Iconoclast: why I had big problems with Bond's 'Skyfall'

Today, at a greatly fan-fared press event, the title and cast for the next (and 24th) Bond movie was announced: SPECTRE.  And what a great and diverse cast it has - Christoph Waltz, Monica Belucci and Dave Bautista amongst others.  But what will the story, and eventual film be like?  Hopefully, in my opinion, better than the last Bond movie, Skyfall.

Now, I know that a LOT of people loved that film (indeed, it has been the most financially successful Bond movie to date), but I felt there were so many problems with it that it pretty much spoiled my enjoyment of it  In the first of another occasional series, here I play 'Iconoclast' and highlight the flaws of an otherwise highly regarded move.

Bond Is Overshadowed By Almost Everything:

Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy the Bond movies, and I think that Craig is excellent as Bond.  When he made his debut in the Role for 'Casino Royal' he instantly made the role his own, and the film put him front and centre: it was all about BOND (capitals, Bold, Extra-large typeface), no gadgety gimmicks or over the top sets of villain's lairs required.  And Craig was irresistible, especially in the tense casino games taking on the villain Le Chifre at card games.  The series rightly got itself back on track by making the portrayal and characterisation of Bond the focus.  Although follow-up 'Quantum of Solace' was hamstrung due to the Writer's Strike of 2007, Skyfall could have built upon the strengths of 'Casino Royal'.

Instead, at almost every point, Bond is overshadowed throughout the film: by the cinematography, by a classic Aston Martin, by the villain, bringing back 'classic' elements like Q and Moneypenny; and even by Albert Finney with a shotgun.  To me it felt like a backward step for the franchise, making the film another reboot when Casino Royale was supposed to be one for the character.  These elements just seemed to push Bond to the back, when Casino Royal had done so much to push him front and centre, and make him awesome again.  Apart from one moment where Bond takes out several henchmen in a matter of seconds, you never feel there is a moment that makes you cheer for Bond at the same level.

Sure, it looks good - but when the main character gets lost in the visuals, you have to ask if it looks TOO good...

Bond is No Longer a Spy Anymore?

The plot, ostensibly, is kicked off by the loss of a hard-drive containing details of every MI6 undercover operative worldwide.  Yet if finding it was as easy as finding the person who apparently stole it, it's hard to see the need for Bond.  Especially in the scene that introduces Q, where he basically says to Bond 'here's the person we're looking for - oh, and he's going to be here, so go get him.'  I'm sorry, but isn't the point of Bond that he goes undercover to find the whereabouts of people, and maguffins, in that way?  Isn't he supposed to gather intelligence, not turn up and have it given to him?  This film took all of that away, and in effect reduced Bond to being a mere government-sanctioned hit-man.

And that's before you get to the fact that, once they've located the film's real 'villain', this hard-drive (and the risk it presents) is completely abandoned by the plot - so was it really that much of a problem?  And that brings me to another of the film's issues...

The Villain is a More Sympathetic Character Than Bond:

Despite being introduced in a creepy (and arguably homophobic) manner by having him make a pass at a bound and prone Bond, when we discover his motives - that he was abandoned to torture, disfigurement and left for dead by the actions (or inactions) of Judi Dench's M, it's hard not to feel that, well, actually he might have a point.  Okay, he threatens (and succeeds in) killing MI6 operatives, but put his motivations alongside the callous manner that Bond dismisses the death of a woman he's only recently slept with, and it makes you question who you're supposed to be rooting for.  Yeah, I get that part of Bond's character is that he is heartless when it comes to how he uses and discards women, but you can excuse this when you put him alongside a really nefarious villain; Silva's (Javier Bardem) motivations were too relatable to be an effective counter to Bond's worse aspects.

In Bond movies you should never get behind the Villains motivations... surely?

Add to that an irritating theme song (surely someone could have asked Adele to tone down her Cocker-knee accent so it didn't sound so much like she's singing about trifle and apple-crumble?!?), plot holes like those I've stated above, and predictable not-at-all surprises like the 'reveals' of the new M and Moneypenny; in all, these things simply stopped me from being able to enjoy this film.  I know I'm in a minority though - and I certainly look forward to the new Bond, despite my reservations about its predecessor.  I just hope it doesn't share any of these issues with it...

Albert Finney's a great actor, but you don't want to see him upstage Bond in a Bond movie, do you?