Obviously no film can please everyone but the new Bond release either has people hating it or loving it. And the critics have not been kind, in particular Roger Ebert who's online review is both patronizing and devoid of any real critique of the actual film. His complaint mainly rests on that he misses the Bond Cliches and states that James Bond "is not an action hero." He also pointlessly criticizes the title of the film as if that ultimately mattered to the actual content of the film and he even complains about the female lead not having a name with innuendo, quote:

"We fondly remember the immortal names of Pussy Galore, Xenia Onatopp and Plenty O'Toole, who I have always suspected was a drag queen. In this film, who do we get? Are you ready for this? Camille. That's it. Camille. Not even Camille Squeal. Or Cammy Miami. Or Miss O'Toole's friend Cam Shaft."

Yes, the female lead Camille does not have a name that implies sex. Consider that Camille, according to the storyline, was forced to watch her family raped and butchered by a fascist--and you want to give her a bimbo innuendo name? It may have not been appropriate to the storyline. I'm all for bad taste and sexual humor but I agree with the producers' decision not to do it.

But was there a bimbo innuendo name? Almost. Fellow female agent "Fields" was to have that innuendo name except for some reason the director or producers must have chickened out. Only her last name is mentioned. And that is the girl Bond seduces. Her full name is "Strawberry Fields". Get it? She's a redhead and down there it's...oh never mind. So Ebert could have had his innuendo if her full name was mentioned and maybe in his review he should have pointed that out. That's a fair critique with some background.

But back to the bigger problem of "The Action Hero," and Roger Ebert wasn't the only critic to take this stance. Several critics felt Quantum was too inspired by The Bourne Identity and that Bond was not an "Action Hero." Well of course James Bond is an action hero--he's one type out of many. Define "Action Hero." I can't even take this criticism seriously. The real complaint here is being masked. You can break it down to: 1. We want our gadgets 2. We want more sex 3. We want our Bond Cliches.

Is James Bond an Action Hero without gadgets?
I can't argue with the cliches complaint if this were a Roger Moore Film or a Pierce Brosnan film or even Sean Connery after Dr. No. But this is an interpretation with Daniel Craig as a young Bond making mistakes. I do believe all the cliches will appear in successive films; this film wasn't ready for them and Bond is screwing up all over the place using his brute strength to succeed much like an overly confident young person who is still learning the ropes. I think Quantum of Solace makes sense according to the character timeline. Gadgets could have been inserted but would they feel forced into the story much like product placement?

I remember gadgets were introduced into Licence to Kill and they seemed like unnecessary props that had no relation to the plot (remember the explosives disguised as toothpaste, but Bond used it outside a window with no reason to disguise it? Seemed silly to me. And what about the gun that only recognized his hand print forced into a scene where an ally uses it on him--not used in any clever manner to kill a villain?). Gadgets are fun but much like CGI they aren't always the best route to getting the job done. Wasn't it For Your Eyes Only that stripped down Bond of all gadgets because the previous films had gone overboard with gadgets? And critics applauded that bold move. Absence of gadgets is not a valid argument that a Bond film is not a Bond film.

Every actor starts a new Bond Film Series
I have always taken a step back whenever a film series has to hand the main character role over to someone new. When Daniel Craig was set to replace Pierce Brosnan, I was surprised but I didn't get all up in arms with the rest of the Brosnan fans because Mr. Craig didn't represent the English Gentleman Spy. I took a wait and see approach, and much to my delight Mr. Craig turned out to be the best Bond I have ever seen on screen. Previously my favorite was Sean Connery.

One should try to view each actor's Bond films as a series unrelated to the other Bond Films in the franchise. The first series would be Sean Connery. The second is a stand-alone film with George Lazenby. The third series is Roger Moore. The fourth series is Timothy Dalton. The fifth series is Pierce Brosnan. And lastly the current series is Daniel Craig.

