Guest (mini) Review: Brandon Peters reviews Skyfall (2012)

Skyfall

2012

143 minutes

Rated PG-13

By Brandon Peters

Skyfall switches gears for Daniel Craig’s third dabbling in the role of 007.  The film is akin to GoldenEye’s answer to License to Kill if comparing to the series cannon.  While not going too far over the top, Skyfall does jump over the limits set by its two predecessors and enters into more familiar and common Bond territory.  This is going to be rather brief in terms of what I’ve been writing; Scott has covered a lot of ground I may have covered  as I didn’t read his review until after my viewing.  And for the most part I agree with all his points.  I’d rather not cover the same ground twice (editor's note: there's plenty new to chew on here). I don’t seem to mind the borrowing from other films especially when they are actually enhancing the themes and devices and making stronger renditions of them.  One theme not brought up which I felt was more front and center than the revised GoldenEye was trust and learning to deal with trying not to take judgment calls for the greater good personally.

Review: Skyfall (2012) delivers the 007 goods (if not greats).

Skyfall

2012
143 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Taken on its own, Skyfall is an exciting and relentlessly entertaining action thriller.  It is strongly acted by a game cast, has sharp dialogue, a stunning visual palette, and several engaging action sequences.  But taken as the twenty-third entry in a long-running franchise, one must acknowledge that it is less an original take on the iconic hero than a mix-and-match from several past films.  But what prevents the film from attaining greatness is the unsure tone and what feels like periodic pandering to the fans.  Seemingly stung by the (grossly unfair) reception to Quantum of Solace, Sam Mendes and company feel pressured to include certain franchise elements that periodically clash with the Bond film they clearly want to make.  More troublesome is the film's theme, which takes a offhand few moments in GoldenEye ("Is Bond still relevant in the modern era?") and attempts to fashion an hamfisted entire narrative out of it, complete with enough on-the-nose monologuing to make Chris Nolan blush.  What hampers the unquestionably engaging and ambitious film is the sense that we're drudging along recycled territory.

James Bond tells Jason Bourne (and that 'other guy') to piss off in two terrific new Skyfall trailers.

Two new trailers, one international and one domestic, have dropped for the new 007 film Skyfall.  And while they are both pretty much identical, they are both terrific previews.  Just a hint of plot, just a dash of new characters (it will be interesting seeing Javier Bardem play arguably the first 'super villain' in this specific Bond universe), and tons of incredibly impressive action beats.  There's not much to say other than 'Yes, do watch this!', although I worry that a one-two shot near the end hints at a pretty big spoiler.  No matter, Sam Mendes's Skyfall looks like another rock-solkid entry  in the long running series.  It opens on October 26th in the UK and November 9th in America.

Scott Mendelson    

Watch/Discuss: Skyfall gets a sparse but imposing teaser.

This is a teaser in the best sense of the word, sharing absolutely no real plot details and barely intruding any major characters.  All you need to know is that Daniel Craig and Judy Dench are back in their respective roles and that something called 'skyfall' is the cause of some genuine trouble.  The film looks lush and colorful with a handful of scenes suggesting not just Bond attempting to prevent a cataclysm but dealing with the aftermath of one.  The footage suggests an intimacy that befits the Craig 007 pictures with a slightly larger scope this time around.  As someone who loved Casino Royale and damn-well liked Quantum of Solace, I hope they haven't altered the formula too much in response to the latter film's inexplicable critical rejection.  I know I say this a lot, but part of me hopes that Sony has the guts to let this stand as the primary marketing tool for the picture, without the need to release a 150-second plot-centric trailer sometime in August.  Still, this looks like both a solid James Bond picture and a declarative 'up yours' to The Bourne Legacy.  Skyfall drops on November 9th in America in 35mm and IMAX.  As always, we'll see.

Scott Mendelson   

The next 007 film, Skyfall, gets a minimalist new poster.

The trailer is set to premiere next Friday alongside Men in Black 3D. I'm seeing Men In Black 3 on Monday evening (I'm genuinely curious, but my mother-in-law is genuinely thrilled), so hopefully they'll tack on the trailer like they did with that The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo eight-minute clip back in September (alongside selected press screenings of Straw Dogs and Moneyball).  Anyway, this is a sharp and stylish poster, hearkening back to Sam Mendes's promise to take James Bond back to his roots, whatever that means (the 'true James Bond' means something different for everyone, but I digress).  Anyway, I won't harp forever nor will I try to discern clues from the one-sheet.  It's a lovely poster and that's all I've got.  Feel free to share your own thoughts.  Oh... here's one, what does 'the real James Bond' mean to you?

Scott Mendelson

Retrospective: The Avengers (no... the *other* Avengers).

No, I wasn't invited to see Marvel's The Avengers for last night's premiere, and I wasn't able to snag tickets to this Saturday's 'Facebook fan screening', so I'll probably be out of the loop until regular press screenings start up during the week prior to release.  But since I couldn't see The Avengers that everyone cares about, I'd thought I'd be ironic and check out the one everyone forgot about.  Back in 1998, The Avengers was my most-anticipated film of that summer season.  I didn't know a damn thing about the original 1960s show, but I did know that it was being sold as a big-budget action-comedy with Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman as the dapper heroes and Sean Connery ironically playing a Blofeld-type super-villain.  I discussed the run-up to its release three years ago, so I won't repeat what I wrote there.  Before last night, I had not actually seen the film in the fourteen years since its opening day in theatrical release.  So, in hindsight, what's the verdict?

Review: Wrath of the Titans (2012) mostly delivers the big-scale, cheesy matinee goods, in genuinely glorious 3D to boot.

Wrath of the Titans

2012
99 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Jonathan Liebesman's Wrath of the Titans is arguably about as 'good' as a movie called Wrath of the Titans can be expected to be.  It is convincingly acted by its principals, has a story that mostly makes sense, and has at least a few scenes of genuine visual enchantment.  I could complain that I wish it had more of what it does right (epic battles of humans versus gods, some wonderful set designs, Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes having a full-blown 'camp-out') and less of what it does wrong (an almost beside-the-point narrative, a relatively blank-slate supporting cast, generally useless attempts at character development), and clever readers will notice that I just did in an offhand fashion.  But the picture delivers the goods in ways that the Louis Leterrier original did not two years ago.  It is also clear that Warner Bros learned its lesson regarding cheap 3D-conversions.  While Clash of the Titans became the poster child for the evils of 3D-cash ins, Wrath of the Titans features some of the most impressive live-action 3D seen to date.  If you're actually going to spend money on something called Wrath of the Titans, it is honestly worth seeing in its 3D glory.  Of course, there is irony in me recommending something that works best as a cheap Saturday matinee in a format that makes it noticeably less cheap, but that's your conundrum.