So it wasn't a problem of understanding but it was the script thats good to know ;)
Anyways thanks for the reviews and the honourable mention amp

I personally think Quantum Of Solace is the worst James Bond film. Yes, even worse than Die Another Day. Whereas Die Another Day went out of its way to be a Bond film to the point of overkill, Quantum Of Solace goes out of its way to NOT be a Bond film. Quantum Of Solace feels more like an unofficial Bond film than Never Say Never Again. Bland characters and locations, Bourne-inspired action scenes, a plot that's difficult to follow, no humour, and just no Bond feeling whatsoever. Why the producers decided to green-light this is beyond me. As Alan Partridge would say, "Stop getting Bond wrong!"

I have a book written by David Giammarco simply titled For Your Eyes Only, that gives an in-depth look at the Bond films from Dr.No to Die Another Day. In it, there's an interesting quote from Roger Moore. He says, "To me, the Bond situations were so outrageous that I had to treat the humour outrageously as well. The audience all knows James Bond is going to win. I know I'm going to win. So it became rather a wink at the audience, saying, 'Hey, look at this! How are we - not how am I - how are we going to get out of this now?"

And that was the fun part of the Bond films, because even though you knew he would win, it was always interesting to see how he would get of his bizarre and dangerous situations, whether it was by using gadgets, various skills, or his wits. With Quantum Of Solace this isn't the case, since the action scenes are so chopped up and shaky that it seems like Bond is moving at the speed of Sonic The Hedgehog. That elevator scene, for example, was laughable. Bond is handcuffed in an elevator with four bad guys, so you would think this would be an interesting fight for him, but it isn't. Instead there's a quick blur of animation, the bad guys all fall to the floor, and Bond is free. The elevator fight between Bond and Peter Franks in Diamonds Are Forever is far better, and at least there's a struggle and not a one-sided fight.

This so-called "reinventing" of the Bond series has done nothing but remove all the fun and awesome qualities that made the Bond films so enjoyable, and has split the fan base. I constantly see Classic Bond fans and Modern Bond fans arguing on the forums. After Die Another Day, the producers should have simply went for a more balanced approach for the next film, instead of rebooting the series altogether. This dark and dramatic approach isn't appealing for everyone.

If Pierce Brosnan's Bond career had been better, and had he really left his mark in the series like Sean Connery and Roger Moore, it would have been very interesting to see how well this new direction would have went. Because between coming in right after the poor quality of the Brosnan era, critical praise and aggressive studio marketing, it seems Daniel Craig has much more going for him than Timothy Dalton ever did.

First off,  I would like to say that I respect your opinion, but don't agree much at all with you about the last couple of movies.  

You say that this is the worst Bond film and I obviously don't feel that way if you look at my scores that Smeags so nicely listed on the front page.  You really think that this is worse than the last three Brosnan disasters or Moonraker?  Of course you think that Moonraker is better since you are a big Roger Moore fan.  Don't get me wrong, I like Roger myself but would argue that he has less in common with Connery's Bond than Craig.  While Connery's movies were fun, they didn't descend into self parody until You Only Live Twice.  I would argue that the entire Moore era was very wink, wink... nudge, nudge... and while that sort of thing can be humorous and entertaining - it can also become downright ludicrous.  Trust me, when Ian Fleming wrote Live and Let Die I'm pretty sure that he didn't want it to be a tongue in cheek comedy influenced by blaxploitation movies.  I'm also pretty sure that he didn't want Francisco Scaramanga to have a midget assistant.  I could go on and list what's different with most of the Moore Bond movies when compared to their novels, but I'm sure that you get the point.  This is not to say that Moore wasn't good as Bond in a I'm playing this character the same way that I played Simon Templar in the Saint sort of way.  As I said before, Brosnan mimicked his style and was much worse at it.  I have read all of the Ian Fleming novels and will argue that Casino Royale is closer to Fleming's work than any of the Moore or Brosnan's movies.  I didn't think that the locations in QoS were bland.  Siena, Italy is a beautiful place and while he isn't Ernst Stavro Blofeld, I would argue that Dominic Greene is much more interseting than Elliot Carver or Brad Whitaker.  While I don't care for the direction in QoS and do think that he was shooting the movie like the last couple of Bourne movies, I don't think that the movie itself is Bourne inspired as you say.

