Anyone who would place Roger Moore's goofy ass above Lazenby is insane. Did you even see "Moonraker?" Do you really think that "James Bond IN SPAAAAAAACE" is anywhere close to a decent Bond flick? That's among Roger Moore at his zaniest, and I frigging hated when the Bond series got zany. There's tongue-in-cheek and then there's "Three Stooges" territory. Frakking lasers and Jaws having a romance with a geeky nerd with big braces...man, that movie sucked. Even the one-liners were just painful.
"I believe he's attempting re-entry, sir!"
GAH! I HATE "MOONRAKER!" You too, Roger Moore!
Truthfully, although my favorite is of course Connery, I've always felt that Pierce Brosnan is the closest to how I always envisioned James Bond in my mind. True, his movies went downhill quick, but he was the one who I think sold the character better than the rest. He looked the part exactly, and he was smooth as hell. Connery was smooth too, but that was back in the 60's, when being smooth really just amounted to drinking lots of scotch and slapping chicks on the ass. Those were the days.
So where do I place Daniel Craig on the list of Bonds? Well, that's kind of hard for me to say because honestly, I'm still not convinced he's been in an actual Bond movie. True, he's been called both 007 and James Bond many times in the films he's done as that character, but they've never had much of a "Bond" feel to them. They've lacked that sense of fun and camp the others had, and I've missed that. That being said, I think Craig is a decent spy/action hero, but in terms of being James Bond, meh. He's okay. He's had his moments. And at least he can deliver a one-liner surprisingly well. And he's not Roger Moore.
That counts for so much. So very, very much.
Although I actually enjoyed "Casino Royale" a fair amount, it didn't really seem like a Bond film. It was too dark and brooding for that. On the other hand, it was a cool reintroduction of the character which could have worked very well as the first in a new series. All they had to do was start doing the gadgets and add a bit more camp and ease off on the emo-ness and they'd be fine.
So what did "Quantum of Solace" do? The exact opposite of that. There was no fun to be found in that movie. Only dour expressions, zero high-tech toys, and James Bond basically taking on the mantle of The Punisher in a tuxedo. And he was fighting an evil environmentalist. Oooh, take that, Donald Pleasence.
Honestly, there was no place for "Skyfall" to go but up from "Quantum of Solace." And I think the makers of the film knew that from the beginning, and set out to bring us closer to the feel and style of the Bond movies we've known and loved for 50 years, a goal reenforced by the filmmakers coming out and saying that "Quantum of Solace" is officially and completely unconnected to "Skyfall." As much as the thought of linked Bond movies is intriguing to me, this could only be a good thing, and I was very glad when I heard that. Because honestly, I would dread having to watch "Quantum of Solace" again as a recap.
And true to expectations, "Skyfall" is indeed leaps and bounds ahead of the previous installment. LEAPS AND BOUNDS. In fact, it's probably safe to say that "Skyfall" is the best of the Daniel Craig series thus far, not at the very least on a film making level. It's fast-paced throughout its long run time, the story is surprisingly deep for a Bond film without ever coming across as plodding or overly dense, and the action is - and I only bold this for the emphasis it rightly deserves - beyond outstanding.
It's the SOOOOOOOOOOOUL PUNCH TRAIN!!!
While it never reaches the camp or fun of previous Bond incarnations, "Skyfall" contains many moments of pure outrageous, over-the-top, jaw-dropping moments that are right up there with driving a tank down the streets of St. Petersberg and flinging a huge Soviet to their death from an airplane by cutting the laces off of your boot. Now we can add "gutting a train with an excavator" and "dropping a subway car on someone" to the list.
Yes, you read that right. The villain literally drops one of these on Bond. So much win.
But it's not always the elaborate set pieces that make the action pop in "Skyfall." It's the intense hand to hand duels and the shootouts that are riveting. It is such a nice change of pace to watch an action movie where everything is clean, crisp, and easy to follow in terms of who is shooting who and what's going on. Again, going back to "Quantum of Solace," the editing in that movie was so bad that the fight scenes were nearly incomprehensible due to it being way too close, jittery and fast paced.
"Skyfall" has not only some of the best filmed fight scenes I've seen in a Bond film, but one of my new favorites, period. It's a scene taking place near the top of a skyscraper, after Bond catches a ride hanging from the bottom of an elevator, just barely able to hang on till he gets to the top (Jesus Christ...). The whole fist-fight is done in one take, with the camera static and very slowly zooming in, and the only thing you see of the two is their silhouettes against the neon Chinese skyline. It's a gorgeous shot and one of the more brutal fights in the whole movie because it feels the most legitimate. It reminded me not a little bit of what Quentin Tarantino did at the end of "Kill Bill, Vol. 1," with Uma fighting those guys in that blue room.
There are significantly fewer beheadings, however.
The whole movie is full of beautiful camerawork, now that I look back on it. It would not be a stretch to say that if "Skyfall" isn't the best looking Bond movie ever made, it's got to be a contender for second place. The only Bond movie I would say that even comes close is "Goldeneye." But I've got a feeling "Skyfall" would win. I just can't emphasize enough how good this movie looks.
The best example of that is probably the requisite opening montage after the beginning scene. It is beyond a doubt the best title sequence ever. Seriously. It is beautiful, moody, haunting, and once you've seen the whole film you realize that it's actually quite expository without giving away anything.
The only problem is the song. I couldn't stand the song. And had it been performed by somebody like Shirley Bassey or dare I say Lady Gaga (actually that would have been awesome) I would probably think it was just fine. But I can't lie. I can't stand Adele. She sounds like Amy Winehouse but without the cocaine. And I couldn't stand Amy Winehouse, either. I just don't understand why it's so impossible for some singers to enunciate certain syllables.
Pro-tip for Adele: It's pronounced "Sky Fall." Not "Sky Fwallrrr"
Here's where I have to bring up the only other negative thing I can say about the movie besides who they got to sing the song. "Skyfall" to me, felt like two different films. For about the first hour and forty minutes, it's fantastic. It feels like an old school Bond flick with fun, over-the-top action shenanigans and Daniel Craig being a smooth badass.
The plot of "Skyfall" is that while on a mission in Turkey, Bond gets shot during a royally botched mission and is missing, presumed dead. Of course, he's not, and is in fact enjoying his life off the grid when a series of attacks on MI-6 draw him back to protect both MI-6 and M, as always played by British treasure and professional stern lecturer, Dame Judi Dench. Despite not being anywhere near physically or psychologically at peak condition, he's put back into active service to track down a man who is attacking MI-6, and seemingly knows their every move before they make it.
We go to exciting places, get in exciting chases, have thrilling gun battles, witness trademark Bond smarm, finally finally get to meet Q and get some manner of gadgets. I don't care that it was simply a gun and a tracking device. The gun had a Judge Dredd thingy that made it so that only Bond could shoot it. That counts as a gadget! And I'm so glad we got one of those at last. It only took 3 movies into the Daniel Craig series. Sheesh.
We even got an memorable villain in the form of Javier Bardem. He's no Alec Travelyn or Scaramanga, but his character has a unique kind of menace - the kind that you're not quite sure what this guy is capable of. Is he a bit eccentric, or is it that just a front for being completely unhinged and capable of anything? It's hard to tell at first. In fact he comes across as not a little bit femmy and wussy, but pretty soon it's clear that this guy is not a person to be screwed with. In fact he usually only comes across as non-threatening because he's the one screwing with you, and he's the only one who knows it. There's also the matter of effects work done regarding his face, but that's a matter I'll let you discover for yourselves because I'd hate to ruin the surprise. Holy crap.
Javier Bardem has the ultimate "Problem, bro?" face.
All of this stuff is golden. I loved it. It felt old-school. This was the movie I had been waiting for. And then the last 40 minutes hit. Now, I can't say that the last 40 minutes were bad. They weren't. In fact in any other movie it would have been perfectly fine. The problem I had was that at that point, it stopped feeling like a Bond movie, and started feeling more like a Bourne movie.
Once they leave London to go to a safe place in Scotland, that's when the feel changes. We aren't chasing the bad guys down anymore. We aren't going to exciting, exotic places anymore. Instead we bunker down, dig our trenches, set up our booby-traps and wait for the bad guys to come to us. And it's not that it's done bad. In fact it's quite suspenseful and serves as a rather thrilling action climax. But it doesn't feel like James Bond anymore. It feels like Jason Bourne. And that knocked it down a peg from where it had been before. Not a large peg, mind you, but a peg none the less. Essentially it took "Skyfall" from a "twice in the theaters" movie to a "I'll watch it again when it comes out to rent, maybe" movie.
Every spy movie today is trying to be Bourne. Don't drag Bond in with it, too.
But on the other hand, it does serve a purpose. The last part of the film not only lets us in on what the word "Skyfall" means anyway, but also gives us some in-depth background on Bond for the first time. We still don't know a huge amount about him, but it's way more than we've known before. And while I am a bit let down that this background came at the cost of slowing down a great movie, it's cool that we're getting information previously unknown.
I have to give the makers of "Skyfall" credit. They got Bond right on this one. Now what they need to do is to not mess it up. The end of "Skyfall" sets Craig up beautifully to become the James Bond we know and love. Everything is in place (and everyone, too. Yay awesome character introductions at the end!). A lot has changed, but this could be the start of the Bond as we've known him since "Dr. No." All they need to do is cut out the emo and crank up the fun once again, and they're golden. They just have to not screw it up again like "Quantum of Solace."
They could not be in a better position to consistently knock them out of the park from now on.
"Very good, Bond. Now, allow me to demonstrate our newest prototype: An Aston Martin complete with machine guns in the headlights and an ejector seat."
"Already have one, Q."
"I beg your pardon?"
"I have one in my garage. Drove M to Scotland in it."
"But, but how? Who made it for you? How did you acquire it? You've never used gadgets like that before."
"...An excellent question, Q. Perhaps the 60's?"
THE BOTTOM LINE - "Skyfall" is objectively the best of the Daniel Craig Bond flicks. Easily. It's gorgeous, exciting, and a hell of a lot of fun. It loses some steam at the end, but that doesn't stop what came before it from being awesome. I think I'd still rather watch "Casino Royale" though. I'm not sure why. It's so awesome to see Bond back on track. This movie rocked.
No comments:
Post a Comment