Skyfall Review: A low-key and not very action packed Bond

Note: I've tried to keep to keep things vague, but this may contain minor spoilers

In 2006, Martin Campbell directed 'Casino Royale' starring the then controversial choice of Daniel Craig. The casting of fair-haired Craig marked him as the first Bond to be blonde and – unlike his predecessors – the first actor to play Bond who was under six-foot (for the original producer, the late Cubby Broccoli, this would have been something of a strict no-no). The decision was greeted by almost widespread disapproval (heck, someone even set up a website to vent his fury at the decision)and things were not looking good. However, the risk paid off and Casino Royale turned out to be one of the best Bond movies in recent years. It did good business and laid the groundwork for the follow-up (and sequel, of sorts – a Bond first) 'Quantum of Solace'. While still being a huge hit, the words "boring" and "hard to follow" were not exactly uncommon place at the time. Which leads us onto the latest movie 'Skyfall' – the twenty-third in the franchise (that is if you don't count Sean Connery's 1983 venture in 'Never Say Never Again' and 1967's 'Casino Royale' starring – ahem – Woody Allen as 'Jimmy Bond').

After an operation goes wrong, Bond goes missing in action for a while – not in the least helped by the actions of M (Judi Dench). Meanwhile, a shadowy and ruthless figure from M's past comes back to haunt her by first of all exposing the names of undercover agents before moving on to more explosive tactics. This forces the now embittered double-o-seven to put his anger aside and return from the 'dead' to help his boss out with this latest threat to Queen and country. 

First thing's first: there is a lot that this movie does right. The entire cast are excellent. From a fantastic opening scene and the refreshingly low-tech opening titles which could have came from the seventies (a far cry from the CGI drenched titles of the Brosnan years) to the title song, sung in an unshowy, understated fashion by Adele, this movie marks a return to the basics in a way unseen since From Russia With Love. You see, Skyfall is not really about set pieces and gadgets; it's more of a drama this time – but with some action thrown in. 

As with the previous Craig movies, this kicks off with a – surprise, surprise – chase. Whereas Casino's was on foot and Quantum's was in cars, this one starts on foot, moves to motorcycles before ending up atop a moving train. Make no mistake: it really is riveting and on edge of your seat stuff, but it's something that comes back to haunt the filmmakers later on… Yes, you've guessed it: this movie suffers from a severe aliment known as 'The Dark Knight Rises syndrome'. What this means is the opening is SO good and spectacular and sets the bar so high, whatever comes after it can only hope to live up to it. And unfortunately, as with The Dark Knight Rises, Skyfall also shoots its load too soon and although it tries, never quite lives up to the breathtaking opening. This movie has been celebrated as being the "best Bond movie ever". One can only assume this somewhat hyped-up opinion has been spurred on by the patriotism brought about by this being the year that the Queen celebrated her Diamond Jubilee and London hosted the 2012 Olympics because the movie does not in any way live up to the 'Best Bond Ever' tag. 

There are some aspects of this movie that don't make any sense. They may be a legacy of last minute script editing and if this is the case, it really shows. For example, in one part of the movie, Bond and co discuss a certain evil character who has no country/nationality/next of kin and is basically a 'ghost' with no permanent base/home; yet Bond quickly gets the location of his next destination via a simple text. In another part, Bond is taken to meet Silva - the bad guy of this movie (a fantastic Javier Bardem) by boat. While on deck, he takes out a homing device and puts it in his pocket. This understandably has bad repercussions for Silva and leads inevitably to the obvious question: why on earth wasn't Bond frisked beforehand? Meanwhile, in another scene, two people are trying to flee stealthily from a violent shoot- out/assault in a rural area so as not to alert the ruthless hit men; yet they don't have the gumption to avoid switching on their flashlight which alerts the bad guys. It is silly moments like these that really drag the quality of this movie down a notch. There's no excuse – the makers have had four years to sort this stuff out. And let's not get started about all the product placement… 

