Film Review | Skyfall (2012)

The four year gap between the release of Bonds 22 and 23 - namely Quantum Of Solace and Skyfall - was anything but a quiet bit of downtime for the franchise. At one point, it looked like a very real possibility that the latest installment in the long-running spy series might never see completion, with fears surfacing that the MGM lion may have roared his last after the company filed for bankruptcy in 2010. Thankfully, the financial issues were eventually resolved and Bond was once again on track to return for the 50th anniversary of his time on the big screen. With many being (or convincing themselves they had been) disappointed by Quantum Of Solace, hopes were high for Skyfall to bring Craig's tenure as Bond back to the perfection seen in his inaugural outing, 2006's Casino Royale. And after his patriotic appearance alongside Queen Elizabeth II herself during the opening ceremony of London 2012, many hoped that the latest entry into the long-running franchise would continue the nostalgia, paying tribute to 007's half century on film. On pretty much all of these counts, Skyfall does not disappoint.

Taking place some time after the events of Quantum Of Solace, the film catches up with James Bond (Craig) using a botched mission - after which he was presumed dead - to spend time away from his duties at MI6. However, after learning of an attack against the agency itself, with M (Judi Dench) seemingly a specific target, Bond chooses to return to London to help track down those responsible.

Surely the most pleasing aspect about Skyfall is the amount of ambitious goals the film not only sets itself, but achieves with such success. The film is a roaring tribute to the previous fifty years and twenty-two films the double-0 agent has behind him; this never becomes a "greatest hits" compilation however, with none of the nods to Bond's heritage feeling awkward or ill-fitting. Every moment is knowingly and lovingly crafted, woven into the film's plot and universe seamlessly and purposefully.

The film is also packed with superb performances, with Javier Bardem's Raoul Silva likely to become a firm fixture on any list of Bond's ultimate adversaries. The character is brilliantly realised through the sharp script's most stark and unsettling moments, as well as Bardem's comprehensively excellent turn. Bérénice Marlohe also does well as the alluring Sévérine, undoubtedly the most classically archetypal Bond girl Craig has encountered in the role yet. Naomie Harris' Eve, Ralph Fiennes' Mallory and Ben Whishaw, taking on the role of Q for the first time since the reboot of the franchise, also offer plenty to enjoy.

It almost goes without saying that Daniel Craig is pitch perfect as Bond, but not to mention this would be to do a disservice to what Craig has brought to the role in his three films to date. The fact that Craig is now considered by many as the defining actor in the role ahead of much-loved and praised cinematic icons such as Roger Moore and even the originator of the role on screen, Sean Connery, speaks volumes about the way in which Craig has genuinely taken ownership of Bond.

But perhaps the defining performance of Skyfall comes from Judi Dench. The Dame's unique honour as the only cast member to be carried over from the original timeline of Bond films always felt like one of the best decisions made when rebooting the timeline, and Dench shows just how seriously talented she is here, being given the greatest scope to truly flesh out the character since she took on the role some sixteen years ago as GoldenEye's "evil queen of numbers".

Director Sam Mendes barely puts a foot out of place, making sure that Skyfall's plot moves at a satisfying pace throughout, whilst producing some breathtaking cinematography. Bond's tracking of an assassin through the upper floors of an empty Shanghai skyscraper is one of the most beautifully and masterfully shot pieces of cinema you will see this year. Things threaten to become a little too outlandish for the rebooted Bond universe for a beat or so in Skyfall's final act, but the film soon recovers thanks to some of the most exciting and emotional scenes witnessed in a Bond film for some time, if ever.

Skyfall therefore is a near-comprehensive triumph. Superior to Quantum Of Solace, but marginally off the perfection seen in Casino Royale, this is almost certainly the most likely Craig outing so far to please fans of the classic Bond films of the '60s and '70s. It pays homage to the franchise's origins, as well as its most beloved attributes, whilst managing to remain contemporary, refined, and a superb film in its own right. Skyfall asks and answers the question of whether Bond has a place in the modern world in the same breath, leaving you in genuine anticipation for Bond 24 even before the credits begin to roll.

