Is there any point to mentioning that my post contains SPOILERS?
For those who complain that it bore no resemblance to a James Bond film: you are right. That is because they have completely redefined the James Bond franchise. It's kind of like Nolan's version of Batman. It's meant to be "realistic." Gritty, down to earth, and visceral are also words that come to mind. Hence the relative mundanity of the plot. I'm not sure whether Cyrus' complaint was that the plot was mundane, or that it was stupid/nonsensical/pointless. Whatever you might say about it, I think that it was meant to be an example of the type of situation the intelligence agencies of the world's major powers might have to deal with in the present day, in the world's current political climate. It was certainly interesting to see the blunt depiction of the world's major powers' last ditch scramble for oil at any cost. Not to mention the not-so-subtle criticism of the U.S.'s actions on the world stage. Not the sort of thing you'd expect to see in a Bond film.
The problem with their new definition of a James Bond film is quite simply that it doesn't work. You can either have a James Bond movie, or you can have a "realistic" spy movie. These things are mutually exclusive. For if Bond is meant to be simply "a really good MI6 agent doing what MI6 agents do," then we are left wondering why he's driving around in an Aston Martin in the first place. It's not as if the real MI6 can afford to provide one for each of its agents. To make this new definition work, the filmmakers would have to abandon ALL of the elements that typify a James Bond movie, as opposed to MOST of them. We accepted the outlandish elements and gadgets in previous Bond films because they were part and parcel of the Bond experience. It's much harder to accept them here.
It doesn't help that they've also completely redefined the character. The only elements that remain the same are his efficiency as a killer, his alcoholism, his sex drive, his seeming invincibility, and his ability to ultimately get the job done, no matter how unconventional the methods employed. Yet he seems to lack any of the charm and sophistication that the filmmakers would have us believe are still inherent to Bond. People around him act as though he's well-known to be this suave character with fine, expensive tastes, but he really doesn't portray himself that way (aside from the fact that's he's dressed nicely). He's described as a thug, a hired hitman, an assassin, a "blunt instrument." Those certainly seem closer to the mark when it comes to Craig's performance. This humourless Bond has a brooding intensity to him. He has issues -- emotional baggage. In light of these traits, it seems surprising that he's able to go to bed with so many women. Especially since I haven't had anything that comes even close to a remotely consistent answer from my female friends when it comes to the issue of whether Daniel Craig is, in fact, good-looking. They're all over the map.
I guess the summary of what I'm saying is that by drastically changing the Bond franchise, the filmmakers have unwittingly had us recalibrate our suspension-of-disbelief-o-meters to the point that it makes it difficult to accept the traditional James Bond elements in these films.
