007 is back, but is it the real James Bond? (And why is the Joker in this?)

Rating: 6/10 (1 November 2012)

I've just finished a marathon of Bond films over the last 2 weeks in preparation for Bond 23.
I've just watched all of Connery's Bond, all of Moore's Bond, I skipped Dalton's Bond, the Australian Bond and watched bits of Bronson's Bond. So I was now ready for the new bond... nearly ready. I watched the great Casino Royale and fell asleep watching Quantum.
Now I was Ready!! And wow...what a strange film this is...
Obviously I wasn't expecting the campness of the early films but I was expecting a Bond Thrill Ride. So I waited and watched, and waited some more...
Great opening, some intrigue, a nice bond girl....I looked at my watch, thinking something massive is building...it surely must be...wow, I didn't realise the joker was in this??? What!!!! And this is were the film started to disappoint. I disliked the villain in this film, an odd camp bisexual misfit with a lob sided face when he removes his fake teeth. He also comes with a blonde wig to rival Elton John, tech wizardry and enough foresight to rival Uri Geller (Google him). The plot seemed to fall to bits upon his entry into the movie, i.e the hard drive, where did it go? who has it? Surely getting this back was more important? I enjoyed the likes of Goldfinger, Blofeld, I even enjoyed the voodoo priest in Live and let die, and Christopher Lees Scaramanga. They were products of their time and fun. This guy grated me, he didn't seem to fit into the modern take on Bond. Anyway enough of him.
This film has some nice cinematography and locations, but most of the film is a drama and lacked the degree of tension to carry the quiet parts. Because the villain takes over the 2nd half of the film, it all became a bit silly. The whole protecting M by hiding her in the Scottish Highlands, without support, suspend your belief at this point. She was after all the leader of MI 6 and someone of high importance. Bond fails to protect her, so the whole Skyfall estate was a complete waste of time. Not sure what Bond was thinking taking her there, and at the same time leaving a trail of breadcrumbs. This was before seeing what assets he had available prior to the baddie and his goons arriving. Which apparently turns out to be a severally aged Albert Finney, who seemed to struggle with his lines.
The cinematography is very good, even the dark scenes, and the use of light and lighting was excellent. Using flames to light scenes during the final confrontation was a nice touch. The underwater fight scene was nicely lit.
So on to the actors... Daniel Craig was fine, but Bond was worn out and tired, he seemed to lack conviction. A complete contrast to other Bond films. Judy Dench, fine actress, cant complain. Javier Bardem, too weird, not in a good way. Even Christopher Walken was a better villain. Naomie Harris, not good, seemed miscast, which is worrying since it appears she'll be appearing in future films. Bond girl Bérénice Marlohe didn't last more than 10 minutes, which was a mistake, since she was quite interesting. A poor choice to kill her off quick. Q was in it too, but not really fleshed out.
Mendes has taken the Casino Royale and stripped Bond of his urgency. He has reduced Bond to a drama, and taken lots of the fun and energy out. He's tried to pay homage to the old Bonds by introducing a new male M, Q, and Moneypenny, and reintroducing the Aston Martin db5 complete with guns (I did have a sly smile on my face at this scene). The direction of the film is fine, but the story was lacklustre, and had too much drama. Not a terrible film by any means but several pieces essential to Bond seemed to be missing.
At this point it seems Casino Royale is Daniel Craigs Goldfinger. Will it ever be topped? Maybe not.