Last issue, M has assigned Bond to track down someone who has caused a massive data breach. The breach contains information on British high-ranking government and military officials. Bond heads to Shinjuku to find information on who caused the leak, and eliminate all parties.
This was a fine issue of James Bond, and shows how smooth Bond is under fire. The writing is solid, and gets to the point of why Bond is in the Shinjuku ward. Bond is still suave and debonair as ever, but still manages to get into a sticky situation. We are introduced to Saga Genji, who has been accused of data piracy, and some information on the red headed woman, that has been following Bond. Other than that, not much happens in the issue. We don’t know if Saga is part of the breach or the woman is. It’s pretty vague at this point, and I wanted to know more about that. We’re on issue two, and I was hoping the plot moved along a little quicker. The dialog was exceptional, and I didn’t have any problems with it. Characters interactions were sparse, but the interactions between Saga Genji and Bond was entertaining. The pacing was good, and keeps the issue moving without being boring.
The art by Rapha Lobosco is superb, and has that old school Bond feel to it. The characters are drawn well, but some of the faces on characters look a bit odd, in a few panels. There are a few action pieces in this title that are phenomenal, with one having Bond throwing a guy into sharks. I don’t know why, but this is like the third or fourth time, he’s thrown someone to a shark. Seems like Bond has a thing about throwing people in sharks or dangerous animals. Also, the environments look very stylish, and stunning. Panels flow nicely, and the lettering by Simon Bowland is great. Chris O’ Halloran’s colors look amazing, and vibrant which enhances the art.
James Bond #2 was a fine issue, but the plot could’ve moved faster for my taste. I liked the art, but some of the characters faces looked off. The lettering and colors were solid. I hope the next issue picks up a bit more, than this one did.
3.5 Double Bourbons out of 5