SKYFALL: So Much For My Promising Career in Espionage

Skyfall (2012) – The 23rd James Bond Film; the 3rd Daniel Craig Film – Directed by Sam Mendes – Starring Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Bérénice Lim Marlohe, Ben Whishaw, Rory Kinnear, and Albert Finney.

If you’re new here, be aware that SPOILERS are coming. Lots of them. I am not bound by your inability to have seen the movie before me. I’ve seen it and I want to talk about it, so if you don’t want anything ruined, go away, see the movie, and then come back and tell me why I’m an idiot. If you’re looking for the answer to the question, “Should I see it?”, the answer is Yes. If you really want to read about Bond, though, I’ve reviewed the other Bond movies, which you can find right here at the James Bond Review Index.

Whenever a new story in a long-running series comes out, there’s this immediate, infantile urge to locate the story’s place in the greater scheme: Best Bond film ever! Worse than Quantum of Snoozefest! Not as good as Octopussy but better than Die Another Day/!

These kinds of comments and lists are ridiculously tiresome. It’s like people are out there waiting for an opportunity to update a list rather than watch a movie. I think they are generally created by people who can’t prove their better than you by buying a Ferrari so they try to shame you with knowledge, or who have perhaps mistaken their fandom for identity and fear new fans enjoying what they’ve been enjoying and thus, the argument goes, somehow ruining it. (I thought this way, too, once. Of course, I was fifteen.) If people have fun with them, that’s fine, but if they’re using it to make you feel dumb, then I hope they sit next to the loudest, dumbest fourteen year old the next time they go to the theater. Why? Because it will be like they’re sitting next to themselves, that’s why.

What irks me the most about them, however, is that the idea of accurately comparing the immediate experience of watching a film in the theater with films that have been around for decades.

No, I take that back. What irks me the most is the person who doesn’t have fun with their lists, who uses the creation of a list or the comparison of one film to another in the series simply as an opportunity to toss some predictable, tired snark around.

I bring all of this up, in part, as a way to call myself out. (What? You thought that I thought I was perfect? You really are new here.) While watching SKYFALL this afternoon in a very crowded theater on the 23rd Bond film’s third day of release, I found myself occasionally thinking of where I’d place SKYFALL in the Bond pantheon. Instead of, you know, simply enjoying and analyzing the movie on its own merits. If you’ve kicked around the Anxiety, at all, you know I hate lists. I think once you get past a few movies, trying to argue that, say, the 14th best Bond movie is better than the 15th best Bond movie is a little specious. I prefer to do my rankings using the tier system; it’s more general, but for me, at least, it’s more accurate. I can make a very convincing argument that CASINO ROYALE (2006) is the best Bond movie ever, but I can also make a convincing argument that GOLDFINGER is the best Bond movie ever, too.

The truth is that sometimes I think ROYALE is the best and at other times I think GOLDFINGER is the best, so I’m content to call them “Tier One” movies and leave it at that.

Is SKYFALL a Tier One Bond movie?

Yes. Probably. Talk to me after the Blu-ray comes out and I’ve seen it a few more times. That snarky comment that kept rattling around my brain during the film was, “This is good, but it’s not CASINO ROYALE good.” For now, I’m confident in saying that it’s not nearly as good as CASINO ROYALE, but then, I consider CASINO ROYALE the single best action movie since Die Hard. I am happy to say that it was worth every penny of the $9 I would have paid if I had paid for my ticket this afternoon. It’s a mature, serious espionage film, dotted with brief moments of wry humor. It’s well-written, well-acted, and well-directed, although on this last point it must be noted that Sam Mendes’ action scenes succeed because of their narrative strength and not because of their visual flair.

There’s nothing wrong with that, of course, and it shows how smart a director Mendes is to play to his strengths and minimize his weaknesses. It also gives SKYFALL a uniqueness to it; there’s a very real sense throughout the movie that SKYFALL is raising the bar and making a real attempt to push action movies in a different direction.

Which is to say, it’s not a Jason Bourne movie. In fact, SKYFALL owes more (visually and narratively) to Steven Soderbergh’s Haywire than any of the Bourne movies, or even many of the Bond movies.

