Showing posts with label Daniel Craig. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Daniel Craig. Show all posts

Thursday, 1 November 2012

Skyfall (Sam Mendes, 2012)

"Take the bloody shot!"
 
Introduction
The possibility of Skyfall achieving acknowledgement at the Academy Awards is not without merit. An outstanding cast, Oscar-nominated composers and cinematographers with, for the first time ever, an Oscar-winning director, clearly establishes Skyfall as a film which has broken the rules regarding James Bond filmmaking. Despite this, Skyfall additionally manages to respect the series with the usual tropes of 007 by seamlessly advertising tourist hot-spots including Shanghai, Istanbul and – in the year of the 2012 Olympics – London. It includes exceptionally attractive ‘Bond Girls’ including Naomie Harris and Bérénice Marlohe, but it is Judi Dench’s ‘M’ who is the central female character. We witness the re-arrival of Q (Ben Whishaw), offering a clear attempt at re-aligning all the facets which make James Bond so engaging. This film took "the bloody shot" and is a game-changer – and makes no attempt at hiding its influences.

 
“Storm’s Coming” 
 
It is interesting that, in a year whereby Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises advertised the term ‘a storm is coming’ as Bruce Wayne harked back to his roots, the James Bond film delves deeper than any other James Bond film since On Her Majesty’s Secret Service in exploring where 007 emerged from – and additionally uses the line “storm’s coming” to precede the final act. The film begins as 007 is shot during a mission in Turkey attempting to retrieve a list of undercover-agents, which has managed to get into the wrong hands. The plot is similar to the McGuffin in Mission: Impossible and the infamous ‘Noc’ list. Unlike DePalma’s thriller, Skyfall continues initially under the assumption that Bond is dead – whilst M is held accountable for the loss of the agent and the missing list. Suffice to say, due to a terrorist-attack on MI5, 007 returns to England. But he is a broken-man and has to re-establish himself as the skilled-spy that he truly is.

Producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli have tried to change the Bond series for decades. Licence to Kill changed the formulae as Felix Leiter became a victim to Robert Davi’s ‘Sanchez’ (and his sharks), whilst Bond in true Dirty Harry form, “went rogue” to avenge his best friend’s death. Goldeneye became self-aware as the villain was alternate-agent 006 (Sean Bean), mocking the characteristics of Bond which we love. The World is not Enough saw ‘M’ become a victim as Sophie Marceau’s ‘Elektra King’ double-crossed the whole of MI5 and even Die Another Day pre-dated Daniel Craig as Brosnan’s Bond was tortured by scorpions during the opening sequence. Until Casino Royale all these attempts simply failed under the pressures of the expectations of the Bond series – so Die Another Day jarringly blended the torture at the start with a diamond-laser finale.

In 2006, Martin Campbell and Daniel Craig proved that James Bond can be so much more - and in Skyfall, all these elements come together to create a 007 adventure that truly represents James Bond in the modern era. No more token-gestures at change – Skyfall truly, and literally, destroys the “House that Broccoli-and-Saltzman built", in favour of a series built on firmer foundations. Scott Mendelson writes how these elements are what weaken Skyfall, stating the we are "drudging along recycled territory" whilst the filmmakers themselves offer only mere "periodic pandering" to fans of the series. I would disagree - after 23 films, this is what we have all wanted. It is simply a shame that they have tried (and failed) so regularly since Brosnan was cast to change the formulae without losing what we all love about the series.
 
