*May contain spoilers*
The 'Friday the 13th' franchise is one of the most popular horror film series ever! The hockey mask has become an iconic symbol of the spooky villain, Jason Vorhees. Everyone has seen the image, and even if people aren't aware of its significance, they generally know the hockey mask. The first Friday was released in the era when horror films really started taking off as a genre of films. Don't get me wrong, some of the old horror films are fantastic, but in the 1970s and 1980s they became more widely popular. This 'slasher' film provides the typical combination of suspense, gore and sequels which only get worse.
The first instalment in the Friday the 13th series is, in my opinion, very good. When I first watched the film, I came into it with the idea that every film was haunted by this 'Jason' guy who has some reason to kill everyone who every has the misfortune to go to this one campsite. I was pleasantly surprised. The first film is, as many horror films are, stalked by an unknown killer who is killing the teenagers preparing Camp Crystal Lake for opening. When this is revealed to be some woman whose motivation is to avenge her son who drowned because the old camp workers were not paying attention to him it's quite a surprise. However, its a pleasant surprise. Dramatically more pleasant than the ending of the film, which you'll know what I mean if you've seen it, and if you haven't I'm not going to ruin it, and instead encourage you to watch it!
The second film sees the first appearance of the iconic villain. He stays around the camp featured in the first film, intending to stop anyone ever going there again. Naturally, people do turn up with the intention of reopening the campsite to the public once again. As you can imaging, murder, gore and suspense follow. When Jason's shrine to his mother is revealed, complete with the head that is removed in the previous film, I was revolted. This was a good revulsion though, because it was genuine, and very few horror films make me genuinely revolted. However, I didn't think that the second film was as good as the first. It was good, don't get me wrong, but the first one was better, and here begins the slippery slope that every horror film finds itself on.
The third installment was laughable. It was filmed in 3-D, and in today's age of 3-D films I much prefer to see a film in 2-D instead. 1982 3-D is ridiculous, though I'm sure was quite spectacular when it was first released. There is one scene where one of the unsuspecting teenagers is killed by Jason, who squeezes his eyeball out of his head before 'finishing him off'. When his eyeball pops out it is complete with an extension from the back of it which projects it forwards. However, despite this large obstacle, I did quite enjoy the third film.
The fourth film is entitled 'The Final Chapter' and for those of you bored of reading this, I'm sorry, but it's not the end of the franchise yet. Despite being 'killed' in the previous installments, Jason returns in this one and decides that the kids renting a house on Crystal Lake will be his next victims. He then moves on to the kids next door, one of whom kills him. At this point, given the title of the film and the seeming finality with which Jason was killed I found myself reflecting on a very good quadrilogy of films which, while not being amazing, have to be viewed in the time they were made, and are iconic. However, I already had ordered the next installment and found myself wondering how Jason could feasibly come back in the next one.
The fifth 'Friday' is the weirdest for me. I don't think I can talk about how bad the fifth film was without giving the twist away. However, I don't feel too bad about it, partly because I did warn you that there'd be spoilers, and partly because it's not that shocking anyway. By the time you get to the fifth film in a horror series I don't expect many people are watching for the intricate plot twists. The character of Jason doesn't actually appear in this film. The film follows the young boy who killed Jason in the previous film, Tommy, who is know grown up and living in a halfway house following his confinement to a mental institution. Tommy is continually stalked by dreams of the masked killer, and so when people around the halfway house start being gruesomely killed he gets a bit freaked out. The hockey mask appears in this film, but the man behind it is just a worker at the house who's son was murdered by one of the patients. As a result of this he decides to take on the persona of a serial killer one of his patients is haunted by, and kill everyone at the house, despite none of them actually murdering his son personally. This takes 'going too far' to a whole new level.
By the time the sixth film rolls around I was getting a bit sick of the franchise. Certainly there were many murders, and lots of blood, but there were just too many of them and as far as I could tell they were all pretty much the same. Tommy features in this film again, and starts off by visiting the grave of Jason, naturally resurrecting him in the process. This is the stupidest move ever. If you were haunted by someone who tried to kill you for a large period of your life, the last thing I'd do would be to go back to, and open up his grave. Jason goes back to Camp Crystal Lake, kills everyone there, and then Tommy appears to kill him. Blah blah blah, you get the idea.
