Robert Beksinski’s review published on Letterboxd:
There were three people that really peaked my interest in going to see this film. I wanted to see what a odd choice of director as Sam Mendes could do with a action film as he is the man who is known for his suburban dramas. Then to see how one of the best DP's working today in Roger Deakins could shoot a Bond/action film with his usual trademark beauty and grace. However the main reason that really drew me in was to see the always mesmerizing Javier Bardem. Bardem is one of my favorite working actors and when I heard he was not only playing a Bond villain but one of the first openly gay villains in cinema history, I just had to see it for myself.
Bardem was a pleasure to watch and his maniacal flamboyance created such a unique villain. I do think his performance is award worthy, at least deserving of recognition in the form of an nomination. The only problem with his character is there was not enough of him. Since he was such a scene stealer, I craved for more of him and sadly I was never satisfied with that.
I'm not a Bond fan, at least not yet but I am interested in seeing more films in the series now. Up until this point I had only seen Casino Royale which I liked just about as much as this one (Mads also plays a wonderful villain) and one of the Pierce Bronson ones which was utterly forgettable. I should also see Quantum of Solace to see if their is a connection between the three films with Daniel Craig but I'm not so sure there would be. After 23 or so Bond films over a 50 year period, I would assume that each movie is just its own different mission featuring Bond facing a new villain. Which in a sense does prevent me from rating their films very high. Casino Royale like this one was extremely fun to watch and stylistically a visual feast for the eyes from a action film standard. But without a deep plot and instead always a refacing of a hero versus villain story there is not going to be much to dwell on after the film is over.