Stupid name for a movie too. I wonder what committee came up with that "cool" name.
+1 in a BIG way.See, we just fundamentally differ because it saddens me that a movie character must be "gritty, tough, bloody and violent" to be "part of our modern society and times" and to make this a "movie an adult can appreciate." The best bonds were the ones that worked on two levels where you could also be a kid and "appreciate" the movie. The kind of film that didn't overload you with cheap thrills like unnecessary blood or explosions. The best part of bond was his slick banter and ability to talk his way out of almost anything, and only when talking didn't work did he resort to a quick shot from the hip from a well hidden gun.
My beef is not with Daniel Craig, he did a fantastic job...it's with the movie. And to address the new direction comment - bond doesn't need to take a new direction - we don't need another action Hero!!! If you doubt me, please make note of the ever expanding universe of comic book heroes (spiderman, superman, x-men, et al.). We need a return to basics (read Connery Bond). They are incredibly well scripted/written. Granted there are fewer explosions and fewer adrenaline inducing balls-to-the-wall action scenes, but this is not a failing on the part of the old guard, it is because Bond is discrete - he is a SPY, a SECRET AGENT. How many secret agents go around blowing stuff up unnecessarily? Or rescuing girls unnecessarily after first meeting them and there's a faint possibility that keeping her around will somehow further the plot?
Sure, you can give bond a makeover, make him more appealing to modern audiences, but you don't totally reconstruct the man, not after 22 movies.
My Biggest Beef Though: How many Bonds are actual sequels? The greatest part of any bond movie is that you take nothing in and you leave with nothing. I missed half the driving force of this movie because I had not seen the first one since it came out in theaters. Bond's only motivation through the whole movie is revenge, and that, no matter what you care to say, makes for a flat, boring character.
Bond is so GREAT because he is a caricature because he is ripped from the pages of Flemming's serial pulp novels. If they wanted to make a Tom Clancy movie, they should not have released it under the guise of being "Bond." It's as though the movie is thumbing its nose in the face of fans in favor of creating a more marketable, Lowest Common Denominator, Bond - we'll call it Vista Bond - it looks nice but down to the core it is still replete with system crashing glitches.
And for the record, the last Bond (Casino Royal) was brilliant. I'm now stepping down off my soap box.