Not as bad as Die Another Day or View to a Kill, but still Awful!

Rating: 1/10 (19 November 2006)

Okay, as an action movie, it isn't too bad. As an espionage movie, it isn't too bad. As a Bond movie, however, it's (to use the vernacular) bloody awful.
Daniel Craig is not James Bond. He cannot bring off the suave playboy. The film's apologists try to say that this is because they are showing us the development of the character. No, they are just giving us excuses because of the shortcomings of their actor. Daniel Craig belongs in the class of Stallone and Van Damme, two other men who can beat people up but could never be James Bond.
This movie is not as bad as Die Another Day or View to a Kill, the two worst Bond movies ever made. It is, however, less than the Lazenby film.
From the beginning action scene, which has always given us a thrill ride, I knew we were in for a yawner. This action scene is Bond shooting a man in an office and attempting to drown a man in a bathroom. Nothing spectacular or exciting.
The credits, which have always featured silhouettes of often naked women with guns, was instead lousy cut-outs of fighting men and playing card images. It got no better after this.
I will admit that I was not disturbed by the fact that there was little or no of the famous Bond gadgetry (at least John Cleese was not here this time as comic relief!). This did, however, bother my 13 year old son and his buddies.
The general grumble and chatter of the people walking out of the theatre was not positive. There were a lot of "okays" but no "greats" were overheard. The dominant word would have been "fair" or just "ehhh." Proper sentiment for a mediocre film.
Sean Connery has nothing to worry about, the role is still his. Craig, in fact, may be the second of the one movie Bonds.