You know, I was thinking about this afterwards and I know what it was that was wrong:
A distinct lack of intelligent wit and repartee
There was no cutting dialogue between Bond and the villain, bond and M, no Q (or R or any gadgets that I can think of), no story being told as such, no surprise and no innuendo.
And that, for me, as much as the action and the effects, is what and who Bond is. It’s as much about what it makes us imagine as what we see on screen.
He’s suave, well dressed (and I have to hand it to Craig and the make-up people, the more battered and bruised he was, the better they managed to make him), he’s clever and he’s manipulative. We saw none of that.
The film could have been a long episode of McGuyver, without the resourcefulness or the humour.
I think I’m with darragh on the 7 out of 10, there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the movie but it certainly won’t live long in the memory. Though I certainly wouldn’t bemoan the lack of in-your-endo, it was getting tiresome overall.
Hmmm Byrne, I have a memory of you coming out of it and saying it was fantastic. Could have been Anto but I’m pretty sure it was you. Not saying you loved loved it, just your taste for it seems to have diminished rapidly.
@Darragh Antagonistic git! I said it was a lot of fun and it was good. I also said is was very disappointing, lacked a plot and the action scenes were not a patch on Casino Royale. It was not a ‘Bond’ movie, but I enjoyed watching it for the ‘switch off your brain’ side of things. But I certainly wouldn’t give it 7/10. 5 maybe. (This sounds very defensive, doesn’t it? Ah well.) 🙂