After a hugely successful reboot in 2006 with Casino Royale, it seemed we finally entered a new age of Bond movies that were more gritty and less campy than its predecessors. Starting with the radically different choice for lead role in Daniel Craig, many praised Casino Royale as one of the most iconic Bond movies we've seen in quite a while.
Then Quantum of Solace happened.
Or, more accurately, the Writer's Guild Strike of 2007-2008 happened. Faced with the pressure of not being able to employ actual writers to come up with large parts of the script, director Marc Forster and Daniel Craig spent many hours writing the movie themselves...they did the best they could, but the results are pretty apparent. It's not a terrible movie, but as Craig himself said, he's not a writer. Gone are most of the trademark quips and witty banter that mostly define the James Bond character, his personality replaced by a larger focus on a convoluted plot and action, action, and more action.
When Skyfall was announced in 2012 to celebrate 50 years of the Bond franchise, there was some cause for concern. Even ignoring the well-documented financial problems with MGM studios, countless delays, and a mostly unproven director, there were some doubts over whether it could surpass Quantum of Solace and right the ship by bringing back the Bond flair of Casino Royale.
In my opinion, I still can't decide which movie was better, Casino Royale or Skyfall. And that, in itself, is quite an achievement.
What Skyfall did right:
1) Making James Bond more like...James Bond.
One of the criticisms of Quantum was that Bond's personality was virtually nonexistent. To be fair, a lot of this had to do with the fact that he had just lost his love Vesper Lynd in the previous movie, and the events of Quantum pick up almost immediately after the ending of the first. Bond is consumed with rage and vengeance, so it's only natural for his usual suave, sophisticated, and humorous characteristics to take a bit of a hit. However, it still is a bit jarring to deal with a constantly dark, brooding, melancholy Bond that is so different from the other movies.
In Skyfall, the Bond we know and love returns with his snappy one-liners, somewhat cheesy puns, dry sense of humor, womanizing tendencies, and witty banter when interacting with other characters. These qualities are fully showcased in scenes he shares with the newly imagined Q and Moneypenny, the villain Silva (with the trademark facial disfigurement and classic, creepy, villainy lair), and of course M.
From nonchalantly adjusting his cuff links after literally tearing through a train, to trading verbal barbs with the inexperienced field agent who nearly killed him, to his dry, sarcastic remarks during the word association scene, and even his signature "Bond...James Bond" line when introducing himself to Severine, this is the classic Bond that had been missing since the first movie.
2) Making it a standalone movie.
It was somewhat necessary for Quantum to pick up immediately after the events of the first film, both to fully wrap up the story of Vesper and flesh out why she did what she did, as well as to deal with Bond's raw emotions over only being recently promoted to Double-0 status, squaring off against the villain Le Chiffre, falling in love with Vesper, and then tragically losing her.
But an unfortunate side result was that this made for a pretty needlessly convoluted plot involving Dominic Greene, politics, and a rather heavy-handed message about the environment. Making Skyfall separate from that ongoing storyline is a welcome change, allowing the film to stand on its own legs and have a naturally progressing plot that doesn't feel contrived or artificial at all. It is just another chapter in the life of James Bond.
3) Making the plot more personal.
After Quantum's failed attempts at surpassing Casino Royale by going bigger and better, Skyfall goes in another direction: smaller, simpler, and more personal for both M and James Bond.
By having Bond put out of action for a considerable amount of time early on in the movie, he has to deal with questions over his own age and ability. At the same time, M is going through almost the exact same issue. The stolen hard drive and the apparent loss of her top agent casts doubts over M's ability as head of MI6, so much so that there are already plans in place to force her to retire.
This theme, running throughout the length of the movie, gives an extra motivation for both characters to succeed no matter what the cost.
Going hand in hand with making this movie more personal is the choice of villain. Instead of someone who has grand schemes of vaguely evil political goals, Raoul Silva (real name Tiago Rodrigues) is just an ex-agent hellbent on taking revenge on M. This makes for a much simpler, more effective villain which makes the story that much more personal.
M is rightfully given a much larger role in the movie as a result, which then brings her relationship with Bond to the forefront. This is another driving force in the movie, raising the stakes (both for the characters and the audience) for the powerful conclusion.
Speaking of the conclusion, this definitely caused a lot of criticism. Countless comparisons to Home Alone were brought up, and that's more than fair. However, I believe the decision to radically change gears and shift the plot to Bond's childhood estate was a well-executed and necessary move (I mean, the estate's name IS the name of the movie, for crying out loud).
Additionally by bringing the action to Skyfall, Director Sam Mendes made the story personal for Bond as well. We delve into that 'unresolved childhood trauma' that was hinted at in the word association scene in this movie and in Casino Royale as well. The glimpses we see of Bond's parents' graves serve to bring another facet to Bond's character. He seems more human, more relatable.
