An OK movie.

Rating: 7/10 (22 November 2006)

We enjoyed the movie but Daniel Craig is no Sean Connery. Sean was suave, urbane, witty, and had savoir faire enough for all the other would-be James Bonds. He had class and style.
Daniel Craig is gritty and adequate. We missed all the gadgets - they were preposterous but fun. The prolonged torture scene in this film was uncomfortable, unsettling, preposterous, and NOT fun. As a physician, I can tell you no man would remain conscious and capable of making jokes after repeated blows to where it hurts most. No man needs medical training to know what transpires is beyond belief. Nor would the victim be capable of engaging in sexual acrobatics (as seen in this film) thereafter for a very long time,IF EVER.
Bring back the clever gadgets, please! And knock off the graphic and painful parts with no redeeming content.
Eva what's her name was OK, but incredibly young and unbelievable to be a serious auditor and financial controller for huge amounts of the British treasury, sent by M to oversee and grant or withhold approval for James Bonds needs (as far as money is concerned, that is).
The plot twists as to who are the good guys and who are the bad guys are trite and commonplace in movie scripts. The far fetched plots in Goldfinger, Dr. No, and all the Sean Connery films were so much fun, it just didn't matter if they were beyond belief. When you left the movie, you knew you had a good time. That is what counts. This film just rates barely an OK on that score. We can recommend it, but not heartily. It pales in comparison with ALL prior James Bond movies.