Influences Further Afield
What separates Skyfall further from the franchise is the incredible direction of Mendes behind the camera. Rather than merely turning to action-films to inspire him, Mendes turns to films as diverse as Apocalypse Now, The Usual Suspects and Chris Nolan’s The Dark Knight to create mood and depict scenes. Marc Forster failed to evoke the action depicted in The Bourne Trilogy in Quantum of Solace, but it seems that Mendes knew that this direction was the wrong tone for James Bond. Whilst Jason Bourne was rough, off-the-radar and uncontrollable – James Bond can be clean cut, exemplifies extreme class and style and his attitude borders on blatant arrogance. His snarky quips representing his personal, supreme confidence in his skill. Jason Bourne would be unlikely to discuss his sexual-experiences with an enemy when tied to a chair – as James Bond does with the brilliant villain Silva (Javiar Bardem). It is this use of character that not-only separates James Bond from the Jack Bauers and Ethan Hunts of the world, but it also separates Skyfall from all of its predecessors.
Indeed, supporting cast members Judi Dench and Naomie Harris manage to provide a scope to the film that the lone-wolf in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace lacked. Harris’ ‘Eve’ is much more than a token ‘Bond-girl’, whilst M manages to garner more screen-time than any other actor other than Bond himself. The fact that Oscar-winner Judi Dench holds the role assures you of the quality of her depiction of ‘M’ in her seventh-outing as 007’s superior. In this film particularly, her role is one to be commended and celebrated. Indeed, she is as conflicted about the morality of her role in MI5, leading men into battle, as James Bond is about his espionage work on the front-line. Therefore, it is simply poetic that Silva is a character (not unlike Alec Trevelyan in GoldenEye and Scaramanga in TheMan with the Golden Gun) who is physically and mentally 007’s reflected-rival, adding a further dimension to the Mother-Child relationship between Bond and M.
 
The Destruction of the Past
As a fan of the series, the final-act is what is noticeably different to previous outings. Even Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace had an almost-cliché finale as huge, exotic locations – Venice and the Atacama Desert in Chile respectively – set the scene for an explosive ending that would-not be out of place in any other Connery or Moore adventure. Skyfall sets the scene in the highlands of Scotland. The misty moors and dusty chandeliers are hardly the expensive ‘quality’ we are used to seeing in the series. But it is Roger Deakins that turns the location into a ghost-town that accurately represents the story which Purvis, Wade and Logan are telling. Again, this is not your usual James Bond film and the end of this film is like no-other. Sam Mendes has peeled back the layers of the character to reveal his history and his past – something that many may see as sacrilege. But Deakins cinematography is simply glorious; capturing the mood and emotion attached to the moment. After Vesper (Eva Green) ‘stripped away his armour’ in Casino Royale - only for him to bury it deep within his soul after her betrayal; Skyfall destroys every other human characteristic James Bond had, and the final act represents how much has been taken away to make 007 a lethal man with a licence to kill.
Fans of the series will leave the film with a similar crooked smile on their face. We will think to ourselves “Now he is James Bond!” the same thing we thought when the sniper-rifle hit Mr White at the end of Casino Royale. In that respect, a niggle of frustration may creep through as it has almost been three films now of ‘understanding’ James Bond. Can’t we simply have a James Bond adventure? Can’t we see a story contained unto a single film without a self-referential collective ‘aah’ when he says the same “You must be joking” line we have heard too many times in the series? Maybe. In fairness, this is what Quantum of Solace should’ve been. This is what the 20th film, Die Another Day, dreamt it could’ve been. But it is 50 years since Dr No, and this film is a way that truly celebrates that success. No other franchise has such longevity and, therefore, captures 50 years of stylistic changes and cultural shifts over the period of its release. This film will remain a special film for many reasons – the use of James Bond’s home town, London; the political and personal relevance to the nature of terrorism in the 21st century; the dramatic finale. It is only fitting that the film ends where it all began, almost daring younger and new-fans of the series to pick up the box set and go back to the start. Because behind all the Oscar-nominees and Oscar-winners; behind the cast and crew; behind the two producers who have managed to maintain the series since GoldenEye are fans of the series – like we are. And we only want what is best for Bond – and this could be the very best of the entire series.
Large Association of Movie Blogs

Sunday, 11 December 2011

Quantum of Problems

Garth Franklin wrote a few days ago, for Dark Horizons, on the problems with Quantum of Solace:
"Asked about scripts being an after-thought on huge productions, Craig responded "Yes and you swear that you’ll never get involved with shit like that, and it happens. On “Quantum”, we were fu**ed. We had the bare bones of a script and then there was a writers’ strike and there was nothing we could do. We couldn’t employ a writer to finish it. I say to myself, “Never again”, but who knows? There was me trying to rewrite scenes – and a writer I am not.’"

