In a word: S0S
This review can be summed up in two words: — James Bond–. That says it all. That’s all that matters.
As I began writing the review, I thought about researching more background data; actors, directors, scenery, violence, travels to foreign lands, or casting the right proportioning of whites, blacks, males, females, bullets, bombs and car crashes. After all, it is a James Bond movie.
Was there anything new, unique, exciting or daring? Probably. I’m still mulling that over. It’s tough to answer when the question asks for anything “new.”
What about the plot? That’s an important item in creating storylines. Plot?
What plot? There was no plot. Somewhere in the dialogue, the actors posed as allies and/or villains, making sure there are at least two gorgeous, gun-toting women among the pack. But the basis for the story was as clear as a London fog. In truth, the movie was a carbon copy of other James Bond movies, just an excuse for blasting more sprays from guns, bombs, crashes, and violence in general.
For film buffs who have always loved James Bond, they will enjoy this movie about as much as they enjoyed the twenty-four previous Bond movies because it is close to a carbon copy, offering lines, scenes, characters and French Horns for background music, so we can pretend we saw a new movie.
Was it done well? Actually, yes. About as good as any other. But I’d suggest future Bond releases be titled by the numbers: “26th Edition” – “27th Edition” — “28th Edition” — and so forth.
As Bond actors are concerned, Sean Connery still remains in a world by himself.
I give this movie a 6.0 out of 10.