उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

I distinctly remember the collective groan from the James Bond fan base back in the mid 2000's when the announcement came that Daniel Craig would replace Pierce Brosnan as the new James Bond. Fans were up in arms because Daniel Craig has blonde hair and baby blue eyes, instead of themore traditional darker traits that were synonymous with the James Bond character. Funny how once 'Casino Royale' was actually released, those skeptics immediately disappeared.

Daniel Craig proves he has the charm, elegance, presence, and confidence that the fans have come to expect from James Bond. He just has a very powerful aura about him from that start that easily establishes him as the next James Bond.

Mads Mikkelsen plays the main antagonist Le Chiffre, who is one of my favorite James Bond villains. The film actually provides insight into his backstory to shed some light on the motivations behind his actions. Le Chiffre is humanized because the audience simply understands his reasons for being "the bad guy", which makes him much more relatable and interesting as a character. This is the antithesis of traditional Bond villains that have a tendency to be very over-the-top and evil just for the sake of being evil.

Eva Green plays Vesper Lynd, who is assigned to supervise James Bond during his mission. Not only is Eva Green stunningly beautiful, she also perfectly portrays the charm, wit, determination, and overall likeability of Vesper. Not much can be said without getting into spoiler territory, but I will say her story arc is one of the highlights of the movie. The women in the James Bond franchise have historically been shallow sex objects, but Vesper's character contains significantly depth than female characters in prior films.

The action sequences are perfectly placed throughout the film and choreographed beautifully. However, some of the most suspenseful scenes in the film aren't even the scenes with action. The high stakes poker game itself unfolds in a way that creates enormous suspense and excitement. These scenes at the card table are so perfectly crafted, the audience is left with even greater anticipation and excitement than any action scene in the film.

Every part of 'Casino Royale' is extraordinarily well-written. The characters are interesting, relatable, and have depth. The plot is stimulating and compelling. The movie is beautifully shot. There is so much attention to detail. There are so many small moments scattered throughout the film that add massive amounts of depth to the story. There are many elements of cinematography utilized, like lighting/colors/camera angles, that perfectly complement the storytelling aspect of the film.

'Casino Royale' is not just a good James Bond film, it's a good film altogether. It's a must-watch film for anyone, whether or not you're a fan of the James Bond franchise.

I saw this at a cast and crew screening in London last weekend: I'm not a huge Bond fan, but I do enjoy them on a purely popcorn level and this was definitely one of the best in recent memory. The tone is much edgier and nastier than the Brosnan movies, harking back more to Dr. No or For Your Eyes Only. The action sequences are brilliantly shot and edited for maximum impact and are some of the best out of any Bond movie. Martin Campbell, who also made 'Goldeneye', was an excellent choice and, for me, is one of the best Bond directors. What gives this the lead over recent Bonds is the more realistic feel: the exotic locales, fast cars, spectacular action, beautiful women and many other Bond hallmarks are all here but gone is the campy tone that marred, say, Die Another Day. Yes, the whole franchise is based on an entirely ridiculous and cartoonish notion but the more serious and harder-edged tone works really well here. In this context, Daniel Craig gives an excellent performance as Bond. I'll be the first to admit that I raised an eyebrow when I heard he was cast but he really makes it his own. It's hard to say whether he's better than any of the other Bonds: Connery and Brosnan felt right for the style of Bond movies they were in. Here, as suits the overall tone of the film, Bond is much more of a sadist, a cold-hearted killer with very little sense of empathy and Craig, with his piercing eyes, suits the role very well. He's charming and funny when required and totally convincing in the action sequences. The violence is less cartoon-like and flippant, too, with every punch, kick and shooting looking like they really hurt. Also, the story is just much more engaging than many a Bond film; the script's not going to win awards but it's consistently inventive and intriguing. Whilst the film has enough of it's fair share of action, the emphasis is equally on character and storyline and less on gadgets and sheer implausibility. When there isn't a huge action sequence happening, you don't miss it: the film's longest set-piece, the poker game at the Casino Royale, is as (or not more) gripping and entertaining than any of the chases and shoot-outs. The only minor gripes that I have are a slightly too long running time: the film drags a wee bit towards the end and, although it helps the tone of the film, we don't hear enough of the Bond theme tune! However, great directing and performances from everyone involved, along with Phil Meheux's excellent cinematography, Peter Lamont's as ever superb production design and all the other top-notch craft and technical departments make 'Casino Royale' a classy and very enjoyable night out at the movies.

