RSS

Movie Review: “Skyfall”

11 Nov

Is James Bond still relevant?

That’s a question many Bond fans (myself included) have been pondering of late, particularly given the “Bourne”-ripoff disaster that was “Quantum of Solace.” And it’s a question Bond himself asks in his latest outing, “Skyfall” – a brooding, meditative masterpiece that serves as one of the series’ finest chapters.

Naturally, the answer – delivered in a flurry of action that blends Bond tropes from past and present – is a resounding YES.

After one of Bond’s missions to Istanbul ends in seeming tragedy (seen in a dazzling opening gambit), 007 (Daniel Craig) is presumed dead. He returns to London, however, after a mysterious cyberattacker cripples MI6’s operations and threatens Bond’s boss M (Judi Dench). As Bond seeks a missing hard drive containing the covert identities of NATO’s agents in terrorist cells, he soon encounters brilliant-but-deranged ex-agent Silva (Javier Bardem). Silva has a secret vendetta against M, and will stop at nothing to kill her…making Bond’s mission a far more personal struggle.

I’ve never seen a Bond film like this before – and I have nothing but praise for the change. What viewers won’t find here are goofy villains with insane world-conquest schemes (though “Skyfall” is not without its humorous moments). The narrative cohesion of “Skyfall” is head-and-shoulders above Bond films of earlier days – rather than a series of action segments held together by the thinnest of implausible plots, this movie works as a holistic unit. Not only that, but it’s riveting – a word I never thought I’d use to describe a Bond film.

What this film is really about, though, is the clash between the world of yore and the world of today. James Bond, now in his 50th year of gracing silver screens, is a relic of the Cold War whose latest endeavors have been scattershot at best. In “Skyfall,” for the first time, Bond is thrust headlong into a chaotic new world of shadowy nationless attackers. He may carry a Walther PPK, but physical bullets can’t strike distant criminals hunched over glowing computers. One might think that the very raison d’être of the series is worth questioning at this point – and that’s precisely what “Skyfall” does with aplomb.

Silva is a genuinely terrifying antagonist for one reason alone: he is relevant. Viewers have seen angst-ridden psychotic killers before…but few who choose to manifest their rage via sophisticated electronic retaliation. With the threat of cyberterrorism constantly growing, “Skyfall” offers a disturbing vision of future warfare…while simultaneously recalling the heroic ideals of times gone by.

And this is where “Skyfall” soars. “Casino Royale” was an outstanding film, but it didn’t feel like a James Bond movie. “Quantum of Solace” merits no discussion. “Skyfall” finally hits the sweet spot – updating Bond’s conflict and providing a tightly structured story, yet never forgetting the series’ roots. I won’t spoil the ending, but suffice it to say that it’s fantastic.

The technical merits of the film also deserve a special mention. Mercifully, the shaky-cam style popularized by “Bourne” and its ilk is almost completely gone here. (For that matter, I don’t recall any straight-up car chases either…these interminable sequences are not missed.) Instead, “Skyfall” is beautifully filmed, taking its time rather than jumping from shot to shot. It gives the movie a richer, heavier texture that complements the gravity of its storytelling. Adele’s theme song also deserves a special mention here…and the abstract opening-title sequence, over which the song plays, is one of the series’ finest.

I do have one quibble with this otherwise exceptional movie. Director Sam Mendes said in pre-release interviews that he and his crew watched Christopher Nolan’s films for inspiration…and while that makes for incredible cinema, the influence of “The Dark Knight” is perhaps too undiluted here. There’s a lengthy sequence midway through the film that feels familiar…perhaps too familiar. Certain key elements (disfigured laughing villain who constantly seems to be a step ahead of the authorities, a fierce interrogation scene that goes horribly awry, the antagonist disguising himself as a police officer, an ancestral home playing a key role) are just a bit too reminiscent of Nolan’s Batman to seem entirely original. That said, they’re deployed masterfully…it’s simply a minor distraction.

Further borrowing from Nolan’s playbook, there are some really interesting themes on display here – moral idealism vs. pragmatism, the necessity of sacrifice, and the realities of growing older, among others – but these are mostly left unexplored. Given that this is a Bond film, and the mere inclusion of such elements is a rarity, it’s enough to mention that “Skyfall” is a bit more cerebral than one might expect.

Any fans of this franchise already know what kind of objectionable content they’re in for – innuendo-laced dialogue, brief sexual imagery, and loads of mostly bloodless violence. It’s a Bond film, and that doesn’t change here.

Is it worth seeing? Absolutely. Whether or not you’re a fan of James Bond, “Skyfall” is a grand achievement that demands to be experienced. Highly recommended.

VERDICT: 9.5/10
A wickedly intense and utterly compelling blockbuster…and my favorite Bond movie of all time.

