The problem with evolving an iconic film franchise is at a certain point it isn’t the same franchise anymore. James Bond has a list of tropes that audiences expect to see and have grown attached to. James Bond without martinis, Aston Martins or evil super villains is like Star Wars without lightsabers, Jedi or bad dialog.
Bond got rebooted in 2006’s Casino Royale and with each new iteration it has become harder to define what makes a Bond film, a Bond film. Casino Royale got away with lacking tropes by hinting at old conventions while sticking true to the formula, Quantum of Solace wasn’t well-liked by most audiences but still had series essentials like mad villains and lair showdowns.
The latest installment, Skyfall, is by far the biggest departure from the series’ identity which benefits in some ways but detracts in others. Skyfall isn’t so much an evolution of the formula as it is a simple switcheroo. The movie isn’t any better or worse than before, it’s just different.
The story of Skyfall brings Bond’s adequacy into question. During the prologue sequence he suffers an injury and goes off the map for several months. He returns to work after a bomb goes off at MI6 headquarters and the culprit remains a mystery. A lot of the story beats focus on Bond’s relationship with his boss, M, as well as his origin and how he became a spy.
It’s a good effort, but these two elements are specifically the worst parts of the movie. Skyfall tries throwing a few curveballs to catch the viewer off guard, but it doesn’t really work. For example: at the beginning of the movie, Bond is accidentally shot by his co-worker and presumed dead. Guess what guys: He doesn’t die. He never dies. We’ve watched sixty years worth of movies where he has never died, why would that change now?
That’s the fundamental problem with the movie. You cannot take a staple of action filmmaking and add depth through a few half-assed drama scenes. James Bond is about action set pieces, memorable villains, attractive women and cool gadgets. There’s no problem with evolving the franchise to be more sophisticated, but at least make an effort. The film seems to be at odds with what it wants to do.
Here’s an example: the movie sets up Bond as a bit inadequate due to his injury. He fails his shooting training tests and is placed in a situation where he has to shoot a glass off of a girl’s head. If he misses, he’ll kill her. Bond takes aim, but doubts his ability and shoots too high, missing. This results in the villain taking a shot and killing the girl.
This could be a poignant scene of how Bond’s inability makes him less qualified for the job. He’s putting himself and others in danger. But you know what happens immediately after this failed shooting competition? He effortlessly kills five guys in a row at various distances with pin-point accuracy. Doesn’t seem so inadequate now does he?
The movie mixes between drama-depth and action convenience, which makes both aspects seem pointless and poorly done. Every time they delve into Bond’s character you wonder why they didn’t go further. Every time a cheesy or poorly thought-out plan works out you notice how stupid the situation is. It’s the worst of both worlds. There isn’t a deep character study to sink your teeth into or a memorable action sequence to marvel at.
Most important of all the new elements is the villain, played by Javier Bardem (who most people know as Anton Chigurh from No Country for Old Men). Bardem’s character has a memorable opening and even creepier personality, but it’s an upsetting near-miss. If you’ve seen Avengers or The Dark Knight, it’s hard not to see his character as plagiaristic of other villains. He’s the type of character who is always two steps ahead because I guess that’s popular these days? Is the villain in a spot where he looks beaten? Jokes on you, he planned it the whole time. Audiences have seen this type of villain before and it’s not very exciting anymore.
In general, Skyfall isn’t a bad movie, it’s just very disingenuous. It amps up the drama and personal ties to create an appearance of being a deeper film than the usual Bond flick, but it’s not. The plot is just as absurd, the language is equally corny and there are plenty of Bond tropes that you both love and hate. What it’s missing is the iconic set pieces, memorable action sequences and general Bond “feel.”
Skyfall is probably a good movie for most people (critics have lauded Skyfall as the best Bond film), but I went into the movie expecting another installment of the Bond franchise and that is not what I got.