By popular request (Skyfall reflections)

The Auric of 2008 would be appalled with me, but I no longer refer to myself as a Bond fan, instead I say 'I'm a fan of Bond movies'. It's a distinction which does not immediately seem significant, but it is.
I was excited for Skyfall, saw it on opening night. I walked away disappointed, partly with myself for not even being able to geek out anymore, partly with the movie, which, to be as contrarian as ever, I found quite inferior to Quantum of Solace.
Why? Well, it's simple, really. For all the talk about Craig movies bucking the trend, and despite them clearly being better than the last two Brosnan offerings, I always find their odd attempt at appeasing both the old fans and the people used to 'modern', 'gritty' thrillers to be quite exciting while watching them, but not as fulfilling upon exiting the cinema.
First of all, none of the three is as good as The Bourne Identity, or something like The International, but obviously they have something those exemplary euro-thrillers lack: Bond. And boy, do they exploit him. First they play with the audience expectations by not starting with the gunbarrel, then they play with the audience expectations by not starting with the gunbarrel, then they play with the audience expectations... Every film's ending seems intent on announcing: Bond is back! Back to his old, martini-swizzling, villain-defeating, womanising days. But out of the three, only Quantum actually delivers, since in both films surrounding it, Bond loses someone close to him, so does not fully deal with the bad guys, and equally, only Quantum has a reasonable run-time. There's also too much action in Quantum to allow us to fully notice the obnoxious product placement or Pervert & Waste's pathetic attempts at character development. It also has the best song (though Skyfall's score is as good.
The flashbacks to Bond's past here are almost as cringeworthy as the 'little finger' scene or the parachute fall in the other two, but with the added annoyance of miscasting Albert Finney and slowing the film down after the exciting start. The Bond girl is perfunctory, and some people seem to think that's deliberate to show that Bond cares far more about M, but it seems like a pay-off to those promised the classic formula. Bardem is intimidating but undermined by the absurdity of his plan (which is not absurd in a grand way like that of, say, Drax, or in a random way, like Greene's, but in a 'this time it's personal' way)
Also, why is Bond a superhero now (the helicopter takedown)? The movies weren't enough like the Nolan Batman films before?
But let's talk about the positives - Shanghai and Macao are shot gorgeously, as is Istanbul. Q and Moneypenny are both great. Craig is still a great actor for the role, it's P&W who let him down. And finally, no more Dench after this!
I wanted to write more but this is unfocused as it is. So let me use this space to say hi to all the people I've missed, assuming they still post here.

Am interesting review Klown. I think you have hit upon the schizphrenic nature of the Craig films. These films tear us in so many different directions. We want to like them, but they give us too many reasons not to. We all have different tolerances for them. Some want to make the most of the experience and concentrate on what they like. Others are not as forgiving.

The quandry I think is that the filmmakers themselves are conflicted. They are making Bond films, but they don't really want to make Bond films in the traditional sense. Craig is driving this neurosis. He insists on character-driven dramas. Babs and company must then accomodate him. Craig is averse to making a traditional Bond film. He hand-picks hid own directors (Mendes)

Now this is just my opinion, but the sense I get, is that he resents the pedestal that Connery sits on. He wants to do better Bond films than Connery did, but there is only one way to do that, and that is to do dramatically different-type Bond films, inviting apples to oranges comparisons.

Apples to apples, he gets killed. No-one can best Sean at his own game -- at the Bond-persona he perfected at the height of Bondmania.

There is aconceit that permeates the Craig era, that Craig is somehow a "serious" Bond. The inference being that the others were "not as"; not even the revered Connery - that Craig has lifted the whole experience to another level.

The stubborn, consistent refusal to put the gun barrell at the front of the film, and the fresh excuses they contrive with each film to explain this away, is very telling. They don't want that tired old symbol of the old regime signalling the start of, or setting the tone, for their "more serious" films. They only grudgingly tack it on the back of the film because they are stuck with the "baggage" of the 20 films that came before. Short of licensing and launching a fully independent series, they have to accomodate the old conventions to some degree.

The poster art is very telling as well. For three straight films, we have the minimalist approach;essentially isolated shots of the character. The message is clear. These films are as much a look at, or a study of the character called Bond, as they are a spy-adventure film.
Compare with the original series posters, which featured Bond, surrounded by the explosive excitement, danger and glamour of the mission.

Scripts are now written so that Bond no longer has time to dally in frivolous sexual gratification with Solange. His dalliance with Fields is almost a lampoon of the Rog era; as if to say, if we must include the token, frivolous conquest, we can use it to subtly mock the old series, thus also serving to re-inforce further, the separation of the new from the old.