Each series represents a different interpretation. Sean Connery and Timothy Dalton are the tough Bonds who honestly I feel could survive an actual fistfight. Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan are the gentleman Bonds who would probably get their asses kicked unless they used their wits and/or gadgets.

The Daniel Craig series expands in the direction of the tough Bond. He has yet to use any major gadgetry except a defibrillator to restart his heart in Casino Royale. In Quantum Of Solace he uses his fists, items around him and his Walther P99 weapon of choice. The fight scenes don't allow for old-school foreshadowing of some dangerous item which will be used to end the fight (such as a piece of modern art with sharp spikes which the villain is thrust upon or a gadget given to Bond by Q in an earlier scene). The entire concept is that this is a real fight and real fights don't allow for thinking so much as reacting. And Bond gets hurt--not that hurt though. It's gritty realism that is also implausible and I might add over the top despite viewers that were disappointed there were no "over-the-top" scenes. What they really mean is so over-the-top "campy" and we laugh at how ridiculous it is that Bond escaped or avoided near death.

Incomprehensible plot? Did you see both films?
From reading the User Reviews left at MoviePhone.com I saw the same comment over and over again: "The plot was incomprehensible." I read these reviews before leaving to the theater and I expected the plot to be a mess even while I might still enjoy the action and performances. It wasn't the case. The plot was easy to understand and yet the motives of the villains and the discovery of a secret network of government infiltrators was left incomplete (Bond can't wrap up everything in one film).

Quantum works like a second chapter to Casino Royale. He finds Mr. White, begins interrogating him and then it is discovered by both Bond and "M" that MI6 Secret Intelligence has been compromised. The next clue is to discover what the members of this secret society are up to and that leads to Dominic Greene, who is one of those members. One of the best scenes in the movie is during an opera where a meeting is held in public between Dominic and other members of Quantum, audience members being oblivious of the meeting because of the music. Quantum uses special ear pieces with mics and are able to talk to each other while the operatic voices wail on. Bond gets ahold of an ear piece, eavesdrops, and then butts in on everyone telling them all he doesn't approve of what they're doing. I thought it was hilarious. He had turned the tables on them and compromised their organization this time around.

Dominic Greene is chased down by Bond in a finale in the Bolivian desert and it is revealed that Greene's environmental group is not after oil but controlling water. Roger Ebert had this to say:

"As a start, the fiend desires to corner the water supply of ... Bolivia. Ohooo! Nooo!"

I don't know what Mr. Ebert is thinking. Try not drinking any water for a day and see how you feel Roger. Even further still, try imagining if your city did not have access to water for the week and people start dying all around you. That seems pretty diabolical to me. The whole concept is to destabilize the government of Bolivia and take it over. Again, my interpretation of Ebert's complaint is that "the fiend" does not have an over-the-top evil plan which returns us to "campy."

You know the hard part about doing "James Bond Campy" in this era is that Austin Powers already did it. And this is why I am sure it is incredibly hard to please audiences with a new James Bond film. If you go over-the-top campy inevitably some critic is going to make a reference to Austin Powers. If you try to keep the scenes away from the Austin Powers parodies you're accused of not being a "Bond" film.

Quantum of Solace is not the perfect Bond film, but it is "Bond." And the plot does make sense and the leading lady is not a bimbo like Plenty O' Toole or a pseudo-lesbian like Pussy Galore and the gadgets are not a necessity. The action sequences are intense but I believe don't overwhelm the character; Bond has his quiet moments, he has yet to become the cold, sarcastic Bond of Sean Connery. Death still has an impact on him.

What if this new Bond series works more like a series that builds upon itself with each movie instead of feeling like it has to live up to the cliches and always have a super villain to be conquered within two hours of watching? I would suggest when the DVD comes out, view Casino Royale and Quantum back to back. Joined together they are like one long film that follows a comprehensible plotline just fine. The story however is not complete. We need to know more about Quantum and what they are up to. Kind of similar to knowing about our modern day terrorists bent on world destruction. They are in the shadows too. If we give this new Bond a chance, he may find out how to bring the villains out into the light.