The Thrilling End to the Craig Trilogy

Skyfall

2012

D: Sam Mendes

**********

Pros: Characters, Dialogue, Cinematography Music, Javier Bardem

Cons: Some Logical Problems with the Plot

 

 

      Skyfall takes over after its solid predecessors, Casino Royale and the unjustly maligned Quantum of Solace, in the Craig Continuity and effectively extends this origin story.  This was a relief considering that director Sam Mendes was previously known for overrated proto-woke works like American Beauty and Revolutionary Road; turns out he’s just very good at making movies in general.  Still, the movie does seem to treat British patriotism, even at its kitschiest, with affection, while Americana seemed to have been depicted as a pathology in Mendes’ previous films.

     The movie takes a break from the Quantum arc and focuses on a villain who has a vendetta against M (Judi Dench).  This particular antagonist, Raoul Silva, is one of the best in the franchise, although a lot of that has to do with Javier Bardem’s insane levels of charisma; I’m not sure he’d be quite as good without the actor. Silva is also somewhat similar to GoldenEye’s Trevelyan: a former MI6 agent who was betrayed by the government and holds a vendetta for a one of the heroes, all while acting as a good nemesis to Bond because of his skills and background.  M’s past consequentialism resulted in her selling Silva out to the Chinese government years ago as part of a deal based on the excuse that he was acting outside his brief.  Unlike Trevelyan, Silva sees Bond as a potential ally.  Like many Bond villains, Silva is based on a real life celebrity, in this case Julian Assange.  Personally, I don’t think he deserves such a cool character based on him; I’m not that red-pilled.  He has a memorable, but subtle disfigurement that, when revealed, is enhanced by Thomas Newman's chilling score.  

       The inciting action of the plot involves the failure of Bond and his young field partner Eve (Naomie Harris) to stop a man from getting away with a disk full of contact information for all the British spies abroad. This results in a massive scandal for M, and culminates in her getting into trouble over all the spies’ being executed by national enemies.  For some reason, she recites poetry during her hearing.  

        The movie also partially deconstructs the franchise by showing Bond’s facing some consequences for his mistakes, although it possibly takes it a bit too far.  He pridefully refuses to get out of the way to make an open shot for Eve in the first scene, and that results in the plot.  He goes into hiding for a while after his presumed death and returns after seeing the ravages of Silva’s plan on the news.  For some reason, MI6 decides send into battle against Silva, fudging his requalification to give him a false pass, despite his struggling during the physical, failing his marksmanship test during which he loses his temper and advances toward the target and still misses it, and ragequitting the psych eval the second his childhood home comes up.  It seems that Bond’s importance as a protagonist is too important for MI6 to heed logic.  This gets even more absurd when this happens again in No Time to Die.  They just need to stop giving this loser breaks.  In contrast, GoldenEye doesn’t sacrifice Bond’s competence for him to face some personal consequences from his job; he inevitably makes enemies that were once friends.

        In order to further the theme of Bond’s drama as a central point in the movie, Bond spirits M off to his own childhood home in order to stage a final showdown with Silva.  He even enlists the help of Q (Ben Winshaw) and M’s assistant Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) to subtly guide Silva to the place.  One would expect him to hide her in some random place that could not be guessed, but he asserts that he’ll have the advantage.  Of course, you’d think a person as obsessive and intelligent as Silva would have preemptively scouted this area, just as another Javier Bardem character would.  

        Despite the flaws, the movie’s plot is effectively character-driven.  It marks a transition in Bond’s life in which he has to choose loyalty to country over feelings and get over his past (he symbolically demolishes his home). While M is ultimately killed in the confrontation, Bond faces a new present, in which he has fully transformed into the Bond We Know and Love; the movie ends with Eve’s being revealed to be Moneypenny, and Mallory’s becoming the new M, complete with the traditionally styled office.  

         The one problem with the Bond We Know and Love, however, is that he’s not that compelling a character, and the Craig Continuity seemed to realize this because it kept hitting the reset button on his origin story.  This worked surprisingly well for the first three movies to the point where I think Skyfall works better as the finale of a good trilogy, but unfortunately they persisted into the clumsy retcon that was Spectre and the equally flawed No Time to Die, which killed Bond off as a tragic character.  The former, now that EON had regained rights over the word “spectre,” recast Quantum, as somehow being a front from SPECTRE while rationalizing Silva as a one of its operatives, albeit a strangely unreliable one.  It makes little sense for them to hire someone with sympathies to Bond when the organizations entire motivation, outside world domination, was to screw with our hero.  The feeling of the Craig movies was slightly frustrating because you were hoping for the fun-and-games Bond to finally come into play while secretly knowing it would not be that great.  Still, the Craig continuity is the most consistently well-executed of the franchise, and even the bad ones are at least watchable. 

