Skyfall

In its amazing fifty year cinematic history, the James Bond franchise has followed a tried and true formula with incredible success.  Through 23 films (I count Never Say Never Again – a rogue production) and six Bonds, the suave and debonair 007 used gadgets, sexy Bond girls, and incredible action to find a favored spot in our movie going schedules.  Every film featured several signature actions scenes that were just too hard to believe but we just didn’t care.  Those unbelievable action sequences are part of the Bond legacy and we have come to expect them, and even look forward to them.

Skyfall deviates from that old formula.  Daniel Craig’s modern, 21^st century 007 is more physical and brooding than his more suave and debonair predecessors.  Skyfall is more story than action and we receive more of Bond’s personal background than in maybe all of the other films combined.  Craig’s Bond isn’t as witty or outgoing as previous incarnations but there is more effort put forth in this film.  Craig’s Bond is more serious and less interested in looking dapper.  Daniel Craig’s Bond, after three movies, is a truly unique Bond and the franchise seems willing to go along.

The formula is truly broken in Skyfall.  There is a Bond girl – sort of.  The femme fatale, Severine, makes a brief, yet memorable appearance and I guess she get the title of Bond girl henceforth.  Yet, she was hardly a blip on the old radar.  Those signature action scenes were fewer and much more believable.  Except for just a couple of small things, they were realistic even.  In following with Craig’s previous Bond flicks, this builds upon the theme of a more personal story line and is central in Skyfall.  Historically, the 007 franchise has kept its distance from the personal.

Finally, the villain.  Silva, portrayed with creepy brilliance by Javier Bardem, is a traditional Bond villain in appearance and personality.  You know what I mean, just a little weird and eccentric.  It is the plot, though, that goes off the beaten Bond trail.  Silva doesn’t seek anything as mundane as world domination.  He isn’t working for any grand organization who wants to sell arms or state secrets.  He is not trying to control the world’s oil supply, or news, or anything so grand.  Silva wants but a single, simple thing – revenge.  Skyfall is a story of simple, festering vengeance. 

I am torn a little by the new direction the Bond franchise seems to be heading.  On one hand, the story and the acting are much better than is traditionally the case.  Bardem is terrifically flamboyant.  Dame Judi Dench gives a performance that is worthy of a Supporting Actress nomination.  Daniel Craig’s mentally and physically battered, imperfect Bond is a much deeper, realistic 007.  The characters and the plot have much more flesh and depth to them than any previous entries.  All in all, Skyfall teeters on the brink of being a real movie of substance.

On the other hand though, do we want Bond to take himself so seriously?  One of the great attributes of the 007 franchise was its escapism.  The breathtaking, impossible stunts and action scenes were a pure joy.  What would they come up with this time?  There was always anticipation for that fantasy aspect of each and every Bond film.  Do we really want to lose that?  Do we really need another dark, brooding, moody hero?  This is the conundrum I have with James Bond right now.  Skyfall is truly a good movie with more depth and feeling but is that what we truly want from our 007?

Lastly, for some of the reoccurring characters in the Bonds movies, this edition is clearly a transitional movie.  Without going into it too much and giving too much information away, this franchise is going to grow and move forward with several of its supporting characters.  I know Daniel Craig is going to do one, probably two more, Bond films, but I doubt it will be more than that.  There is clearly a plan to continue the series indefinitely.  I have always loved Bond, no matter what Bond incarnation (even those two Timothy Dalton disasters).  I will go see each and every one, whether they are action fantasies or serious movies with action.  Regardless, it is still 007 and that is enough for me.

Girls With Dragon Tattoos

Usually I read the book before I watch the movie.  The biggest problem with this is the book is almost always significantly better than the movie and this makes the movie less enjoyable to watch.  I thought I would try something different this time.  With the book eagerly awaits my attention from its spot on my bookshelf, I decided to watch the movie first.  To top off everything else, there are two versions of this film, not just one.  I watched the Swedish version earlier this week and went to see the American edition today.  Keep in mind as I compare these two films that I have not read the book and I do not know which is a more faithful translation.

I was totally prepared for the American version to be a watered down, weak, faded copy of the 2009 Swedish film.  That was definitely not the case.  The Swedish film was more of an old fashioned suspense thriller.  While watching it, it seemed a patient, detailed, terrific film.  The American version is faster paced and seemingly more fleshed out.  The Swedish edition spent more time and effort on the investigation of the crime that lead character Mikael Blomkvist was hired to look into.  Its American counterpart tends to delve into the characters a little more – not only the two leads but some of the other characters as well.  The American movie also has a more satisfying wrap-up.

The essential storyline is the same in both films and I assume it is the same one as in the book.  Several details differ in the two versions but none really affect the plot at all.  They are indeed two versions of the same story.  I enjoyed both of them as I watched them separately and their tone and pace are their own.  In my mind, I have a hard time picking one over the other because they each offer key elements which I like – the patient, detailed storytelling in one and the great character development in the other. 

I will say one thing about both.  Each had a couple of brutal rape scenes in them.  To be honest, I was sure the American version would soften these scenes and probably leave most of them to our imagination.  To his credit, director David Fincher did not waiver in presenting these scenes in a tough, gritty, unflinching manner, just as Niels Arden Oplev , the director of the 2009 film, did.  Bravo to both men.  These scenes were not easy to watch but they were imperative in the development of Lisbeth’s character. 

I thought Michael Nyqvist was better, if slightly, than Daniel Craig in the lead role of Mikael Blomkvist.  Rooney Mara surprisingly delivered a credible performance as Lisbeth, even in comparison to Noomi Rapace’s brilliant work.  The role of Erika Berger was a much bigger role in the American version than the Swedish version and so there isn’t much to compare.  I won’t compare some of the other key roles because I want to do nothing to that tips off the ending for those who haven’t watched either film or read the book.  Let’s just leave it at that both set of actors performed extremely well. 

If I were forced to pick one over the other, at this point I would choose the American version on the simple fact that its wrap up was much more complete and detailed.  The end of the Swedish version left me a bit confused as I felt that Lisbeth acted out of character.  It felt incomplete.  The Swedish film did a better job at building up the relationship between Lisbeth and Mikael but the American film was better about showing the extended results of that relationship.  If you choose to watch just one, you really won’t go wrong with either one.  Both were really good.  Both a terrifically made films and are enjoyable in and of themselves.  Now, one or the other may gain an advantage once I read the book.  We will just have to see.

I always like to add a note to parents.  Neither version is suitable for children.  Both feature brutal rape scenes, violence, nudity, and a disturbing plot.  They are rated R for very good reason and I strongly recommend caution when deciding about letting children under the age of 16 or 17 view these films.

Thanks for reading and HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

View my sports blog at jawssportsandstuff.blogspot.com and get twitter updates @jawsrecliner