In fact, my friend (let's call him Art - he's into privacy and paranoia) leans over to me just seconds after the lights dim and asks what expectations are for the film. Art and I have had so many conversations over the years about this problem that we have both come to the unspoken, agreed-upon terms that we don't even venture into that rabbit hole before the film starts. Or at the very least, we wait until the last possible moment. It's very easy for both of us to shake it off and just say I don't know like it doesn't matter: but it does. It brings - for me - the thought that I had stuffed behind some old memories of ALF and Moonraker that I did indeed have many expectations for this film. It's because Quantum of Solace was so terrible, and the time to bring this one to screen was so long, would somehow equal a truly rich, fantastic Bond film. It's not until after the movie is over that I can face myself and realize that nugget of idea was in my head all along and I was just ignoring it. If it tried to surface, my many memories of how much fun I had with the ALF franchise in my childhood. It was also hidden behind Moonraker as a reminder that Bond movies have never been that good and they have a history of being ridiculous.
There is no doubt that the Daniel Craig Bond is influenced by Bourne, taking cues from realistic action scenes and heavily influenced by Hollywood's obsession with making "dark" and "gritty" films - an obsession that is welcomed by critics and theatre-goers alike and will not be met with any criticism from me. I mention this because it seems that I was a bit tired of it the other night. When Art, Chip and myself were leaving the theatre (expression disappointment) I kept referring to an offending lack of space lasers in the film. The point I was trying to make at the time was the lack of a villain that had truly grand take over the world type plans. Perhaps I was just in the mood for it; perhaps it was 50 years of Bond movies that have done that, but I felt it lacking. Upon waking the next morning though, I realize that perhaps it was a bit silly to expect such things from this Bond. I was then allowed to take a closer look at the villain, Javier Bardem's Silva. Of course, we initially lambasted the poor guy immediately after viewing, but I can't help but think that he was a very well cast villain for this film. It is also important to understand that this was more of a personal story that fits in with (at least) Casino Royale in that we're witnessing how Bond becomes Bond. As he is portrayed in other movies as being perfect, we see him suffering and battling his own demons here. We see him lose people he loves, we see him betrayed by people he trusts. All I can say about the end of the movie is how it comes perfectly full-circle as Bond's origin.
Silva is the perfect villain because he represents to Bond what Bond could become. One of the themes throughout this movie is that Bond is too old to be running around anymore (and too injured); his time is over but he refuses to give in. Where Bond stays loyal to his country and M, Silva departs and makes space for himself: making himself the leader. Where Bond can be subtle and simple, Silva makes exaggerated entrances and makes things complicated (for what seems like no reason). We can definitely see an influence from the Joker in The Dark Knight in Silva, which also helps to strike fear into audience members who struggle to put a face on terrorism and random acts of extreme violence. Silva, working in the grounded world of Craig's Bond, can cause more damage by storming a public forum with a few guns than he can inflict with a big laser from space and with that, you can see why the space laser would be completely out of place here.
I spoke quite a bit earlier about disappointment, and in advancing it is evident that I was quite pleased with the film. Sometimes you just need to sleep on it or better yet, see the movie again. I look forward to seeing Skyfall again, but none of that negates my initial disappointment: I wanted bigger stunts and big action sequences. What I got was a bit more of a cerebral Bond, an emotive Bond that we are not used to. And it's because of this that Bond becomes relevant in the landscape of today's spy action movies, and the landscape has changed. It's an interesting hybrid actually: you could argue that old Bond movies were family friendly and almost aimed at children. New action movies (and all movies in general) are trying to balance this line of darkness and family friendliness, quite often producing a misguided and confused film that doesn't satisfy any party. Others, like Nolan's Batman series, take the line and places it in new territory that nobody else knew existed. I think these last three Bond movies do a decent job of presenting mature issues (revenge, death, trust, rage, etc) while still appealing to the PG crowd. The lack of blood and deaths on screen is becoming standard practice and while distracting at times, is practically unavoidable. I don't believe inserting those few frames into the film will make it better, as they won't have any real effect on the themes present throughout.
One last thing I want to add is how beautiful this movie looked: we were taken to some really interesting locales and the lighting throughout was amazing. Bond has always been a world traveler and we got a sense that these locations were just as much of a character as the people on screen. Adele's theme song was perfect. While initially disappointing, I believe Skyfall has legs and will be worth venturing to again.
