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

RE-VISITED : "THE GIRL WITH A DRAGON TATOO"

I understand. With a best-selling series and more than one film adaptation floating around one needs to specify a tad-bit more which one I’m talking about. It’s the 2011 film adaptation directed by David Fincher that I want to look at this week. Now, at the time, I was a little bit pissed with this film. Well, mainly because there already was a Swedish adaptation. This kinda made sense, seeing as this is a Swedish book and all. Does Hollywood have to go poking its nose in and re-adapting every little thing going? Not necessarily. But credit where it’s due. I haven’t seen the Swedish version (yet) but Fincher has definitely done one heck of a good job. Then again, I would say that, he’s one of my favourite directors ever. Before I get any further with my rant, I’d do well to put some reasoning behind that sentence methinks…

So, for those of you who missed it, this is a story of skeletons in the closet and deception spanning decades. Michael Blomkvist is a renowned journalist. However, he is not having the best period of his career, as allegations he has made against a powerful businessman have turned out to be false, ending in him being dragged through courts and losing almost all his life savings. In the midst of all this however, he is offered an unlikely lifeline. Old-fashioned family patriarch Henrich, head of one of the most powerful family businesses in Sweden contacts Blomkvist. He has a personal assignment for him. Years ago, 40 years ago to be precise, his great niece Hannah has disappeared. Quite suddenly and with no trace whatsoever. Henrich is dying. And he is convinced his great niece is dead. But he wants Blomkvist, who has proved himself as an above-average investigator before, to look into it. Blomkvist begrudgingly accepts and teams up with the anti-social yet supremely talented hacker / investigator Lisbeth Salander to uncover secrets that have lain hidden for over 40 years. It may have been wiser to leave some secrets where they were…

Now, the story, I cannot find fault with. Lisbeth, the unlikely heroine of this series is a brilliant character, the epitome of an anti-hero if there ever was one. And honestly, there are not enough anti-heroes about for my liking. Even fewer “anti-heroines”. Blomkvist is a bit bland but realistic. You know, believable – which often is more than can be said for a lot for a lot of characters in this kind of story. And the story… I mean wow. I have seen a few detective / crime stories in my time but this deserves to be among the classics. It is both imaginative and exciting.

However the problem I found with the book is that well… Not to speak ill of the dead – the author of the book – but I really, really don’t think he could write well. I mean the story, the concept was great. But the book was far too wordy. Full of descriptions and explanations that were just… Well, surplus. That led nowhere. The book was full of good intentions but way too… Crowded.

Fincher has put an end to that problem. Quite unlike the book, the film cuts back on words and concentrates on visuals. And you know what Fincher is like with this kind of thing. Striking pictures, ominous, an underlying sense of danger. And silence. For anyone who has read the book, this fits S much better with Lisbeth’s character, don’t you think? Having been cut back and streamlined, the film flows like silk. And succeeds in putting your heart in your mouth within minutes. I knew the whole story and still I loved it. I seriously hope you don’t miss this one!!