Craig fits into Bond's world comfortably

Rating: 9/10 (11 December 2006)

Alright, a new Bond film. Off to the cinema house, once again! But hey, now, here's this new guy. Everyone's worried he may not be 007 calibre. Not to mention this is a "back-to-roots" story in which Bond is a newly minted double-oh agent. No Q, no Moneypenny, according to IMDb's cast listing. What awaits us beyond yonder popcorn counter? Mediocrity? Failure even?
Not to fear, Craig fits right in! Even better, he creates new Bond lore all his own. Ever wonder where that whole vodka martini shaken-not-stirred thing came from? How Bond came to be a lover of fine cars? Where his charm and coldblooded attitude toward (most) women came from? Want a glimpse into what makes the man tick? Well, sit yourself down and give this'n here a look!
Down to tacks: Pros: -Craig is a grittier, more believable Bond. He looks like the kind of guy you hire as an assassin, and has to learn to be comfortable being suave. -Green (the lovely Vesper) is the classiest jewel to call herself a Bond girl since Diana Rigg, and for similar reasons; they both pulled off the impossible (watch if you don't know what I'm speaking of!) -M. Judi Dench continues to get better and better in this role. And when she gets angry, you are actually glad for a minute that you are NOT Bond (it passes quick, of course). -Lack of silly special effects and over-the-top explosions. There is plenty of good, rockin' action in this, mostly involving fists and foot chases. It's still a bit outlandish, but easier to suspend disbelief. -More believable bad guys. Usually we are treated with silly villains who try to take over the world with some Dr. Evil plot. This time, the villains are more believable: they want to get rich and keep a low profile, and they are ruthless. -just a good telling of a story overall. The plot is kind of complicated and forces you to pay attention, and there are little telling signs everywhere that you must remember later to get the picture. I find that enjoyable. -Awesome cars. British ones, too. No dorky yuppie-mobile Beemers here!
Cons: -length. The movie starts to drag in the second half, and about 10 or 15 minutes could've been trimmed. This keeps the movie just out of reach of a 10-star. But the ending more then makes up for it.
Some people wonder about continuity; clearly Sean Connery's films take place in the 60's and Bond is a Cold War figure, so how does that square with Bond starting anew in 2006? My only answer is that Bond films are like a comic book story. Whenever a new actor takes over, it's like a new comic book story arc. Batman started in the 1930s but now he starts in 2005, etc.
Look, folks, in case you're still wondering, films like this are why we pay to go to the movies, period. Just lots of fun.