Sure, there’s the tired, seen-too-many-times “Bond is getting old” trope trotted out one more time, and when SKYFALL is at its worst it’s indulging in this nonsense. (Which is really silly considering that ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE were the start of Bond’s career and they happened one immediately after the other.) James Bond is such the epitome of cool that giving him physical frailty is the easiest way to put a dent in his armor, but I feel about this plot the way I feel about superheroes who don’t want to be superheroes: this isn’t why you’re getting my money. It’s harder, but much more satisfying, when Bond films find other ways to give our supercool British spy a hurdle to overcome. Give them a love interest. Give them a personal vendetta. Give them Christopher Lee.

Thankfully, SKYFALL offers a bit of this, too. While it opens with Bond getting accidentally shot off a moving train by another British agent (Naomie Harris’ Eve Moneypenny, though the film doesn’t tell us her name until the end), only to come back a few months later looking haunted and beaten down, SKYFALL eventually moves us to Bond’s family home (named Skyfall) in Scotland. SKYFALL starts in the present with the damaged Bond, but then once he returns to active field duty, the rest of the film is a balance between who he (and the franchise) used to be and who he (and the franchise) is going to be.

That’s not unintentional, of course. This is the 50th year anniversary of the James Bond cinematic franchise, which makes it a fitting time to reflect and redefine.

On that note, it’s both satisfying and a bit disappointing that the answer to where Bond is going is back to tradition. By the end of the film, M (Judi Dench) is dead, Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) is the new M, and we’ve been introduced to a new Q (Ben Whishaw) and Miss Moneypenny (Naomie Harris). The film tries to hold off on the new M and Moneypenny until the end, but given that we don’t hear Moneypenny’s name at the start and all of her dialogue with Bond centers around her maybe not being best suited for field duty, it’s pretty obvious where that plot is going. Similarly, the film introduces the idea that M is going to be forced to step aside and it’s pretty obvious that if she is going to be replaced, Ralph Fiennes is going to be her replacement.

It’s not just the reinstatement of Q and Moneypenny to the franchise, but the whole office set-up that played such a huge role in the pre-Craig era. As SKYFALL is closing, there’s Bond coming through a door, Miss Moneypenny taking her seat at a desk, and Bond entering a small but rich office where he takes a mission from M. Mendes makes these moments work, and it’s a confident shot at other movie franchises. Any franchise that survives for 50 years is going to have a certain amount of malleability to it, and that’s clearly in evidence over the course of Bond’s run. Sean Connery exchanged confidence for parody. Roger Moore went to space. Timothy Dalton made a Schwarzenegger film. Pierce Brosnan oversaw the rise of female equality. And Daniel Craig wasn’t allowed to smile.

None of that is, in and of itself, automatically a bad thing. Malleability is a good thing, in the long run, because it gets the franchise through the years where it has fallen a bit out of favor, and then every so often we’re rewarded with a SPY WHO LOVED ME or GOLDENEYE or SKYFALL that reasserts the franchise’s preeminence.

And that’s really SKYFALL’s biggest strength – this is a movie that does what it does without concern for the latest cinematic trends. SKYFALL is a movie that charts its own course, that’s respective of the past and cognizant of the future. When Bond exchanges M’s Jaguar for his original Aston Martin DB5, it’s not just symbolically cool to see Connery’s car back, but an assertion of the confident style that Bond represents. Far too often over the years the Bond franchise has been the Ford Mustang; no, not the pre-1970s Mustang which was as cool as any car ever, but all of those post-First Generation Mustangs where Ford ripped the guts out of their Pony Car and continually morphed it into whatever the populace was buying at the moment. The Mustang should always be THE MUSTANG. Other car manufacturers should change to rip it off but instead we’ve gotten nearly forty years of the Mustang trying to be the Toyota Celica or Mazda Rx-Whatever or Dodge Charger.

I like QUANTUM OF SOLACE more than just about anyone, but it’s not a traditional Bond movie. It’s a great action movie, but it’s far more Bourne than Bond. It took the grim Craig Bond one step too far into the darkness, and while that isn’t ideal, the reaction has been to bring Bond back into the light with SKYFALL. The care and attention here to not only make a great movie, but to make the reset to a Bond tied to an M, a Q, and a Moneypenny happen organically. In the long history of the Bond franchise, SKYFALL represents a high point in terms of seeing a long-term plan. That’s what I thought was going to happen with ROYALE, but then QUANTUM took a awkward step and financial troubles befell MGM, and so SKYFALL feels like another new beginning. Because of what ROYALE didn’t do (no Q, no Moneypenny, very little sense of humor), SKYFALL took the opportunity to re-establish some old friends and it does it beautifully.

