I’m not sure what it says that this is both the least Bondian Bond movie I’ve seen but also probably the best. Great action scenes, with apparent martial artists serving as enemy couriers; plus the introduction of the novel concept of “characterization” to Bond films works out pretty well.

There are only really two flaws:

  1. The ending is disjointed and confusing enough that its impact is diminished by the viewer not understanding what’s even supposed to be going on, never mind what actually is. It ends up making sense in the end, but the way it’s presented makes you think that more’s going on than actually is, so when you find out that what you were supposed to think was happening wasn’t actually happening, you’d already gone three steps beyond that and have to backtrack to, “Oh, that’s it? Huh.”

  2. They play Texas Hold-Em, which may be a fine game, but is not a Bondian one in any way. It is not a game for suave men in tuxedos, it is a game for losers in green visors and cowboy hats. I mean, seriously, it has both “Texas” and “Em” in the name! Play elaborate games we haven’t heard of, Mr. Bond! Play things that don’t even exist, like Torquemada or blind draw roulando!

  3. Also, I guess a very very minor third flaw is that they made a point of making Bond drink the cocktail he invented in the book (the vesper) and not his movie-signature vodka martini. Which is sort of cool in a puristy sense, but it was a really weirdly paced moment in the film if you didn’t know why they were making such a fuss about it.

Anyway, though, good stuff, and Daniel Craig is a great “realistic” Bond, as opposed to the Pierce Brosnan stylized superhero Bond. I don’t know if the Bourne/Bond mixup thing can or should replace the traditional Bond formula, but it’s at least a nice experiment.