          The movie features a mixed bag of fanservice.  Although it was very satisfying to find out that Eve was Moneypenny, the chaste romantic tension between the two characters, which always contrasted effectively with Bond’s promiscuity, was somewhat spoiled by one sexually tense scene between them.  Also, I did not find Ben Winshaw’s Q to be particularly enjoyable, even though he improves somewhat in the next movie.  When he issues Bond a small radio and an underpowered WW2-era pistol, he indulges in a bit of fan disservice by taking a subtle dig at the use of cool gadgetry in the previous films by having Q say that we don’t do silly things like exploding pens any more. 

 

 That’s strange considering that it is useful for spies to have devices disguised as common objects to the point where they did this stuff in real life.  And yet the movie features a rather forced example of fanservice in the form of the weaponized DB5.  The movie makes it unclear whether or not this is Bond’s private car or an MI6 company car dating back to the 60’s (M is aware of the ejector seat, for one thing).  The regressive fanservice continues in Bond’s being officially issued a PPK, a practical power upgrade in the books.  It has a faddish smartgun feature to boot.   

          One moment of cringe occurred when Eve explains how the experience in the intro put her off field work and Bond reintroduces lame puns to the franchise by saying “At least you gave it your best shot.”  One of the things I was really enjoying about the Craig movies up to this point was the refreshing lack of stupid humor.  Oh well, at least it wasn’t a sexual double entendre.  Still, the dialogue is generally very witty and keeps the movie enjoyable.  

          The movie also has a lot of good style points.  In addition to solid action, it also features great cinematography by the legendary Roger Deakins.  It’s strange how such a popular long-running franchise would never sweat such a thing; in fact, up until Skyfall, the most artfully shot Bond movie was actually the 1967 Casino Royale spoof.  As usual, the music is good, but Skyfall is special in that Adele's excellent intro theme not only broke the series’ curse of Oscar snubs, it also broke the Academy’s 30+ year stretch between deserving Best Song winners.

Books

REVIEWS: NOVELS

REVIEWS: COMICS

The Dark Knight Returns   10

REVIEWS: MISC.

Literally Me

Blade Runner 2049

2017

D: Denis Villeneuve

**********

Pros: Cinematography, Plot, Acting, Score

Cons: Plot interferes with first movie’s

NOTE: I recommend watching the first Blade Runner before reading to avoid potential spoilers. 

 

           When I heard about an upcoming sequel to Blade Runner, I was skeptical as it seemed to be a bad idea: a 30-year sequel to a respected piece of cinema that stood on its own merits.  Turning a great movie into a franchise is usually a cynical cash grab that threatens diminish the work’s appeal.  However, I became more optimistic upon learning of the people making it.  Denis Villeneuve had already secured a reputation as one of our best current directors, Hans Zimmer was doing the score (mostly modifications of Vangelis’ original), and legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins was also part of the project, for which he won his long-overdue Oscar.  Another good omen came with the casting of Ryan Gosling.  While he’s very effective at playing stoic and occasionally intense characters, his primary strength is his ability to pick good movies; it’s almost always a good sign when he’s involved.  It’s a bit sad that his demeanor’s relatability to introverts has turned into a meme.

        Gosling plays K, a Nexus-9 replicant Blade Runner operating in Los Angeles 30 years after the events of the first movie.  In the interim, a massive technology blackout has occurred, justifying the lack of records on the previous movie's plot while explaining the subsequent rise of the Tyrell Corp’s replacement: the eccentric megalomaniac Niander Wallace (Jared Leto), who has been described by Leto as a “Elon Musk if he wasn’t such an underachiever” in a statement about Musk I can’t decide is an insult or irony.  At first, I was put off by Leto’s strange performance, but I later accepted it.  

       The world of this sequel maintains the style of the first movie while updating it with more advanced technology and user interface.  Deakins works with production designer Dennis Gassner to make well-lit, trendy minimalist interiors that still do justice to the cyberpunk aesthetic while giving us the dark look of futuristic Los Angeles.  The scenery refreshingly consists of mostly practical effects, and the sound design also enhances the atmosphere. There are plenty of interesting ideas abound with the setting and at least one deceptively realistic one.  I was ready to praise the movie for its depiction of a field of white warehouses’ imitating the pattern of farmlands in a cyberpunk perversion of agriculture, but it turns out it’s a real place.

       The movie’s plot begins when K tracks down a renegade Nexus-8 replicant named Sapper Morton (Dave Bautista) and finds a suspicious box buried on the property.  The contents of the box are supposedly game-changing; the remains of a female replicant (Rachel from the first movie) who had somehow given birth.  K’s superior Lt. Joshi (Robin Wright) recognizes this as a risk to the current order and orders him to track down the loose ends (a possible missing child) to make sure that this does not inspire rebellion among the renegade replicants.  On the other hand, Wallace, whose company identified the specimen’s DNA, desires the ability to breed replicants as a stepping stone to a self-sustaining, but disposable, work force needed to spread his empire to the stars.  He orders his replicant enforcer Luv (Sylvia Hoeks) to recover the evidence.  

