I also thought the oil homage was very well done.

The only thing I can really say that I disagree on, I only partly disagree with you. I didn't have a huge issue with the editing, although, much like in the Bourne Ultimatum, I thought the shakiness of the camera during hand-to-hand combat was a bit frustrating. I get the point of it, but sometimes I just want to see the two dudes fighting.

I also agree that I didn't enjoy it as much as Casino Royale, but I think that's partly because the story of Casino Royale was better developed, mostly due to the card game. The slower pace of that part meant that you could further develop the characters etc.

I think we'll see a better third film, to be honest, because in the first we have the character established, and the whole idea of getting 'hurt' is put in, then you have the second where he is "out for revenge" or whatever, but you can see him turning into a much thicker skinned, emotionally detached person that was sort of a staple of the bond character. So now in the third, there's the possibility of pushing the character forward and able to "more easily" do the sleeping around and some of the almost carelessness of earlier versions of bond brought to the table.

I also absolutely love Craig as Bond, and have been a fan of his since seeing Layer Cake.

Bond has always been an athlete, but that goddamn rope scene was over the top. If not careful, they're going to do to Bond's strength and athleticism what they did to his gadgets and cars in the old films.

Edit: I guess I should of read Matt's post before posting my own.

(Spoiler alert: the only correct answer to my query above is, "correct." Any other answer is incorrect.)

For my money though, I am okay with reinventing certain characters for a new generation of viewers. If done well, it can give different generations their own version of the same great hero. At 25, I feel as if I can't lay claim to the Bond of old — and though I love the work that Connery and Moore did, they will never be my vision of Bond for a modern world. Daniel Craig fills that role. And to you he might just be Bond in name only, but to me that is the Bond that want to see. The modern version of Bond. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

I've stopped making sense now, haven't I?

Even though The Dark Knight has a sense of realism, it is larger than life in parts of the movie. While it's in a world like our own, it also lets you know at times that this isn't our world. Bond doesn't do that. They try to make us believe that it's real as best as they can. That's where the movie loses its shine. Over 20 Bond movies have been made where he used gadgets, slept with countless women, and has snappy catchphrases. Am I supposed to sit back and allow this huge change in Bond movies after 30 years of the same thing? Honestly, it just doesn't feel like Bond to me anymore. Heck, this sequel isn't even based on an Ian Flemming Novel…

I love gadgets just as much as the next guy, but if Daniel Craig were to bust out a watch with a friggin' laser beam it would take me right out of the movie. It just wouldn't work in the universe that they've created in this new Bond series. It is very similar — since you brought up The Dark Knight — to the way some things, namely characters such as Mr. Freeze and Robin, wouldn't work in the new Batman universe under Christopher Nolan.

Make sense?