The rather odd thing about this movie is it cost a reported two hundred million dollars to put up on the screen, but it does not look it. James Cameron was able to make Avatar for just forty million more and in 3D. For the amount of money that was spent on Skyfall, you kind of expect spectacle, i.e., envelop pushing action scenes. In general, most people come to see Bond movies for the excitement and the action. Who can forget the helicopter/roof chase of 'Tomorrow Never Dies'? Or the huge, multiple tanker truck set piece at the end of 'Licence to Kill'? With the exception of the exciting – and spectacular opening scene -sadly, the set pieces here are few and far between. There's a few sporadic action scenes scattered throughout the long running time but they're so brief as to not stand out like previous Bonds. Tellingly, when Sam Mendes was interviewed by British film critic Mark Kermode on the Culture Show, he said "fifty-per cent" of his time was spent on the opening sequence. That's right - fifty per cent of his time was just for the opening sequence. This may explain why the rest of the movie is so lacking in action. Yes, Sam Mendes may have took the admirable step of taking things back to its 'roots', but it comes at a cost of the very thing that Bond is known for.

In conclusion, while Casino Royale still remains the benchmark of the Daniel Craig outings – if not also the best Bond movie of the last fifteen years – this is still a huge improvement over Quantum of Solace, and makes for an engaging two-hour plus of good story telling. It's just a shame that the number of large-scale action set pieces can be counted on one hand.

And the screaming starts… It's the Attack of the Beast Creatures!

There are movies that defy logic. Attack of the Beast Creatures is one of those movies and is as cheesy as its ill conceived, though still somewhat pleasingly shoddy B movie title might suggest. Set in the 1920s, a group of beleaguered survivors flee their sinking vessel in a brief but still pretty effective opening matte/forced perspective shot. Tensions are frayed and to make matters worse, they get washed up on an uncharted 'tropical' island. From there they decide to explore their new surroundings only to find that it's inhabited by tiny long-haired cannibals - the Beast Creatures of the title - that are hell bent on making the unfortunate survivors the main course of their banquet. Cue: lots of running around and screaming – there's lots of screaming in this movie.

Most of the attack scenes are mundanely staged, consisting of the actors screaming and gyrating into camera with plastic dolls stuck to their torsos. The movie's a poverty row effort on every level and it does show, but the filmmakers do get good production value from a skeleton prop - the kind used in medical schools - that shows up no fewer than three times. The cast spend most of their time wandering aimlessly and endlessly through their menacing 'island' locale. We continuously see shots of them trekking through a forest that's clearly not the tropics where the movie's meant to be set. In one particular shot they even look like they're skipping through the jungle rather than walking as there are arms flailing everywhere.

The beast creatures themselves are not at all convincing and resemble children's toys more than the malevolent miniature thugs they're supposed to be. There are lots of shots of them being flung into the air and thrown at trees, somewhat betraying their doll/puppet origins. In some instances they're even being held into shot on the ends of wooden poles operated by the clearly 'up for it' crew. The big 'set piece' that occurs 51 minutes in consists of nothing but a long sequence where the cast simply stands around holding static puppets to their bodies while screaming their lungs out. Having said that, various shots of the creatures zipping through the forest at high-speed display a certain amount of ingenuity on the part of the filmmakers. They're really quite well done and not completely devoid of merit and charm. Also the idea of acid lakes on the island is very imaginative and the scene where one unfortunate cast member stops to take a drink from the aforementioned lake is done quite well, albeit the horror is let down somewhat by the usual gratuitous and feeble screaming.

There are some bad edits and dodgy choices of takes in this movie. For example due to incorrect color timing during one particular zoom-in shot, a lone beast creature is barely visible hidden among the undergrowth. You actually have to pause and rewind the footage to see it and even at that, it's very difficult. Furthermore, after a female cast member's hand is bitten by one of the little carnivores, the actor playing the character of 'Morgan' clearly fluffs his line, but still continues to utter the dialog without batting an eyelid.

