what does it take for a good Bond movie?

Rating: 6/10 (14 June 2008)

Indeed, what does it take to make a good Bond movie? If we are to judge according to the first 20 films in the series we need an actor who can identify himself as a sex-symbol with enough sense of humor to compensate the savage killing he is exercising in each film, we need at least three cars or other vehicles races ending in spectacular explosions, we need exotic locations, we need at least two Bond babes usually a good one and a bad one, and a spectacular evil character which usually will offer the better chances for an interesting role. And of course we have M. with his/her authority and Q. with his gadgets, and miss Moneypenny eternally in love with Bond.
Here is series 21. As the Bond books were exhausted we are back at book one and director Martin Campbell is taking us into some unknown territory. Not only that M. is a Dame Dench (this is not new I guess) and Q. has a new face, and miss Moneypenny is absent, but here is a blonde Slavic type of Bond played by Daniel Craig (quite a good performance) who makes the mistake of becoming really emotionally involved. A married Bond in the next series? Not really, but worth watching this.
Does the more human Bond make sense? Does the renewed Bond series make sense in a world with no global cold war, but with a lot of small hot local wars and terrorist after each corner? The jury is still out there. Until then it is worth seeing this latest Bond movie - it is quite well made, I did not get bored despite the long screen time, although I found the final too much out of tune with the rest and with the Bond style. I will still watch for what will come next, maybe there is indeed a Bond for each generation.