I like Roger Moore's James Bond just for the fact that he is probably the hammiest actor ever to walk on the face of the planet (except maybe Richard Chamberlain) and as such the character is just a ridiculous (and hilarious) as he is.
I'm looking forward to seeing this movie soon. I did see a whole lot of commonalities between Bourne and Casino Royale, and I guess that that is just the direction that action films are taking nowadays: surrealistic, highly choreographed, fast-cut low-brow fist fighting combined with some light acrobatics and jumping over large gaps between things. We can probably say that it is filling the niche that used to be filled by eastern-style pulp action before it became as highly styilized as it is now. Its not that western action films now are more realistic, but that they present themselves as such, especially compared with othjer late 20th century action films, where its pretty much a few hours of explosions, gunshots, wooden/nonexistant acting, some cheesy one-liners and a poorly laid out romantic sub plot (see: Cobra).

why did you see it twice if you didn't like it the first time

My friends were going to see it again and I was like, okay. I will go too.

My friends were going to see it again and I was like, okay. I will go too.

Yeah, the same's happened to me before...
Although I've never disliked a film first time through but enjoyed it the second time through.

Who the hell likes Brosnan's Bond, it was like he was flying through the movies for the money. Everyone knows Connery's Bond is the best.

EDIT:
Also I too was dissapointed with the movie. :/ Not as good as I thought it would be.

I didn't mind Brosman as Bond. It beats Roger Moore who was just camp, and oft too old for the role. Brosman brought a serious-swagger to his lines, unlike the other Bonds. It wasn't the best Bond, no... but he had some goodness in him. As for the movies, my favourite of his was Tomorrow Never Dies, which if you are a Bond Book Fan, was great. It really captured the essence of a good Bond Book. The villain a meglomaniac, but not a cool one; the henchmen, memorable and forgettable at once; and a few nods... Like, when Bond drives into MI6, he's driving a Bently (his car of choice).

The current Bond, is yes Bourne. What can we expect? Bourne is a hot item right now. People want more of that type... So here's Bond, Just Bond For Now.

As for Sean Connery as Bond, I've never understood the fascination. Is it that he was the first to take a stab at the role? Well, unfortunately if you've seen the original film Casino Royale, recall the "Real" James Bond in that film... The English Gentleman one... The OLD guy... That's what Bond is 'supposed' to be. That's how Ian Flemming envisioned him. Sad, isn't it? David Niven played him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qISVGbrC8w0

This was probably the most heavy handed Bond has ever been.  The pacing of the movie is literally "New scene GUY JUMPS OUT OF CURTAINS AND FIGHTS new scene BOND SHOOTS SOMEONE new scene CAR CHASE" it's ridiculous. 

It was a decent action movie, not as good as Casino Royale, but definitely mid-tier Bond film. 

IMO Timothy Dalton was THE bond.  Pretty much every Bond fan disagrees but Dalton's Bond was never portrayed as a SUPER HERO fighting against the world.  License to Kill was awesome.

Top 5 Bond Films:
From Russia With Love (the closest to a spy movie Bond series has gotten)
License to Kill
The Spy Who Loved Me (decent combination of humor and serious action, Moore's best)
Goldeneye (Brosnan at his best)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service (Lazenby is a terrible actor but this film had the best plot)

I love James Bond and this film didnt dissapoint me.

The second i saw Casino Royale i was looking forward to the next one. That film was so good and so was this one. Yeah, probably not AS good, Casino Royale being somewhat a classic i think, but it was a wicked film. More of a classic bond than the last, and brilliantly endearing as such.

Daniel Craig, perhaps joint best with Connery.

I actually agree 100% with that list but maybe in different order.

casino royale was the only bond film i ever gave a shit about and i was actually looking forward to this but i don't really want to now. i was hoping for a 2 hour film with maybe 20-30 minutes of action at most, and i thought it might have been going that way cos of the steps casino royale took to making bond a dickhead. i don't remember if there was loads of action in the casino royale, but i didn't think it was too much at the time apart from the stupid opening sequence. maybe i wouldn't like it if i watched it again.

anyway, yeah, i'm just a bit confused at this being a 90 minute car chase. they had loads going for them, they really didn't need to pander which is the only reason people make movies like this unless they were REALLY out of ideas.

casino royale didn't have too much action and it was contained to a few bits.
But this film really is car chase, fist in face, car chase, fist in face (repeat)

Saw it in Germany a few weeks ago...disappointed in it, especially since Casino Royale rocked. It was okay, but the tower of action scenes ruined it. The whole "argh I want revenge!" storyline also annoyed the hell out of me. I'd give it a 5/10 and hope for something like Casino Royale next time.

what dragged it down was that it still had comedic elements being dragged from the moore era that didn't work with the theme. And various aspects like the useless bond girl who serves no real place in the story, the badguy being too I dunno, nice to be really threatening etc. It's a good film, but has the curse of being made right after view to a kill (which could have either been one of the best bond films or one of the worst... at best it fluctuates between the two, at worse it is one of the worst)

being creator of the James Bind franchise I really should sit down and watch all the movies