But...it's not Bond, James Bond

Rating: 5/10 (12 July 2007)

This is NOT a bad movienot by any means. Then why the relatively low rating? Because, it's just NOT Bond, James Bond any more. The production values in this movie are quite highthe storyline is decentand even Daniel Craig, blond hair and all, is respectable as 007 if you like the very dry no-nonsense sort (and, I'm not talking about his shaken or stirred  because he apparently doesn't give a damn this time around). However, this movie didn't even have the decency to rip-off its predecessors. Instead, it's a complete rip-off of the Ludlum "Bourne" series (of movies anyway). And, I love the Bourne series by the waybecause it's Bourne and not 007. Now I can't even like 007 because it's unique unto itself and I refuse to like it because it's like Bourne.
So I guess we've (they've) finally come to the end of the road as far as James Bond movies go. They've started to remake the old movies which I guess was bound to happen sooner or later (amazing how idea-less Hollywood can be at times). The stories will be much darker and without much in the way of humorjust what the new generation needs. As for Casino Royale (2006), I will not watch it again as there is no joy in doing so and I already know what's going to happen. Once was definitely enough. Give me Casino Royale (1967) any dayat least it is unique unto itself (even though it's not even close to being one of the better Bonds'but as a satire, it's damn entertaining). Give me the Connery, Brosnan, Dalton, and Lazenby versions of Bond (you can keep Moore's versionwhat a 'dweeb!'). And please, give me the cold war and the old James back...it was a far more interesting time!!