I just got back from the first show (yes, I am a geek). I enjoyed the movie, I liked Daniel Craig a lot and there are some fantastic action sequences… but it isn’t a James Bond movie. It’s not your father’s James Bond or even your grandfather’s James Bond. Sure, there are Aston Martins and casinos and exotic locales and villians with scars near their eyes. But something was missing. Maybe for the better. (Though it could also have missed about twenty minutes, the film goes on way too long).
The producers weren’t kidding when they said they were reinventing Bond (unlike, say, their attempt with LIVING DAYLIGHTS). This truly is a new interpretation, clearly one that’s heavily influenced by the Jason Bourne movies… with a touch of DIE HARD’s John McClaine thrown in for good measure. But if they are jettisoning so much from the old intepretation, the few
hangers-on (the women who swoon at his glance, the scar-faced villains
and Aston Martins) should be scrapped, too.
This Bond is basically Connery’s take on the character as a ruthless assassin, a working-class "blunt instrument" in a tuxedo. In fact, you could say that Daniel Craig is dramatizing the formative days of Connery’s 007. If so, then the next film will be a James Bond film. At least more so than this one was… or so they seem to be hinting at the end.