I feel that, with all the Godfrey Ho movies I've watched, plot holes are no longer a problem for me.

Yeah, the bad guy's deformity being "DENTURES!" and the Jurassic Park computer virus... I liked Judy cause it was a great role for her, and John because it wasn't. Oh well.

I definitely thought the plot was weak, especially the entire third act.

That said, Bardem gave his usual mindblowingly awesome performance and it had some fun set pieces. Good villain, good set pieces, ridiculous crap story. That's all I've ever expected from any Bond film.

Also, I think Adele's accent is because her mouth is perpetually coated with mayonnaise.

The script was really weak, it felt like they were trying a little too hard to ape The Dark Knight especially with Javier Bardem's character basically being The Joker right down to supernatural prescience when ti came to setting traps.

But goddamn if it isn't the prettiest Bond film. Sam Mendes directed the fuck out of it.

Sam's OK but Roger Deakins is a fucking god. That movie had, hands down, some of the best photography I've seen in ages; the skyscraper sequence, the underwater stuff, WELCOME TO FUCKING SCOTLAND, I mean it was like a fucking orgy of rods and cones going on and on.

I like how they took the usual Bond plotline and scaled down everyone's motivations. Javier isn't trying to conquer the world, steal all the gold or start a war, he just wants to humiliate and kill one woman. That turns out to be a hell of a lot more compelling than the usual blow-up-the-world plots in the Bond franchise.

Also, I love the climax, because it inverts the typical formula of having Bond storm the enemy base and make his way through a bunch of secret passages and clever defenses to the big boss. Here, it's Bond, M, and Groundskeeper Willy making the last stand in their "base," while Javier storms the place and makes his way to our heroes. It makes for an amazingly tense final act.

I didn't eye-roll, but I'm astonished the amount of sloppy blowjobs this movie got. I mean, seriously....people touting this as THE BEST BOND MOVIE EVAR IN THE HISTORY OF EVAR really are either high or aren't really particularly big fans of the series.
It's a good movie and a good Bond entry, but it has a few serious problems that I cannot believe reviewers let slide probably the biggest of which is how the villain is not really in the movie much and his motivations are really poorly written.

In general, Bond villains usually have a scheme first, then worry about Bond second. In traditional Bond formula, by the third act, the villain is usually in a position of security and authority and Bond has to bring the fight to THEM, rather than the villain bringing the fight to Bond. Now, I'm not saying the writers should never play around with the classic Bond formula, but Bardem's villain has really poor motivations. He wants to get revenge on M and MI6, but when he has the clear upper hand to basically lay-waste to MI6, he instead clumsily uses his resources just to go and physically kill her? I dunno...I think it had a really weak storyline and a wasted villain. I also think the writers are really beating a dead horse with this whole "oh noes, the Bond girl dies yet again showing how Bond must endure the guilt of never being able to save them" thing which was established in Casino Royale. We get it. Move on, please.

Protip for survival: Don't fuck James Bond. Duh, girls.

I thought it was ok but way overrated. Way closer to QoS than Casino Royale.

Everybody seems to hate Chris Cornell but I also thought the Casino Royale intro was the best one by far.

Yet another reason why Casino Royale was superior, better opening, no girls in it.