Skyfall - review

Arriving back from my nearest screening of Skyfall (the release of which is now the UK's highest grossing Bond weekend ever and surely in contention to break other box office records), my verdict can only be that it's a decidedly impressive (and entertaining) feat of filmmaking. 

Casino Royale (2006) had done a reasonable job of introducing a crueler, complex and more troubled Bond - played superbly by Daniel Craig (I've long been of the opinion that he's by far and away the best actor to inhabit the role) in a decent and solidly made film. It's successor, Quantum of Solace (2008) was mediocre at best and terrible at worst. Inconsistent, poorly written and with a hopelessly muddled narrative, even Craig's exemplary performance was not enough to redeem it. The James Bond of the 21st century was ineffective and unsure of its place or purpose, unsuccessfully attempting to convene traditional expectations with contemporary adjustments. 

When the rumours and speculation surrounding Skyfall's initial development were confirmed, the crew was definitely quite unlike any other previous installment - with a particularly intriguing power-trio at the helm. Sam Mendes is a brilliant director known for previous films including American Beauty (1999), Road To Perdition (2002) and Revolutionary Road (2008). Each film is of a unique construction and different artistic ambition, but all are elegant, beautiful and finely crafted. Thomas Newman is one of the most talented film composers alive, as is Roger Deakins for his incredible cinematography. Both are two of the most wrongfully underrated contributors to their arts - having been nominated for ten and nine Academy Awards respectively, with no wins between them. 

Skyfall is uncompromisingly intelligent, modern, and serious - yet the film is also a sentimental appreciation of (and homage to) 50 years of James Bond's cinematic legacy. The discerning screenplay contains many (often glib) references to Craig's predecessors, and even the structure itself is a tribute to the forefathers of this screen icon. 

Mendes exploits his actors perfectly; Craig is allowed unprecedented potential to develop and explore his character's disturbed and troubled nature (which he does superbly) whilst retaining the legendary reserved detachment and dangerous aloofness. Bond is unfit, literally and figuratively - aged and embittered, struggling to come to terms with the world as it has changed around him. Mendes himself described him as suffering from a "combination of lassitude, boredom, depression [and] difficulty with what he's chosen to do for a living."

Javier Bardem plays the most memorable and sinister Bond villain in recent memory; a crazed and sadistic bouffant-blonde intent on destruction and sabotage, a once brilliant MI6 agent turned mastermind cyberterrorist. Genuinely disconcerting, Bardem subtly proportions deranged madness with eerie lucidity. 

Judi Dench's iconic M is finally given the detail and attention she has long deserved, and adopts a central role in the film - with her relationship with Bond particularly examined, while the supporting cast featuring especially excellent performances from Ralph Fiennes, and Ben Wishaw as the reinvented Q. 

Bardem as Raoul Silva

The film's stunt choreography is also brilliant, and in the true tradition of the series particular attention is paid to the opening sequence; a dizzying, spinning chase through the streets of Istanbul. Craig's insistence on performing his own stunts wherever possible is admirable, and Mendes' vehement dislike of CGI aids the believability and realism of the scenes.

Newman and Deakins are also each sublime and performing to the height of their talent. Newman's score is threatening, pulsating, and rhythmic - an excellent fusion of electronic elements alongside the conventional classical instrumentation. The cinematography is characteristically brilliant of Deakins, and it is surely the best shot Bond film.

Ultimately, the film is so successful because of its near-perfect unison of classic Bond with Mendes' own interpretation. He has created James Bond for the 21st century; contemporary without cliche, nostalgic without over-sentimentalism - a layered, complex, intruiging film - yet supremely enjoyable and accessible. 

Finally, Justice for Gary McKinnon

A few days ago, British Home Secretary Theresa May finally withdrew Gary McKinnon's extradition order to the United States. He had been accused of hacking into highly-classified American military and NASA computer systems, between 2001 and 2002.

May's decision is long overdue. McKinnon did not sabotage or damage the American computer systems, nor was he engaged in any realistic reconnaissance or criminal espionage. He was, in fact, searching for evidence of UFOs and the free energy suppression conspiracy theory.

His actions were not malicious, and he even wrote cyber-notes warning the computer systems of their own inadequate security. As if the American appeal for extradition was not already questionable, McKinnon has a diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome, and his condition is compounded by clinical depression.

To extradite someone suffering from a recognised cognitive deficit with a likely risk of suicide or self-harm is immoral regardless of the law, particularly so in context to McKinnon's innocuous intentions and meager crimes.

It is surely the woefully lax security of the computer systems that should be scrutinised, and the U.S. government's blatant desire to make an example of McKinnon rather than acknowledge their own failures should be condemned.

In any case, there is no recognised legal basis for the extradition of a British citizen to the U.S. for  alleged crimes committed in Britain itself, not America, particularly concerning cyber-crimes. This is another damning indictment of the absurdities and hypocrisies of the extradition policies between Britain and America.

Thankfully, Theresa May's verdict was a pleasing victory for reason and compassion.

