Ich finde solche radikalen Formulierungen immer extrem ungünstig, wenn sie so wirken, als wenn sie allgemeingültig wären.
Ich finde Roger Ebert hat es gut auf den Punkt gebracht und trifft so ziemlich genau meine Meinung. Da kann auch keiner der alten Bond-Darsteller für mich(!) mithalten:
"Yes, Daniel Craig makes a superb Bond: Leaner, more taciturn, less sex-obsessed, able to be hurt in body and soul, not giving a damn if his martini is shaken or stirred. That doesn't make him the "best" Bond, because I've long since given up playing that pointless ranking game; Sean Connery was first to plant the flag, and that's that. But Daniel Craig is bloody damned great as Bond, in a movie that creates a new reality for the character.
[...]
I never thought I would see a Bond movie where I cared, actually cared, about the people. But I care about Bond, and about Vesper Lynd (Eva Green)
[...]
This is Campbell's second Bond picture, after "GoldenEye" (1995), but he breaks with his own and everyone else's tradition. He's helped by Craig, who gives the sense of a hard man, wounded by life and his job, who nevertheless cares about people and right and wrong. To a certain degree, the earlier Bonds were lustful technicians. With this one, since he has a big scene involving a merchant's house in Venice, we can excuse ourselves for observing that if you prick him, he bleeds."