Great action flick, but how can this be about the 'birth' of Bond?

Rating: 8/10 (31 December 2006)

What I mean to say is: I'm no huge fan of the older James Bond stuff. It was certainly before my time, and thus I've never really had the chance to watch them all thoroughly , but, how come all of the stuff in this film is WAY ahead of its time? I mean, I think the Bond stuff started in the 70's or something. However, they even mention 9/11 in the film! No one had Sony Erricson cell phones back in the old Bonds. And certainly there were no Sony Vaio laptops. I think for a movie that is supposed to take things back to the BEGINNING of Bond... James Bond, the technology you have in it can't be bigger and better than the stuff that Pierce had! I mean, Range Rovers?! I don't remember Sean driving one of those, or even seeing one in the older movies. (You see one briefly in a funny valet moment ;) ) If you can of course get past all of those serious time line defects, then this movie is great.
Otherwise, for what is SUPPOSED to be "The beginning of Bond" I would -definitely- have to give it 2 thumbs and a pinky toe down.
But the movie, as an action and suspense joint was the BOMB! For those of us who watched a bit of "Enterprise", which is supposed to be the actual first Star Trek Enterprise, you may have some sort of idea what I mean. Only, the creators of Enterprise smartly decided to end the series gracefully before it go too bad.