Better than Casino Royale?

Rating: 7/10 (26 November 2008)

The Bond Franchise is going through a transition....and clearly not yet a renaissance. However, reading some of the comments....I felt compelled to try and balance up for those who have not yet seen the film.
First things first....there are no gadgets....as we are no longer in the 60's or 70's and a pen that acts as a radio receiver or a laser gun etc etc is not particularly astounding when an ordinary member of the public can film and then send a video half way round the world on a phone....I applaud the decision to drop gadgets....(also in the last Brosnan Bond the John Cleese Q was taking the camp quality of Bond movies too far......
Yes the camera work is a little impenetrable at times....but that is the current shorthand for "Actionspeed" - eventually someone is going to produce an action movie but at a "bergmanesque pace......
The plot......well it's not the Brothers Kamarazov.....but then the movie is a "divertissement" ....there are many "loopholes".....most notably....what's the point of the hotel in the desert?
You do need to have seen Casino Royale to understand the dilemma and drive behind Bond wanting to get to the bottom of the organisation that was responsible for Vesper's death.....and I am not sure anyone actually buys the resurrection of Mathis as a good guy.......
Daniel Craig......? What is the fetish with facial cuts? Can we have a little less muscularity and a little more depth....of which he is clearly capable
I found the movie to be quick, exciting, with enough plot twists and confusions to make it a relatively light but enjoyable and intellectual diversion.
Let us be clear there are enough movies about that the producers have spent money of this nature and not produced either a thoughtful or exciting film....
Overall, I think this film is trying to move the franchise forward and they have used Casino Royale as the starting point......the real interest will be where they finish......