it's one of my favorites.

t1000_v2
t1000_v2 like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @abarteau Gawd almighty dude. The craziest set of questions ever. Since when has Bond been about lack of plot holes ? Over the course of the franchise he's driven invisible cars, flown to space and fought with laser pistols, defeated enemies with ejector seats, jumped from planes without a parachute, flown remote control helicopters, stormed underwater lairs, alpine lairs, volcano lairs, driven a submarine Lotus etc etc etc.. is it such a stretch that Silva choses a more elaorate plot than a sniper to take down M ?

 

You seem to be missing the point of this film; it's goal is to marry "new" Bond (gritty, modern, Casino Royale style) with traditional, Goldfinger/Russia with Love Bond. I thought the film did it beautifully... I loved it and think it's one of the top 5 Bond films by far.

 

Who is the Bond girl in this film ? "M" was dude.. wasn't it obvious ? The whole story was M's.. SHE is the Bond girl in this one. Not to mention that he shags two or potentially three woman.. the chick he beds down when he's on his bender, Severine and probably Moneypenny (although it isn't stated exactly).

 

And as far as the end goes, the whole point of taking M offsite to defend her one on one was due to the fact that Silva had his claws into MI6's technology, Bond dechackled himself from the tech and went "old school" which was the whole theme of the film.. Bond's relevance and usefullness in a technological era he doesn't truly understand.The tech couldn't be trusted because Silva owned it and was using it against them.

 

See it again I say.... I've seen it twice now and I'm ready to go again.. it's an awesome film.

 

 

SlowMotionKarma
SlowMotionKarma like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

**WARNING** SPOILERS FOLLOW **WARNING**

"...why does he personally go to such extraordinary lengths to attack M himself?" Silva was like Bond IS; he was M's "favorite." He made it very clear M was not to be touched/harmed because he wanted to deal with her personally. The flash and lead-heavy assault was his way of "smoking out" M as well as the visualization of Silva's deterioration. He started the game of his as an undetectable shadow with a clever plan to destroy M. Smear her reputation, frame her, have her put on trial and then walk in and "murder her" face-to-face. In addition to this outward show, he also still holds her dear. Like a spouse who has been repeatedly abused, yet returns time and time again. He both loves and hates her. That made the end scene when he wanted M to pull the trigger killing them both more powerful. By the end of the movie at the Skyfall confrontation, not only has his master plan been completely foiled by Bond AND M escaped to safety with her name cleared, but she was hiding out with Bond, the new favorite, SIlva's replacement. His already fragile psyche was just about shattered and he was essentially desperate and crazed. Well laid plans have no space in a mind filled with anger and desperation.

I DO agree that the film feels "looser" than the first 2/3, just about the point where Silva shoots Berenice. I felt like they were pressed for time and had to wrap things up quickly. Despite that, it still ranks as one of my favorite Bond movies ever.

I'm also with you on the amazing cinematography. That scene you mentioned was masterful. Hiding in plain site in a glass building. The stark contrast of the cool tones of the fight against the warm colors of the room you first see Berenice's character in. I also really enjoyed the vibrant casino island approach, as Bond enters the dragon's mouth standing tall, symbolizing his almost eternally calm and cool approach despite the danger and uncertainty of his surroundings.

Good review.

ash162
ash162 like.author.displayName 1 Like

Great movie. I do agree casino royale was better more grittier. This could have been better but the end sequence was kind of stretched and a bit messy compared to tight plot in the first half. I think the director tried to do too much in one movie!

duddooboy
duddooboy

Good review. I disagree with your take on the final batte though; firstly Silva wanted to take M down himself, he made it very clear that he didn't want any of his henchmen to harm M. Secondly, the reason he had to go so lead-heavy in the final battle was due to the location Bond chose; it was out in the wilderness, there was no technology, not even any electricity anywhere close to Skyfall. I guess that was Bond's plan all along, and it forced Silva to fight a battle that Bond was comfortable with....

biggest_loser
biggest_loser

 @duddooboy Yeah I realise about the lack of electricity but would he really be that stupid for someone with that kind of training and have such generic tactics? I would have loved to have seen him brought in some drones or something high tech. You don't need electricity for that! 

xsonicchaos
xsonicchaos like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 7 Like

Skyfall was incredible. You know how we all go to a movie with certain expectation? My expectation was that this will be as dull and disappointing as the most part of The Dark Knight Rises. As awesome as that movie was, I couldb't get pass the goofs and the feeling that Nolan has edited the film differently than he initially intended. Some scene didn't even made sense. But with Skyfall, I was stunned. And as much as I hate conservatorism myself, the huge, intelligent directed throwbacks are as awesome as you'd expect. It's a 50 years anniversary movie and while Daniel Craig does his Bond as deep and human as we are used to by now, Skyfall will make you feel nostalgic troughout the whole movie and at the end you'll feel optimistic for the new things to come. It's hard to describe the feelings about this movie. It's incredible. Fan or not, everyone should see Skyfall. It's probably the best Bond movie so far. At least for me it is.

biggest_loser
biggest_loser

 @xsonicchaos Thanks for commenting. I'm glad you enjoyed it that much, although I personally prefer Casino Royale to this. 

gamefreak215jd
gamefreak215jd like.author.displayName 1 Like

Nice review.But I  just saw your rating for Maxpayne3,is it really horrible when compared to MP2?

biggest_loser
biggest_loser like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

 @gamefreak215jd Its not horrible by any means. The combat is very solid and a lot of fun. The game is just let down by poor writing, particularly in the second half, and an overall feeling that is divorced from the other two Max Payne games. There are too many features that don't seem Max Payne or Noir-like, such as boat chases and rail sections. It'd be a lot more suited to GTA, which is what they seemed to be preparing for.  The game is also short on value: I finished it in a few days, a campaign that is barely 8 hours and a multiplayer mode I had no desire to revisit ever again. Check out the review if you'd like more detail on these points. Thanks for asking about that too. 

bleigh316
bleigh316 like.author.displayName 1 Like

As a huge Bond fan, I still slightly prefer Casino Royale over Skyfall as Craig's best, but Skyfall was still great.  I actually think the opposite for the film.  I don't like the post-theme song sections, when Bond returns to England.  With Skyfall being DC's 3rd movie, I hated the incinuation that he's already too old for his craft and old fashioned.  Having lost a step due to his near death?  That I can definitely believe.  Once he returns to duty chasing Patrice for the list, I feel the movie really picks up, leading to the awesome, tense finale.

 

With everything I watched tied to the 50th Anniversary, I just hope the Nolan-esque humanizing sticks with Skyfall.  Bond movies are escapist, romanticized fantasy reality.  He travels to all these awesome locales, meets beautiful woman, great characters (mostly villainous).  All that said, Skyfall was great, especially getting to see more of Bond's past, which we haven't at all through 22 movies.

calvinsora
calvinsora ranger like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Great review, though I personally disagree with a few points. I absolutely adored Javier Bardem's Silva, mostly for his incredibly unhinged nature. *SPOILERS*

I agree that his final assault is particularly gun-heavy in comparison to his technical wizardry, but his insistence to take M down himself, in person, is emphasized throughout the film. His mother-complex, born by his torturous five-or-so months in confinement, doesn't give him any other choice. His intelligence and cunning went from an asset to a singular tool: one that would lead to M, or to be more precise, a personal confrontation with her.

Conversation powered by Livefyre