First, good on Daniel Craig. It's good to see someone hired into a spot in which an irreversible screw-up is not only possible, but likely...come through the situation on top...wear it like a suit...and then be given credit for it. I do believe James Bond is more in debt to Mr. Craig than to any actor since Connery. I find it encouraging every time I see someone recognize what he's managed to achieve here.

Now having said that, fatigue is beginning to set in regarding these reviews that are about HIM and not about the movie. It inspires the question, just how much does an actor determine whether a given Bond chapter will be any good or not? Could James Bond spend two hours tackling the problem of...people failing to curb their pets in your neighborhood park...or to use the garbage cans for their candy wrappers...and still put out a good movie by winding the plot around this, just so long as he's played by Daniel Craig?

I think that's the question to be asked here. Because Dominic Greene really didn't have that much to do with Vesper, or with the continuation of any other of the many loose plot threads left over from CR. He certainly wasn't a threat to Her Majesty's Government, or to the world community.

This was just a whelp conceived by an unholy union between two late-1980's movies, License to Kill, and the Milagro Bean Field War.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?