A Good Blend of Bond, Bourne, & Batman

Rating: 7/10 (15 November 2012)

This film looks like it took four years to make. Give the franchise a rest and let the story brew for a while, and in this case add some depth, and you've rebooted the franchise successfully. There was a hint of what the future of Bond would be like with the Daniel Craig incarnation. My original impression of Craig in "Casino Rolyale" was that he came off more like a goon, a lowbrow hit-man, than a suave jet-setting playboy. More intellectual in discourse, more real world consequences. There were missteps in what new Bond would be like in tone. How much "Bourne", which is shaky cam chase scenes in exotic cities, and how much tradition, which is the "shaken not stirred" kabuki. In "Casino Royale" a distinction had to be made. Either Bond was a wise-cracking super spy, or a malleable thoughtful government agent who can't just act like a machine. Perhaps they tried to be both, but found the gravitas too heavy (CR - the bond girl is crying in the shower, Skyfall - the bond girl is an exotic dancer in the shower.) On the other hand, if the bad guy is too over-the-top, you get into goofy territory. So it took a couple tries, but this well contemplated new approach finds Bond as a damaged human being, while capable of putting on the superhero cape. This is "Batman Begins" for the Bond franchise. Complete with dark and moody sets and lighting. MI6, for example, is now headquartered in it's own bat cave. Bond has a chance to revisit his childhood, his own tragic backstory of losing his parents as a child and left with a big mansion, such as Batman.
All this serious "Bourne meets Dark Knight" is a good way to mix up the now cliché scenes that are supposed to be obligatory, but in the 50th year, certainly needs a change of guard.
So spoilers coming up.
M is replaced, Q is now a well cast younger man who is a hacker, and a new Moneypenny.
...Spoilers finished.
This re-energising the franchise helps Craig the most, where he is allowed to go unshaven, and be more like a real guy instead of a superhuman (at least for a little while). The bad guy this time is probably one of the best in the franchise, again because there is depth to his character. His reasons for causing mayhem are well grounded, and Javier Bardem injects some of the most disturbing quirks. The action is a little light this time around, but the motivation behind the action scenes are setup and executed very well. The "Bourne" style sequences are far better than "Bourne Legacy", and are easy to follow. It is Bond's childhood home that we spend a good deal of time in the third act, learning about many things, and meet Albert Finney's character. The inevitable showdown gets drawn out, clocking in at 2 hours and 23 minutes, and isn't quite as spectacular as the filmmakers think it is. They still seem obligated to fulfill one of the trademark clichés (blowing things up real good). The music I found to be mostly as punchy as the "Bourne" soundtracks, hitting the right spots when necessary. As observed by other critics, there is a great uptick in the cinematography, as this is one of the best looking Bond films in memory. The direction is also crisp, making it easy for Stuart Baird to piece together a slick paced thriller.
I declare the re-imagining to be a success, and the movie acts very well as an origin reboot film, and successfully blending Bond, Bourne, and Batman.