Saw it a week ago. Gotta say, and this may be because I saw it in an Indian cinema so it may have been edited somewhat by the censors here, but it was only “meh” for me. There was very little actual “secret agent” material a la the Dalton movies, nor was there any substantial “gadget Bond” stuff a la the Brosnan/Moore films.
The villain was made out to be a terrifying, remorseless figure, but turned out to be nothing of the sort, just petty and a bit sociopathic. It was like a TV drama episode that had been stretched to fit a movie running time.
Not up to the standards of the previous Craig movies for me. I give it a 2 or 3 out of 5 stars; 2 out of 5 compared to other Bond films and 3 out of 5 for action films in general.
The villain was made out to be a terrifying, remorseless figure, but turned out to be nothing of the sort, just petty and a bit sociopathic. It was like a TV drama episode that had been stretched to fit a movie running time.
Not up to the standards of the previous Craig movies for me. I give it a 2 or 3 out of 5 stars; 2 out of 5 compared to other Bond films and 3 out of 5 for action films in general.
I agree with your assessment. Most of the other bond films at least had a plot of sorts. The plot here was very weak. It was almost all action. Much of the "plot" made no sense.
I would characterize the "plot" as a series of weak excuses to justify the action scenes.
As an example, censored to prevent a spoiler, what possible reason would there be to send one man on a mission, with virtually no backup, that the fate of the entire service is known to hang on?
I would argue that this was not the case in the other Bond films. True, the fate of the world might turn on his actions, but he was not deliberately put into that situation, knowing that, by his superiors, in previous films.