There’s no doubting I left the theater with a smile on my face, but it’s not simply because SKYFALL takes what is old and makes it new, again. No, what makes all of this work is that the mission in SKYFALL brings Bond, old M, new M, Q, and Moneypenny together through the test of battle. Because of the personal attack on M and MI6 by Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem) and British politicians, we see our new unit coming together organically. Yes, we get the r-establishment of the lovably contentious Bond/Q relationship, but it’s in the process of Q having to prove himself to Bond when 007 steals M away in order to hide her that his inclusion wins me over.

People have been raving about Javier Bardem’s Silva, and it’s a good performance, but it’s yet another former ally turned enemy plot, and there’s really not a lot here that’s better than Sean Bean’s role as 006. The opening confrontation between Silva and Bond is very strong, but Silva quickly becomes just another thug with a gun and an axe to grind.

Daniel Craig is once again very good as James Bond and SKYFALL is a very good movie. Mendes manages to make an excellent spy film that brings back some of the old James Bond elements that had grown stale and rightly been abandoned. He infuses a grown-up espionage film with plenty of nods to Bond’s past and as the curtain falls on Bond’s 23rd movie and 50th year, Mendes puts all the toys back on the board, setting up the movie franchise for it’s next stage. When M is sitting in front of the government inquisition and a politician is telling her how MI6 is outdated and she’s outdated and blah blah blah, it’s not just a story point but a subtle shot at the changing trends. M’s response, Bond’s response, even Mallory, Q, and Moneypenny’s response is a come back to Jesus moment, welcoming old fans back to a more traditional Bond at the same time it lets us know what the new ground rules are going to be.

___________________________

Check out my latest work of fiction, with a time-traveling British secret agent: GUNFIGHTER GOTHIC VOLUME 0: BLOOD OF THE UNIVERSE. Here’s the blurb: It’s 1866 and Jill (a white, merchant’s daughter) and Hanna (a Korean-American servant in the merchant’s house) have fled to the American West to start a new life on their own terms.
They boarded a train in Kansas City, and before the morning was over, they had fought werewolves and vampires, partnered with Bellingham, a time-traveling British secret agent, and made an enemy of Mrs. Lincoln.

And then the train jumped its tracks, crashing violently, and killing Jill.

Hanna is despondent until Bellingham reveals his real reason for being in 1866: the Universe Cutter, a knife with the power to resurrect the dead. All they have to do is find it.

To bring Jill back, Hanna will partner with two time travelers and President Grant’s right-hand man, and battle Confederates, werewolves, lizard men, sun worshipping cultists, and a man from the end of time. All for a chance to bring back the woman she loves … a woman who will never love her back.

GUNFIGHTER GOTHIC VOL. 0: BLOOD OF THE UNIVERSE also features the back-up tale, “Appetite for Appeasement,” starring Bellingham.

NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN: Blofeld Wears a Bow-Tie. Bow-Ties are Not Cool


Never Say Never Again (1983) – Directed by Irvin Kirschner – A Non-EON James Bond Film – Starring Sean Connery, Kim Basinger, Klaus Maria Brandauer, Barbara Carrera, Max von Sydow, Bernie Casey, and Rowan Atkinson.

Even though it was made outside of EON Productions, NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN has more in common with the Bond films post-Roger Moore than OCTOPUSSY, which was released the same year. Like CASINO ROYALE, NEVER is a serious, personal film, and like GOLDENEYE, Bond is faced with an M that thinks he’s a relic of the past.

I give NEVER credit for fully taking on the idea that James Bond is getting old. They don’t pretend that Connery can still do everything now that he could do two decades earlier and the film is built on this idea that Bond has outlived his youth. He’s called on the carpet for his lifestyle, he’s forced to start taking better care of himself, he’s spent the majority of his time teaching instead of being in the field, and the world is ready to move on without him. The problem is that whatever they thought in 1983, in 2011 we kinda see the point of the bookish M’s complaint. There is value in working out and eating right and if Bond really hasn’t do any of that over the years, then he should darn well start sooner rather than later.