In another example of questionable editing, during the survivors' final bid for escape at the end, we're treated to a 'greatest hits' compilation of all the movies 'special effects' moments for no reason whatsoever other than to highlight the fact that the filmmakers were evidently very proud of what they achieved. But it's still hard not to like a movie where the hero makes a desperate last dash for the ocean and freedom – all the while struggling manfully against static rubber dolls that are clearly just tacked onto his clothes.

Director Michael Stanley never made another movie again until 2008 and based on this, it is not surprising Hollywood never came knocking on his door. Neither did any of his cast go on to do better things, though it has to be said the female performances in the film are somewhat better than the males. But all things considered this is still an enjoyably insane film. Though at times slow and ponderously paced, Attack of the Beast Creatures is a lot of fun. If you watch it with the correct mindset, i.e., in the company of some like-minded friends and lots of beer,there is no reason why you won't enjoy this particular slice of 80s B movie madness.

While the movie was released on video in the 90s, it remains unreleased on DVD, though it was/is available from the director himself via online ordering. Yes, it could be argued that the entire effort is amateurish, but the film still isn't without its cult value and appeal. If a director and cast commentary was thrown into the mix along with some trailers and a comprehensive 'making of' documentary (where is the cast? What are they doing now?), there'd be absolutely no excuse for this movie to languish in limbo any more and maybe then it could finally get the much deserved and long overdue official DVD release.

If you want to watch the best part - the attack on the survivors - click the the link below.

Alternatively, if you think you can tolerate the entire movie, click here to watch it right now.

Looper Review: Loopy

The time travel genre is nothing new to movies. It's been done brilliantly (The Terminator/Back to the Future/12 Monkeys) and not so well (Timeline/Freejack/Time After Time). Even still, it's a story arc that offers so much potential for imaginative plots, filmmakers continue to come back to it again and again. Which is fine, providing it's done with some panache. Looper is yet another addition to that long traveled path to the time travel well and with a cool sounding premise, promises the same kind of dizzying concepts and brain muddling story arcs. At least that's what you expect. That it falls a bit short is really a surprise. And a shame.

Upon release, critics were literally creaming themselves and foaming at the mouth over this movie. There simply wasn't enough descriptive expletives in the dictionary to summarize how amazing this movie was meant to be. It was also not uncommon to hear it being compared with such esteemed company as The Matrix and Inception. While it's not as good as the former, and not as clever as the latter, it's still an okay – if unremarkable - watch. Basically, take one-third Terminator, add a touch of 12 Monkeys and mix in some Carrie, and the result is Looper. And if that sounds a bit on the loopy side, that's because it is. 



In the future, there is time travel, but as it's banned, the only people using it are criminals. They send back ex-colleagues and other targets to be executed in the past by 'Loopers' – specialist executioners who incinerate the future garbage. Literally. So when a Looper called 'Joe' (Gordon Levitt – in makeup) gets his latest victim, he's in for a huge shock when he discovers it's… himself. Or rather an older version of himself (Bruce Willis). And so begins a sometimes interesting, though occasionally confusing chase/hunt as the younger Joe tries to zero in on his older self.

On the plus side, this has lots of really good ideas and interesting concepts in it: the younger version of Joe can send messages to his older self by cutting his instructions in his flesh; memories are simultaneously created and rendered vague by the actions of the younger iteration; and in one scene another older Looper - who escaped death earlier - starts to literally fall apart as his younger version systematically loses limbs though surgery performed by the bad guys who are financing all the Loopers. It's a scene that is slightly reminiscent of the Black Knight's demise in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, though much more grueling and shocking. Also, the makeup on Gordon Levitt is quite subtle and very effective: you actually believe both him and Bruce are the same person, albeit from different places in time. The future world looks unique enough without being completely alien and unfamiliar to us. So where does it all go wrong? About half way through…

For a movie with such an intriguing premise, promising every manner of head spinning older assassin against his younger self interactions, along with the customary shootouts and all the ensuing paradoxes resulting from traveling through time, this takes an abrupt turn that is so left-field you'll feel you stumbled into a different movie… It's almost like writer-director Rian Johnson ran out of plot after breezing through the first half and said: "Where else can I take this… I know: a farm where … etc" This sudden turn is so out of sync, as to feel it doesn't belong in this movie. The clue is in one of the movie references mentioned above. It is a shame because it's fifty-per cent a very good movie.

