Skyfall (2012) - Movie Review

I don't want to be James Bond for Halloween.  I want to be Daniel Craig.

I have to confess that I've always had a 'take it or leave it' stance when it comes to the Bond series.  I watched many of them; liked some, hated others, but I don't geek out over Bond like others do.  I was one of the people that wasn't upset at the casting of Daniel Craig simply because I loved Layer Cake, but also because his casting got me interested in the series in a way I hadn't before.  Casino Royale was fun, Quantum of Solace was a disappointment, and now we have what I think is the finest of Craig's run: Skyfall.

Minor spoilers ahead...

Skyfall begins with a great opening chase scene that really sets the tone.  Bond is trying to recover a hard drive, but is shot in the process and presumed dead.  This failure has larger consequences, as the hard drive contains a list of undercover agents in the field.  An unknown hacker starts to expose the list and terrorize MI6.  This brings Bond out of hiding and to the aid of M (Judi Dench). M is dealing with issues besides the attack.  Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) is pushing M out the door, thinking she's past her prime.  At the same time, many think Bond has also lost a step.  Can these two still rally and stop the bad guy before it's too late?

I will say that after the opening sequence, the pace of the movie does slow a bit.  It's a little uneven at times, but not to the point where it's boring or you start to lose interest.  It's more of an issue of where it starts with such a great opening sequence, that it can't possibly keep that pace up for 140 minutes.  It's like a football game opening with a 107 yard kickoff return for TD, but then final score of the game is 14-3.

The pacing also brings up another issue for me in that we aren't introduced to the main villain, Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem), until the halfway point of the film.  He does, however, have a great entrance.  I was really excited to see Javier Bardem as a Bond villain.  He totally chews up the scenery, and is slightly over-the-top, but in a good way.  My only real complaint about Bardem is that he isn't in it more.  I also really liked that fact that his motivation wasn't something silly like sinking Silicon Valley, or an overused plot involving the theft and detonation of a nuclear weapon. It's much more basic than that.

It's also interesting that Silva is basically the flipside to Bond.  When you learn more about Silva, you find that he's actually a sympathetic character.  If things had gone differently for either him or Bond, you could see them switching places.  It's an interesting idea that I wish they would have played with a little more.

I had actually heard rumors that Ralph Fiennes was supposed to be an additional Bond villain. Maybe because when I think of him, I automatically think of Voldemort, but he seems like someone that would make a natural Bond villain   While watching the film I kept waiting for him to make that turn.  He does have a bit of an antagonistic role, but he has a surprising development to his character that I really enjoyed. The movie has a lot of shout outs to the Bond franchise throughout the film.

Another thing that kind of disappointed me was the Bond girls.  It has nothing to do with their appearance, as both women were beautiful, but it was mainly in that I felt they were underused. We're introduced to Sévérine (Bérénice Marlohe) and she has great scene with Bond, but then she's gone just like that.  She's absolutely gorgeous though, and I'm looking forward to her involvement in the upcoming Terrence Malick project.  Naomie Harris as Eve has some great chemistry with Bond, but disappears for long stretches of the film.  Like Fiennes though, she has a nice turn at the end of the film that Bond fans should get a kick out of.

I also enjoyed Ben Whishaw as the new Q.  Even though this Bond didn't feature much in the way of gadgets, it felt more modern and realistic as far as what they were doing technologically.  The movie even takes a shot at some of the gadgets they've used.

Let's not forget the star, Daniel Craig.  I liked how this time Craig showed more vulnerability and depth.  He's not perfect, and that made him and this whole world more believable to me.  I want him to stick around for a few more films, as I think he's the second best Bond after Sean Connery. On another note, does he go to the same awkward, upright-sprinting school that Tom Cruise goes to?  I couldn't help thinking he looked like a dork when running, and I hope they get him a spiriting coach for the next one.  Call up Usain Bolt.

The whole film is very slick and stylish.  Every scene looks great, and you never forget that you're watching a Bond film.  There's a very cool fight scene in the film that's done against a blue background and all you can see is their silhouettes, but you can still tell what's going on.  I saw this on IMAX, and while you don't need to see it that way, it's definitely a movie that looks great in the format.

Sam Mendes was a great choice to direct.  He was able to make a Bond film that stands on it's own, but still give enough shout-outs to previous films without overdoing it.  As I've mentioned before, he also kept the film grounded in reality.  It feels like more of a genuine spy thriller, rather than some kind of spy fantasy.  Normally, I often criticize a movie for having too many writers, but this time we have veteran Bond writers Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, plus Gladiator and Hugo writer John Logan.  I think this helped the movie stay consistent to the character and Bond universe.

I understand making a movie PG-13 to appeal to a broader audience, but I feel like that rating softened the film too much.  We're watching a film about a guy that's famous for bedding women and killing people, yet there's no nudity and very little blood in the film.  In fact, it seemed there was hardly any on-screen death.  You don't need to be gratuitous about it, but when you don't show people get shot, it kind of takes the impact away.  There was one particular time were someone is shot, and you aren't even sure what happened or if that person is actually dead.  I don't even need to point out scene I'm talking about, as when you see the film, you'll know exactly what part I'm talking about.

