Good, but is it Bond?

Rating: 7/10 (25 December 2012)

I am confused how to form an opinion on Skyfall. In short, I saw a good movie, but I am unsure if I saw a James Bond movie.
Let's start with what was good: - a more careful direction compared to the shaking cameras of Quantum of Solace - the cinematography: the Shangai skyscraper with reflecting doors scene, the wonderful Macau set, the beautiful Scottish landscape scenes which were perfectly tinted, the fire - not only the inclusion of the Aston Martin, but especially the way it was filmed, as well as the shot of it in the Scottish mist were wonderful nods to Goldfinger - Adele's title track: finally again a song where they got the Bond feel right (it's been since Goldeneye) - at points a convincing plot - it is clear Sam Mendes is an experienced director: most things here feel solid - a solid cast: Judi Dench and Ralph Fiennes really add to the thing
And best of all two things: - Javier Bardem: who is far and away the best actor in this movie. We have to go back to A View to a Kill (Christopher Walken) and perhaps Goldeneye (Sean Bean and Famke Janssen) to find the last inclusions of truly great and memorable Bond villains. Bardem reigns in the scenes he is in, through face, look, feel and intonation. - again, the villain, but approaching from a different point of view now: what I'm getting at is how the story actually includes a villain. One of the great joys of watching old Bond movies was watching a charismatic villain instead of the villains' schemes (did the schemes matter really? Most often not). Many of the recent Bond movies invested more in the scheme than the villain itself. While the villain's scheme here is sufficiently written, this is all about the villain again: a larger-than-life (while avoiding the 80's cheesiness) villain who commands the screen. Bardem's performance is crucial to this, but it also has to do with how this villain was actually written and developed instead of being tacked on almost as an afterthought.
So, many good things to admire and in shades more Bond-like than in ages. Still, for some reason, it does not feel right. I am not completely sure yet why this is, but these reasons are part of an explanation:

What struck me most is how Bond himself is almost absent. Daniel Craig's performance was more than OK and he has sufficient screen time, but thinking about the movie produces images of many things in my head (Bardem, Dench, landscapes, Aston Martin, Macau), but no Bond. Bond did not feel like a central part of this movie. Sure, there were certain other focuses in this movie, making it partly intentional, but it felt like Bond was wandering around in a story that was not about him. - Bond girls: there are two Bond girls here, but where are they? They are truly tacked on. - Thomas Newman: Newman is a giant in soundtrack world and his soundtrack in itself was not bad, but I am not sure if it was a fitting match.

I am trying very hard to include one single conclusion in this review, but I am unable, I cannot make my mind up what this movie is (yet). I did enjoy it thoroughly. And I want to unapologizingly like it for its many good things, but part of it does not sit right and I can't quite put my finger on what that is.
Oh, and put that gun barrel scene back at the front finally next time!