Just like M. By making M responsible for Silva's imprisonment, torture, and eventual disfigurement, he becomes a somewhat sympathetic villain. It makes M flawed but sympathetic as well (This actually causes a bit of conflict between the two when Silva points out that she lied to Bond about him passing the required fitness tests. Combined with Bond's disapproval of M's decision to 'Take the bloody shot!' in the opening action scene rather than trusting him to finish the job, the filmmakers could have gone down a very interesting path of Bond seriously doubting M's loyalty to him. However, with everything else going on in the movie, I can see why they didn't. Interesting idea, nonetheless).
This is why her later scenes are so effective and work so well. Her inspiring, passionate speech to the board of inquiry that included a bit of very fitting poetry by Tennyson. Her tragic death scene*** where she finally puts away her disapproval of Bond and emphatically states that she did right by him in her last words.
Some complain that the story is more about M than Bond, but I disagree. Bond is just as integral to the story as M is, and that dynamic is something that has rarely been attempted before in a Bond movie. Both characters are humanized. We see they have their faults and failings and issues, but they have well-thought-out motivations as well.
They're flawed. They're relatable. They're human. And that's Screenwriting 101.
4) The cinematography.
The popular YouTube parody "Honest Trailers" made a jab at Skyfall and its tendency towards 'absurdly long landscape shots.' Funny and true to an extent, but obviously exaggerated.
Now, obviously cinematography alone can’t change a bad movie into a good one, or vice versa. It isn’t even a major reason for why Skyfall works. But I view it as a cherry on top, an added detail which shows that the filmmakers went the extra mile in order to make this the best film possible.
The cinematography by Roger Deakins makes Skyfall one of the most visually appealing movies in recent memory. The much-despised shaky cam is kept to a minimum, the action shots are clear and concise, and many scenes were digitally remastered into IMAX.
Deakins' underrated skills are on full display throughout the movie. The faded and dusty opening action scene in Istanbul. The neon-bathed, almost glowing atmosphere in Shanghai. The gorgeous silhouetted fight scene in the Shanghai skyscraper. The yellow-drenched casino in Macau with fireworks going off in the distance. The eye-popping blend of colors in the climactic Skyfall battle: freezing temperatures set against a raging fire, with the fiery glow reflected by the dense fog.
The beautiful aesthetics featured in Skyfall have many hoping, me included, that Deakins will return for the next Bond movie.
5) Respecting the past.
As I mentioned earlier, Skyfall was released last year as part of a celebration of exactly 50 years of Bond films, starting with Dr. No in 1962. The thing that Sam Mendes did so well was balancing the obvious modern and technological aspects of Bond while at the same time, paying homage to the past.
This was accomplished in many ways. A big part of this was bringing the character of Bond back to how he was portrayed in the Connery and Moore eras, as I covered in my first example of what Skyfall did right.
A large focus of this movie was on change vs. being traditional. Old fashioned, for lack of a better word. Introducing fan favorite characters from past Bond movies such as Q and Moneypenny went a long way towards accomplishing this theme without feeling forced.
Little scenes involving Bond and Moneypenny with the old-school razor, or the curious dynamic between the much-younger upstart Q and the very experienced Bond. Of course, one of the best examples was the scene involving the classic Aston Martin DB5 and Bond threatening to eject M.
By finding a perfect balance between the old and the new in Skyfall, I can think of no better way to have properly celebrated the 50th anniversary of James Bond on film.
Skyfall isn't without its flaws (few movies are), but it is a welcome return to the high standard set by Casino Royale. I've gone back and forth on this many times, and I still can't definitively say which movie I enjoyed more. I'm more than satisfied to have this nice little 'problem,' but perhaps this isn't even a debate for you. Love this movie? Hate it? Sound off in the comments below!
***Note: About M's death scene - I've heard several complaints that Bond didn't even accomplish his mission since M died despite his best efforts. Here's the thing: Bond killed Silva. He ended the threat. From a pure storyline point of view, M was going to be forced into an undignified retirement anyway, even if she had survived. There was no way she could remain at her post after Silva bombed MI6, broke out of his prison cell, and then attacked and killed several people at the board of inquiry meeting.
In real life, actress Judi Dench is coping with vision problems. She resorts to having others read the script to her in order to memorize her lines. Her days of starring in any movie, let alone Bond films, are almost over, so the only other alternative would be recasting the role, which is near unthinkable (that's the reason she was chosen to be M again in the Daniel Craig Bond films as well, despite the fact that technically this M is different from the character she played in the Pierce Brosnan films. She's perfect in that role, recasting her would've almost been blasphemy!). So no, M's ultimate fate was the kindest and most appropriate one we could have hoped for.