A Bond Film Minus One Thing: Bond

Rating: 5/10 (12 November 2012)

***********Spoilers*************
At the end of the film, we see Silva and M locked in a terminal embrace, and we hear the villain's ultimate desire: for them both to die together. But of course, JAMES BOND won't let that happen! And so he kills Silva.
But, alas, they both die anyway.
Skip to the beginning -- James won't let the tired old clichÃ© of an agent list fall into enemy hands.
But, alas, it does.
Skip to the middle -- James won't let the long-suffering (and quite stunning) Bond Girl die.
But, alas, she does.
So when did Bond get so impotent? And irrelevant?
This film is a noisy, action-packed piece of flash, which would be enjoyable as a stylish escapism and on a par with every good Bond film except it's hard to get past the realization that our hero has no substance, and does absolutely nothing to affect the outcome. Bond might just as well have taken a golf holiday, and the plot would've arrived at mostly the same result.
The Irrelevant Hero is what I call the "Raiders of the Lost Ark" syndrome. In "Raiders", Indiana Jones fails in retrieving the golden idol, then runs around searching for the Ark, chases Nazis, shoots Nazis, chases the Ark, but ultimately fails to steal the Ark. If he'd not even shown up, if he'd taken that week off, the Nazis would've found the Ark, opened it up, been killed anyway, end of story. Does it ruin a film? Not if there's enough flash to outdo the substance, but it'll never make it a great film.
And such is the case here.
Where's the hero Bond that protects the world, saves Fort Knox, eliminates Le Chiffre? Or even seduces the girl? (I don't consider stepping in the shower with her a proper seduction, more like an obligation) It's like the filmmakers are tired of their own formula. I like Daniel Craig, I think he's a good Bond, but the character development towards a "New Bond" has created a character that's kind of a screw-up, and at times an unpleasant one. A scraggly bearded alcoholic is not Bond. During the scorpion scene, I was reminded of the psychotically tortured Christopher Walken in "The Deer Hunter." Not exactly the self-assured hero we've come to love. I mean this Bond has no RIGHT to step in that shower with the girl, except that he could use the bath.
I understand those of you who say it's a necessary update. But to go so far away from Fleming's conception is just change for change's sake. I mean, why stop there -- why not make him a vampire then? Do we really have to turn him into Jason Bourne? Does he have to have a conscience, or even be thoughtful? A thoughtful hero and a mindless entertainment don't mix. I just want to have fun seeing him best the baddies, not share his pain.
So I missed James Bond in this film. Even the Bond from "Casino Royale" would've done fine. And there's just way too many ridiculous plot devices to overcome without that sort of Bond. True, by the end of the film, Bond does get into "Bond mode" a bit more, though only through a gimmicky plot contrivance that puts him at a huge manpower disadvantage. By then, I was mostly chuckling at the silliness of it all. (My favorite bit of silliness: Silva's amazing prescience that Q will try to hack (by quite stupidly connecting it to the entire MI6 mainframe mind you) Silva's program at the precise moment that M will be at Westminster defending her organization, which Silva has somehow been able to also foresee and plan for, right down to Bond chasing him to the one particular spot (and then stopping) where Silva can blow a hole in the roof and send in a subway train, timing the train's arrival to a precise moment as well. (I mean - COME ON!) The new, likable Q even says that the new MI6 is not about gimmicks and silly devices, too bad the screenwriters didn't eliminate them from their plot.
Please, bring back James Bond!