McKinnon in 2009

Felix Baumgartner

At precisely 12:08 local time high in the atmosphere above New Mexico, USA, a full 24 miles (128,000ft) above the Earth's surface, Austrian skydiver, base-jumper and daredevil extraordinaire Felix Baumgartner threw himself off the ledge of a capsule lifted to the edge of space by helium-balloon, and began to fall. 

Just before the jump, balanced precariously on a small step, Baumgartner composed himself, made a short address of humility, and saluted. Any accusations of melodrama are quickly invalidated by the extraordinary ambition and unprecedented personal danger of this feat. 

Baumgartner had previously announced that during this stunt he intended to break four world records: the highest manned balloon flight, the first human to break the sound barrier without the assistance of a vehicle, the highest skydive, and the longest duration free fall. 

Although the data collected during the project is awaiting independent verification before the records are confirmed, it is understood that at maximum velocity he was traveling at a speed of 834.4mph, and indisputably broke the sound barrier. His maximum altitude is also believed to be at the astonishing height of 24.261 miles.

The consequences of any mistake or equipment failure would have been catastrophic, and even the effects of breaking the sound barrier on the human body were uncertain. Baumgartner's own team identified 16 major risks that required particular attention if the mission was to succeed. They included: ultraviolet radiation, wind shear, landing impact, extreme temperatures, oxygen starvation, decompression sickness, entering an uncontrollable spin during the descent, "shock-shock interaction" (the effect of shock waves colliding in the air while passing through the sound barrier), and even fire aboard the capsule. The two greatest dangers, however, were a "breach" in Baumgartner's pressurised suit, and the accidental deployment of his parachute. 

Red Bull are undoubtedly the only company who would sponsor such a project, and although organisations such as NASA requested to be informed of all scientific data gathered, there was no question as to any actual involvement or association with something so dangerous.

Indeed, Red Bull's calculated risk of sponsorship is reported to be worth up to £100m to the brand. In fact, it has already been suggested that it may be the most successful marketing campaign of all all time - and was watched live in partnership with YouTube by a record 8 million online viewers. 

Some have lambasted the event as nothing more than a mere stunt, and not a true triumph of human endeavour or inspirational success despite all risks. I'm so far undecided, but you can watch the extraordinary footage and decide for yourself. 

Killing Them Softly - review

Settling myself into the movie theatre seat at a screening of Andrew Dominik's Killing Them Softly, my expectations of the latest work by this distinguished New Zealand-born filmmaker were exceedingly high. He has the rare distinction of being one of the few contemporary young directors whose efforts have been continuously received with near-unanimous critical acclaim. His directorial debut, Chopper (2000), was serious, visceral, disturbing, and brilliant. Dominik's next film, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007), is a masterpiece. One of the greatest works of American 21st century cinema so far, it is visually exquisite, beautifully written, and extraordinarily well acted. An already incredible achievement, it is even more astonishing when it's reiterated that this was only Dominik's second directorial endeavor. So, then, when it was announced that his next film was to be a black comedy crime film depicting a misguided and ill-advised heist inside the brutal American Mafia and its violent consequences? Excitement and eager anticipation was only logical. 

The economic recession of 2008 and harsh financial climate serves as the catalyst for the events of the film, the sequence of which begins with two impoverished degenerates.

Russell (Ben Mendelsohn) and Frankie (Scoot McNairy) are a pair of lowlifes and petty criminals, more desperate than ever to make a quick buck. Although initially unwilling, they are coaxed into robbing a Mob-protected poker game, persuaded by the allure of a quick job and easy cash - but when they do, the repercussions are deadly. Brad Pitt's character, Jackie Cogan, is the film's antihero - a mysterious and dangerous professional enforcer enlisted by the equally clandestine figure (played by the ever-befitting Richard Jenkins) known only as "the Driver" to identify and execute the culprits behind the heist. 

The moral ambiguity of the ruthless criminal underworld causes the characters to be neither protagonists or antagonists, which is intelligently and pessimistically juxtaposed with the 2008 global financial crisis and United States presidential election of that year. As Frank Costello (played by Jack Nicholson) in Martin Scorsese's The Departed (2006) concluded: "When you decide to be something, you can be it. That's what they don't tell you in the church. When I was your age they would say we can become cops, or criminals. Today, what I'm saying to you is this: when you're facing a loaded gun, what's the difference?"

Russell (Mendelsohn) and Frankie (McNairy)

In these latter years of his career, Pitt is establishing himself as a truly great actor - exceptionally talented, serious, intelligent, and with a discerning choice in roles. The antithesis of, say, the now dismal Johnny Depp. Pitt's performance is brilliant, and is principal to the film's effectiveness. Supremely compelling, Pitt's Cogan is relaxed yet tense, talkative yet introverted, brutal yet gentle (he can only "kill them softly," hence the title), conflicted, and only just concealing a silent, smoldering fury.

The other performances are similarly accomplished. McNairy and Mendelsohn are superb as the woefully amateur, condemned duo. Ray Liotta, Sam Shepard, Vincent Curatola, and a particularly great turn from James Gandolfini, among others, completes this fantastic cast. 

