Skyfall

The name's... Let's not do that, we all know everybody's thought about saying it anyhow. Like you really need an introduction to this one: it's one of the expected biggest grossing films of the year, one of the greatest movie franchises of all time, the 23rd of the lot, time for a look at James Bonds latest mission in the Sam Mendes directed Skyfall.

The reboot of the Bond series has had to up the game in terms of gritty realism which seems to be the mood of preference of cinema goers at the minute, and it's certainly given it a very good go. Casino Royale was an absolutely fantastic film, almost certainly one of the best of the lot, but, whilst I'm not say it was terrible effort, it was a bit forgettable, having lost too much of the charm we expected of Mr. Bond in search of that realism. So really, the challenge set for Skyfall was to bring back some of the Bondian staples of old, somehow, whilst managing the fully keep grip on a realistic, modern background. Tough one.

Here's your tradition round up of the plot without giving away anything you'd be annoyed about...bit. Bond and MI6 in general seem to be heading towards the past, seen more as relics of the cold war than anything necessary and relevant for modern national security. This is due to the loss of a hard drive containing the identities of an enormous amount of agents working globally, falling into the hands of a mysterious and very much elusive terrorist. Bond needs to rebuild himself in order to track down and put an end to the work of his new unknown enemy. All the while, M is being forced into retirement, and MI6 is being overseen by Chairman Mallory during the transition period, as it is her leadership which is particularly being blamed for the state of the British Intelligence agency.

Put fairly simply; this is a very straight-forward story for a Bond film, and the key theme really is resurrection. Bond needs to prove that he is still relevant, and that it key both in the plot and in terms of the audience. But that is one of the many strengths of this film. You're with Bond all the way on this one, because you sort of feel the same way: no matter how much you liked or disliked the previous films, you have to ask how relevant he still is, gone are the days of Soviet and Communist spies, so who exactly does he have to face up against? The answer: it could be anyone, even those who were once like him. We don't know where our enemies are going to come from any more, we can't take any real guesses, and that is exactly why Bond is needed, for who else is better to cope with the unexpected than the man with the licence to kill? Exactly.

This is the film where Daniel Craig truly becomes James Bond. When the unbridled brute force seen in the previous two outings fails him, Bond is forced to become smarter, he has to choose every move with much greater care than he had done, with injuries and psychological scars taking their toll on him. Because of this, we get what ends up as a pleasing cocktail of Connery and Brosnan style Bonds; the embodiment of masculinity mixed with the wry wit we love from our favourite agent. Craig delivers the thankfully limited Bond clichés in a straight-to-the-point manner, instead getting his laughs from quick one-liners; the way it should be. Make no mistake about it, by the time you've watched Craig's performance, you'll be left considering in what order you place your favourite Bonds from now on. When it comes to support, Judi Dench gives you exactly what you knew you were going to get, but with added poignancy, as M seems to be heading for the exit. There's a welcomed return to action for Q as well, with Ben Whishaw providing a performance that is both more believable than John Cleese (sacrilege, for I do love the king of the silly walk) yet mixing in a bit of pure Matt Smith-style Doctor Who geek to the role. Naomie Harris is the first of two Bond girls in this one, and whilst I'll not say who she is (for those who don't already know), she sets up a very pleasing backstory for a character we'll end up loving all over again. Ralph Fiennes (not the second of the Bond girls, thankfully), goes totally against type in that he's not a homicidal killing machine in this film, instead he plays Mallory, the mysterious man overseeing MI6 during M's retirment, and he keeps us guessing as to what his motives are throughout, with traditional Fiennes bluntness throughout. Finally we have our villain, Raoul Silva/Tiago Rodriguez, who is played phenomenally portrayed by Javier Bardem. Silva is a villain the likes of which Bond has rarely experienced. First and foremost, he is an ex-agent, and a very good one at that, and Bardem shows off an extremely creepy mirror-image of Bond, almost how Bond could have been, had he gotten sick of his employers. Futhermore, Silva is a character who is at best sexually ambiguous, and one fantastically written scene shows off just how much of a foreign identity this is to the Bond audience, as Silva pretty much forces himself on 007, but only enough to make him squirm. Now I'm certainly not saying that being gay makes him evil, I'm not from the 17th century, but the fact that he is so opposite to what Bond is, whilst being so similar in many other ways makes him stand out as a villain, as he can hold his own in a fight, without having to rely on henchmen. Genuinely outstanding performance from Bardem.

But most important of all, the gadgets, these are what will really test how Bond is placed in our need for realism. Well, when Q hands over the new equipment for the mission, he says what "they don't really go for that" anymore, and he is of course referencing the famous exploding pen, how encouraging is that for the reboot? The gadgets are limited simply to a gun and a radio, which is also light-heartedly referenced in the film, as "sometimes the old ways are the best" crops up a couple of times, and he's right. To top it all off, the Bond car makes a comeback, that's right, the Aston Martin DB5 comes back for more. I'm not even a man who knows his cars but I got excited. People actually cheered, that's just how important that car is. And it's old, and that's the point, we want old mixed with the new for Bond, and that's just what we're getting.

5/5 - The more I think about how much I enjoyed this film, the more I realise it's because it has absolutely everything you really want from a Bond film. 007 is firmly lodged in the modern way now, but he has all the key elements of the classic films locked up in an updated fashion. For me, Connery set the standard, Brosnan came close, but the Craig era could be set to reach some very exciting heights. Definitely go see it.