Skyfall feels like the start of another new chapter for Bond, and made me want more.  If you're a newcomer to the franchise, this is a great place to come in.  It's not the best Bond movie, but it's certainly a very good one.  Fans should be pleased, as well as people that just like a good action flick. It's fun, thrilling and sexy. All the things it should be.  Check it out.

4 (out of 5) Death Stars

Cloud Atlas (2012) - Movie Review

As the poster says, "Everything is Connected."  Well, the good news is that at least this isn't connected to the Matrix sequels.

Cloud Atlas is based on a book by David Mitchell.  It features six interlinked and complex stories, ranging from the 19th century, to a post-apocalyptic future.  It's been said by many that this was an unfilmable book, and I can see why.  It's incredibly ambitious and I give the writing/directing team of Tom Tykwer, Andy and Lana Wachowski credit for taking a shot at something this huge.

If you can't tell already I wasn't in love with Cloud Atlas.  I'm not going to recap all six stores (you can see a brief outline here or here), but many of them will make you think of other films.  I was reminded of stuff like Blade Runner, Amistad or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.  In the film, these six stories are told in a very choppy manner.  This kind of story telling is usually problematic for me.  Just when you'd get into one story, they'd switch to another.  The problem for me was that the stories had varying levels of interest.  There were some I wished the whole movie would have been about, and others I could have done without entirely.

When you're dealing with a marathon of a movie like this, you really have to keep the audience's attention.  The good part is that I was never really bored, and it managed to keep my interest.  I wanted to see how it all played out.  That doesn't mean I didn't start to squirm in my seat a bit as we approached the end though.  I checked my watch at one point thinking we were at least two hours into the film only to find that we were just barely at the halfway point.  Plus, with all the jumping around, there's never a good moment to take a pee break.  Based on that alone, this is a tough movie for me to recommend seeing in the theater.  It's better suited for watching at home.  I saw this on IMAX, and despite the impressive visuals, I didn't feel like there was anything I would have missed by seeing this at home.  Plus, it may even take multiple viewings before you really form a final opinion about it.  I feel like I need to see this again just to be sure, but I'm certainly not going to do that in the theater.

I have a general rule about movies based off books: if the movie is done well, it should make you want to go back and read it.  I didn't feel that here.  Even a bad movie like Alex Cross made me think there was something to get out of the novels based on the character.  The point I'm making here is that after Cloud Atlas, I felt kind of empty.  I didn't get anything out of it emotionally.

The overall look of the film is fantastic.  The older parts of the story felt authentic, and the futuristic ones were stunning at times.  There were a few parts where it felt there was a little too much CG, but overall it was well done.  The one issue I had with the look of the film was the makeup used for the actors.  While some of it was great and made some of the actors unrecognizable, at times it was absolutely terrible and took me out of the film with how bad it was.  It's that distracting.  Also, you may have heard the complaints regarding the use of non-Asian actors playing Asians, using makeup and CG to make them look Asian.  While I understand the complaint, I also understand the need to do things the way they did.  When moving between all of these stories, you're trying to show how these people are linked, or are even the souls of previous characters.  It's really hard to visually convey that using different actors.  Plus, if you think about it, in the future I would expect to see more people of mixed-ethnicity, and the line would be really blurred as far as that goes.  Having said that, it looked laughably bad at times.

One of the strengths of the film is the cast.  You need actors with range to be able to play all the various roles.  However, some of the actors are playing the opposite sex at times, and again, some of it was either jarring or just plain silly.  The one time I thought it was effective was when Hugo Weaving played a nurse in the only story set in present time.  I also thought it was funny that Weaving played an evil character in every story.  That guy is just doomed to be a villain.  I'm fully expecting him to pull out a sword in The Hobbit and chase after Bilbo at some point.

There were a few times where you can't help but look at him and go, "Oh that's Tom Hanks in bad makeup", but many of the roles allowed him to stretch all over the place, and I thought it was a great overall performance on his part(s).  I was also really impressed with Halle Berry, who needed a movie like this to remind us why she was an Oscar winner.  I was also surprised with Jim Sturgess, who is an actor I haven't thought too much of based on his prior films.  He has a role in one of the future stories that might have been my favorite of the whole film.  Jim Broadbent was great, as he always is, but I love seeing him played those crazy-eyed, crazy-haired characters he does so well with.  I also enjoyed when Keith David or Hugh Grant would show up, but both suffered from some of the bad makeup mentioned previously.

Once again I have to give credit to Tykwer and the Wachowskis for taking a shot. The fact that it's not a complete disaster is an accomplishment.  Even if Cloud Atlas had been a huge mess, we need people to keep taking chances and make films like this.  Otherwise, we doomed to a future of endless Paranormal Activity and Adam Sandler movies.

I think for most, Cloud Atlas is one of those films that people are going to either think is genius or not get it at all.  I come somewhere in the middle of that.  It's an ambitious, but flawed film.  There are impressive visuals, and some interesting stories, but it's a mixed bag.  It's length and disjointed storytelling might put off casual viewers, but I do think there's a lot here to enjoy.

3 (out of 5) Death Stars