Skyfall

We all get older and nostalgically look back at the days when things were clearer and more straightforward. In Skyfall, the “humanisation” of Bond has veered in the direction of John McClane-style (along the lines of Live Free or Die Hard, to be precise) ridicule of today’s overly sophisticated and extravagant glorification of the good old straightforward ways. However, Bond is not the only one who is aging; we viewers are too, so we can join the hero in turning up our noses at the constant references to the Bond canon. Let’s acknowledge that the spectacular proof that the filmmakers spent hours reading the relevant wiki before writing the script is no longer a sign of superior dedication or self-reflection, but one of the main formulas for creating new contributions to old franchises. Besides that and the simplified oedipal storyline (if his adoptive mother had come out with the villain to raze his birthplace filled with the traumas of adolescence, there could have been peace), Skyfall also restores to the postmodern Bond movies the campiness of the earlier classics, which is manifested in the charismatic derangement of the villain, the ridiculousness of his nonsensically overwrought plans, the money-shot surrealism of the action sequences and, mainly, the climax, which evokes Scarecrow, Home Alone and Sightseers in equal measure. Thanks to that, we can grumble together with Bond about the over-cleverness of contemporary blockbusters, but regardless of that (or perhaps even because of it) we can simply enjoy the film as viewers. (2014-04-06)

I’ve always thought that Bond was a great guy who simply kills everybody and escapes even an earthquake epicenter in the blink of an eye, all while living in an absolutely unrealistic environment governed by the British MI5. That’s how it always used to be before Daniel Craig came along and added realness to the Bond toughness; realness that I’ve always missed. For example, Casino Royale is already perfect, I consider it to be the best Bond movie. The subsequent Quantum of Solace was a yawnfest and it was necessary for the authors to step up and film something… something simply unforgettable that would bring a bit of elegance into the saga. Skyfall is a not-so-realistic realistic not-so-Bond Bond movie. Bond isn’t such a champ as we know him anymore and at times, we even get worried about him. But there are still scenes that haven’t even as much as brushed up against the reality of the modern day. But even so, it’s still great fun. There’s loads of action. And even if it’s just decent, it’s still entertaining. Sam Mendes is an amazing director and you simply can’t take that away from him. The story isn’t that bad either and at last, a contemporary Bond returns to the past. But without a doubt, the best thing about the entire movie was Javier Bardem. I’ve only seen a villain this great in Batman, back when Joker appeared in the new series. And back then, I thought that such a villain could never be topped. But partly, the rating is actually this high because of him. It’d be boring without him. And don’t even get me started on the ending. The third Daniel Craig movie is just very well done. It’s not such a shocker anymore like Casino Royale was, but it’s still a really pleasant entertainment that attempts to be realistic, but it’s still just for fun. But Bond will never be any other way, so who cares? (2012-11-12)

I don't know exactly how many Bond movies I've watched so far, but Skyfall is most likely the last one. Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig can't really be blamed for my weak review - I simply got tired of the Bond carousel, and if it hadn't been for its modernization with the arrival of Daniel Craig toward more modern and realistic action films, I might have ended my Bond fandom (which has always represented a marginal part of cinema for me) earlier. Older Bond titles with Sean Connery are, as I have realized during recent reruns, almost unwatchable, and Daniel Craig was the first Bond actor whom I believed in his affiliation with the espionage agency. But no matter how much it is modernized, the foundation remains just as foolish. In the end, all the efforts made to convey fate, tragedy, and greater depth are actually rather bothersome. The film works best in moments when it doesn't take itself seriously and deliberately embraces its trashiness, like in the scene of the cannibalistic iguanas attacking the villains. The behavior of the characters and the main villain's devilish plans are actually similar to a joke, where an inventor explains the mechanism of a brand-new flytrap at the patent office. "It's actually a maze, where the fly wanders through a labyrinth of corridors left, right, left, right..." - "Ah, and at the end...?" the official asks, "another turn?" - "No, at the end, there's a cliff, the fly falls down and breaks its wing."... I appreciate Mendes' sense of visuality, and the beautiful scene with jellyfish in the Chinese metropolis deserves a star all by itself. I also appreciate Craig's ability to play tough guys even at an age when others focus on conversation films, and I appreciate Bardem's ability to play a devilish villain so convincingly that you nod your head in approval, but the rest... there's no use talking about it. Overall impression: 45%. (2014-12-04)

Six years ago, 007 was rebooted in a darker, Batmanesque tone. And while its batty neighbors brought their story to a closed trilogy, the team behind the brooding James Bond also joined the continuity of three installments. It's personal here too, and thanks to Javier Bardem's Silva, surprisingly powerful. It's precisely from his appearance onscreen that Skyfall finally picks up speed, while in the first act, it almost goes backwards. The island, the metro, and especially Scotland, however, leave no breathing room and make Daniel Craig's intense physical acting a fitting path to success. In the end, the birthday Bond is rather successful. Better and more tightly knit than the sometimes breathless Quantum of Solace, worse than the deliciously aging Casino Royale, but given my general adoration of the artistic side, I have to shake my head a little due to several plotholes and yet another strangely sluggish opening act. However, this format still works for me, especially since I know it can still go one step further. (2013-09-14)

Mendes. Sam Mendes. He tries to combine a classic Bond movie and everything that goes with it in the first half, with a total denial of everything Bondian in the second. He tried and succeeded with both. It's a pity, of course, that the two halves don't exactly work together as one coherent whole. They are gorgeous in themselves. Both first and second. The non-Bondian one doubly so. But if you've ever wondered what Bond would look like as directed by Nolan, Mendes will give you a pretty clear answer to that, because this movie is “Nolanesque", completely; as far as plot, characters (there’s even a role for Caine; see Kincade), action, length, the old-fashioned technical side... A special thanks goes to the "invisible" duo Deakins and Newman, because what they bring to this movie is not seen every day in the world of blockbusters. (2012-10-26)