Normalized Score: 8.7

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 11, 2012 in Contemporary

 

Movie Review: “Cloud Atlas”

30 Oct

Admission up front: I have a weakness for cosmic-scale, philosophically inclined sci-fi stories. That’s a pretty niche market, and includes such polarizing epics as “The Fountain” and “The Tree of Life.” Are these movies ambitious? Yes. Are they impossibly pretentious? Maybe so. And “Cloud Atlas,” love it or hate it, is perhaps the grandest entry yet into this narrow subgenre.

I loved the source material (David Mitchell’s novel), and reviewed it several months ago. Naturally, I was curious to see how such a complex and multilayered plot would translate into a big-budget cinematic blockbuster – particularly one helmed by the Wachowski siblings (responsible for the “Matrix” trilogy).

It’s hard to explain the plot, as six seemingly unrelated stories are intertwined into one: a lawyer in the Pacific Isles who learns about human dignity; a bisexual composer in Edinburgh struggling to distinguish himself; a daring tabloid reporter investigating a nuclear power plant; an elderly publisher trying to escape an oppressive retirement home; a cloned girl who becomes the leader of a futuristic rebellion; and a tribesman battling subhuman cannibals in post-apocalyptic Hawaii.

In a departure from the source material (more on that to follow), “Cloud Atlas” is interpreted for the screen as a reincarnation story. The same cast of A-list actors (Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugh Grant, Hugo Weaving, Jim Broadbent, etc.) occupies each of the six stories, playing different roles. This is a fascinating technique that beautifully captures the motif of souls traveling across centuries. At times, this even employs gender- and race-changing makeup for dramatic effect. Say what you will about its worldview…it’s a remarkably inventive piece of filmmaking.

For that matter, the worldview of “Cloud Atlas” is inseparable from its plot and other merits – this is a movie that demands to be evaluated holistically. Most notably, “Cloud Atlas” drastically diverges philosophically from its source material. Mitchell’s novel was fundamentally dystopian, envisioning a brutal future ruled by Nietzschean principles of subjugation and violence. Conversely, the Wachowskis’ interpretation posits a counter-principle: something that may be best described as “the Power of Love.” As a result, the storyline moves from entropic (“everything is getting worse because of humans and their depraved natures”) to karmic (“every action shifts one’s rebirth and impacts the course of the future”).

When compared to the much bleaker novel, the endings of several stories are completely inverted. This was highly jarring to me at first, until I realized something critical: the worldview underlying the story has been completely stripped out and replaced with something much more comprehensible to mainstream audiences. The film is a hopeful humanistic vision, whereas the book is a grim warning against the “will to power.”

None of this means that “Cloud Atlas” is a failure as a film. In fact, the Wachowskis’ changes probably make for a better and more accessible movie. (It’s fair to say that the original text, if rendered as written, would produce a disastrously choppy result.) But as a work of art or literature, the movie lacks the nuance of its source material. The Hollywood-added epilogue (a “seventh plot,” if you will) particularly grated on me: its tone is joyous and optimistic, a far cry from the thought-provoking sobriety of the original conclusion.

The acting is great, as one would expect from performers of this caliber, and the visuals are breathtaking (particularly the science fiction-themed segments – I got the feeling the movie blew most of its $100 million budget on these). The story’s flow is surprisingly fluid…anyone put off by the obtuse imagery of “The Tree of Life” will find “Cloud Atlas” far more comprehensible.

Of note: this is definitely not an all-audiences film. “Cloud Atlas” is oftentimes brutally violent, and none of it feels sanitized or stylized. There’s also some momentary nudity (in a non-erotic context), a sexual encounter between two protagonists, and occasional harsh language. Overall, the movie’s R rating is justified.

There’s so much I could say about “Cloud Atlas.” At almost three hours in length (it never feels this long), the film is jam-packed with ideas, images, and themes that demand a more thorough deconstruction. (I was very glad I’d read the novel before seeing the movie.) Aficionados of the genre, like me, will be blown away by the stellar production values on display here.

Audiences with more mainstream tastes, however, probably won’t enjoy “Cloud Atlas” without a knowledge of the source material. At times, characters’ thick accents can be impenetrable, which muddles important plot points. The six-stories-in-one structure, while inventive and well-executed, sometimes moves too abruptly between time periods (cutting from the middle of a futuristic chase scene, for instance, to an argument aboard a ship).

Would I recommend this movie? Undoubtedly – but with caveats. Read the book first…I can’t imagine seeing the film any other way.

VERDICT: 8.5/10
A majestic, though imperfect, vision of human existence.

Normalized Score: 6.9

 
2 Comments

Posted by on October 30, 2012 in Sci-Fi

 
← Older posts
Newer posts →