This is exactly the same as what happens in the seventh film. Jason is resurrected, kills everyone at the camp and is returned to the bottom of the lake again. By this point I was completely bored of the films. Some people really like the sixth and seventh films, but I'm very ambivalent. I thought that the eighth film, 'Jason Takes Manhattan' might be better. I was wrong. While it was quite cool to see one of the most iconic villains in cinematic history wandering through New York, and actually hearing Jason speak for the first time, there were some utterly ridiculous elements in it. Apparently now Jason can teleport. This is quite impressive for a guy who has been killed and resurrected in nearly every film so far, and this film was definitely made to try and bleed as much money out of an immensely successful franchise.
The ninth film is the last Friday film in a way. It was intended to be the last one, and was meant to set up a fantastic climactic battle between the two greatest horror villains of cinematic history, Jason Vorhees and Freddy Krueger. We don't ever get told how Jason is resurrected in this film, and while being hunted by the FBI manages to pass his cliched black heart through one officer to the next. Jason manages to get his own body back but is then killed and a gloved hand with knives on the fingers drags him down to hell.
Jason X sees Jason resurrected again, and apparently the best way to stop him is to freeze him. Unsurprisingly Jason doesn't remain frozen for the length of the film and kills people 400 years later. In space. This was ridiculous.
A remake was released in 2009 with Jason witnessing his mother's death and then deciding to kill everyone at Crystal Lake again. I had high hopes for this film as it had the potential to be a refreshing take on the classic film. I wasn't expecting it to be better than the original, but I was expecting to enjoy it. It wasn't as bad as I was afraid, but it didn't grip me in the same way that the original, or the second one did.
As a franchise, there is no denying the success of the 'Friday' films, and the icon of Jason will live on as long as horror is popular. For many Halloweens to come there will be someone in a hockey mask and a machete. However, film by film the series goes downhill in my eyes. It starts out as very good, and then falls off to the point that sequels are being made for the sake of it. Definitely watch the first film. If you like that one a lot then watch the second. You should then watch the third and fourth, but unless you're a hardcore horror fan then do not go beyond that.
Friday 23 November 2012
Tuesday 20 November 2012
Braveheart - History is written by Hollywood
It was Winston Churchill who said that "History is written by the victors". In the case of Braveheart however, it seems that history is not written by the victors, but by Hollywood. I watched Braveheart for the first time last night, and while I can't deny that the film is absolutely fantastic, its grounding in historical accuracy must be questioned.
The first bit of the film was fantastic. It focuses on the young William Wallace, whose portrayed by James Robinson was absolutely brilliant. The actor was really convincing in the role and was not as transparent as some childhood actors. However, after leaving the village following the death of his father and brother at the hands of the English, Wallace returns several years later. When he returns, the fantastic child actor has been replaced with Mel Gibson. Overall I thought Mel Gibson was particularly good in the role of Wallace, but the only thing that got me about it was his accent. Which in a film about people from Scotland is quite important. Maybe his weak Scottish accent was a reflection on the fact that his character had been educated but Mel Gibson's accent was not great. But then again, fair play to him for maintaining the accent throughout the film, and indeed for learning it in the first place.
I thought the developing romance between William and Murron was lovely, and they seemed like a very happy couple until the English come to town and try to rape her. Wallace's defense of his wife is brilliantly portrayed by Gibson, and when he goes to meet her only to find she's not there, the audience, seeing her about to be tied to a stake, is genuinely pained to see him in the wrong place. What happens next is really quite refreshing. Unlike many films, the girl is in imminent danger of being killed by someone and the hero of the film does not ride in at the last minute, cut her free, kill everyone and ride off into the sunset (or rain, depending on whereabouts in Scotland you are). When she dies, we are given Wallace's motivation to take Scotland for the Scottish.
For dramatic effect, which I completely understand, the details of Murron's (or Marion as she is historically known) death have been embellished. The reaction from Wallace shows me, a third year psychology student at university, that he may be slightly unhinged. Obviously, following the murder of your wife, you would be pretty cut up, but he gathers a small 'army' and murders the sheriff of the town. There are various points in the film when I think Wallace goes too far, and this is just the start.
