Skyfall is basically Dark Knight with a bit of DKR in there too.

NOTE: SPOILERS AHEAD.  WARNED.

Movies are a tough thing for me to see, given my situation, so when the opportunity comes along to catch something good, under whatever circumstances, I grab at it. Skyfall was a great film, but had been slightly colored by the fanfare prior to my viewing, the more common remark being "it's basically this new Bond's Dark Knight."  A telling statement, that.

What does a description like that implicate?  To me, it is mainly defined by a few factors.

1) A villain who - while certainly quite deranged, sinister, clever, and ruthless - is also surprisingly likeable, mainly due to the actors portraying them.  Dark Knight had the wonderful Heath Ledger, while Skyfall gets the equally wonderful Jarvier Bardem, who dives into "Silva" beautifully, even going so far as to actually wear a set of false teeth over his own to simulate how a mouthpiece (such as one used by his character in the film) would alter a person's voice.  Creepy, devious, and almost always one step ahead, my only real nitpick is that we never really see how his hand-to-hand skills compare to Bond's, especially given that he's touted as Bond's predecessor, of a fashion.  In the film he comes of as a brilliant planner, great with a gun, and honestly believes he's untouchable, which makes his rare looks of surprise much more valuable.  His motivations are a bit one-dimensional - basically a fairly standard revenge plot - but that doesn't diminish Bardem's presence as a genuine threat.

2) A plot involving the villain knowing the ins and outs of who he's up against, while doing a fairly decent job of keeping his own methods and machinations out of the eyes of his adversaries.  This usually does involve the "planned" capture of said villain, who then proceeds to demolish or otherwise diminish the protagonists' abilities, then cleverly escaping.  It also tends to include the destruction (and subsequent moving or rebuilding elsewhere) of the protagonists' main headquarters or home.  (Though in Batman's case, the demolishing of Wayne Manor happened in Batman Begins, with the new "basement cave" thing popping up in Dark Knight.)  It's interesting that this is now a "thing" that movies do, and it isn't always done right.  Skyfall's attempt is admirable, and certainly unique in places, but it does somewhat feel like it's just going with the proverbial flow.  (This also worries me about Star Trek Into Darkness.)

3)  An ending that drastically changes the status quo for the characters moving forward into the next installments.  With the death of Dame Judi Dench's "M," it falls to Ralph Fiennes to take the mantle and run with it, basically bringing this version of Bond to a place similar to where the other iterations of the character lived for so long.  Dark Knight did this by making Batman a fugitive, which he hadn't really been up to that point in the "Nolanverse," but in terms of the comics he has been for many years, through most iterations.  In Skyfall, this is further qualified by the introductions of two other characters: Moneypenny and "Q."  Both long-time franchise stalwarts, bringing them into the fold in the third movie of this "new" franchise sends a clear message that THIS IS A REBOOT PEOPLE.  Given how the series has gone so far, it's doubtful that things are ever going to "go back to normal," at least in terms of the formula that the older Bond movies followed fairly tightly.

And for those confused about the concept of a "reboot," it means just that: fresh start, all stats back to zero.  This series is NOT a prequel to the other flicks.  They DID keep Dench on from her Brosnan days, but honestly I couldn't see anyone else doing that role; she did it so well, they decided to potentially destroy all credibility concerning the reboot to keep her. Basically, they almost broke the Bond universe to keep Judi Dench on their cast.  And honestly, who wouldn't?

I do find it interesting that it took them 3 movies to firmly establish that this is a reboot.  Things such as showing where Bond grew up hit this home hard.  One of the big rumors (not helped by the continued casting of Dench) is that there is no "real" James Bond; that the name is a codename given to anyone who takes over the "007" designation after the previous agent assigned to it dies (or is killed in the line of duty, as is more likely given the job itself).  But here we visit the family manor.  The old groundskeeper (who is curiously quite good at killing armed secret agent types) calls him by the name "James Bond."  The father's gun is stamped "AB," and the parents' grave has the clear inscription of "Andrew Bond."  So, it's settled.  James Bond is his actual name.  Now, when another actor takes over (sadly, Craig has got maybe 2 more in him, I think) that may change.  But for now, this is clearly the beginning (or third beginning, whatever) of a redesigned continuity.  Star Trek did it, as did Batman, with Superman coming up.  Why can't 007?

Other, more singular thoughts as follows:

The New "Q" - Ben Wishaw does a great job capturing the dry, superior wit that "Q" needs to have, while making it clear that his genius with a computer or gadgetry is countermanded by his nearly zero experience with field work, or field agents in general.  I'm looking forward to seeing how they develop this character beyond the old-school "Here's your stuff, now bring it back in one piece" bit that gets referenced in his first scene.  (Though his line about exploding pens is genius - itself a reference to Goldeneye, considered by many to be Bond's first "reboot," and basically a great big middle finger to those who want the wacky gadgets to come back.)

Moneypenny - I honestly don't care that she's black, so let's not mention that again.  Established up front as a middling quality field agent (she did accidentally shoot Bond in a critical moment) she pops up a few times to kindle interest in Bond, help out in a pinch, and finally basically "retires" to desk duty as... the new "M's" secretary.  Some things never change.  Though I'm interested to see where they go with her, I wouldn't be surprised if she gets relegated to just the occasional flirtation and over-the-radio intel gathering.

Less Hand-to-Hand - Casino Royale had a few great hand-to-hand combat scenes, but there are very few in Skyfall.  Lots of focus on chase sequences, gunplay, and vehicular carnage, but the few instances in which Bond gets up in someone's face are short, and brutal.  That might've been their focus, or even Bond's focus, this time around: hand-to-hand needs to be quick and effective, so one can move on from it in as little time as possible.

Crippling the Hero - Another Batman comparison comes from Dark Knight Rises; the crippling (or near enough) of the hero, so their recovery is more important as the story goes on.  In DKR, Batman gets crippled nearly halfway through the flick; Skyfall does it at the end of the first chase sequence, not even 15 minutes in.  Most of the movie he spends recovering, both mentally and physically, while trying to find / fight this new threat, bigger than most he's seen up until now.  It's an interesting dynamic, and handled well enough, it's just one of those "trilogy" things that happens sometimes; take away (or limit access to) the thing that makes the hero "special" so we can see how they do without it, thereby making them a better person.  We'll see.

Overall, it was a great movie, worthy of the box office receipts it earned.  It basically made "Avengers money" (formerly known as "Dark Knight money") and it deserved it.  You can tell they worked hard to make this a unique entry in the series, especially since Quantum of Solace seemed kinda "by the numbers," a worrying sign for a rebooted franchise.  So, hope renewed, I eagerly await the next one.  It'll be interesting how these "new, yet old" elements will fit with the new direction that the character (and series) are going.