Reviews

I'll second that the film captures viewers' interest through first 2/3 of the film, and then it goes Hollywood schlocky and looks for a pat ending. Will earned his salary, and the set designers and location scouts did a great job and hopefully were paid well above scale, which must have left insufficient funds for the the CGI folk and the script writers.

So some problems I had with the story -- spoilers for sure: 1) So um, how did the later introduced pair of characters drive to and out of Manhattan? Bridges down, tunnels too (or if not, zombie-infested)...

2) Did the storyline change in the cutting room? Dr. sets animal trap and captures girl zombie, male leader zombie howls, Dr. falls for same but even more creative animal trap set presumably by male leader zombie, male leader zombie captures but doesn't kill Dr. in later dock encounter, male leader zombie tracks Dr. back to his lab.... um, why didn't the whole story line of zombies are evolving and are regaining "human" emotions get explored with this "love rescue" setup? Who is the monster, etc., etc.

3) Dr. is this Time-magazine-cover superstar virologist. How does handing over a single vial of a problematic test vaccine help without the means or associated research to synthesize more? Hundreds of more zombies on the scent, so hiding in a cubbyhole will save you? 4) Lot of deer in an unbalanced ravenous carnivore environment.

5) I lost the logic where Dr. is flatly reciting the numbers of outright dead, infected, immune -- sounded like no good scientist would believe that given large numbers of theorized immune why he would be the last human on earth. Isolated islands, small population areas, areas with no caves/permanent structures to shield sun's UV, Government pathogen barrier facilities, etc.

I'll mimic the majority and say that Craig does an excellent job reinventing Bond in the post-Bourne world. Can you imagine the close, realistic fights and bouncing down claustrophobic flights of stairs prior to Bourne Identity? But Bond does seem to have amazing recuperative powers -- gashed and bloodied one day, the next relatively unblemished and unbruised in his trunks the next.

The unpolished rough edges of Bond in this film only make one more curious how much he will continue to evolve in the next segment.

Bond like other running pop culture ...mirrors current culture. Now as to the mention of gadgets or lack thereof. How technological we have all become when something I noticed seems to have escaped other reviewers. Future trivia question -- how many cell phones were featured in this movie?? It seemed like half the film was of people (Bond and mortals) looking to their's or other's mobile phone sets to sleuth message sender ids, find hotels, send secret messages, etc., etc. -- if any of this magic appeared in a Bond flick what a decade ago (?) it would have been gee whiz. Now it is ho hum and the handsets emanating all those distracting blue glows in the seats in front of me have similar or greater functionality.

Also topical was a movie version of boring celebrity poker -- didn't that extended part seem to weigh down the movie with telegraphed intent of what was going to happen next? And wasn't the latest version of Felix rather a dorky schmuck? Where are all the red-meat Americans complaining about this? Didn't he used to be the rougher, uncultured, Mannix-like version of Bond? This actor reminded me of the bartender from Love Boat. In Bush's rewrite of the Geneva Convention, I think the CIA would just move Le Chiffre to that same torture center that he took Bond, and extract the information rather than go to the pleasantries of emptying his wallet via cards to make him pliable.

I thought the music in this film was very forgettable and one of the few low points. And felt the opening animation segment was slow and lacking.

All in all though I agree the best Bond flick since the early Connery ones. It sets the foundation work that provides great promise that the next one will be even better. Bravo.