9/10

Film Review | Cemetery Junction (2010)

When watching Cemetery Junction, it's often easy to forget that this is a film penned and directed by the same duo who brought us The Office. The feel of the movie is very different in many ways to what Gervais and Merchant have  created before. But there are key similarities between their first film written together and their earlier work. At times these pleasingly work just as well as they have done on the small screen; at others, they are nothing short of the film's downfall.

Set in Reading in the 1970s, Cemetery Junction follows the life of Freddie (Christian Cooke) as he starts a new job as an assurance salesman for Mr. Kendrick (Ralph Fiennes), father of his school sweetheart Julie (Felicity Jones). Whilst he strives to earn the respect of his new employer and colleagues, he also tries to keep the more carefree friends with whom he has grown up.

The film's authenticity in presenting a believable recreation of '70s Britain is commendable, as each detail down to the colour palette chosen by Gervais and Merchant gives the film a genuine nostalgic feel whilst at the same time not feeling cheesy or gimmicky. Much of the film's most successful humour is gleaned from it's temporal setting. After catching Freddie listening to a classical music LP, Bruce (a superb Tom Hughes) lambasts his best mate: "stop listening to music made by poofs. Stick on some Elton John".

But whilst there are several things Gervais and Merchant get very very right, there are also a few too many that they noticeably do not. Although the majority of the cast give solid performances, I felt throughout that the story we were watching - Freddie's - wasn't the most interesting that could have been offered. His is a pretty by-the-numbers coming-of-age tale with an ending that feels a bit too "happily ever after" to fit with the tone of the story that's preceded it, and Cooke's performance also feels a little lacking in substance at several points. Bruce's life, here only dipped into, would have been significantly more compelling if fleshed out as the film's main plot and, driven by Hughes' charged and enigmatic performance, would have produced something superior to what is offered.

The film's biggest failing is perhaps Gervais himself. There are several trademark Gervais-style exchanges throughout the film, usually between members of Freddie's family, which are somewhat at odds with the more realistic feel of the film. Gervais' performance as Freddie's factory-worker father just doesn't work. He only has a handful of scenes, but they drag the film down with the comedian giving a lazy and amateurish performance that just doesn't ring true to what was needed from the role. Gervais in fact doesn't even act; he is just Gervais, with his lines sounding just like something from his podcast collaborations with Merchant and Karl Pilkington.

Gervais' casting of himself in the film smacks of arrogance; casting a different actor in the part, or even reducing the character's role in the story, would have assisted the film overall a great deal. It's a shame that Gervais and Merchant's potentially most mature and well-crafted work to date is ultimately a casualty of Gervais' ego. Cemetery Junction, with a few key tweaks, could have been an excellent comedy-drama. As it is, it is simply good but flawed.

6/10

Film Review | Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

The Potter film franchise is one that has divided many throughout it's decade-long tenure as one of the most successful film franchises in the history of popular cinema. Those who have wanted faithful interpretations of the books have essentially never had this, with characters and subplots deemed non-essential to the overarching story of Harry versus Voldemort unceremoniously chopped as if they had never existed. My own feelings towards the series have fluctuated throughout, with my main gripe being those films within the franchise that fundamentally become incoherent having had so much excised from the original source material. Alfonso Cuarón's Prizoner Of Azkaban, for example, has so much left out that some parts that are included are simply left hanging as nonsensical half-finished strands.

This was therefore my main concern heading into the final Potter film: would David Yates mangle things by leaving important parts of the final book out? His previous track record made me somewhat optimistic: Order Of The Phoenix, whilst having some elements removed, managed to tell the story of the fifth book faithfully by and large; Half-Blood Prince was less successful in this regard, however, and left me feeling unsatisfied; Deathly Hallows Part 1 posed a new problem - whilst splitting the final novel in two meant that much less is skimmed over or chopped, the film very much felt like half a story, again leaving an unsatisfying feeling. Deathly Hallows Part 2 therefore had a lot to prove - as a continuation and conclusion of the Potter franchise, as an adaptation of the final novel continuing from where Part 1 left off, and as a worthwhile film in its own right.