I have watched Quantum of Solace a few times and my analysis of the film is already written up - in detail.

Suffice to say, I have never been too frustrated with the script. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the difficulties the film had and I completely understand the frustrations Daniel Craig and Marc Forster may have had with writing the script on set. But it wasn't the script that was the primary problem - it was the editing. It felt like it was spliced together with no knowledge of what was on the screen. In fact, only after a few watches do I understand what is going on. I knew something was "off" during the opening car chase ... and when it says "[car chase]" in the script, then it is clear that aspect of the script which was not going to change in the slightest. The buck stops firmly and squarely on Forsters head - and no amount of "writers-strike" talk will change that. 

Large Association of Movie Blogs

Saturday, 29 October 2011

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn (Steven Spielberg, 2011)

"We can't go back, not now!... Not now."

Introduction

I have wrote many posts on Tintin. I have listened to the semi-positive press about the film - and some of the negative press. Critics comparing this film with E.T. and how "that film had emotional depth" without even considering how this is an adaptation of someone's work and not Spielberg's story - as E.T. was. More importantly, I believe Spielberg and Peter Jackson have been attempting to build up the publicity by going on the press junket's alongside Jamie Bell and Andy Serkis - detailing how Spielberg could only release this film using this medium of mo-cap tehcnology whilst Peter Jackson creates humour to highlight his own passion for the quiffed-character: "we wouldn't change his trousers...". My own attitude has remained supportive - only the nay-sayers worried me, but deep-down I knew that when a film bombs, it royally bombs. I vividly recall hoping Quantum of Solace to be amazing and then seeing the barrage of abuse the film got in the press ... could it really be that bad? Indeed it was. The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn got no such negativity - the odd few Tintinologists claiming it just "wasn't the same" as the comics, whilst cynical critics would argue that "though my nine-year-old self would enjoy it, the cynic 30-year old wanted more...".

How did it truly stack up ....

Sunday, 12 June 2011

Quantum of Solace (Marc Forster, 2008)

"This man and I have some unfinished business."

Introduction

This is a little unconventional, I appreciate that, but I think it will be a case of fillng in the blanks over the years. I have recently watched all the James Bond films and, with Quantum of Solace, I have now finished. I have written a post on Dr No - which you should really check out.

After Casino Royale, I was so excited about the film until the bad reviews arrived and then I heard the scathing attack from Mark Kermode. Before I sat down, the initial reaction was exceptionally negative and I do recall reviews even giving the film 1*. To say this upset me is putting it mildly because, for better or worse, the film does have problems and there is no point in pretending this isn't true.

The Continuation of Casino Royale

I always found it difficult to stomach the 'love' James Bond had for Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale - at least the film had amazing action sequences and incredibly tense poker matches. In Quantum of Solace this weak aspect to the story (M constantly reminding Bond about the tragedy - "It'd be a pretty cold bastard who didn't want revenge for the death of someone he loved") whereby Vesper's betrayal and 'importance' ultimately rings untrue. If it wasn't Bond's motivation, then it would be a better film - and, for better or worse, did it even have to be a motivation at all? For Gods sake - it's his job! Another problem with Quantum of Solace is the repetition of Bond 'going rogue' (another facet which provides much comedy on The Hollywood Saloon podcast) - he does this in Casino Royale, Licence to Kill and Die Another Day - 4 out of 7 films, Bond rebels against M and MI-6 and, suprisingly, is accepted back. I swear, if Bond goes rogue again, M should have him killed.