Your second paragraph kind of confirms what I said about Moore in my first paragraph.  While I admire his approach by him doing something different than Sean Connery and being successful at it, I don't neccessarily think that's what the Bond character is about.  Ian Fleming once said that the Bond character should be able to do the improbable, but not the impossible.  As far fetched as the things that the character did, Fleming was known for what has been called the "Fleming Effect" in his novels.  This was him writing in such a way that the borderline outlandish things that Bond pulls off almost seem believable.  I think that Connery understood this while Moore and Brosnan did not.  They think that it's all about showing the ludicrous nature of the entire thing and winking at the audience.  Connery himself said that he left the role not only to pursue other acting interests, but because with You Only Live Twice he believed that the series was becoming too zany.

I agree with you 100% that the way that the choreography of the action in much of QoS is dreadful.  The elevator scene (it had two men - not four) was really bad.  I have this problem with modern cinema in general.  A beautifully choreographed fight scene like the one on the train in From Russia With Love, the one you mentioned in Diamonds Are Forever, or even the one between Bond and Largo at the end of Thunderball is too much to ask for these days.  Once again, this is the problem with the director and not Craig's performance or his take on the character.

I don't look at Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace as reinventing Bond any more than what any of the other actors that portrayed Bond decided to do (I do agree that a "reboot" was stupid though and stated that in my last review - they were actually going to do a reboot with Dalton long before the Batman thing, did you know this?).  I outlined above what Moore and Brosnan did with the character.  I would argue that Craig, Lazenby, and Dalton's takes are closer to the novels than anyone elses.  Connery's is definitely the best IMO, but he said that Terence Young told him to play up the humor a bit in Dr. No because otherwise the 60's audience would never accept it.  Craig, Lazenby, and Dalton have tried to be more loyal to the dark, serious, and gritty approach of the Fleming novels and while it's not for everyone, it is what it is.  What you call Modern Bond fans and Classic Bond fans, I would call the cinematic and literary Bond fans.  Lazenby, Dalton, and Craig are closer to the character that Fleming created while what Moore and Brosnan did is something completely different.  Connery strikes a balance between both.  He plays the role more tongue in cheek than the character of the novels, but isn't a joke telling machine like Moore or Brosnan.  While this tongue in cheek approach may have influenced the over the top silliness of Moore and Brosnan, it isn't really the classic literary Bond at all.  What you are caliing reinventing is actually in fact EONs choice to take the Bond character back to it's lierary roots.  They tried this twice befire with Lazenby and Dalton and weren't as successful.  Trust me, if people didn't like what Craig was doing they would have went back to making Bond into a one dimensional cardboard character (just like Brosnan) since those movies made a lot of money.

Another thing I would like to address is how you believe that Craig is being marketed more aggressively than others.  I would like to say that I saw about 9 million ads stating that Brosnan was the best Bond since Connery shortly after GoldenEye's release and I don't see the difference at all.  Also, as a child, remember the ads for the Moore movies.  The Spy Who Loved Me ads proclaimed, "It's the biggest!  It's the best!  It's Bond and beyond!"  and I have never seen a Bond movie in my lifetime promoted as heavily as Moonraker.  I swear they made it out to be the second coming of Star Wars...  I will agree with you that for whatever reason Dalton did not get this sort of treatment, and Lazenby and Connery were before I was born, but I will state that Moore and Brosnan definitely got pushed down everyone's throats just as much as Craig does now.        

I actually liked ALL of the Austin Powers movies.

If you are a big fan of the Austin Powers movies, I suggest that you check out the Derek Flint and Matt Helm movies.

Derek Flint was played by James Coburn and the movies were:

Our Man Flint

In Like Flint

Matt Helm was played by Dean Martin (yes that Dean Martin) and the movies were:

The Silencers

Murderers Row

The Ambushers

The Wrecking Crew

These movies influenced Austin Powers every bit as much as the Bond series.

Also, Michael Caine played a spy called Harry Palmer in another spy series, which was serious and not a Bond parody.  He looks exactly just like Nigel Powers though...  

I would do this, but that show was so bad that it's unwatchable.  

Odd Job wears 90's bling for crying out loud!  I only made it through 2 1/2 episodes and you know how much I love James Bond. 

What a great actor he is.  You should try the Harry Palmer movies, but don't expect James Bond because it's nothing like that.  The first one is called The Ipcress File and is very good.

... and there is The Man Who Would Be King with both Connery and Caine.

Yup, an ok movie. Probably should give it another try in these days, if I find a legit way to watch it.

I didn't even make it that far when I was younger.  I just remember the song.  It's burned into my memory.  Now, it could be burned into yours, too.

Here's the intro for James Bond Jr: www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoWexi-DWFQ

The guy that's briefly on the screen at 40 seconds is Odd Job, believe it or not.  

Edit:  There's a better shot of Odd Job at 14 seconds...