Don't listen, James Bond is still James Bond.

Rating: 10/10 (15 November 2008)

How can people say that this isn't a Bond movie, and that Bond has lost his identity? Having read reviews going into this movie, I was expecting to see nothing but gratuitous, pointless action, and Daniel Craig taking the role in some absurd direction. "Like oh my god him and the director watched the Borne movies too much." (actually I wasn't really expecting this, I was assuming that people "misinterpreted" the direction they took, and I believe I assumed correctly.
So why aren't people satisfied? In the beginning, and constantly throughout the film you have Bond acting callous about Vesper, keeping his cool in front of M, when everybody in the audience knows he cares deeply, even M. This was an element that was set up wonderfully in the first film. also, you have Bond comforting a "Bond girl" after something traumatic has happened, this time around fire and not in water, so we see him show how much he cares. He somewhat hides it again with the other "Bond girl," but he still does show he cares with what he tells M a little later. so where was the mark missed?
The action was a problem? Yeah right. You have a highly trained and vastly intuitive secret agent that I think it's safe to say fell in love for the first time and had that taken away from him... why not go on a "rampage?" in that field of work... in the Bond universe that's how things go. the action was spot on. i liked the camera work, but i admit it was a bit shakier then it needed to be.
Roger Ebert said "Please understand, Bond is not an action hero!" ha. Since when? in the Bond movie's they've just balanced it out with a lot of other elements, and they do that in this film also. people wanted more suave "James Bond" type scenes, yet that was all in this film. the part where he tells her they've got to go to a better hotel, the part on the plane where the bartender describes the Vesper Martini... how he tricks the guys at the opera, and more but i hope you get my point... i may not be explaining it well enough. i think this whole suave Bond element that people seemed to think Q.o.S was missing, was way easier to see in Casino Royal because it was slower paced and a lot of it was done at a poker table, so it stood out more.
but they were moving on from Casino Royal, Bond had some scores to settle, and the motivation came from deep within.
10/10.