Some of Mark Kermode's opinions are valid, like the rubbish "Another Way to Die" and Marc Foster being out of his depth somewhat in comparison to Martin Campbell and Roger Spottiswoode, especially with the action scenes, but I do not understand the hypobolic, mostly uninformed rantings directed at the otherwise solid Quantum of Solace, a competent sequel that succeeds in carrying on the storyline introduced in Casino Royale.
I agree, QOS is a good solid Bond film, and I wonder if, with time, it'll be Daniel Craig's Tomorrow Never Dies which seems to get better press these days for being what it is, good solid Bond.
There was a plot in there, although perhaps it wasn't explained enough using small words? Maybe MAthis could have repeated his Poker for Dummies dialague from the last film??
Does it matter that we still don't know much about Quantum? Did we know much about SPECTRE to begin with? Heck did we ever know much about SPECTRE?
And I don't ned to know what Bond did with Vesper's b/f, at the end of the day he's a nobody, a minor cog in a larger wheel. What matters is the fact that 007 didn't kill him, showing the development of his character over the two films. Here's a man who only ever saw the small picture, killing off the little fish, except this time he left the one guy alive who he had most reason to want dead. What an ending. And I like the symmetry. Casino Royale started in snowy eastern europe and ended in Italy, QOS reversed this.
And frankly I prefer the idea of the bad guys having a somewhat fantastical goal rather than Le Chiffre's boring 'I want to be rich' plot which never made sense (esepcially after Bond kindly killed the man he owed his money too anyway!)
Honestly I think the problem here is that people lauded CR far too much and, as a result, set expectations QOS wasn't able to meet.
Is QOS flawed? Yes, but in truth so was Casiono Royale. Are they both enjoyable, yes, and that's all that matters to me.