However, this simple act of revenge starts a whole campaign of 'freedom' for Wallace as he gathers more and more Scots to fight against the English. The Battle of Stirling is brilliantly portrayed in the film. During filming for this scene, the horse that Mel Gibson was riding was behaving so badly that the scene was only just put together. However, it is this scene that contains the most famous quote from the film. While the majority of the army gathered is dissenting about fighting the much larger English army, Wallace gives the empassioned speech which spurs his countrymen on to do battle. The cry of "they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom" sent a shiver down my spine, as only the best actors and scriptwriters can do.
However, the Battle of Stirling Bridge, which this scene is based on, panned out very differently. It is historically believed that Wallace must have had some sort of military experience or understanding in order to defeat the English army, but the film makes you believe that it is the passion for the cause and the pure desire of the army that does this. This is probably the case, and I can overlook this little historical discrepancy, but there is a much larger one to be noticed. The Battle of Stirling Bridge focused on, as the name suggests, a bridge. The Scots trapped the English army on the bridge at Stirling and massacred them as they were cut off from the rest of their troops. The film however, presents it as a man-to-man battle in an open field, with pure passion winning over military tactics.
While some historical detail must be lost for dramatic effect, I think it's a shame that people aren't more aware of cases in which historical details have been lost. With the greatest respect, the Wars of the Scottish Independence aren't particularly widely taught in schools around the UK, let alone around the world, and so many people's knowledge of this period of history is based mainly around this film.
It is at this point that the King, Edward the Longshanks (who was a bit nasty by all accounts) decides that negotiation might be a good idea. He reasons that he himself cannot go to negotiate because he is the King, and would be in danger. He also reasons that sending his 'weakling' son would only spur the Scots on to fight more, and so he sends his daughter-in-law, the daughter of the French king, hoping she'd be killed and the French would join in the battle against the Scots. In that day and age a woman would never have been entrusted to negotiate with men about the conclusion of a rebellion, regardless of whether or not the King wanted to drum up French support. It is far more likely that the King would have sent either the French ambassador or a member of his court with French connections. Naturally, Isabella falls hopelessly in love with the long haired, bloodstained, unwashed Wallace (for some reason) and proceeds to warn him about Longshanks' impending attack.
This leads to another big battle, in which Wallace and his army is joined by the army's of two of the main claims to the Scottish throne. However, these Scottish nobles have been paid off by the King, promised lands and money, if they withdraw their armies, leaving Wallace isolated, and many of his army are killed. The Battle of Falkirk saw Wallace endure heavy casualties but in the end withdraw to a point at which the English could not follow. However, in the film, Wallace is shot with an arrow before pursuing the King as he rides away with his guard. Wallace is then confronted by Robert the Bruce, another key figure in the Scottish battles for independence. The implication of the film is that Robert the Bruce betrayed Wallace. However, historically this never happened. This was quite a big problem for me, because by this point I had become so wrapped up in the film that I was feeling quite disdainful towards Robert the Bruce for the rest of the film. The Bruce, riddled by guilt presumably, helps Wallace escape. Wallace then viciously kills the two noblemen who betrayed him and continues his fight against the English on a lower scale.
He is then captured as he goes to meet with Robert the Bruce, who intends to pledge troops to him. It is Robert's father who engineers this betrayal and leads to Wallace being tried and found guilty for high treason. He is sentenced to death. Wallace's death is refreshingly accurate to the history for the most part. He is dragged through London town before being hanged, and has his insides drawn out. Obviously the nitty-gritty of medieval execution could not be shown on the silver screen in 1995, but I thought the director (again, Mel Gibson) did a good job of portraying this. However, when asked if he wanted to swear allegiance to the King and be forgiven, Wallace through the pain yells "Freedom" and is beheaded. I don't know about you, but if I had been hanged until near death, then stretched, and finally had my bowels cut out and burned in front of my face, I wouldn't be able to speak, let alone shout.
The film then cuts to the Battle of Bannockburn, several years later, where Robert the Bruce is about to accept the English rule. Instead he leads the army, with the memory of Wallace fresh in their minds, in a charge towards the English. It was this battle that won the Scottish people the "Freedom" that Wallace so desired, and so I think it would have been a good idea to show some of it. However, by this point the film had been running for nearly three hours and did revolve around Wallace rather than the Scottish wars.
