Finally saw the movie. and I'm glad I didn't go see this in a theater, as this was almost the exact opposite of what I want from a Bond movie, not surprising me in the least since Casino Royale was the only Craig-era Bond I cared to watch more than once.
Now, listen, I'm not one of the "this isn't the real Bond" crowd, I don't question the validity of Craig's Bond, and if you like these movies, as so many people do, all power to you. And this isn't about quality, either, these are well-written (well, except for Quantum), well-directed and well-acted movies with top-of-the-notch action. They're just not what I want from James Bond.
What I want from a Bond movie is fun, light entertainment, that if it says anything at all, it says something about global politics instead of the inner workings of the main character. I like M, Q and Moneypenny, but in small doses. And I want casual sex to be okay for consenting adults (and while I can forgive the "consenting" part to be stretched in the Connery and Moore era as a sign of the times, Bond's entanglement with Sévérine in 2012's Skyfall did rub me the wrong way).
What I liked about this movie are mostly two side-characters: Ana de Arma's "three week's training" Paloma, and Primo the cyclops who is very much in line with the classic Bond henchmen.
So, for the future, I'd personally like more fun, less psychologizing, less personal vendettas. But if I don't get my way, no foul. There are twenty pre-Craig Bond movies I can always revisit.
