I Approve of This Movie (Twice): Skyfall

We've been expecting you, Mr. Bond.

The short version: 

Everything a James Bond adventure should be, almost nothing it shouldn’t. And it’s just as enjoyable, if not more so, the second time.

The longer-than-usual version:

This review is the first of a slightly different perspective. Specifically, I wish to look at the film from a second viewing, home video perspective and see what stands out.

While this film has left most theatres now, it snuck up and arrived for purchase less than 3 months after opening. While the gap between a film opening in theatres and releasing on video has been shrinking every year, this is almost unheard of. Skyfall was still soaking up the box office grosses when the DVD and Blu-Ray editions launched on February 12. Grosses which as of February 24 were an estimated $1.1 Billion worldwide. 

In only 108 days.

All this is quite mind-boggling, but I suppose if any franchise... any character could pull it off, it would be James Bond. I mean, after all, he can do anything, right?

Does everything. Makes look easy.

Well, you may think that, but historically he’s not been as bullet-proof as we’ve made him out to be.

If you’re a fan of the series then no doubt you at least have an opinion (possibly a strong one) of which Bond was best – not only the performer but which adventure as well. Regardless of which camp you fall into, even the most ardent fan will admit that the series has its fair share of turkeys. Big ones too. And we’re not all agreed on which ones they were.

Who wore it best?

For example, I grew up in the 80s when Roger Moore’s rather silly take on the character was still wildly popular, with myself as much as anyone. I hadn’t seen every film that had been made – things like TBS’s 13 days of 007 marathon didn’t exist yet – but there was one I had been told in no uncertain terms I was to avoid at all costs: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

It wouldn’t be until last year that I finally had the chance to see it for myself and form my own opinion. And, my my, was I surprised. Not only did I think that all the negativity lobbied at the film was unfair, but actually found it to be one of the more enjoyable entries. Certainly not perfect, but far from the complete and utter disaster that I had been led to believe. It just goes to show, you can’t simply let someone else’s opinion be your own.

We all think this is terrible, so you should too.

This brings me to Quantum of Solace, Daniel Craig's previous outing as Bond. A film which has a paltry 64% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes and among the top-rated critics a mere 38%. In the lead up to the release of Skyfall it was endlessly ribbed by pundits as a horrid flop in the James Bond canon and the biggest reason why Skyfall needed to be (and ultimately was) a return to form and overhaul of the whole series.

Yes they are, James. Yes, they are.

This irked me for two reasons.

The first is that I am, to this day, one of Quantum’s few defenders. I don’t make excuses for the film and its flaws – yes, stylistically it is similar to a Jason Bourne film – but I firmly maintain that, like On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, it was unfairly maligned. It dared to toy with the Bond formula and suffered the consequences. I feel it’s also a victim of one of the unspoken truisms of film reviews: the pile-on. Like sharks scenting blood in the water, I feel that many reviewers (particularly the lesser-known ones) see a trend in the market and join in on the fun. Or put another way: they let someone else's opinion become their own.

The second is another trait that seems to permeate punditry: amnesia. To say that Skyfall is a resounding return to form and a bold, fresh new reboot for the series is to forget that other film to which all those superlatives apply: Casino Royale. 

Oh right. That awesomeness happened.

My, how quickly we forget. When it was released critics were falling all over themselves to hurl appreciation upon it. It was fresh. It was bold. It was a return to form and yet a stunning new direction for the character. Why just a few years ago everyone was ready to declare that Daniel Craig was the best Bond ever, after only one film. Now it seems they’re ready to declare the same things all over again, with no sense of history, let alone irony.

But all of this has little to do with Skyfall. And that is what I’m here to talk about.

