Upon Further Review: What?

Rating: 3/10 (26 July 2008)

When I first saw this movie a couple of years ago I was entertained. It did not hold my interest as much as a Bond movie starring Connery, Moore, or Brosnan, but I thought the film had some nice action sequences and nice scenery.
Now my aunt was visiting today and she had never seen the movie, although she is an avid Bond fan. So we decided to pop in the DVD. The only thing I could think of was "How could I have liked this movie before?" I thought there was a handful non sequitur moments whenever Bond would piece together something. And its not like I didn't understand the story and that there loose ends, its that many times there was no way for him in those situations to come up with those conclusions himself; its as if the character has seen the movie before. The relationship between Bond and the girl suddenly becomes undying passionate love after they are freed from the torture rooms. Bond's main mission was to win a poker game??? Honestly I don't know how I didn't see this the first time.
The thing that perplexed me the most though was reading the rave reviews this movie had on this and other sites. Its easier to understand these considering they were made when the movie first came out, but I am wondering have people seen this movie for what it really was after seeing it a second or third time? I understand this movie was kind of a remake ("kind of" because the original was more of a comedy if anything) so I don't fault this movie with what I've come to see as a silly main plot. But after the original mini mission of stopping the plane from blowing up, there was no actual espionage! I guess there should be a little concession that I had just seen the Dark Knight earlier today (for the second time) and that by comparison this wasn't even close to measuring up. But even when I saw it two years ago I never even considered this a Bond movie, whether it was because of the actor or the script I don't really know or care.