SKYFALL - HAS THE SKY FINALLY FALLEN IN ON BOND?

"The best BOND yet!" claim some reviews of 007's latest blockbuster biggie.  Is it?  Er, to be honest - no, it isn't - not by a long chalk.  It is entertaining however, and well worth seeing, but the plot is rather flimsy and Bond comes across as somewhat inept, failing to prevent the deaths of two people who were relying on him for protection.

The movie revolves around a simple tale of revenge; one man's mission to exact retribution upon the person he believes abandoned him to a fate he somehow miraculously survived.  In that sense, the premise is hardly epic in scale, but Bond plots have never been anything more than a convenient peg on which to hang some spectacular scenes, and in that respect the movie does not completely disappoint.  The views of Shanghai are simply stunning and almost worth the price of admission alone.

The pace does drag in spots though, and the finale on the Scottish moors seems glaringly out of place.  When the source of the movie's title is finally revealed, the viewer's reaction can be nothing more than an incredulous "Is that it?"  Also, Bond's plan to use a certain VIP as bait to lure the villain into his clutches is simply ridiculous.  By isolating the person from adequate security and relying only on himself to deal with the team of killers he'd expected to pursue them, his judgement is seriously open to question.  As such, the conclusion is inevitable, and 007 deserves to be forcibly retired for his sheer inadequacy in the art of strategic planning.

DANIEL CRAIG is fine when it comes to portraying Bond as a nigh-unstoppable juggernaut of destruction - his 007 can certainly handle himself in a fight.  When SEAN CONNERY made his debut in DR NO back in 1962, some critics dismissed him as nothing more than "a thug in a dinner-suit".  Craig fits this description even more than Connery did, but where he is less adept is in capturing the qualities of elegance and sophistication that Bond is also supposed to possess.  In that sense, his Bond comes across as a much more one-dimensional character than any of the previous actors before him.

However, the movie's main defects spring from the 'reboot' in CASINO ROYALE - a totally pointless exercise which resulted in more problems than it could ever hope to resolve.  (Whatever they were supposed to be - does anyone know?)  The biggest mistake with the movie was in not replacing JUDI DENCH at the same time Craig assumed the role of Bond.  Had that been done, the various paradoxes which now abound simply wouldn't exist.  Dench's M was firmly rooted in the previous continuity of PEIRCE BROSNAN's quartet of movies, even referring to her "predecessor" in one of them.  The 'new' direction now means that she couldn't have been M when 007 was a more seasoned assassin than he now is.

Another mistake was placing Bond at the point in time he'd just joined the double-0 section.  If that aspect was absent, it would make no noticeable difference to the movie as a whole.  All the producers had to do was introduce new actors in the roles of Bond, M, Q & Moneypenny at the same time. As it is, Skyfall's nod to previous Bond continuity in regard to the ASTON MARTIN is perplexing.  Clearly Bond is referencing GOLDFINGER, but didn't he just win the DB5 (with Jamaican number plates) in a card game in Casino Royale?  It just makes no sense, and results in the same state of confusion that DC COMICS perpetually inflicts upon their readers whenever they revise the origins of their heroes every few years.

It's interesting to note that, had CUBBY BROCCOLI still been alive, Craig would never have been given the role.  Cubby had a thing about an actor embodying the physical aspects of the hero; Bond had to be over six foot (though in the books he's only six foot) and Craig is around five-ten.  Apparently, LEWIS COLLINS was passed over for the part in the 1980s because he didn't 'measure up' in the height department, so it seems Barbara Broccoli has abandoned her late father's standards in regard to casting.  Cubby even lamented Connery's baldness, saying: "It's a shame Sean lost his hair", but that at least was something the make-up department could remedy.

So - Skyfall - hit or miss?  Well, hit, but far from being the definitive Bond it's touted as.  One can only hope that, with the introductions now out of the way, when 007 returns in his next cinematic outing, it will be the ruthless, witty, elegant and sophisticated Bond we've come to expect from the older movies; not the morose, surly, and - it has to be said - totally incompetent (but lucky) rookie we've seen in the last three.

Agree or disagree?  You have a licence to comment - use it.