Looper

It's become somewhat of a film cliché recently to proclaim that science fiction is dead, and while I would agree that the genre has taken a bit of a beating with a series of unsuccessful, limp offerings (see Lost In Space, the Star Wars prequels, Signs, and the last two Terminator sequels, etc.), those that have actually been worth watching have really been worth watching. Just look at The Matrix, District 9, the Avengers films, Sunshine, Minority Report...the list (much like my heart - sorry) goes on and on. Thankfully, this year saw the release of a sci-fi movie which also fit that bill; Rian Johnson's Looper.

First of all, the key issue of this film: it's about time travel, which as most of you may know, gets a little bit wibbly-wobbly on the best of occasions. So that's the main problem this one has to conquer, which is lucky, as director Johnson declared that his biggest challenge "figuring out how to not spend the whole movie explaining the rules and figure out how to put it out there in a way that made sense on some intuitive level for the audience; then get past it and deal with the real meat of the story." So basically, just accept that time travel happens in it, and it's going to get complicated, but that's not really point of the whole thing; it's a story which just revolves around time travel, not a time travel story... With me?

The basic concept is this: the year is 2044, a crime lord has been sent back in time from 2074 (where said time travel has been invented, obviously) and set up a network of assassins known as 'loopers'. These loopers are paid to wait in specific locations for targets to be sent back to their time and eliminate them, thus creating a perfect crime for the gangs of the future. However, at some point the loopers will be given a golden paycheck, meaning they will have to kill their future selves, thus closing the loop 30 years down the line. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Joe, a looper saving up for a future abroad, having been pulled up through a childhood of hell and supposedly rescued by crime lord Abe, played by Jeff Daniels. Joe is faced with a dilemma when one of his targets turns out to be himself (played by Bruce Willis), but is immediately outsmarted by future-Joe, who goes on the run. Joe needs to find future-Joe before Abe's gang take down both, whilst future-Joe tries to track down one of three children who would grow up to be the man sentencing all loopers to their fate. Got it? Good, because it's a fairly simple story in the middle of a complicated background, but it's very well written, and certainly never lets the ARGH MY BRAIN HURTS of time travel get in the way.

In terms of casting, we all know exactly what to expect these days when we see Joseph Gordon-Levitt in a film: it'll be really, really, ridiculously cool. And this is no different, as he essentially plays a blend of his Inception and Dark Knight Rises characters - relaxed and cool whilst extremely well trained and dangerous, with that touch of charm which makes indie-girls go all wobbly. Even more pleasing and impressive, however, is his imitation of Bruce Willis; throughout, Gordon-Levitt maintains an accent eerily close to Willis, and, more impressively, his facial expressions are nailed on John McClane, and whilst I am fully aware of the use of prosthetics and CGI in aiding this, below it all is the foundation level, and that's all Levitt Gordon-Joseph. Then you look at Willis, who turns in a performance we've come accustomed to; he's cooler than cool (possibly even ice cold), hard hitting and just has that edge about him that only Willis seems to bring (see Sin City for the best example). You're always left a little surprised by Willis when you see him taking on a more emotionally rich role, and even though his character packs a huge amount of action, his performance is a deeper, more personal one, and it's very much captivating. Wonder when we'll stop being surprised by Mr Bruce, because he definitely deserves a little more acclaim for his efforts. Emily Blunt fills the boots of the main female presence of the movie, Sara, the farm-running single mother of troubled child Cid. Her character is a little more predictable than Joe, and does run a little close to the hard on the outside-damsel in distress on the inside stereotype, but that's definitely not Blunt's fault, and her performance is just as pleasing as any, arguably saving the role from cheesiness. Good support comes in the form of Daniels as Abe, as a gentle faced, harsh ruling mobster, and Paul Dano as Kid Blue, a detestable yet comic relief young gang member, determined to oust Joe as the favourite of his boss.

In terms of CGI usage, you'd expect there to be a great deal of it, after all, this is a science fiction film. And indeed there is, just to add that tastey futurey goodness to the movie, but it's never really obtrusive. The most impressive is arguably the aforementioned wizardry regarding Gordon-Levitt's face being morphed to look like Bruce Willis, and although you can tell it looks slightly odd, you could be easily forgiven for not realising it was altered. The most impressive scene regarding effects, for me, is one involving another looper's future self escaping, only to be slowly transformed by what the gang are doing to his present self in order to stop him. I'm not going to spoil anything for you, but it's mind-bending, disgusting and fantastic all in one.

All in all, this is an extremely pleasing film, with a meaty story for us to sink our almost certainly slightly confused teeth into. Plus, there's a good deal of action which is needed meet the quota of a good sci-fi film, without ever being too stupid. It's the sort of film you can (and I certainly did) discuss at great detail and pleasure, because there's a lot of ins and outs you can interpret for yourself from the one of the many head scratchers posed by Johnson; but again without going too far.

4/5 - I very much enjoyed this film, and found myself thinking "what is actually wrong with it?". It's a pleasingly original piece with good plot, cast, performances and the lot all round. The only criticism that I can offer which really hold it back is that it is guilty of being a bit slow in places, and you might find yourself zoning out because of it, however, it recovers very well from these slips and provides you with a film you'll want to talk about. Go see!