The best Bond ever?

Rating: 8/10 (5 November 2012)

I went to the cinema with ideas of seeing the best Bond movie ever. Every movie critic that I know and read said that this is the best one! So, naturally, I was expecting something spectacular and earthshaking. Is it? Well, not really.
The story: Conceptually divided into three parts and every part functions marvelously. Put together they work even better making this movie an admirable and well connected whole. Everything is present: the action, the classic Bond elements, the innovative and controversial new ideas and places. Portrayting Bond's past, his weaknesses and failures was bold and well done. We actually found out what Bond is like, who he is, where he comes from etc. It gives him a human, realistic shape and brings us closer to understanding his nature. The plot itself is not very original and is at the beginning predictable and digestible. To be realistic, nobody really expected a Prometheus-like story in a James Bond movie, so no setbacks there. The problem with this segment of the movie is that it's just too long. 143 min is way to long for a movie of this type. The climax of the story got lost. In the beginning of the third part of the movie everyone (including the actors) understood that the climax is missing. Exactly when the biggest action is expected and the keeping-you-on-the-edge-of-your-seat scenes are expected, Mendes slows down and creates an intro to the real climax which is marvelous and beautifully shot and acted, but way to long and a bit overdue. One star less because of this.
The acting: classical British perfection. Craig got the idea of what Bond needs to be and did it marvelously, 'till one point. Here we, again, come to the third part where Craig simply gave up, almost giving me the idea that he's a bit fed up with the character. This decline in the acting is way too obvious and spoiled the whole, really good final idea. Because of this another star down. Dench, a classical marvelous performance, having way more influence and screen time than so far in any JB movie. Finnes was great, showing that he can act as a good guy. The absolute Oscar worthy, Cannes worthy, BAFTA & Golden globe worthy performance is Javier Bardem's. He understood how much screen time he had (not a lot at all) and decided to grasp everything he had and gave one of the best performances in his career and, without a doubt, the best performance in the movie. He simply "ate" everyone standing in the same scene with him. Power, hatred, evil, sorrow, done with such ease, without a glimpse of force. Natural and relaxed, just like he is Silva.
The name: Even though I spoiled some elements of the movie the last part I will leave to the reader to decide weather he thinks like me, or disagrees with me. Both is fine, and both views have it's "pro et contra." Just ask yourself what do you think "Skyfall" stands for? When I finally figured out it cosed the movie another star. Maybe you will think otherwise, but a movie with such a powerful name, in my opinion, has to give greater meaning to the name itself.
All in all a great JB movie, a fantastic action movie with some marvelous performances, fantastic directing, and breathtaking camera-work and scenes. The best Bond ever? Close, but still far from it.