Until he saves it. Again.

But then something surprising happens – this Bond is perfectly fine with the idea of retiring. He’s had his one last go-round and is content to settle down with Domino (Kim Bassigner) for the remainder of his days. It’s really nice to see such a definitive character arc, but unfortunately NEVER is such a dull, dreary, washed-out film that when Bond tells Rowan Atkinson that he’s really going to stay retired, my reaction was, “Thank God.”

Connery is very good in NEVER as an old letch struggling to stay cool and relevant, and there’s something charmingly pathetic about his attempts to bed every woman he comes across. He’s like your creepy uncle hitting on your high school girlfriend.

NEVER goes on forever. It feels impossibly long and is cut together at a snail’s pace. Fight sequences generally take too long; when Bond fights an assassin at the Old Folk’s Home (okay, technically it’s a health clinic), the fight keeps going and going and going and going … and it’s a BAD FIGHT. It’s one of those Bond vs. Jaws fights where the bad guy is so much stronger than Bond that you’ve got to sit through Bond throwing ineffective punches for five minutes.

There’s a nice little triangle between Bond, Domino, and bad guy Largo, but Domino is so dumb and so uninvolved in what’s happening to her that I don’t care about her fate.

Largo is an interesting villain – he’s nerdy but he’s also got some charisma and real malevolence to him. He’s part of SPECTRE, so we also get our 4th different on-screen Blofeld and because it’s played by Max von Sydow I was thinking we’d get another bad-ass, maybe even someone to stand alongside Telly Savalas in ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE. But we don’t. Instead, von Sydow plays him as something closer to a pencil pusher than heavy and as a result, he’s all kinds of useless.

What really damns NEVER is that it’s one of the most poorly paced action or espionage films that I’ve watched. Nothing memorable happens in the entire film. Nothing. Well, sure, Bond plays a video game but nothing else. Let’s get to the video game. Taking the place of a card game, Bond and Largo play a video game that Largo devised that involves, um, shooting and stuff. It’s so stupid that it almost trumps the ridiculously dumb bike chase scene that once again sees Bond in a safety helmet. He’s James Bond! He doesn’t need a helmet!

I give NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN credit for trying to be a serious spy film, but it just doesn’t execute effectively. When Q shows up, he tells Bond, “I hope we’re gonna see some gratuitous sex and violence,” but I was more interested in the film showing it had a pulse.

DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER: But a Big Wet Turd Only Lasts 115 Minutes


Diamonds Are Forever (1971) – Directed by Guy Hamilton – The 7th James Bond Film; the 6th (of 6) Sean Connery Films – Starring Sean Connery, Jill St. John, Charles Gray, Lana Wood, Jimmy Dean, Bruce Glover, Putter Smith, Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell, and Desmond Llewelyn.

DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER makes me like ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE even more. It’s not because DIAMONDS is a dull movie (which it is), but because it walks all over SERVICE in a manner far too disrespectful for a movie franchise that, at this point in its history, is actively telling an ongoing story.

When DIAMONDS opens, we see James Bond working his way up the SPECTRE ladder on his quest to get revenge on Blofeld for killing his wife, Tracy, at the end of SERVICE. (Technically, Blofeld just drove the car.) It’s all well and good at the start – Bond is cold and ruthless, knocking henchmen around and choking a woman with her own bikini top. It’s good stuff – hard and serious, just how revenge should be undertaken.

Things start to go wrong when he finally gets to Blofeld. Here’s Bond’s nemesis – the head of the biggest criminal organization in the world and the man responsible for killing the woman he loved – and the confrontation we’ve been waiting to see. Bond should be beside himself with rage and yet he and Blofeld end up having a chat and trading barbs like this is all some big game between poker buddies.

It’s a ridiculous confrontation, and it cheapens everything that happened in SERVICE. Throughout DIAMONDS, it’s like Connery and the filmmakers are determined to diminish everything about the Lazenby flick. The attitude that comes through is that Contessa Teresa “Tracy” di Vincenzo (Diana Rigg) was just some woman Bond fell for on his mission, and not his once-in-a-lifetime love. I don’t know if this is born from Connery being a dick or from the filmmakers desire to distance themselves from Lazenby, but it’s extremely disrespectful to everyone who worked on SERVICE and it ruins the franchise’s continuity. In later years, when EON was bascially just making stand-alone films, this wouldn’t be as much of a problem, but here it’s jarring. (If you’re watching the films in order; if not, it likely wouldn’t strike you as hard as it did me.)