Overall, I loved Braveheart. The acting was fantastic, the soundtrack was fantastic, and the story was fantastic. I can bear a few historical inaccuracies for the benefit of a good film, and granted they are not major inaccuracies, but if a film is to be a historical epic then it should be as close to historical as possible. Nonetheless, I would recommend Braveheart to everyone.
The first bit of the film was fantastic. It focuses on the young William Wallace, whose portrayed by James Robinson was absolutely brilliant. The actor was really convincing in the role and was not as transparent as some childhood actors. However, after leaving the village following the death of his father and brother at the hands of the English, Wallace returns several years later. When he returns, the fantastic child actor has been replaced with Mel Gibson. Overall I thought Mel Gibson was particularly good in the role of Wallace, but the only thing that got me about it was his accent. Which in a film about people from Scotland is quite important. Maybe his weak Scottish accent was a reflection on the fact that his character had been educated but Mel Gibson's accent was not great. But then again, fair play to him for maintaining the accent throughout the film, and indeed for learning it in the first place.
I thought the developing romance between William and Murron was lovely, and they seemed like a very happy couple until the English come to town and try to rape her. Wallace's defense of his wife is brilliantly portrayed by Gibson, and when he goes to meet her only to find she's not there, the audience, seeing her about to be tied to a stake, is genuinely pained to see him in the wrong place. What happens next is really quite refreshing. Unlike many films, the girl is in imminent danger of being killed by someone and the hero of the film does not ride in at the last minute, cut her free, kill everyone and ride off into the sunset (or rain, depending on whereabouts in Scotland you are). When she dies, we are given Wallace's motivation to take Scotland for the Scottish.
For dramatic effect, which I completely understand, the details of Murron's (or Marion as she is historically known) death have been embellished. The reaction from Wallace shows me, a third year psychology student at university, that he may be slightly unhinged. Obviously, following the murder of your wife, you would be pretty cut up, but he gathers a small 'army' and murders the sheriff of the town. There are various points in the film when I think Wallace goes too far, and this is just the start.
However, this simple act of revenge starts a whole campaign of 'freedom' for Wallace as he gathers more and more Scots to fight against the English. The Battle of Stirling is brilliantly portrayed in the film. During filming for this scene, the horse that Mel Gibson was riding was behaving so badly that the scene was only just put together. However, it is this scene that contains the most famous quote from the film. While the majority of the army gathered is dissenting about fighting the much larger English army, Wallace gives the empassioned speech which spurs his countrymen on to do battle. The cry of "they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom" sent a shiver down my spine, as only the best actors and scriptwriters can do.
However, the Battle of Stirling Bridge, which this scene is based on, panned out very differently. It is historically believed that Wallace must have had some sort of military experience or understanding in order to defeat the English army, but the film makes you believe that it is the passion for the cause and the pure desire of the army that does this. This is probably the case, and I can overlook this little historical discrepancy, but there is a much larger one to be noticed. The Battle of Stirling Bridge focused on, as the name suggests, a bridge. The Scots trapped the English army on the bridge at Stirling and massacred them as they were cut off from the rest of their troops. The film however, presents it as a man-to-man battle in an open field, with pure passion winning over military tactics.
While some historical detail must be lost for dramatic effect, I think it's a shame that people aren't more aware of cases in which historical details have been lost. With the greatest respect, the Wars of the Scottish Independence aren't particularly widely taught in schools around the UK, let alone around the world, and so many people's knowledge of this period of history is based mainly around this film.
It is at this point that the King, Edward the Longshanks (who was a bit nasty by all accounts) decides that negotiation might be a good idea. He reasons that he himself cannot go to negotiate because he is the King, and would be in danger. He also reasons that sending his 'weakling' son would only spur the Scots on to fight more, and so he sends his daughter-in-law, the daughter of the French king, hoping she'd be killed and the French would join in the battle against the Scots. In that day and age a woman would never have been entrusted to negotiate with men about the conclusion of a rebellion, regardless of whether or not the King wanted to drum up French support. It is far more likely that the King would have sent either the French ambassador or a member of his court with French connections. Naturally, Isabella falls hopelessly in love with the long haired, bloodstained, unwashed Wallace (for some reason) and proceeds to warn him about Longshanks' impending attack.
