I was slightly disappointed.

Rating: 5/10 (18 November 2006)

Yes: Daniel Craig combines the ruthless efficiency of Sean Connery with some of the (under-rated) pathos exhibited by Timothy Dalton. And, yes: for only the third time in the series, the high-tech genius called Q is absent. But, a credit to the Bond flicks that have gone before it? With regard to continuity, I'd have to say: undeniably no!
First of all; this is supposed to be a prequel, explaining how Bond became a double-oh agent, in the first place. So, why wasn't this set at the tail end of the Cold War, instead of the present day?
Secondly; Bond, himself, admits (in "Dr. No"), that he had never met Felix Leiter, up to that point. He had only heard of him. So, why throw all that out the window? Why couldn't the writers have made Jeffrey Wright's character a CIA operative _working_ for Felix?
Last, but not least? Judi Dench's character is only supposed to have been promoted to M, just a short time BEFORE the theft of that high-tech chopper in "Goldeneye." So, if ret-conning now places that in the near-future, shouldn't Dench have been nothing more than a female Chief of Staff, filling in for an absent male M? After all; that's how they did it in "For Your Eyes Only," following the real-world death of Bernard Lee (Connery's M)!
So, I'm sorry, folks. But, there's only so much revisionism my suspension-of-disbelief can stand. The same kind of revisionism killed the film-series based on Tom Clancy's "Jack Ryan" novels. And, may yet do the same to even 007.