Now, as I said above, I don’t wish to review the movie in the traditional sense, but rather talk about what it was like viewing it the second time. This, I feel, is an important perspective to examine because the first time you see a movie you often miss a lot of detail. Or often you watch with glossy-eyed wonder, skimming over parts and dialogue that don’t quite hold up on repeat viewings. Or you have that surprise of not knowing what will happen next. The second viewing does away with all of that and is, in effect, the crucible: if the movie doesn’t survive well on the second viewing it rarely will get seen again.

So, how did Skyfall fare? Gloriously.

Pundits: Silenced!

Yes, this was truly no box office fluke. This was not a massive hit because of a populace starved for a great James Bond flick, still reeling from the unmitigated disaster that was Quantum of Solace (tongue firmly planted in cheek here, people). It was a truly excellent film, filled a few excellent set pieces, some wonderful dialogue and character development and a few surprising – even shocking – twists. But I’m assuming you knew this already. I’m assuming you’ve seen it, so without further ado: 

Spoiler Alert. You’ve been warned.

We begin at the beginning. My first reaction was: a) wow, does this look smashing in high-definition, and b) wow, this foot/car/motorcycle/train chase feels even more exciting than the first time I watched it. Initially it was a bit of a disappointment, perhaps partly due to a middle-aged gentleman sitting next to me who would not shut up for the first twenty minutes. But more than simply suffering from Mr.Peanut Gallery, I felt that the chase seemed… subdued somehow. Like they weren’t really trying. Like all the right ingredients were there, but it wasn’t being served up with as much unrelenting adrenaline as would befit the first Bond Action Sequence in four years. After such a long absence I was expecting to have a wee accident in my seat at seeing the man & myth back in action.

Not so upon the second viewing. Now, it should be said that I was the only person I knew who expressed this feeling after seeing it in theatres, so you might dismiss my reaction out of hand as an anomaly. But after seeing Skyfall for a second time – devoid of middle-aged loud-talkers – I saw that my assessment wasn’t as unusual as it may have seemed. It wasn’t the staging, the angles, the editing that made the sequence seem reserved. It was Bond himself. When you have time to look a little closer, you see that Daniel Craig is playing the scene as if he’s only somewhat invested in what’s happening. Like Bond is a bit disinterested. Like he’s been there, done that. 

James Bond: Bored Spy

And that right there is what Skyfall did so masterfully. It sets up a James Bond who has been playing this game for a long time (assuming he’s been busy while offscreen for four years) and has lost a bit of the youthful edginess he had in the previous two films. He’s older, wiser, wearier, and maybe just a bit off his game. Not quite as sharp as he once was. It certainly would explain why he let the situation spiral so far out of control that M was forced to have Eve take that fateful shot. Eve is certainly a suspiciously poor shot for a field agent, no doubt for the sake of the plot. But nevertheless, the reason Bond gets shot is because he couldn’t quite get the job done – not quickly enough anyway. M basically says as much when they have their grumpy reunion.

Just a sea of grumpy faces.

Speaking of M, Judy Dench really does own this film. Not so much as to completely outshine Daniel Craig – it’s still his story – but man, does she get more complexity and nuance to chew on than every single other performance of that character in Bond’s 50-year history. It was an eyebrow-raising move to make M a woman in Goldeneye. In Skyfall, it’s a downright tear-shedding turn to have that come to an end. How Judy Dench imbued that character with such feisty, steadfast, cold-yet-caring qualities is really only answerable by the truly great actors and actresses, but if nothing else it makes clear that the character has always had something of a motherly quality, and it was only until Dench came along that we truly realized it.

Bastion of British Tough Love

Another thing I noticed during the sophomore screening was that, while obviously MI6 takes a serious blow due to the bombing of their headquarters and the outing of many of their undercover agents around the world… umm… where are the other double-O agents? I know, Bond has been and always will be the only License to Kill agent we’re concerned with, but I found it amusing that he was essentially the only spy in the whole British network available to help them get out of that mess. I guess it’s because he was only sort-of dead. 001-6, 8, & 9 must have been really dead.