Stories are contrived so that Bond has no interest in a living, breathing Bond-girl at the end of a mission. Another story (SF) is contrived so that there simply is no Bond-girl at end of mission. He takes sex when he wants it,(even new Bond can't be a monk) but unlike old Bond, he doesn't really revel in it. He doesn't have the same sparkle in his eyes. His Bond is a more "serious" Bond.

As a result we now have this odd Bond character. One who wants to be Bond but not like the old Bond. He must be Bond on his terms. Craig and Mendes have even resorted to using Fleming as cover, to rationalize their redrawing of the character. I don't see it. I'm doing my due diligence. I'm re-reading the source tomes - 5 books down and 9 to go. What I am discovering in CR, LALD, MR, DAF and FRWL is that book-Bond has far more in common with Connery Bond. He's suave, he's witty, he's flip, quite glib at times, a real flirt, and very chivalrous towards women. Fleming takes pains to present Bond as damn good looking, but with a cruel mouth and a very dangerous demeanour. He's also 6 foot with black hair. He's a man that is very comfortable in his own skin. Yes, later in the books, Bond loses it somewhat after his wife has been blown away, but he certainly didn't lose it, after Vesper was killed, not to the extend that Craig Bond did. Book-Bond rebounded from the Vesper interlude quite well. He's all there in LALD. And even Book-Bond by the end of TMWTGG seems to have come back to normal. "For James Bond, the same view would always pall"

My point being here, I don't think Fleming's Bond provides the latitude for interpretation that Craig pretends it does. Craig's running a bit of a con, in that he knows most film-reviewers have not read the Fleming novels, nor have much of the mainstream film audience.

What's music to Craig's ears and to his enabler and sponsor Babs, is that he is the best Bond ever, and we've been hearing that from some quarters since CR. Although the sentiment is not even close to being unanimous. These are isolated voices.

With SF though, the ante has been upped. There is a movement to declare SF, the best Bond-film ever. High praise indeed. But this is understandable. People can get caught in the tide, as a central conceit of SF is that it does aspire to be the Best-Bond ever. It practically tells you that it is.

This conflict between the Craig-era and the classic-era of Bond will continue through Craig's tenure. We've been fooled three times now. What did Goldfinger say? The third time is enemy action. It's no longer happenstance.

CR was not a brief detour. It was the new template. Craig will continue to focus character-driven dramas. His movies will always be about Bond and his issues of the day, and less about Bond simply being recognizable as Bond, and going about achieving the mission.

With deference to Pete Townshend, the new Bond is not the same as the old Bond.

See Skyfall, Tiff, before judging it.

It's to be expected that Auric/Klown would prefer Quantum of Solace. It is, after all, more of a toy than a film for grown ups.

Skyfall is QoS's polar opposite, a Bond film that will appeal particularly to middle-aged men.

Erica Ambler wrote:

See Skyfall, Tiff, before judging it.

It's to be expected that Auric/Klown would prefer Quantum of Solace. It is, after all, more of a toy than a film for grown ups.

Skyfall is QoS's polar opposite, a Bond film that will appeal particularly to middle-aged men.

You mean to say Tiff is slagging off SF and hasn't yet even seen it...?? :shock:

Erica Ambler wrote:

See Skyfall, Tiff, before judging it.

It's to be expected that Auric/Klown would prefer Quantum of Solace. It is, after all, more of a toy than a film for grown ups.

Skyfall is QoS's polar opposite, a Bond film that will appeal particularly to middle-aged men.

I have no doubt that I will be able to appreciate SF as piece of filmcraft. I can do the same for CR, even QoS to some degree. I have invested in SF as thorougly as I can without actually seeing it all the way through. I've followed it's developement, sussed out every possible spoiler, read numerous reviews and commentary. I've got a pretty good idea what's going on with that film and how it fits with the Craig era.

Ah, well then, I withdraw my comment. I studiously avoided all Skyfall spoilers. Which made for a very surprising viewing experience.

jet set willy wrote:

You mean to say Tiff is slagging off SF and hasn't yet even seen it...?? :shock:

I'm not actually slagging it as a film. Rather I'm giving it context within the broader Craig era.

Again, what I've seen and read, I have reason to believe it does work as a stand-alone piece of filmcraft. It wasn't exactly made by slouches of the film industry.

I probably enjoyed the movie more than you, but I feel somewhat similar. In many ways it's better then QOS (and more in line with what I generally like from Bond film), but I was a bigger Bond fan back in 2008 then I am now, and I was certainly more excited sitting in the theatre watching QOS than I was Skyfall. I was always entertained by Skyfall, often excited and impressed, rarely (for lack of a better word) offended but never quite enthralled hollistically.

I should add that I was never a huge Casino Royale fan, and was relieved to enjoy QOS so much in contrast. I certainly enjoyed Skyfall a lot more than Casino Royale.

