Ambivalent. Good non-sexist action film, but is it Bond?

Rating: 6/10 (23 October 2008)

I'm torn. Do I prefer the more realistic, more psychologically interesting film? Or do I want the campy, over the top stuff?
I can't be too upset that they deviated from the formula. I have a hard time watching original James Bond films - they can be amusing and so infuriatingly offensive at the same time. But because they're so over the top they can be amusing enough to overlook the sexism, racism & homophobia in the early films. (and apparently I'm the only person in the world who does not like Sean Connery).
In this film, I was so happy to not see overly sexualized naked women, no overly exoticized 'native' women for Bond to love & leave. No evil seductress. (Though there was the obligatory 'good' one that sacrifices herself). And not having the woman named after her vagina or tits was refreshing. The lack of misogynism alone makes it worth watching (IMO)!!
The film was OK as a basic action film. As others have said his character seems more like Jason Bourne than James Bond.
You have Bond learning how to be a killer, learning how to be a spy.... presumably becoming the Bond we're used to. (sort of how Batman Begins 'restarted' the character). This is the pre-cool Bond. He hasn't gotten the fancy cars, how to wear a tux, doesn't have a favorite drink and one who actually cared about women as people, not as nothing more than a body.
This not quite the James Bond we're used to... (yet).
This is both interesting and a disappointment, simultaneously.
The problems: Leaving out some of the key elements did hurt the film. The previous franchise succeeded because: -We liked thegadgets. They were silly, but they were interesting. -We liked the over the top villains -- we can see everyday villains in all the other action films. This is what we watch the Bond films for. We laughed at the man who takes over the moon or tries to burn the world, but it was kind of fun. -We liked seeing the suave collected & cool Bond. Seeing the uncertain, struggling Bond is interesting, but not what we want to see. -It doesn't have Pierce Brosnan. Craig is OK, but no one was as born to play the part as Brosnan.
And finally, but just as importantly: Get rid of the product placement (lost a star just for that). It's cheap and tacky. Can you not get enough funding for a Bond film that you have to whore yourself out? Trust me, I'm not going to run out and buy a watch so I can look like Bond.
Anyway, I would give the 2nd film a chance (at least a rental). I'm curious to see how they will continue the evolution of the character into the cool, but cold killer we know and love/hate.