Compare Bond’s obvious pain at losing Tracy in future films – Roger Moore visits her grave in FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, Timothy Dalton is clearly pained when Felix Leiter’s wife tosses him the bridal garter in LICENSE TO KILL, and Pierce Brosnan turns downcast in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH when Elektra King asks if he’s ever lost anyone he loved. My favorite Tracy Bond reference comes in Moore’s THE SPY WHO LOVE ME, when the Russian female agent Anya recites some details from Bond’s biography. When she gets to the marriage reference, Bond is pained and changes the subject, causing Anya to remark that she’s surprised at his sensitivity on the matter.

But not Connery’s Bond – he treats Tracy’s death as if it were just some unfortunate thing that happened to some unfortunate woman.

Which, you know, I’ll say again – people who worship at the Connery Bond altar and I do not see eye-to-eye.

It’s not just Connery, either. The plot of DIAMONDS sees Bond getting involved in a diamond smuggling operation and when he replaces his mark, Moneypenny is there to hand him his new identification materials. Bond asks her if there’s anything he can bring back from Switzerland for her and she replies something like, “A diamond. On a ring.”

What?

What?

Moneypenny, you insensitive b*tch.

Bond just laughs it off and something silly and stupid like this is any other banter fest with Moneypenny. At the wedding between Bond and Tracy in SERVICE, Moneypenny was clearly affected by seeing Bond marry someone else and here she is back to trading quips about her unrequited love. It would all be acceptable if she was doing this in order to try and return Bond to a sense of normalcy, to stop him from going off half-cocked where he could get himself in trouble, but it’s not. It’s just Moneypenny being back to her joking, Miss Lonely Hearts self.

Blah.

Bond goes off on his mission like he’s perfectly well-adjusted and back to the game, which is what the film wants. Forget that lingering pain bit. This is the first Bond film that really starts filling the one-and-done mold, where each film begins to exist wholly in its own universe. Up to now we’ve been getting a longer story, and DIAMONDS should be the end of this story but instead of feeling like this is the real end of the Blofeld and SPECTRE story, it just feels like this year’s cookie cutter Bond movie.

The film itself is painstakingly dull, which is mirrored by Connery’s almost complete disinterest in bringing anything to this role that isn’t on the scripted page.

Everyone always gets on Moore for being too old at the end of his run (which he was) but the same could be said for Connery here, too. (Let alone NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN.) He moves like an older, stiffer man and everything he does is tainted with a sense that he’s done all of this before and done it better and just doesn’t care that’s a step slower.

There’s a pair of gay assassins in DIAMONDS who catch a lot of flack from the fans, but I think Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd are actually the best part of the film. They’re something new, they’re funny, and they’re good at their job. What’s not to like? I love the idea of these two pasty middle-aged guys – one a frumpy, disheveled mess and the other a fashion-obsessed metrosexual with a wardrobe bought off the rack at Woolworth’s – killing everyone after they’ve handled the smuggled diamonds.

Jill St. John is terrible as the love interest, the stunts are all pretty blah, and setting the story in Vegas is a mistake. Probably the only thing that keeps Ms. St. John from taking her place alongside Denise Richards, Carey Lowell, and Talisa Soto among the worst Bond women is that she’s so completely forgettable in such a completely forgettable movie. Forgotten though her performance may be, she’s terrible here.

Charles Gray isn’t horrible as Blofeld, but it’s a step down from Telly Savalas. In Savalas’ hands, Blofeld was an aggressive force to be reckoned with, but with Gray, Blofeld is this “I’m so clever” master planner type who calls to mind Burgess Meredith’s Penguin more than the ruthless, visionary leader of the world’s biggest criminal empire.

It’s all one big, wet turd of a movie. It does have the decency to stay away from silly gadgets, but it also gives us a horribly goofy chase scene that sees Bond driving a moon rover off a moon landing set. The best DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER can manage is that it occasionally doesn’t suck.

Bring on Roger Moore.

_________

Maurice Binder’s usually phenomenal opening titles are a bit weak here, but the Shirley Bassey title song is pretty darn great: