I had really high hopes for Skyfall.
Maybe that was the problem.
Don't get me wrong, it's a good film. In fact, it's a very good film. It has action, adventure, espionage, explosions and enough globe-trotting to keep any travel agent happy.
But as a Bond film?
I'm not convinced.
The strange thing is that all the ingredients are there. Daniel Craig is excellent, the cinematography is stunning and some of the action sequences are among the best in the series.
Yet something felt missing.
I never got that classic Bond buzz.
You know the feeling. The gadgets. The villains. The swagger. The sense that you're watching the world's coolest spy doing things that would get most people arrested within minutes.
Skyfall felt different.
I wasn't particularly invested in the villain, and despite all the praise Javier Bardem received for his performance, the character never really clicked with me. He felt eccentric, but not especially threatening.
I also struggled with the new Q.
Perhaps I was too attached to the previous version, but I never quite warmed to him. It felt like Bond had traded in a workshop full of gadgets for a bloke with a laptop and a strong Wi-Fi signal.
The biggest issue for me is that Skyfall almost feels like a setup for the Bond film that comes afterwards.
It's as if the film spends two and a half hours rebuilding the world of James Bond rather than fully embracing it.
By the end, I found myself thinking:
"Right. Now can we have a proper Bond film?"
Which is a strange reaction to have after watching a James Bond film.
It's entertaining, beautifully made and undeniably well-crafted.
I just wanted a little more Bond in my Bond.
Shaken, not stirred.
3/5
