Most books on Bond and the 007 phenomenon fall between two camps. On the one hand, there's the utterly pretentious tosh churned out by the likes of Umberto Eco and Simon Winder, and on the other there are the big, glossy books with lots of pictures but not much serious analysis of what Bond is about.
This cultural history of Bond in film falls somewhere between the two, to be honest. It's a workmanlike, thorough assessment of all the films (the new edition covers up to Casino Royale) but a tad dreary at times, and almost a minute disection of things which goes too far in its attempt to add academic rigour to what is really just a big entertainment franchise concerned with making popular films and lots of money.
But if you can get paid to watch, and re-watch the entire canon of Bond films and then write about them with some degree of wider perspective, then I guess you're doing something right with your career. The danger of course, is that the subject matter just isnt worth the level of investigation in the first place. Ian Fleming was typically British and upper class in his dismissal of his own work as something to read on the train as escapist fiction; but film buffs tend to take themselves a bit more seriously than that. For all the points made here, the book overlooks a couple of essential points about Bond in the cinema - firstly, the films are little more than "Carry On Spying" with double entendres and stunts; and secondly, the series has been recycling itself with less and less orginality since 1964's "Goldfinger". Spinning the analysis beyond this is impressive, but largely irrelvant in any disection of a film series that, at its heart is: empty, dated, sexist claptrap.