I remember when Casino Royale was released, James Bond fans were concerned that with a  reboot of the franchise, it would lead to remakes of the original James Bond films. Luckily, this does not happen - though in a similar way to From Russia with Love, whereby SPECTRE is introduced, Quantum of Solace provides a new 'group' that is undetected on MI6's radar: QUANTUM.
 
Bond Girl
 
One of the stronger aspects to Quantum of Solace is the casting of Olga Kurylenko as the girl-who-wants-revenge. Borrowing a theme we have seen before - The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only - she is much stronger than many characters. So strong, in fact, she does not even sleep with 007. Now that is strong - who can resist his charm. Funnily enough, having read a few books on the franchise, we have already seen this before. Timothy Dalton's James Bond was much more serious and, in The Living Daylights, he only manages to have sex with one girl - at the end. At the time, Bond fans found this a little strange - but now we can see that, as I have mentioned before, Dalton was ahead of his time. In fact, the one girl he has sex with in Quantum of Solace died in a similar manner to Jill Masterson (Shirley Eaton) in Goldfinger - rather than covered in gold, Gemma Arterton's 'Strawberry Fields' is covered in oil and found later by MI-6. This begs the question that, upon reading the script, it was clear that Bond did not seem to get the ladies and so this sexual activity was squeezed in to ensure Bond did not remain celibate for one film.
 
One thing I laughed alot at was a use of the script mentioned on 'The Hollywood Saloon' podcast, whereby Olga's 'Camille' seems to appear multiple times, in a car, and state "Get in.". I recall listening to the podcast and hearing her say this time and time again - but upon watching the film, it is clear that this is a little 'feature' of Camille - she turns up int he car the first time "Get in.", Bond says some witty remark and she simply repeats her instruction "Get in". This happens twice - the second time to remind us of that special first meeting. So, though incredibly funny when hearing it used on The Hollywood Saloon, it is not as alien and out of place Andy and Jon imply. But Camille remains strong - with a motive that is never undermined by 007.

Flawed

With these flaws, we beg the question why. Is it the script? No. I don't think Purvis, Wade and Haggis did a bad job - I'm sure it could be improved, but the story itself works. Though it wasn't neccessary, I see the purpose in continuing the story from Casino Royale. This leads to the actors who, again, were brilliant. As I mentioned Kurylenko was great whilst Mathieu Amalric as Dominic Greene was suitably sinister, with a realistic edge. Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Giancarlo Giannini and Jeffrey Wright, reprising their roles from Casino Royale, were suitably strong and, especially Leiter, I love his cynical edge. Wright gives the impression that he knows he is on the strong 'super-power' side - and that he will probably 'win' if he wanted to - but he is held back by superiors who can't do their job. This cynicism complements Judi Dench's M, who we trust and believe in as 007's superior.

Behind the scenes though, we are missing some people. Marc Forster chooses a different production designer - Peter Lamont who has been involved with the franchise since Goldfinger, leading the production department since For Your Eyes Only is replaced by Dennis Gassner. Matt Chesse and Richard Pearson are on editing duties (Pearson having worked on The Bourne Supremacy with editing duties shared with Christopher Rouse), new to the franchise, whilst the second-unit director had been changed again (Alexander Witt on Casino Royale, Vic Armstrong the three films prior) to Dan Bradley, the second unit director on The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum. It was clear now, if there was any doubt with Casino Royale, that the Bourne Franchise was the style 007 was aiming for... but it simply doesn't deliver.

I think the buck stops with Forster. His choice to have multiple sequences edited together in a way that confuses and cuts too fast is constantly a source of frustration. The opening sequence as cars chase Bond, rather than dwell on the vast space and skill of the stunt drivers, seems to cut every 2-seconds to another image from a different angle. Further to this, we have Mr White's escape juxtaposed with a horse-race for no clear reason. One sequence, that starts off effectively, suddenly drops in quality when Forster tries to make it more grandoise. Bond realises who QUANTUM are, as they all try and leave the opera they are in attendance for and, following a nervous face-off against Greene, Bond is chased out and we see an incredible gun fight. I say 'see an gun fight' because you don't hear a thing. Now we have the Opera music over the action sequence, rather than the rat-a-tat-tat of guns firing whilst we cut back and forth between the action and the opera. Thanks Forster - you mistake me for someone who cares about Opera and Horse-Racing - I watch 007 for the action and the stunts.