The film's premise is admirably simple but is created with impressive complexity, and it's for that reason that I don't want to reveal any further spoilers. However, it is not the truly great classic that some have declared it to be. It is excellently directed, perfectly acted, assertively written, and impressively filmed. Nevertheless, it's certainly not perfect. The political commentary is commendable in intention, but eventually becomes over-emphasised until clichéd, and is vulnerable to misinterpretation as an opportunistic post-production re-edit. The screenplay is also not effortless, and at times the black comedy is misplaced and ineffective, inconsistently written against other moments of macabre seriousness. 

Be that as it may, I only subject Dominik to such scrutiny and criticism because of his considerable talent and incredible potential - and while it may not be his best film, it's still exceptionally good. 

Romney for President? Despair

While Mitt Romney hurriedly attempts to seize and exploit his resurgence in popularity and success at the U.S. presidential debates, Obama and his campaign team are no doubt bewildered and dismayed. Romney's fresh confidence and apparent newfound competency is profoundly worrying, and not just to the Democratic party and its voters. In my opinion, if Romney is elected in November he will be by some measure the most dangerous and unacceptable President since the days of Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon.

Very few comparisons or distinctions have been made between Romney and the most recent Republican President, George W. Bush, and I think this is even unfair to the latter. The late journalist and author Christopher Hitchens unforgettably described Bush in an impromptu comment as "unusually incurious, abnormally unintelligent, amazingly inarticulate, fantastically uncultured, extraordinarily uneducated, and apparently quite proud of all these things." While this may be true, and at several points a suitable enough description of Romney himself, he is another (and far more sinister) matter entirely.

For all his inadequacies, Bush often appeared as slightly hapless, naive, and witless individual, and so for those reasons can be regarded with a strange pity. Romney, however, exhibits the characteristics of a mean elitist, cynic, and callous megalomaniac - not to mention his absurd fundamentalist religious beliefs.

Romney's atrocious comments and behaviour are impertinent to the extent that when asked for his assessment of greater consumer choice in health insurance, he stated: "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me." Romney was also secretly filmed at a private donor party dinner earlier this year, where he told the exceedingly wealthy audience, "There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it."

As though to discuss the poor and under-privileged in such a vulgar manner wouldn't be enough (especially for a politician), it should be noted that Romney's net worth after a career in private equity is understood to be between $190–250 million, and he has been extremely reluctant to release his tax returns. Incredibly, some of them remain withheld from public inquiry. He has also described American middle class income as "$200,000 to $250,000 and less." When heckled during a 2011 campaign stop in Iowa, he responded, "Corporations are people, my friend." Elaborating further, he continued; "Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings, my friend." 

In a similar demeanor of ignorance, when asked if he followed NASCAR during a visit to the Daytona International Speedway earlier this year, he responded; "Not as closely as some of the most ardent fans, but I have some friends who are NASCAR team owners."

Whenever questioned or criticised for his comments, he is remarkably insistent and unapologetic. When challenged on whether he maintained his criticisms of Obama's relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, he retorted, "I'm not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said. Whatever it was."

His infamous attempt to rectify the palpable awkwardness of a photograph opportunity interacting with young inner-city African Americans on a Martin Luther King, Jr Day parade in Jacksonville, Florida, was to inexplicably and loudly shout "Who let the dogs out! Who? Who?" before soon afterwards describing the jewelry on a young black toddler as "bling, bling!"

This crass racial stereotyping and desperate appeal to black culture has not been lost on the African American public. He was loudly booed at an NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) Convention when attempting to convey and reiterate his questionable sympathy for and agreement with the necessity of the continuing effort to protect and promote racial equality in America.

His foreign policy has also been extensively scrutinised, and yet more errors have exacerbated this deserved criticism. In the same leaked footage of Romney at the party donor fundraiser, he told the audience that Palestinians "have no interest" in peace and are "committed to the destruction of Israel." He also ridiculed Obama and current American foreign policy for attempting to "sit down with people like [Vladimir] Putin and [Hugo] Chávez and [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, and that they'll find that we're such wonderful people that they'll go on with us, and they'll stop doing bad things." 

Romney is also an ardent Mormon, although is conspicuously quiet about his own personal beliefs and how they may shape and influence government policy. Naturally, Romney is embraced by the Republican Party and powerful Christian Right lobby. He is also, unsurprisingly, a staunch advocate of the death penalty. He has opposed abortion rights throughout his life (though recently has appeared to concede some basic abortion rules), and has also remodeled his views on issues such as gay marriage, gun control, the environment, and stem cell research several times - although in most instances, his exact opinions remain opaque.  These political modifications and mid-course corrections are understandably suspect. 

For all his gaffes, ridiculous faux pas, abhorrent comments and remarks, clandestine and ruthless capitalism, arrogant ethnocentrism, and disdainful elitism, it is certainly not impossible that in a little over two months time, Romney may find himself the most powerful man in the world. Moreover, that he may triumph over an incumbent president who is articulate, moderate, charismatic, educated, of admirably reasoned judgement and exceptional intelligence? A depressing contemplation indeed.