Dull - The reason Bond was so successful in the 70's

Rating: 5/10 (7 January 2018)

Sean Connery and Roger Moore had savoire faire, wit , personality and was something many men of the day aspired to.
Daniel Craig is like a block of wood - unemotional, poor actor despite what many might say and doesnt have any of the traits of the originals.
You can stick in any special effects, CGI and amount of money - if you dont have Bond right you will never have a true bond movie. Even the Bond girls are like a poor mans Ursula Andress or Maude Adams, Honor Blackman - now they had personality and smouldered the silver screen!
I would also add that although Dave Bautista was not bad there arent any really memorable henchman anymore - Odd Job , Jaws, Wint & Kidd and even Rosa Klebb with her knife-shoes all had a gimmick and a really memorable part in the movie - the makers seem to miss all these ingredients now and just settle for the standard "crash, bang, wallop what a picture" model!
This was like all of the recent Bond movies over the last decades - following a boring old formula with a poor mans James Bond actor who brought nothing new or surprising to the character but actually made him seem like a boring old fart in reality with no sense of humour, no sense of style or wickedness like Connery and Moore gave us.
To be honest none of the Bonds since Moore have been much good or even on a par with the real Bonds (Connery & Moore)! Even George Lazenby and David Niven were better than any that followed Moore!
I give it an average mark because the magnificent Christophe Waltz does his usual superlative performance, he doesnt seem to be able to do any wrong and played the villain with aplomb.