Messy, rambling plot raises more questions than answers

Rating: 6/10 (11 November 2012)

I don't know that I've ever seen a movie where my opinion was more out of sync with the reviews of users and critics. The cinematography was fantastic, the acting superb, but the plot was simply inexcusably lazy. Things happen for no reason. Sure, being shot on a train, falling off a bridge, and going off a waterfall is theoretically survivable. But no answers provided as to how? It's just not believable. In fact, the more details that are revealed about that scene, the less sense it makes. We find out that Bond heard M's order to shoot. (Never mind that simply waiting for the trained agent to finish the fight was probably a better bet all along than taking a risky sniper shot.) So why didn't he just move out of the way? Why didn't Naomie take a second shot?
In the first and second acts, a number of interesting questions are raised. Is there a still a role for a human spy in a completely digital world? Can Bond ever overcome the emotional and physical trauma of being shot on the train? Who has stolen the agent list, and what do they want with it? Who are the moles in MI6? Why does Bond still own his parents' house in Scotland?
Unfortunately, the film provides the answer to none of these questions. The third act actually devolves into a "Home Alone" remake, and not even a particularly good one. It was fun to watch, but it simply didn't make any sense. At one point, the villain tracks back in on our heroes because they were using a flashlight to escape in the dark. A flashlight! Surely MI6 agents know better ways to escape at night?
It's too bad that the plot is such a mess, because this film really could have been excellent. There are one or two monologues that are simply masterful, and the long, single-shot fight scenes are among the best ever filmed. But in the end it's merely average.