The best Bond film?? (MAJOR spoilers)

Rating: 7/10 (27 October 2012)

First of all I want to make it clear, this is a good film but I was disappointed having expected much more after the rave reviews from many of the critics. In my review, I'm going to focus on these weaknesses and let others concentrate on the strengths the film undoubtedly has.
This definitely is not the best Bond film, I don't think its Daniel Craig's best Bond film either, I preferred Casino Royale. The problem is Skyfall tries too hard to be clever and includes too many elements in an attempt to please all the Bond fans.
It tries to include the classic one-liners, references to earlier films in the franchise, details of Bond's background whilst re-introducing the key characters that have been missing from the two previous installments and, on top of all this, setting the stage for the future of the series. The film suffers from trying to do all of these things perhaps as a 50th anniversary tribute to itself when it would have been better to have spread these elements over at least two films.
I've always felt the best Bond films had a comparatively straightforward and realistic storyline (this is why For Your Eyes Only is my favourite Roger Moore 007 film) and Skyfall avoids this by having a villain who is too far-fetched and cartoonish. Silva (Javier Bardem) is another version of The Joker from The Dark Knight. Ledger's character was a great success and the strongest part of what I felt was a mediocre film. It worked for me because I've never considered the Batman films to be taken seriously; it is part of a comic strip fictional parallel universe that allows these characters to exist without appearing out of place.
Silva just doesn't belong in the tough, realistic environment that the Bond films are now striving for. He is so reminiscent of The Joker both in his mannerisms and his actions (allowing himself to be caught and then escape as part of an elaborate plan) that he becomes a distraction. It is also completely implausible that a genius who can out-smart Q and the rest of MI6 would willingly follow M and Bond to a remote Scottish country home. Why would a villain who has clearly planned everything to finest detail then act so impulsively? The resulting climax, a Straw Dogs-like siege, is a disappointment.
I initially welcomed Judi Dench's departure from the series and then rolled my eyes in disappointment when her successor was revealed. I've never enjoyed her as M. She is undoubtedly an excellent actress and there is where the problem lies. Dench, rightly or wrongly, is a national treasure and it is inevitable that any act-OR chosen to play M will be making a more substantial contribution to the films. I've always felt that the character of M works best purely as a device for explaining the plot to an audience as Bond is sent off on his mission. Any further involvement whether it be additional screen time or the more personal angst and friction with Bond is both contrived and redundant. The best M was Bernard Lee, a gifted character actor who could be limited to a smaller, more effective role.
Now that Ralph Fiennes, another act-OR, is M, the opportunity to address this error has probably been missed. Audiences will be expecting him to be flexing his acting muscles as much as Dench did.
On a positive note, I had my doubts about the inclusion of a younger Q when it was announced but I was pleasantly surprised by Ben Whishaw's performance and I can see this continuing to work well in future films.
As for the new Moneypenny, I've always regarded her to be a secretary, an administrator, she is NOT a former field agent deployed to kill the enemy.
In the previous films Bond was always out of reach for Moneypenny, she knew it and so did the entire audience. How can the playful flirtatiousness work in future now that we know she's slept with him?