Author's Note: When I first created this blog earlier this year, I did so with the intention of flexing the various writing tools in my arsenal. Movie reviews were supposed to be part of the gig, but this is actually my first one, so I beg and plead with you to be open with criticism, but also forgive me if the piece isn't exactly a great piece of writing. :)
Before Daniel Craig took over the role of James Bond in 2006’s
“Casino Royale”, the common assumption about Bond was that he was a
globe-trotting, martini swilling, gun firing debonair with a passion for women,
fast cars, and always getting the mad genius that he was after. Whether it was
Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan, the character of Bond was about cleaning up
nicely and dressing to the nines.
This incarnation of Bond, however, has been more about the
dirty and grimy aspects of the spy realm. Craig has brought a bit of a tortured
soul to the character and coupled it with a physicality that actors like
Brosnan simply could never have dreamed of bringing to the role. Add to that
the gritty cinematography that films like Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies
have popularized, and you have a Bond that seems perfectly at ease in the
underbelly of the criminal world as well as the playboy meccas of Miami, Monte
Carlo, and Shanghai.
Whereas “Quantum of Solace” played up the “revenge” factor in
Bond’s efforts to find the network responsible for the death of his lover Vesper
Lynd, “Skyfall” instead focuses more on more noble pursuits. Raoul Silva, a
terrorist played ably by Javier Bardem, uses computers to infiltrate the chief
spy bureau of the United Kingdom, MI6, and starts a reign of terror that ends
up costing countless agents their lives, as well as a lot of bureaucratic
headaches for Judi Dench’s M. Bond has to try to stop Bardem from completely undermining
all of the world’s intelligence agencies, as well as preventing Silva from
enacting revenge on M, who used him in a prisoner exchange while he was in the
custody of foreign militants.
In addition to the “team player” role that Bond seems to
take on when the MI6 headquarters is attacked, he also has to deal with the
notion that he is getting older and therefore a step slower. The “hero showing
his age” narrative has been used extensively in movies recently, with one
example being Christian Bale aging eight years in “The Dark Knight Rises” and
struggling to keep up with the younger and stronger Bane. After suffering a
serious setback in the opening action sequence of the film, Bond has to
rediscover his ability to not only fight off beefy baddies with bad intentions,
but also in the simple act of firing a gun accurately. His struggle to keep up
with the Joneses, so to speak, is a fascinating part of the film, and is a testament
to the ability of director Sam Mendes to add some humanity to a character that
was a single-minded killing machine in the last installment of the story.
Another delicate balance that Mendes was able to strike was
in contrasting the old school approach of Bond with the new school techniques
of Bardem. Yes, Bond has been modernized a bit since the reboot of the
franchise in “Royale”, but the divide in styles between the two main players in
this drama serve the narrative of the film quite well. The focus on that
element of the story was best summed up in the cheeky interaction between Bond
and the new Q, played by young whippersnapper Ben Whishaw, when they met at an
art museum shortly after Bond was reinstated into the agency.
There were also references to the modern state of world
affairs in the film, with Silva releasing the names of five undercover agents
onto YouTube at one point shortly after the MI6 attack. This was eerily
reminiscent of the decision by the whistle-blowing site Wikileaks to release
footage of an attack by US soldiers on Reuters journalists directly onto the
video-sharing website in 2010, and also had undertones of similar actions taken
by the hacktivist group Anonymous, who has released documents from scores of
companies in an effort to preserve democracy on the internet.
Perhaps Mendes’ greatest achievement, aside from the ability
to weave real world events with the suspension of disbelief required to
properly enjoy a Bond film, was his creation of a villain in Silva that the
audience can simultaneously feel a great deal of sympathy for, but at the same
time be utterly appalled by his callous pursuit of revenge against M. This
conflict of emotions is uncommon in the Bond universe, when the bad guys are
always heinous maniacs with no redeeming qualities, but that characteristic is
a pretty strong endorsement of Mendes’ decision to cast Bardem in the role in a
masterstroke of casting.
Finally, as for Bond himself, Craig really nailed the
texture that he had achieved in the first film in his stint as 007. No longer
overcome by grief after the death of Vesper, he displayed some serious cunning
at various points in the film, including in the final climatic scene in
Scotland. In addition, he proved that even though it has been six years since
his first turn in the main role, he still has the physicality required to play
Bond, and that was on full display during a memorable scene that saw him
fighting an assassin on the top floor of a skyscraper.
Reviews have already been pouring in praising this film,
saying that it is Craig’s best performance as Bond and the best one of the new
trilogy of films featuring him. It is hard to argue with that, as the stripped
down Bond film that only takes place in three main countries (Turkey, China, and
the UK) really worked in Mendes’ hands. Finally getting to see Bond take to the
streets of London in a big way was a nice change of pace from his normal
globetrotting ways, and the various Easter Eggs that are the part of any Bond
film were nice reminders of where the series has been.
Overall, this movie has to be considered a “must-see” for
fans of the franchise, and one that the average movie goer would appreciate as
well.
Rating: **** out of five stars
No comments:
Post a Comment