This leads to another big battle, in which Wallace and his army is joined by the army's of two of the main claims to the Scottish throne. However, these Scottish nobles have been paid off by the King, promised lands and money, if they withdraw their armies, leaving Wallace isolated, and many of his army are killed. The Battle of Falkirk saw Wallace endure heavy casualties but in the end withdraw to a point at which the English could not follow. However, in the film, Wallace is shot with an arrow before pursuing the King as he rides away with his guard. Wallace is then confronted by Robert the Bruce, another key figure in the Scottish battles for independence. The implication of the film is that Robert the Bruce betrayed Wallace. However, historically this never happened. This was quite a big problem for me, because by this point I had become so wrapped up in the film that I was feeling quite disdainful towards Robert the Bruce for the rest of the film. The Bruce, riddled by guilt presumably, helps Wallace escape. Wallace then viciously kills the two noblemen who betrayed him and continues his fight against the English on a lower scale.
He is then captured as he goes to meet with Robert the Bruce, who intends to pledge troops to him. It is Robert's father who engineers this betrayal and leads to Wallace being tried and found guilty for high treason. He is sentenced to death. Wallace's death is refreshingly accurate to the history for the most part. He is dragged through London town before being hanged, and has his insides drawn out. Obviously the nitty-gritty of medieval execution could not be shown on the silver screen in 1995, but I thought the director (again, Mel Gibson) did a good job of portraying this. However, when asked if he wanted to swear allegiance to the King and be forgiven, Wallace through the pain yells "Freedom" and is beheaded. I don't know about you, but if I had been hanged until near death, then stretched, and finally had my bowels cut out and burned in front of my face, I wouldn't be able to speak, let alone shout.
The film then cuts to the Battle of Bannockburn, several years later, where Robert the Bruce is about to accept the English rule. Instead he leads the army, with the memory of Wallace fresh in their minds, in a charge towards the English. It was this battle that won the Scottish people the "Freedom" that Wallace so desired, and so I think it would have been a good idea to show some of it. However, by this point the film had been running for nearly three hours and did revolve around Wallace rather than the Scottish wars.
Overall, I loved Braveheart. The acting was fantastic, the soundtrack was fantastic, and the story was fantastic. I can bear a few historical inaccuracies for the benefit of a good film, and granted they are not major inaccuracies, but if a film is to be a historical epic then it should be as close to historical as possible. Nonetheless, I would recommend Braveheart to everyone.
Saturday 17 November 2012
Skyfall - a Bond film for the modern era
May contain spoilers!
I love James Bond. Can I be absolutely clear on that right at the start. I absolutely love the suave and sophisticated Sean Connery, the emotion in the last scene of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Roger Moore's one liners, Timothy Dalton's....well, the less said about that the better really. Pierce Brosnan was my childhood Bond, and Goldeneye was a refreshing change of Bond film. But from there it went downhill for me. The budgets of the films were too large and just spent on making things explode. Casino Royale was a fantastic change, just as Goldeneye, but Quantum of Solace was, in my opinion, truly appalling. I thought it was the worst Bond film of the lot and so my hopes were not especially high as I tried to find the right number of seats in a darkened cinema before Skyfall started.
By the looks of the trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kw1UVovByw) I was in for a treat, but still I was skeptical. The first scene however put all my misgivings to bed. For once, MI6 wasn't chasing the bad guys in a car which was the top model of the time. Granted the little yellow Citroen in 'For Your Eyes Only' wasn't exactly cutting edge, but it served a purpose. The car that Eve was driving at the beginning of Skyfall was evidently struggling to keep up with the action of Bond chasing the bad guy, Patrice, over the rooftops of Turkey. And so was I. Imagine my utter surprise when Eve misses the shot, hitting Bond who falls to his presumed death.
Here is the first flaw I found with the film. I might have missed something, but Bond was shot and fell from a considerable height, unconscious, into water. I have no idea how he survived. Obviously you can't kill off the main character in the opening scene, but unless Aragorn's horse, who must have qualities similar to phoenix tears, came to the rescue, I fail to see how he could have survived. Never mind though.
The attack on MI6 also showed a change from previous Bond films. Before now, MI6 have been impenetrable in the Bond world, and to have them attacked by a villain was refreshing. Refreshing appears to be my favourite word in this post.