Other things that stood out were a few quibbles I had the first time around that seemed less noticeable. For one: the Komodo Dragon. I had heard before I saw the movie in theatres that the CGI work on them was good, but a bit… noticeable. And when I did see it the first time I definitely noticed, though you could argue my experience was tainted by the foreknowledge. But it all evens out in the end because this time they looked quite good – better than before, even in hi-def, which usually reveals special effects flaws more noticeably.

The second: Silva’s death. Without question Javier Bardem catapulted his character into the top tier of Bond villains with his introductory unbroken monologue alone. However, I dock a few points for the filmmakers resorting to that tried and tested villain resource: the rogue MI6 agent. Like Alec Trevelyan before him (also with horrid facial disfigurement!), making a villain out of someone who used to be a friend, or at least a co-worker, makes for good drama but it’s almost too easy to go back to that well. It also bugged me that this rich, compelling, funny-yet-frightening character got such an ignominious death. The scene in which Silva meets his end at the hands of Bond isn’t really about him, more about M and her tortured relationship with the agents whose lives she must often sacrifice for the good of the Commonwealth. It’s a mirror for her relationship with Bond and shows what could have just as likely happened with him, rather than Silva. That is pure cinematic gold. We see our hero not as a hero at all, but rather as a man with a very dirty job, working for people who rarely have his best interests at heart, and who could very easily have become the villain of the story. But he doesn’t. His unfailing loyalty (like a dog – a visual metaphor used twice in the film) to Queen (in this case M) & Country is what saves the day and he smites the villain, not with his customary Walther PPK, but with a cruder instrument: a knife.

When you listen to it written out like that it all sounds great. Like the end of a Greek tragedy or any number of Shakespeare plays. But when you watch it, it happens very quickly and the subtext is left for you to glean yourself. To the film’s credit that’s giving viewers a level of respect not often found in action thrillers. It also saves us from a long, drawn out ending where everyone talks about their feelings rather than getting on with the pointy, stabby business. But for such a strong character that had been built up in such a short time – not appearing until the second half – I found it all a bit quick.

Why did you kill me so easily, Mr. Bond?

However, all this complaining about the villain's end is from the first time I viewed the film. The second time, it bothered me much less because I was able to absorb all the subtlety I spoke about. This is one of the great luxuries of owning and rewatching a film – you get the chance to really think about a film and discover new things you many never have known were there. That's why I'm glad films get entered into the National Film Registry and the like. And why revisionist historians like George Lucas should stop their tinkering. But that's a rant for another day.

My final observation is one of curiousity, maybe even hesitation: where do we go from here? The end credits assured, as they often did in the good old days, that Bond will be back. So, what then? If you take the time to think of the chronology of this rebooted series, how many adventures does this current incarnation of Bond have left in him? Yes he has his mojo back, but Skyfall made clear that he’s getting on in years. Daniel Craig is now 45 years old. Granted, Roger Moore was 46 when he joined the franchise, but that was back when Bond films were far less physically demanding of their lead actor. Craig has said that it is extremely difficult to get his body in the shape that the role requires. That should only become more difficult as time marches on. And how quickly do they plan to launch the next film? I should think that based on Skyfall’s rampant success the producers will be very eager to get started, but they have a lot to live up to now, so that should deter them from rushing too hastily. And now that Moneypenny, a classic M, and the classic office are all in place what is the intention? To continue Bond much as he was in the 60s with a modern flair? That seemed to be the mission statement for Skyfall, what with references to exploding pens, the classic Aston Martin DB5 with ejector seat, and a wonderfully classic Bond theme (Thanks for the Oscar, Adele). It all leaves me hopeful, yet hesitant for the future of the franchise. As much as this was a fresh injection for the character and his world, I’d hate to see all that fall flat with the next entry.

I suppose we’ll have to see if, once again, there is nothing that this man can’t do.

I'm going to have to save all this again, aren't I?

My Name is Rick Ames and 

I Approve of This Movie. Twice.