Skyfall

“Skyfall” captures the wave of the best selling films of today with a bit of fantasy—a la Marvel comics—and a bit of the usual concrete realism (the post cold-war spy film involving governments, good guys and bad guys) plus a good dose of the one-man fighting machine films. Bond’s personal struggle as an orphan and his relationship with “Mum”, M1, creates the motivational setting and the backdrop for his enduring loyalty to England, in spite of their disavowal of him.

The antagonist, Silva, played by Javier Bardam, is more despicable than ever. In keeping with a Bond nemesis, he is set on controlling or destroying the world, however this villain has in mind the demise of “M”. He is immoral, unethical, and heartlessly cruel, possessing a Jokeresque intelligence tainted with insanity. His plan for Bond’s and M’s demise drives the plot through two and a quarter hours of twists and turns. The filmography in and of itself was brilliantly thought out, which adds an extra boost to the predictable events of fight scenes and showdowns with evil. Commonplace fight scenes which, in the past, showed precision mixed martial arts up close—spiced with a bone crunch now and then are replaced with choreographed fights in silhouette against a backdrop of blue light or filmed against beautiful scenery (such as the train fight scene).

Night themes abound, beautifully displayed with raw fire and eerie blue lights. The locations in and of themselves capture the essence of Bond—the stark grays and rain of London, the mysterious Far East cast in the night glow of neon-blue/pink Shanghai and lantern-lit Macau, the cacophony and crowd of Istanbul and the utter beauty of a stark Scottish valley complete with a castle cloaked in fog. The filmmakers spared not a penny of the $150M price tag in making a first class spy thriller. In true spy story fashion, there is a woman—in this case, there are two. One a fellow spy, Eve and the other a dangerous damsel in distress. Unfortunately, true to Bond’s promiscuous character, he is depicted as going to bed with both. Could the movie be a Bond movie without these immoral interludes? Perhaps not and thankfully not much is shown of the events other than a few flashes of shadow or the implication of nudity in two brief scenes (there are also some fleeting depictions of nudity in the surreal photo-opted opening of the film credits).

Swear words are held to one or two. It is a marvel how M1, uses few if any foul words, highly unlike the previous two films where every other word was some kind of crude expletive. Alcohol is used often however, Bond is labeled as having a problem with it—an improvement over the seeming immunity he has to it in past films. As movies go, it stays well within the PG-13 rating, however as a Christian parent I would place my limit for children at 15 years old.

The moral of the film is predictable and average. Good does triumph over evil with the demise of the antagonist and the redemption of Bond to the good graces of his nation’s service. Yet, the shadow of vengeance as a primary force in reckoning one’s rights and justifying wrongdoing bring into question the basic motives of Hollywood which play on man’s lower nature for money’s sake.

Here, there’s some small storyline about Bond going through the death of his parents as a child, which is never really dealt with or made a real issue. Bond gets depressed about his job after, as the trailer shows, “M” orders a shot knowing it would likely kill Bond. So he’s wondering about the job, retiring, the value. It’s a complete circle back to the first. Except, I felt there was no truly moving thing that gave him that motivation, more to retire if anything.

There’s a “meet a woman and sex scene in shower ten minutes later” ***SPOILER*** only for the woman to get killed with little fanfare and not be brought up again. ***END SPOILER***

So, while the action and plot was fine, acting was great, I just wish I had stayed home and rewatched “Casino Royale” again. This one had all the “Bond-ness” action from that movie, but without the plot and character development I enjoyed. And throw in a bunch of cheesy nods to the Bonds of 40 years ago or so.

The movie’s only purpose seems to be about changing from the old characters to the new, as a set-up for future Bond movies. They could have at least changed the character’s names. We know Moneypenny, and Moneypenny was not black. Then there is confusion. Bond is old and needs to retire, while Moneypenny is young and a new employee? What’s with that? I think that those who rate this Bond movie high are just unfamiliar with the genre.