MCN Columnists

By Jake Howell jake.howell@utoronto.ca

The Torontonian Reviews: Skyfall

More than making up for the dog’s breakfast that was 2008’s Quantum of Solace, Skyfall–James Bond’s 23rd film adventure–sets the bar high: not only is it 2012’s best blockbuster screened thus far, but it is also one of the strongest films in Bond history.

Director Sam Mendes knows what makes a great Bond movie: take two pints of fast cars and a gallon of sex appeal; shake, don’t stir. Add thrilling action and a delightfully sinister villain as garnish. Recipe serves millions. Skyfall takes these truths and runs with them, weaving all of Bond’s tropes into a movie that’s as slick as the series’ protagonist. If there is one major criticism, it’s the running time: Skyfall clocks in at a sprawling two-and-a-half hours, a length to test the bladder and the attention span.

Shouldering on the role for a third time, Daniel Craig returns as Bond, who survives a botched mission that leaves him seriously wounded. However, as modern politics would have it, the analog spy is struggling to stay afloat in a world of cyberterrorism and computer hacking. It would appear traditional espionage is out of place in the virtual world, and MI6, feeling similarly obsolete, is under intense criticism from the Prime Minister’s office for endangering national security. To make matters worse, a rampaging Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem), an ex-MI6 operative, is seeking revenge on Her Majesty’s Secret Service, starting with M, the head of MI6 (Judi Dench). The stage is set.

For better or for worse, Skyfall will be (and has already been) compared to The Dark Knight Rises. This is the case for two reasons: one, they are Herculean cash cows with internationally beloved characters; two, they are explosive motion pictures with a dark, pessimistic philosophy of crime in contemporary society. That being said, the final installment of Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy–exciting as it was–was a grammatical mess; the finished product riddled with flaws, holes, and annoyances. Skyfall, almost in direct response—Bond even says “There’s a storm coming”—delivers on the promises the Batman hype instilled, giving fans and laypeople alike a flick that has the polish and intelligence that “summer” films often lack. It’s what we wanted in July, but are still fortunate to have it now.

Skyfall gets a lot of things right, and series staples are the most satisfying they’ve been in a long time. The “Bond girl” (Bérénice Marlohe) is gorgeous and mysterious, and Raoul Silva is now a series-favorite villain: his excruciating backstory is shocking; his laughing, laissez-faire approach to evil is chaotic and entertaining. While his character feels cribbed from the Joker in The Dark Knight, Bardem’s take on the archetype is unique and memorable in his own way. (The homoeroticism helps.)

Indeed, the first time we see Silva–introducing himself with an excellent, single-take monologue–is simply a pleasure to watch. Meanwhile, scenes like these remind us the power of a director who actually pays attention to necessities like staging and blocking and choreography. What a thought. Mendes gives his audience a chance to actually see what is going on: the action isn’t muddled (hello, The Hunger Games); fist-fights are given breathing room and perspective. Skyfall’s many players have plenty of time and space to develop their characters, and the story unwinds logically with plenty of intrigue and twists to keep things humming.

In short, Skyfall is a top-notch action movie that doesn’t neglect the fundamentals of filmmaking. Given how mediocre the Brosnan-era Bonds were (save for 1995’s GoldenEye), it’s amazing to see Skyfall work so very well. Believe the hype: this film is a mythical creature; a movie that exists in the sweet spot of strong cinema and exciting Hollywood kabooms. We wait patiently for chapter 24, because as the end credits promise: “James Bond will return.”

5 Responses to “The Torontonian Reviews: Skyfall”

  1. Matt says:

    This film is terrible, qos was even much better! You can tell they had a massive budget cut and the film was most definatly mediocre

  2. Rick UK says:

    When some random anonymous person like Matt claims that the unwatchable QoS was a better film, it’s best to think he hasn’t seen Skyfall at all.

  3. Patrick IRE says:

    Matt are you being serious? He must be a troller?! Skyfall was quality.

  4. Stephen in UK says:

    Saw it last night with my wife (not an action film lover) and our hard to impress 24 year son – and we all enjoyed it immensely.

    Pick a Cinema with comfy seats though, at 2 and 1/2 hours it is quite long.

  5. Chris says:

    So pumped. Can’t wait for NA release!

Leave a Reply

Columns

Quote Unquotesee all »

“Any time a movie causes a country to threaten nuclear retaliation, the higher-ups wanna get in a room with you… In terms of getting the word out about the movie, it’s not bad. If they actually make good on it, it would be bad for the world—but luckily that doesn’t seem like their style… We’ll make a movie that maybe for two seconds will make some 18-year-old think about North Korea in a way he never would have otherwise. Or who knows? We were told one of the reasons they’re so against the movie is that they’re afraid it’ll actually get into North Korea. They do have bootlegs and stuff. Maybe the tapes will make their way to North Korea and cause a fucking revolution. At best, it will cause a country to be free, and at worst, it will cause a nuclear war. Big margin with this movie.”
~ Seth Rogen In Rolling Stone 1224

“Yes, good movies sprout up, inevitably, in the cracks and seams between the tectonic plates on which all of these franchises stay balanced, and we are reassured of their hardiness. But we don’t see what we don’t see; we don’t see the effort, or the cost of the effort, or the movies of which we’re deprived because of the cost of the effort. Paul Thomas Anderson’s Inherent Vice may have come from a studio, but it still required a substantial chunk of outside financing, and at $35 million, it’s not even that expensive. No studio could find the $8.5 million it cost Dan Gilroy to make Nightcrawler. Birdman cost a mere $18 million and still had to scrape that together at the last minute. Imagine American movie culture for the last few years without Her or Foxcatcher or American Hustle or The Master or Zero Dark Thirty and it suddenly looks markedly more frail—and those movies exist only because of the fairy godmothership of independent producer Megan Ellison. The grace of billionaires is not a great business model on which to hang the hopes of an art form.”
~ Mark Harris On The State Of The Movies