When Bond was sent to Shanghai I thought the film took a slight downturn. It may have been the comfortable seats, or the fact that I had a long day at uni before, but I found myself needing something to keep me awake before the Komodo Dragon put in an appearance. But by that point I was anticipating the arrival of Raoul Silva. I loved Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men, and similarly in Skyfall he did not disappoint with his fantastic acting, delightfully sinister character and improvisation with the role. I thought the sexual undertones of the conversation between him and Bond were fantastic. Also, the character history of Silva was compelling. A former agent who, instead of wanting to dominate the world either through women, the media or nuclear weapons, just wanted to get back at M.
When we first met Q I became convinced that Skyfall was a film made in 2012, rather than trying to rekindle the explosive action of 1999. Instead of being a gadget genius, Q was a programmer. In today's society the people who can do the most damage are those who can control computers, and this was a nice shift in the Bond ideology. I also appreciated the revelation that Silva's plan had been years in the making right down to the launching of a London Underground train at Bond through an explosion in the ceiling, which presumably had been set for a while.
The next lull in the film could not have been more exciting. Bond and M visiting Scotland to lure Silva out was not dull, but it merely set up the climax. The mention of Bond's lineage was also interesting, as no previous Bond film has ever mentioned his parentage. Another factor marking this film aside was that when Silva and his henchmen arrived and we saw them coming across the marshland towards the house I was genuinely worried about how Bond, assisted by two OAPs, would be able to survive. There was no massive fight between the archetypal good guy and bad guy, but the dominance of Silva in the initial battle was also quite refreshing. I thought it was interesting how, in my eyes, Bond only bettered him at the end of the film, and never took him on face-to-face. I must confess, I let out a little cry of despair when the Aston Martin from Goldfinger was destroyed. I loved that car.
M's death (I did warn you about the spoilers) was again a total break from previous Bond films. The last Bond film in which I was surprised about someone dying was On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Women come and go in Bond's life, but for the last few years, Judi Dench's character has been a constant presence. The emotion that Daniel Craig showed when she died was a rare show of any sensitivity from a character who was written by Ian Fleming as a ruthless assassin. In the modern era, who can help but shed a tear when the woman who has been a constant presence in your life, almost a mother to you, dies and there's nothing you could have done about it?
This brought it around nicely for the franchise to be set up where Dr No picks up, chronologically speaking. Ralph Fiennes is one of my favourite actors ever, and I think he'll make a fantastic M. Also, the addition of Eve (Moneypenny) as his secretary was brilliant.
So, all in all, I was rather blown away by Skyfall. It was a welcome break from stuff exploding, Bond taking on ten henchmen and not being scratched by the bullets flying around him. It dragged Bond from the bland, boring and forgettable elements of Quantum of Solace, right into the modern era, with its computers and all which that entails.
Other James Bond Reviews:
Sean Connery (http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/sean-connery-as-james-bond.html)
Roger Moore (http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/roger-moore-as-james-bond.html)
I love James Bond. Can I be absolutely clear on that right at the start. I absolutely love the suave and sophisticated Sean Connery, the emotion in the last scene of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Roger Moore's one liners, Timothy Dalton's....well, the less said about that the better really. Pierce Brosnan was my childhood Bond, and Goldeneye was a refreshing change of Bond film. But from there it went downhill for me. The budgets of the films were too large and just spent on making things explode. Casino Royale was a fantastic change, just as Goldeneye, but Quantum of Solace was, in my opinion, truly appalling. I thought it was the worst Bond film of the lot and so my hopes were not especially high as I tried to find the right number of seats in a darkened cinema before Skyfall started.
By the looks of the trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kw1UVovByw) I was in for a treat, but still I was skeptical. The first scene however put all my misgivings to bed. For once, MI6 wasn't chasing the bad guys in a car which was the top model of the time. Granted the little yellow Citroen in 'For Your Eyes Only' wasn't exactly cutting edge, but it served a purpose. The car that Eve was driving at the beginning of Skyfall was evidently struggling to keep up with the action of Bond chasing the bad guy, Patrice, over the rooftops of Turkey. And so was I. Imagine my utter surprise when Eve misses the shot, hitting Bond who falls to his presumed death.
Here is the first flaw I found with the film. I might have missed something, but Bond was shot and fell from a considerable height, unconscious, into water. I have no idea how he survived. Obviously you can't kill off the main character in the opening scene, but unless Aragorn's horse, who must have qualities similar to phoenix tears, came to the rescue, I fail to see how he could have survived. Never mind though.
