Err, yes, and more.

Well that answered that. I have to admit now, that I am was a closet Bond fanatic, so any gratuitous outpouring of praise for this film is really what I've bottled up for a couple of years waiting for this film to arrive, and therefore will be fairly sickly to read. I'm sorry if you vomit.

About two years ago I left the cinema on a similarly dark winter night from seeing Layer Cake and said to Devito that I thought Daniel Craig would make a good Bond. This was before any new film had been tabled or Brosnan had been given the boot, and I remain smug. I was therefore over the moon when I discovered he had been awarded the role about a year later and can only say I was fairly, in fact really, shocked at the slating he got at the time, something which looks to have almost entirely dissipated since.

I also got a bit excited when it was rumoured Tarintino was eye-balling the script. I loved the idea of getting some grit back in the film and after although not keen on some of his abstract film-making, I thought he would be be forced into a compromise that would mean I would get what I wanted from the end result. In the end Tarintino didn't get the deal, and looking back, I'm quite happy he didn't. The film I saw tonight was exactly what I wanted.

At the end of Die Another Day (the last Bond film), I remember feeling distinctly disappointed. I simply could not believe any of the plot could actually occur. The villains were so over the top they were unreal and despite my like of John Cleese for his previous comic achievements, the idea of him as the new 'Q' didn't work, and neither did his over-the-top gadgets.

That's why this refresh was needed. The Bond films of the 70s when Moore was 007 were a mixed bag, and although enjoyable, they became so unbelievable they were practically fantasy. Moonraker for instance. In my opinion, Timothy Dalton followed with a much better character, flawed in some respects, but I actually quite like his two films. They brought things back down to earth (appalling pun not intended). Bond should throw reality about a bit, but it should not overstep the mark, and I think this latest incarnation trod that line very well.

I'm not going to drop any real spoilers (any more than you'll have already seen or heard), so if you've not seen it don't worry.

The tempo of the film is keep up due to the constant on/off action. I thought the opening credits are artistically very good, as is the use of the black and white photography. There is the grit I craved for, and a storyline that can be taken seriously for a change.

Le Chiffre, the bad guy, makes for a much more convincing villain than we've seen in any recent outing. The idea that the most central stake is at the poker table and not in a bunker or on some kind of battle field makes this movie a very different experience. The low tech nature of the conflict, the removal of most gadgets other than those necessary, peels Bond back to the bone and makes for a far more convincing character. We get to see a more egocentric, colder and impressionable man - from what I gather, a more true to form version of Flemming's original books.

Sentimentality has been thrown aside in some respects; not all Bond fans will like how they have sharpened the use of, or removed, some previous staples of the franchise. I however, am sold.

Because I can't give a review that is totally one sided, if I have to criticise I will do so with utter mediocrity and grumble while doing so. Yes, there is a lot of product placement, yes there is a blatant cameo by a certain famous entrepreneur as part of the product deals, and yes, the plot is thicker than you might expect (especially at the beginning). But as none of these things bothered me and it's my blog I can chose to dedicate one just sentence to criticism then just go back to praising it whether you like it or not.

The best film I've seen in a long while, and really looking forward to seeing the next one in 2008.