Finale and Fitting in the Canon

I used to despise this film, but after a second watch, I simply think it is an exceptionally weak James Bond film. Forster tried something that completely didn't work and, now it is done, Broccoli and Wilson can learn from their mistakes and hire someone who can direct action ... like Sam Mendes (wait-a-sec ... Sam Mendes? As in the director of American Beauty and Revolutionary Road ... not exactly action...). The end of Casino Royale gave the impression that Bond was back - and we could watch the next film without the 'love' and just enjoy the action. What we got was constant references to his 'love' in the previous film and action sequences that are not memorable. The biggest concern is that nothing is memorable at all - Casino Royale had the free-running, the poker-match, the macchete-fight in the stairwell to remind us of great action. This balanced out the love side to things. Quantum of Solace has all that love-stuff - "I was sorry to hear about Vesper. I think she loved you." - but action sequences I canot vividly recall because how badly they were edited - nothing flowed. Can I remember a single stunt? Not really because it was so unclear. I remember the bit when Bond fell down and swung round - with foot attached to rope - killing 'Mitchell', but I just wish it was much clearer.
At the very least, by mentioning 'Quantum' at the end of the film shows that, in fact, there is much more to reveal. For example, we saw many, many members of QUANTUM at the Opera and, I would like to think, this is an opportunity for many missions in the future... lets just hope that with all the many extra months of prepatory time for Bond 23, they can right-the-wrongs of Quantum of Solace...
Large Association of Movie Blogs

Wednesday, 16 February 2011

A-Z #37: Casino Royale

You can pick up hundreds of DVD's for a round-pound each - it doesn't matter. Its never about quantity, its about quality. A-Z is my way of going through my collection, from A-Z, and understanding why I own the films ... or you can tell me why I should sell 'em


#37 - Casino Royale

Why did I buy it?

This is where this whole A-Z thing can get a bit problematic. I am a self-confessed huge 007 fan. When we reach boxsets, I can discuss in more depth where this love came from, but suffice to say, I bought Casino Royale day-of-release having watched it at the cinema in Reading.
Why do I still own it?

Funnily enough, it is actually a film that, in due course, will be sold - but only to be upgraded by that sweet Blu-Ray version. Fact is, currently this on DVD, on the shelf. It really is an incredible film and the free-running start set the bar incredibly high frm the get-go. Ironically, once everyone jumped on the Daniel Craig bandwagon, they all seemed to turn on Brosnan who, for what its worth, was the James Bond of the ninties - in the mould of action films such as Die Hard  and Speed. Daniel Craig is gritty and built in the mould of The Bourne Supremacy - which is not a bad thing.

A flawless film that deserves its place in everyone's collection. Unlike the follow-up Quantum of Solace ...

Maybe you disagree ... maybe I should get rid of it permanaently?

Remember - you can always email The Simon and Jo Film Show directly using this email: simonandjoshow@gmail.com
We are also on Twitter  and Facebook.

Large Association of Movie Blogs

Saturday, 3 April 2010

Simon and Jo Revealed: Attenborough, Phone Boxes and much more

This weeks podcast came that little bit early and, due to this, you will be forced to wait a little over a week until the next one!

But Jo and I managed to film some small videos on different aspects of cinema - stuff to keep you entertained on these cold and lonely Easter nights ...

Simon and Jo on Prince Charles Cinema...



Simon and Jo on Premieres in Leicester Square...


Simon and Jo on Phoneboxes ...



Simon and Jo on Richard Attenborough ...