       Luv is one of my favorite parts of this movie.  She’s a great villain bolstered by Hoek’s performance.  At first, I thought that her occasional tear-shedding was an awkward attempt to add some unearned depth to a sardonic killing machine, but I later learned that that was a result of survival instinct; she’s afraid of her master, who shows no remorse toward killing his replicants for literally no reason.  It’s a possible intentional move to keep her on her toes.  

       As K searches for answers, he finds a number that reminds him of a traumatic core memory, one he’s always assumed was an implant.  He finds evidence the memory was real and consults Dr. Ana Stelline (Carla Juri), an immunocompromised scientist known for her quality memory implants.*  (It does not occur to him to have his other memories checked.)  When she informs him that this memory is one of her items taken from an actual person’s memory, K’s suspicions are cofirmed: he is not truly a replicant.  This upsets him.

       Throughout the movie, K’s private life is spent with a holographic AI girlfriend named Joi (Ana de Armas).  While there might be some ambiguity as to whether or not Joi is conscious, I would definitely prefer the negative answer as she is a very flat character, and also because K is a more effectively tragic hero if his one relationship is fake.  This is actually supported by the story; Joi is after all, designed to satisfy her owner, and most everything she does is at his convenience or to reinforce his personal thoughts.  When K “gifts” her with a portable projecter, she makes a predictable request to go out into the rain.  When K asks her if she is okay with severing her backup data to cover his tracks informing her that she would “die” if the portable is destroyed, she inanely replies, “just like a real girl.”  Contrast this with R2’s attempt to take control of Luke’s X-Wing so they wouldn’t have to go to Dagobah.  After her “death,” K looks upon a holographic ad for Joi and seems to realize his folly when the ad addresses him as “Joe,” a name that his Joi suggested when he found out about his apparent humanity (also an oversight in Wallace’s design), while emphasizing the purpose of the AI to say whatever one wants.  Of course, if K did not have this epiphany and he was simply looking at the advertisement as a way to pump himself up for revenge without a clue, it would be more tragic.  In sharp contrast, it’s a bit heartwarming when Deckard shouts the name at him during a suspenseful moment.

          K eventually follows the clues to find Deckard (Harrison Ford) hiding in a wasted Las Vegas.  Deckard is captured when they are found out by Luv and Co., and K is rescued by a cell of replicants led by Freysa (Hiam Abass), who informs him that he was not the child in question.  It is eventually revealed that the baby is actually Dr. Stelline.  The replicants’ goal seems pointless, but that may be the point.  While conceptually significant, the political significance of one replicant’s (a unique prototype) being able to (fatally) give birth to one child (with a major immune defect) is dubious; replicants are still effectively less fertile than mules.  What may be the most important thing is that K, amidst all these futile conflicts, risked his life in the end to unite a father with his child.

         Blade Runner 2049 is one of the most enjoyable movies in recent years.  Its plot is engaging enough to render a 2:40 runtime pleasant, and it’s a feast for the senses with good characters.  The supporting cast features strong, sometimes brief performances, from Mackenzie Davis, Barkhad Abdi, David Dastmalchian, Tomas Lemarquis, and Lennie James.  Sean Young assisted by lending her likeness while coaching body double Loren Peta, on whom a very convincing CGI face was composited.   

         As much as I want to credit this movie for its masterful execution, I really dislike the way in which it sullied the wonderfully mysterious and ambiguous ending of the first movie.**  I like how Rick and Rachel’s fate was left a mystery.  The only call-back we really needed was the sequel’s scene in which Gaff (Edward James Olmos) reflects on the mystery.  I can’t think of a single way in which this plot would not have worked if they had simply made it about two different characters.  Also, for some reason that might have something to do with my distaste for this aspect of the plot, Harrison Ford just doesn’t seem like Deckard in this movie.  It’s the one thing that truly brings this movie down.  Hell, I unironically prefer Soldier as a part of Blade Runner canon, despite its lack of comparable cinematic craft.  

        Another way in which Blade Runner 2049 fails to do justice is that it lacks the depth of the first movie.  The themes aren’t nearly as insightful, and it lacks subtlety (no wonder RedLetterMedia preferred it!); practically everything is outlined for the viewer, and it even indulges in twist reveal montages.  Overall, it’s a very well-made and enjoyable film, but it’s mostly above-average fanservice.    

       

 

  

  

* Stelline says most people think a quality memory is about detail, rather than emotions felt.  I find that to be a strange assumption considering how unreliable memories are known to be.  Whenever I check on a scene from a movie that frightened me as a young child, I noticed that the scene literally looks different, as if my mind has been modifying the memory to something I would be similarly frightened of today.

 

** I refer, of course, to the Director/Final Cut.