Overall, still part of an interesting direction for Bond

Rating: 8/10 (14 November 2008)

OK...I just saw the midnight show preview and I am conflicted.
I'll start with the good:
Craig is awesome as Bond. He wasn't allowed too much humor in this film -- one gets the feeling the makers are self conscious about slipping into the camp style humor that marred late Connery, late Pierce, and all of Roger. But Bond should be witty and sexually sly. Letting Bond have some fun wouldn't necessarily have to be camp. Note to the writers: You don't have to lighten up the story lines, just parts of the story.
As the film progressed, it became clear that the franchise is resurrecting a SPECTRE type of organization -- something for Bond to fight. I don't know if this will continue, but it's working and it gives the villains an added dimension -- you know there's always more to the schemes.
Some critics have lambasted the villain here for not being diabolical enough. Casino Royale established that Bond would not be facing bad guys who want to go into outer space and create a master race. Criticizing the villain for not being camp-bad enough is like criticizing Christopher Nolan for not making Batman lighter and more fun. The series is being truer to Fleming's ideas of Bond. And it's nice to have Felix playing important roles in Bond's missions. Wright is one of the best Felix's yet, and I hope they continue to use him.
Also, the film's plot becomes more involving as it goes along. That was a good thing because:
The bad -- I was afraid it wasn't going to have a plot during the first reel. The criticism of the action scenes is justified; Forster is a talented director, and he may well direct a terrific action picture one day -- but it's obvious he currently is not an action director. Some of the stylistic edits and inter-cutting during the picture are well done. But the big action set pieces are filmed like the Bourne films -- and I hate that style. Time and space and character must be present to make the action suspenseful. Casino Royale did that in spades. Here, the action is discombobulated and that makes the characters involved non-existent. It also makes CGI more noticeable. Casino Royale incorporated CGI in an understated manner, using it to fine tune rather than be center-stage. Bond will never be a CGI action hero -- there will always be a touch of wonderful analog to him, and the producers would do well to remember that action scenes subtly enhanced by CGI are more involving and interesting than ones created mostly or totally from computers; the former serves a story, the latter serves a game console.
The Bourne style of action scenes reminds me of a singer who uses her voice for high notes at every stage during a song; no nuance, no variety, and the impact of her high notes is diminished by the fact there is no contrast. Variety of styles, cuts, shots, and human reaction are all important for action scenes. Just because something is cut in half second shot times doesn't make it exciting.
The Bond girls in the film are not bad -- they don't deserve the advanced negativity I've read. But they aren't great, either. Middle of the pack. They didn't get out of Eva Green's shadow, and this was probably why they got killed in so many reviews. But they're not bad like this: Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist named Christmas Jones. That's perspective.
I love Craig's Bond's coldness and I like the narrative that's building. This is a good film. It recovers from a shaky start and sets up Bond nicely for another outing. I think bringing Campbell back as director would be a positive. And I hope they don't give in and start making the villains campy nut-cases. Also, I hope they keep Wright as Felix and expand his role next time. But for now, QoS will do. A solid if flawed outing, whose positives usually include the new direction taken for Craig's Bond, and that's a good sign for the future.