THE LEGEND IS BACK - FROM THE DEAD - "SKYFALL"

I know, this was FAR too long in the arriving J  I mean the review, not the film – although fans may argue that the film was a little too long in arriving too, I honestly don’t know. It’s funny about Bond films. Over the years, it has turned into this timeless and omnipresent phenomenon. Normally this kind of thing would be criticised in a work of fiction. Let’s face it, most superheroes do die off at some point. Even Sherlock Holmes. To be fair though, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was of a different era. And felt that all good things should, ideally come to an end. But then of course there are things like comic-strip heroes being killed off, the fans revolting, and the hero being brought back from the dead…  I don’t know what to make of that, honestly. Skyfall does two things in this “instalment” of Bond. It delves into Bond’s past and gives us an all be it small sneak peek into his childhood. And briefly deals with the concept of resurrection.

In fact, the past and various resurrections are the main theme of the newest Bond. First, Bond himself (currently Daniel Craig) who is assumed dead after a rather unfortunate operation in Turkey (plug: my home country. And the operation takes place in Istanbul, my home town. So there.) Of course, this is Bond we’re talking about so he survives. And he is very tempted to go into hiding and end his days in a small Turkish village by the sea (shameless plug number 2). However… Duty calls him back. Back to MI6 and back to life, the MI6 and more specifically M (currently Judy Dench) is in trouble. The threat comes from deep in M’s own past,  a foe she had assumed long dead and gone (Javier Bardem) is back to haunt her. And as long as he is haunting her, actually killing her and destroying the MI6 are all very real options. Only Bond can save the day… But can he? Bond is human like any other agent (ehm) and both his age and the near death experience he had have severely shaken (not stirred) him. Can he muster enough of his former glory to protect the agency and the country he loves?

I have several gripes with Bond films. The “immortality” of Bond is the main one. I mean, at least in Doctor Who they have worked out an EXPLANATION for his face changing and him never dying. Ok, it’s a completely unrealistic sci-fi setting, but honestly. It’s better than Bond receiving a hail of bullets, not even getting a scratch, turning, firing one bullet and hitting the bad guy square between the eyes. I mean come on. These are men who have dedicated their lives (more or less) to organised crime. You would assume they could at least shoot properly. This film alters this situation somewhat. I mean, naturally, Bond wins the day, defeats baddies against impossible odds,  all that jazz (and you know what, this doesn’t even count as a spoiler!). But at least this time he has some realistic difficulties doing it. We actually explore the possibility of him getting physically and emotionally effected by what happens to him. His marksmanship begins to seriously suffer. He gets nervous. He isn’t as strong as he used to be. I seriously believe that these are all good things. Possibly not as human as I would like but steps in the right direction. And besides, I guess Bond’s “immortality” is part of his appeal for the die-hard fans. And I am not a die-hard fan, so who am I to say? The cast is brilliant (the only person I couldn’t work into the synopsis is Ralph Finess). The special effects are… Well, let us say they are more than worthy of Bond. One of my dearest friends (who is more of a Bond fan than I will ever be) reckons   that the film is definitely not destined to be a Bond classic but is still more than presentable. So there you are. I even have a “fan’s eye view” for you. Enjoy J