This entire movie should have been left on the editing room floor

Rating: 1/10 (2 March 2009)

I just returned from the theater and have to admit this is the worst Bond movie in the series.
I have seen every first run James Bond movie on the Big Screen (my aunt and uncle took me to a drive-in in the early 1960s to see "Dr. No"). So, I did not want to break my silver screen viewing streak.
That said, I was really disappointed in this outing. To be honest, I do not think Daniel Craig is all that great as James Bond. His portrayal of 007 comes across as an unlikable character: cold, with no sense of humor. Bond movies of old mixed wit with drama which made them enjoyable to watch (though the Roger Moore-era was a bit over the top). For me, Craig would seem better cast as the person James Bond is trying to defeat rather than the movie's hero.
Then, there are no gadgets in this effort. None. I thought I would never live to see a Bond flick without at least one gadget. Until now, that was one of the distinctive signatures of a James Bond movie.
Then there was QoS's plot. Back in the day Bond was all about thwarting villains and saving the entire world from destruction. Here, all he did was to make sure some South American Third World village did not have to buy Crystal Geyser bottled water.
I gave this outing a 1 out of 10 because the movie was short. God help us all of the Powers That Be had drug this movie out to a Casino Royal time frame.
Will I go to Bond 23? Yes. But not because I want to see what Craig's 007 will do next. Rather, I do not want to end my personal consecutive streak.