It was...ok, but there was lots of things that could have been improved.

I really enjoyed the action, and the torture that Bond went through. More blood from him in this movie than in any of the others combined! But the fact that Bond could get away from 1 small army, and not from another, was...wierd. I'm refferring to the beginning, when he got captured.
I enjoyed the fact that his OO status got revoked, but then when they needed him, they reinstated it. Just pick one and leave it already! [img]tongue.gif[/img] And how on earth could he fake cardiac arrest? That was just...impossible. And then, how easily he escaped! *sigh* And all the quirky little *jokes* like 'Saved By the Bell' and 'I'm getting the point of it' were just...annoying after a while. The theme song, with the techno-pop just sucked! Overall, I'd give it 6/10. This just wasn't the best James Bond....

<font color="Deepskyblue">TECHNO POP!!! Noooooo!
I hateeeee the stuff!
Bond film looks good, might go see it, theres a LEftism cinema opened at the University where I live so id probably go there and see something than go to local cinema to see this though :D
I think they are showing Spirited Away soon so Woooooooo!</font>

pierce is good at playing bond the writing just isnt what it used to be though, and the idea has pretty much been played to death

Thats what my parents thought as well. They seem to be based on explosions and sex [img]tongue.gif[/img] . The old ones at least had a half decent story.

I agree with Sir Goulum.
Bond is now days just explosions and sex.

I don't go to movies to see Die another day.
Didn't like that female actor (halle berry or something) and the theme, was it Madonna's song? Well it sucked very badly... :(

I liked Connery was best actor in Bond's role.

Saw it, it was OK but has lost the its edge... and no amounts of sex and explosions can get it back. I also like Brosnan but Connery was unbeatable as Bond. We watched some of the Bondathon on TV the other night, the old movies were SOOO much better than this one it's not even funny (and even they weren't what I'd call "top shelf" cinema).

It might also be that they aren't sticking to the novels that Ian Flemming wrote. They have veered off and are writing new storylines. My mom commented that they either need to go back to the books, or get better story writers [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I have yet to see the movie but I am sick of the "Die Another Day" by Madonna. I wish if she could fufill the "die" part right away.

To Sir Goulum:

Yes Ian Flemming was great writer, only read two books, but
usually I don't like movies better than books, now I do.

There's nothing wrong about Ian's storytelling, but movies were better than books. That might me cause director of the movie and other important movie persons. Nowdays when technology is so much advanced, compared to old good Connery 007 days, it takes bigger part in movie.
That's why I can say, when those old movies are better or at least as good as newest Bonds, film crew where more skilled than now.
In newest Bonds there's so much details and effects that are made by computer, but it still can't beat old goodies.

That's why I can say new Bond Pierce and others can't create same emotion what was in early films without digital effects.

But this is only my oppinion, and want to hear yours...
( Sorry my bad english skill... Hey ! I'm only from Finland ! ;) )