A low-key and not very action packed Bond

Rating: 7/10 (29 October 2012)

In 2006, Martin Campbell directed 'Casino Royale' starring the then controversial choice of Daniel Craig. The casting of fair-haired Craig marked him as the first Bond to be blonde and – unlike his predecessors – the first actor to play Bond who was under six-foot (for the original producer, the late Cubby Broccoli, this would have been something of a strict no-no). The decision was greeted by almost widespread disapproval (heck, someone even set up a website to vent his fury at the decision)and things were not looking good. However, the risk paid off and Casino Royale turned out to be one of the best Bond movies in recent years. It did good business and laid the groundwork for the follow-up (and sequel, of sorts – a Bond first) 'Quantum of Solace'. While still being a huge hit, the words "boring" and "hard to follow" were not exactly uncommon place at the time. Which leads us onto the latest movie 'Skyfall' – the twenty-third in the franchise (that is if you don't count Sean Connery's 1983 venture in 'Never Say Never Again' and 1967's 'Casino Royale' starring – ahem – Woody Allen as 'Jimmy Bond').
After an operation goes wrong, Bond goes missing in action for a while – not in the least helped by the actions of M (Judi Dench). Meanwhile, a shadowy and ruthless figure from M's past comes back to haunt her by first of all exposing the names of undercover agents before moving on to more explosive tactics. This forces the now embittered double-o-seven to put his anger aside and return from the 'dead' to help his boss out with this latest threat to Queen and country.
First thing's first: there is a lot that this movie does right. The entire cast are excellent. From a fantastic opening scene and the refreshingly low-tech opening titles which could have came from the seventies (a far cry from the CGI drenched titles of the Brosnan years) to the title song, sung in an unshowy, understated fashion by Adele, this movie marks a return to the basics in a way unseen since From Russia With Love. You see, Skyfall is not really about set pieces and gadgets; it's more of a drama this time – but with some action thrown in.
As with the previous Craig movies, this kicks off with a – surprise, surprise – chase. Whereas Casino's was on foot and Quantum's was in cars, this one starts on foot, moves to motorcycles before ending up atop a moving train. Make no mistake: it really is riveting and on edge of your seat stuff, but it's something that comes back to haunt the filmmakers later on Yes, you've guessed it: this movie suffers from a severe aliment known as 'The Dark Knight Rises syndrome'. What this means is the opening is SO good and spectacular and sets the bar so high, whatever comes after it can only hope to live up to it. And unfortunately, as with The Dark Knight Rises, Skyfall also shoots its load too soon and although it tries, never quite lives up to the breathtaking opening.
There are some aspects of this movie that don't make any sense. They may be a legacy of last minute script editing and if this is the case, it really shows. For example, in one part of the movie, Bond and co discuss a certain evil character who has no country/nationality/next of kin and is basically a 'ghost' with no permanent base/home; yet Bond quickly gets the location of his next destination via a simple text. In another part, Bond is taken to meet Silva - the bad guy of this movie (a fantastic Javier Bardem) by boat. While on deck, he takes out a homing device and puts it in his pocket. This understandably has bad repercussions for Silva and leads inevitably to the obvious question: why on earth wasn't Bond frisked beforehand? Meanwhile, in another scene, two people are trying to flee stealthily from a violent shoot- out/assault in a rural area so as not to alert the ruthless hit men; yet they don't have the gumption to avoid switching on their flashlight which alerts the bad guys. It is silly moments like these that really drag the quality of this movie down a notch. There's no excuse – the makers have had four years to sort this stuff out. And let's not get started about all the product placement
The rather odd thing about this movie is it cost a reported two hundred million dollars to put up on the screen, but it does not look it. James Cameron was able to make Avatar for just forty million more and in 3D. For the amount of money that was spent on Skyfall, you kind of expect spectacle, i.e., envelop pushing action scenes. In general, most people come to see Bond movies for the excitement and the action. Who can forget the helicopter/roof chase of 'Tomorrow Never Dies'? Or the huge, multiple tanker truck set piece at the end of 'Licence to Kill'? With the exception of the exciting – and spectacular opening scene -sadly, the set pieces here are few and far between. There's a few sporadic action scenes scattered throughout the long running time but they're so brief as to not stand out like previous Bonds. Yes, Sam Mendes may have took the admirable step of taking things back to its 'roots', but it comes at a cost of the very thing that Bond is known for.
In conclusion, while Casino Royale still remains the benchmark of the Daniel Craig outings – if not also the best Bond movie of the last fifteen years – this is still a huge improvement over Quantum of Solace, and makes for an engaging two-hour plus of good story telling. It's just a shame that the number of large-scale action set pieces can be counted on one hand.