But what about...?

Rating: 8/10 (15 October 2008)

I haven't read ALL of the two THOUSAND-odd comments on this film (has ANYONE?!) but in those I HAVE read, NO-ONE seems to have spotted the GLARING PLOT-HOLES contained in the piece.
Like - if this is a "new" Bond, how come Judi Dench is still "M"? I have no quarrel with Ms Dench, who I'm sure has done her best to cope with the fact that her character keeps TOTALLY changing in each new Bond she has done - but she was "M" during Pierce's run.
And WHY did Bond have a resuscitation unit in his car in the first place?
And what did Bond's Aston HIT to make it barrel-roll? There was NOTHING visible on or near the road where a simple turn of the wheel started its sky-road-sky-road...(etc.) voyage. Even a Smart Car isn't THAT easy to flip, and a high-performance car...FORGET it. Okay, I know they used a cannon (which incidentally the SFX people did LITTLE to hide - it's quite visible in the film) but in the REAL World...
And... urrrgh!
The thing is, it's not hard to see why the Bond producers decided to "re-invent" Bond. It seems to be the fashion these days: Batman, Star Wars - even The Dukes Of Hazzard. But how can you do a "prequel" of Bond when EVERYBODY has watched the twenty-odd saga - at least (for younger viewers) on TV - for the last FORTY-something YEARS?
So I HATE this movie - RIGHT? Actually no. It was a BONZER film. The "free-running/jumping" scene near the start is FANTASTIC. Craig was BORN for the part. The "car-park attendant" scene is hilarious. "Would you like that shaken or stirred?" "Do I look as if I care?" Priceless. And the last line - "Bond...James Bond" got a CHEER in the cinema where I saw it. Bond was BACK, it said.
No, this was a CLASSIC movie and I hope "Quantum Of Solace" keeps up the pace. I just found the producers' adherence to the fashion of prequels IRRITATING and the above-mentioned plot-holes SILLY.
It's too late to change things now, but maybe Solace will be more careful...