The attack on MI6 also showed a change from previous Bond films. Before now, MI6 have been impenetrable in the Bond world, and to have them attacked by a villain was refreshing. Refreshing appears to be my favourite word in this post.
When Bond was sent to Shanghai I thought the film took a slight downturn. It may have been the comfortable seats, or the fact that I had a long day at uni before, but I found myself needing something to keep me awake before the Komodo Dragon put in an appearance. But by that point I was anticipating the arrival of Raoul Silva. I loved Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men, and similarly in Skyfall he did not disappoint with his fantastic acting, delightfully sinister character and improvisation with the role. I thought the sexual undertones of the conversation between him and Bond were fantastic. Also, the character history of Silva was compelling. A former agent who, instead of wanting to dominate the world either through women, the media or nuclear weapons, just wanted to get back at M.
When we first met Q I became convinced that Skyfall was a film made in 2012, rather than trying to rekindle the explosive action of 1999. Instead of being a gadget genius, Q was a programmer. In today's society the people who can do the most damage are those who can control computers, and this was a nice shift in the Bond ideology. I also appreciated the revelation that Silva's plan had been years in the making right down to the launching of a London Underground train at Bond through an explosion in the ceiling, which presumably had been set for a while.
The next lull in the film could not have been more exciting. Bond and M visiting Scotland to lure Silva out was not dull, but it merely set up the climax. The mention of Bond's lineage was also interesting, as no previous Bond film has ever mentioned his parentage. Another factor marking this film aside was that when Silva and his henchmen arrived and we saw them coming across the marshland towards the house I was genuinely worried about how Bond, assisted by two OAPs, would be able to survive. There was no massive fight between the archetypal good guy and bad guy, but the dominance of Silva in the initial battle was also quite refreshing. I thought it was interesting how, in my eyes, Bond only bettered him at the end of the film, and never took him on face-to-face. I must confess, I let out a little cry of despair when the Aston Martin from Goldfinger was destroyed. I loved that car.
M's death (I did warn you about the spoilers) was again a total break from previous Bond films. The last Bond film in which I was surprised about someone dying was On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Women come and go in Bond's life, but for the last few years, Judi Dench's character has been a constant presence. The emotion that Daniel Craig showed when she died was a rare show of any sensitivity from a character who was written by Ian Fleming as a ruthless assassin. In the modern era, who can help but shed a tear when the woman who has been a constant presence in your life, almost a mother to you, dies and there's nothing you could have done about it?
This brought it around nicely for the franchise to be set up where Dr No picks up, chronologically speaking. Ralph Fiennes is one of my favourite actors ever, and I think he'll make a fantastic M. Also, the addition of Eve (Moneypenny) as his secretary was brilliant.
So, all in all, I was rather blown away by Skyfall. It was a welcome break from stuff exploding, Bond taking on ten henchmen and not being scratched by the bullets flying around him. It dragged Bond from the bland, boring and forgettable elements of Quantum of Solace, right into the modern era, with its computers and all which that entails.
Other James Bond Reviews:
Sean Connery (http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/sean-connery-as-james-bond.html)
Roger Moore (http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/roger-moore-as-james-bond.html)
Introduction
I have been thinking about starting a blog for a while. A couple of people I know write them, and it seems like a good way to get my thoughts out to world, humble as they are.
I love football, and Formula 1, but there are so many football blogs out there, and the best Formula 1 blogs are just a little bit too technical for me. So I thought I'd write one about my next passion, watching movies.
Basically, every time I watch a new movie, I'll give it a review here. I don't expect anyone to read my musings in particular, and I'm fully aware that I'll probably never have 100 people reading this, but nevermind. I'll probably also end up working through my back-catalogue as well because I don't get to see as many new movies as I'd like these days.
Here we go then. Making blog history. One film at a time.
I love football, and Formula 1, but there are so many football blogs out there, and the best Formula 1 blogs are just a little bit too technical for me. So I thought I'd write one about my next passion, watching movies.
Basically, every time I watch a new movie, I'll give it a review here. I don't expect anyone to read my musings in particular, and I'm fully aware that I'll probably never have 100 people reading this, but nevermind. I'll probably also end up working through my back-catalogue as well because I don't get to see as many new movies as I'd like these days.
Here we go then. Making blog history. One film at a time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)