The cast are very good too: Gordon Levitt doe a really good job as a younger Bruce, while Bruce himself starts off sympathetic but gradually changes into something that is both ruthless and quite monstrous. Emily Blunt also does good work as gun-toting farm owner. So if they're all that good, then where does this go wrong? Obviously, this movie probably looked brilliant on paper, but after execution, is decidedly lacking. What you're expecting is not what you get – and not necessarily in a good way. You think you're going to get something dazzling - something with the intricacies of the brilliant Spanish time travel movie Timecrimes; but what you actually get – at least for half of it - could easily be a standalone, and pretty pedestrian horror movie. Again, you wonder: why wasn't somebody standing at Johnson's typewriter with a cattle prod, telling him to come up with something better?

There's a lot of inconsistencies too: without being overly specific, stuff is done in this movie that makes no sense when you think about it after wards (heck, even the central premise makes no sense – surely the criminals would be using time travel for something more ambitious than to just bump people off?). Also, there is a central antagonist that is meant to play such a huge part in ruining older Joe's life, older Joe wants to hunt him down; yet we never actually get around to meeting this evil doer, only a different, more vulnerable version of him.

Inconsistencies aside, you're left with a movie that somehow misses the mark despite the groundwork being laid for something really special. It's not as action packed and visionary as The Matrix, and not as clever as Inception. Maybe it's the type of movie that could get better on a re-watch – i.e., once you're familiar with the direction it ends up going, it might actually be possible to end up liking it for what it is – but as a first time viewing, the movie falls a bit flat and that's entirely a legacy of the final half. Want some advice? Go watch Timecrimes instead.

Combine the attitude/violence of Robocop with the cityscapes of Bladerunner and you've got DREDD

It's surprising that for an iconic comic book legend like Judge Dredd, a tent-pole character in the equally iconic 2000AD comic - which itself has been around since the 1970s - there's been just one movie adaptation: a 1995 vehicle starring Sylvester Stallone, where he famously removed the sacred helmet of the character (a strict no-no in the comic) and spent most of the movie's running time as a fleeing fugitive rather than as a 'Judge' out in Mega City One dispensing brutal justice. It was a flop at the time, not in the least bit helped by someone as famous and larger than life as Stallone playing an equally famous and larger than life character like Judge Dredd.

I've always thought that Judge Dredd had already been partially done in two movies that got the tone exactly right: Robocop (1987) - for the violent view of a dirty, decayed future, the satirical tone, and the colorful and cynical bad guys; and Bladerunner (1982) - for the huge, expansive vistas of a futuristic, but somehow rundown and crowded cities. If these two movies were blended together, you'd have the right cinematic representation of Judge Dredd. While the Karl Urban movie comes CLOSE, it somehow misses the target - for the reasons discussed below. Having said that, it's still a superior adaptation of the comic compared to its predecessor Judge Dredd (1995) directed by Danny Cannon. Yes, while that movie, got it right in some places - the vision of Mega City One, the Angel Gang, etc, it got it WRONG on so many other levels.