Thankfully, the film is much more success than failure. Yates wastes no time in getting straight back into the story - there's no preamble, no recap of the events of Part 1, and no information dump of exposition (something which I had prepared myself for, and was glad not to have to endure). This is a relatively bold move, considering the notoriously gentle and comedic openings of many of the previous films. But it works a treat, and we are soon back into what the Potter films generally do best: fantasy action sequences. Within the first half an hour we've had magical larceny, wand-based battles and a dragon. It's almost as if Yates is making up for the sluggish pace and decidedly unspectacular feel of Part 1. But it works, and gives the film a welcome adrenaline-charged start.

The battle sequences in particular are a strength of the film all the way to the end. The scenes are lucid and, for the most part, have a genuine sense of menace to them. One-on-one tests of wandsmanship are at times given short shrift (no doubt many fans will be left wishing Mrs. Weasley's showdown with Bellatrix Lestrange had been given slightly more screen time), but seeing as these are snapshots from within a greater, more epic war, Yates on the whole makes the right decisions.

The whole film, in fact, has a pleasingly epic feel to it that Yates has never managed to nail in his previous efforts. Images such as the Hogwarts Quidditch pitch razed to the ground, along with a stylish touch of a damaged goal hoop later being used as a giant's weapon, and Professor McGonagall summoning the statues that adorn the castle to protect the school will no doubt endure in the minds of the audience long after the credits have rolled.

The script is pretty standard Potter film stuff: key quotes and passages from Rowling's text make it through, but there's nothing too impressive with things regularly becoming fairly functional. It is the performances of the cast as a whole that equates to a large part of the film's success. Daniel Radcliffe as the eponymous boy wizard again failed to truly impress me - there's nothing particularly wrong with his performance here, but then there's nothing particularly right about it either. The main thing Radcliffe has going for him at this stage is that there's nobody else who could possibly play Harry Potter for the millions who have spent a decade growing up with his performances.

Rupert Grint and Emma Watson provide no further surprises; the former puts in the strongest performance of the three indicating the most post-Potter promise, whilst the latter's is charming but patchy, although stronger than she has been in previous films in the franchise. In fact, when surveying the performances of the young stars in this film, it is two others who genuinely catch the eye as talents of the future - namely, Matthew Lewis and Tom Felton, who play Neville Longbottom and Draco Malfoy respectively. Both young men put in strong, mature performances of emotion and depth. Felton has been a dark horse of the series for several films, but Lewis truly raises his game for this final film making Neville an authentic and sympathetic character.

It is the supporting cast who really make the difference, as the talent and star power on offer is simply overwhelming providing a "who's who" of the previous seven films. Big names such as Jim Broadbent and Robbie Coltrane give it their all in roles that have literally minutes of screen time, and it is the willingness of these former key players in the franchise to lend their weight to the film that really gives Yates' film a credence and sense of high quality. Ralph Fiennes' turn as big baddie Voldemort feels as though he has been holding back since his first turn in the role four films previous, and has now let loose in a genuinely maniacal, menacing and downright creepy performance. Praise must also be given to Alan Rickman as Snape, one of the most reliable talents throughout the whole film series, who gives this pivotal and complex character the swansong he deserves with one of the strongest and most moving performances seen in any of the films.

Essentially, In Part 2, Yates finally strikes the right balance of action, drama, emotion, menace and humour on his fourth and final opportunity, creating the strongest of all the Potter films at precisely the right time. The film is a great improvement on the sluggish and unsatisfying Part 1, feeling like its own entity rather than just the second half of a story. In my opinion it shouldn't go down as a truly great film, just a very good one, as the film is by no means perfect. But the spectacular battles and action sequences coupled with the brilliant star power on show makes this a thoroughly enjoyable and satisfying conclusion to a film franchise that has gripped popular cinema for a decade.

7/10