Safari Suit wrote:

I probably enjoyed the movie more than you, but I feel somewhat similar. In many ways it's better then QOS (and more in line with what I generally like from Bond film), but I was a bigger Bond fan back in 2008 then I am now, and I was certainly more excited sitting in the theatre watching QOS than I was Skyfall. I was always entertained by Skyfall, often excited and impressed, rarely (for lack of a better word) offended but never quite enthralled hollistically.

I should add that I was never a huge Casino Royale fan, and was relieved to enjoy QOS so much in contrast. I certainly enjoyed Skyfall a lot more than Casino Royale.

That last part is of interest to me, as I despise CR for countless reasons and find a number of good things in QoS, both of which usually make me a voice in the wilderness here. The lack of thrill-feeling experienced by some seeing SF makes me think I'll probably fall into the same category. I'd be happy if it delivered a couple of great set-pieces, but I already know I'll be furious about some of the 'dramatic' elements, since I see them as character assassination on the level of what they did to Kirk in TREK 6.

Just to hear some - hopefully - nuanced opinions on SKYFALL -

I'd love to know what MOO7RE, Louis Armstrong, Vine, Red_Grant, and junkanoo think of it.

:)

I'd imagine you'd have a long wait for that.

tiffanywint wrote:

CR was not a brief detour. It was the new template. Craig will continue to focus character-driven dramas. His movies will always be about Bond and his issues of the day, and less about Bond simply being recognizable as Bond, and going about achieving the mission.

With deference to Pete Townshend, the new Bond is not the same as the old Bond.

I gotta say that this argument is exactly what killed the role for Sean Connery (hints his sleep-walking through the latter half of his run as Bond, as he was horrendously bored with playing the character). "Simply being recognizable as Bond" is lazy film-making, lazy acting, and lazy script-writing. Yes, it's important for a Bond movie to be a lot of fun (which I would say the last three have been so for me personally), but if I don't connect with the character at a personal level, why should I care if he completes his mission or not? That's just storytelling 101.

I don't mean to say that the Craig movies blow From Russia with Love or The Man with the Golden Gun out of the water or anything. I just think that people demanding that the movies continue with the cookie cutter formula is exactly how Moon Raker happened. It's exactly why Brosnan's latter two films were absolute snoozers. To demand the film makers stick to the exact same formula, either the fans are furious or the films suffer (often both).

It's a lot like how 90% of Bond video games are just trying to be the original GoldenEye game, and are suffering for it.

I don't necessarily think all Bond films should be the same, what I do think is that they should provide something other films lack. And even though Moonraker was an obvious attempt to cash in on Star Wars, it does do that, while Skyfall merely made me wish I were watching The Bourne Identity or something instead.

Habanero45 wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

CR was not a brief detour. It was the new template. Craig will continue to focus character-driven dramas. His movies will always be about Bond and his issues of the day, and less about Bond simply being recognizable as Bond, and going about achieving the mission.

With deference to Pete Townshend, the new Bond is not the same as the old Bond.

I gotta say that this argument is exactly what killed the role for Sean Connery (hints his sleep-walking through the latter half of his run as Bond, as he was horrendously bored with playing the character). "Simply being recognizable as Bond" is lazy film-making, lazy acting, and lazy script-writing. Yes, it's important for a Bond movie to be a lot of fun (which I would say the last three have been so for me personally), but if I don't connect with the character at a personal level, why should I care if he completes his mission or not? That's just storytelling 101.

I don't mean to say that the Craig movies blow From Russia with Love or The Man with the Golden Gun out of the water or anything. I just think that people demanding that the movies continue with the cookie cutter formula is exactly how Moon Raker happened. It's exactly why Brosnan's latter two films were absolute snoozers. To demand the film makers stick to the exact same formula, either the fans are furious or the films suffer (often both).

It's a lot like how 90% of Bond video games are just trying to be the original GoldenEye game, and are suffering for it.

Moonraker "happened" And a great thing that it did. One of the most entertaining and ambitious films in the series. My only quibble with MR is that the scenes with Jaws are too cute, but that's one of the quirks of the Moore era. What Craig does well at least is that he brings the dangerous element of Bond back. His trust issues I can do without.

Its not about sticking to a formula. It's about sticking to the character. The character was fully realized by Thunderball. Bond movies IMO work best when they are not about Bond, but rather about the challenges that Bond faces from mission to mission. If Connery got bored of Bond, so what. He had mastered the role. "Lazy" doesn't enter into it. It was time to move on. He's an actor. The genius of Connery is that he got the character figured out early, and simply ran with it for six awesome films. Broz's films seem uneven because he never got the character figured out. He admitted as much. However I would say that the role exposed his limitations as an actor. He was not able to deliver the character convincingly, at least not consistently. He did have his moments.

I'll take any of the first 20 films, over the Craig character-dramas.