The good news is that Dredd 3D is a massive improvement over the Stallone version. Firstly, Karl Urban makes for a more effective and menacing Dredd. Secondly, the helmet stays ON for the movie's entire running time – a rarity in today's world of celebrity egos that an actor would actually agree to that. The story is way better too: Dredd and a rookie Judge called 'Anderson' are called to a tower block where three people have been skinned alive and thrown to their deaths. Unbeknownst to Dredd and Anderson, this block is run by a major crime lord - 'Ma-ma'(seriously) – who's manufacturing a drug called 'Slo-Mo' there – a narcotic that slows down time for the user. After Dredd and Anderson arrest one of her perps, Ma-ma opts to shut down the entire building rather than letting Dredd and Anderson leave with her stooge, effectively making them prisoners in the block and forcing them to shoot/fight/blow their way out of this hell hole.

Although this is meant to be a review of Dredd 3D, it's almost impossible to resist comparing it to the Stallone movie. As mentioned above, Karl Urban is great as the eponymous Dredd and puts in a better interpretation of the character than the Stallone iteration. Witness the delivery of Dredd's iconic and immortal line: whereas in the 1995 release Stallone shouted: "I am… (pause) The Law!"; in this version, Urban growls it more effectively: "I am the Law!". Also, in the comics, Dredd sometimes almost came across as being a futuristic Dirty Harry – a fact lost in the 1995 movie, but corrected in this version: here we see Dredd throw people to their deaths/execute/head butt/punch his way out of danger. In essence, it's everything you would expect from the classic comic icon and a lot of that is thanks to Urban's steely portrayal.

It may be dark and murky, but it's still a very stylish (and stylized) movie. The effects of the Slo-Mo drug are stylistically rendered, with everything happening at a fraction of the speed of reality. As a comic book adaptation, it even resembles a comic book with its parade of contorted faces, arms and torsos being shot and/or shredded in extreme slow motion and usually in close up. So much so, you could almost imagine it as a panel on a comic page with the accompanying 'Thud!' or 'Ka-pow!' captions.

As Anderson the rookie, Olivia Thirlby puts in a good, not too showy performance. Anderson is a mutant possessing psychic powers and there are some effective and imaginative scenes where she utilizes them to full effect. There's also a very poignant moment where the full gravity of being a Judge hits her for the first time, as her psychic powers hammer home a sad realization to her based on her performing the compulsory duties of a judge. It's details like this that make this movie several notches above other comic book movies like it.

It also even seems to have been informed by the Christopher Nolan take on Batman/The Dark Knight: everything is gritty and grounded in realism, and Urban's growling delivery of the dialog is not exactly dissimilar to Christian Bale's own take on delivering dialog when in Batman mode. Both also share a similar ruthlessness when trying to 'obtain' a confession/ information from a suspect.

There are a few small minuses: the Judge Dredd of the comic was a proud, dedicated lawman, who was committed to his job with military efficiency; therefore it doesn't really make sense that he would show up for duty in a dusty uniform and a beaten, scratched helmet. Similarly, while they may have got the design of the aforementioned helmet right, they've taken some large detours from the original design of the uniform: gone is the eagle from the right shoulder; instead, it's been worked in as a kind of padding. Worse, the iconic bike – the 'Lawmaster' – looks cheap and none too powerful. This was one of the few elements the 1995 version almost got right. And if you really want to nitpick, in one scene, Urban says, "Sh*t!" Everyone knows that in that particular scene, he should have actually said "Stomm!" or "Drokk!" - Dredd's trademark swear words.

Even the plot bears an absolutely uncanny resemblance to that of another of this year's releases: The Raid. Just substitute gunfights for the balletic martial arts on display in that film, and you've almost got the same movie. Hell, even the look and the music score are similar. The makers of Dredd must have had sunken spirits when they saw it. As Dredd was made first, the jury's out on exactly what – if anything – is going on, but this has to be the most unbelievable case of psychic plagiarism ever seen. Which is a shame, because if The Raid hadn't existed, this would have been brilliant rather than just great. But don't let that put you off. Dredd is still a super and very noisy comic book movie that will keep you gripped to the very end. If this is the beginning of a trilogy/series, then it's off to a good start. See it now.