Anyone who has followed the James Bond series over the last four decades knows that the new Bond has changed... In "Casino Royale," 007 do not identify himself with the classic words, "Bond. James Bond," and instead of playing Chemin-de-Fer or Craps, he plays Poker and he doesn't care whether his vodka martinis are shaken or stirred nor he drinks a Smirnoff vodka, or a five-star Hennessey, or a Dom Pérignon'52... He never pauses to take a finger of Caviar… He never enjoys a good cigar and is less preoccupied with matters of sex…

But he is a more trained Bond, a cold-hearted killer improvising, modifying, and overcoming, uttering to M in one decisive moment his most significant line, "So you want me to be half monk, half hit-man!"

In taking the part, Daniel Craig completely inhabited the character of the super agent 007… There is something empathetic about him and something human…He so lets you in behind his blue eyes and into his emotional life…

His opponent is the villain banker Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) who tries to get rich in supplying funds for terrorists… To continue doing so, Le Chiffre wants to win back his losses in a no-limit showdown Poker game with $115,000,000 in chips at Casino Royale in Montenegro…

Ivana Milicevic plays Le Chiffre's Bosnian bodyguard who nearly eliminates our hero… Valenka is harmful but not pure evil as her boss…

Simon Abkarian is the middleman Alex Dimitrios involved with Le Chiffre, who knew where to put his hands on weapons and people who could use them… He works with anyone who has money…

The Italian actress Caterina Murino (Solange) reveals her sexy side as the frustrated woman so upset in her marriage…

Jeffrey Wright plays the undercover CIA agent Felix Leiter 'bleeding chips at the poker tournament;' and Giancarlo Giannini plays the 'contact' Mathis…

Eva Green is Bond's love interest Vesper Lynd… Green and Craig have electric chemistry on screen together… Vesper's character seems ambiguous, impudent and complicated… One night—slumped in the shower fully clothed, radiating inner beauty—her quiet look is capable to melt Bond's cold heart and free his doubtful mind… In another, she disconcerts him with her pretty 'Algerian love knot.'

"Casino Royale" lacks the fundamental technology exhibition which plays an important part in any Bond films... The traditional "James Bond Gun Barrel Sequence" and the "James Bond Theme" disappeared… The only thin bit of continuity is Judi Dench's fifth return as the cool, scheming chief Lady M…

Directed by Martin Campbell, the movie has it all: spectacular locations from Prague, London, Miami and Nassau— and amazing actions involving the superb Aston Martin DB5 coupe in a high-speed mountain chase; a rush to stop a fuel tanker at Miami Airport; a combat with an Ugandan terrorist; a pursue in a four-wheel bulldozer; a breathless foot chase across highest cranes; and an unexpected climax in one of the buildings on the canals of Venice

Having just achieved his 00 status, James Bond is assigned to uncover a plot by tracking a bomber for hire. The mission could not go worse as Bond kills the man in an embassy in front of CCTV cameras. Removed from the mission by M, Bond nevertheless follows the only lead he has to Miami where he finds himself working round the edges of a plot by criminal Le Chiffre to invest his clients money in the stock market just before an engineered event should send shares in a direction favourable for him.

After the poor CGI and overblown (if fun) affair that was Die Another Day, the series was at risk of just throwing more and more money at the screen in an attempt to exaggerate and increase the Bond formula to keep fans happy. And, in fairness it seems financially to be working for them but this is not to say that the drastically scaled back feel of Casino Royale is not a welcome change of direction for the series, because for me it most certainly was. Opening with a gritty, short and violent pre-credit sequence, the film moves through a cool title sequence with a typically Bondian (if only so-so) theme song. The film then immediately marks itself out as a step away from the previous film by launching on a great action sequence that is as overblown as the series requires but yet is all the better for seeming real – no ropy Die Another Day CGI here. Casting free-runner Foucan was a great move and this sequence was the high for me. After this the film develops nicely with a solid plot that engaged me easily enough, with interesting characters along the way.

Of course this isn't to say that the series has suddenly put out an introspective character piece, because the world of Bond is all still here. So we have superhuman stunts, gadgets (albeit a practical self-defibrillator as opposed to a mini-helicopter) and the usual types of characters going the way we expect. Those expecting this self-styled "reboot" to provide a depth and emotion that isn't there will be disappointed but regardless this does the Bond formula well – fans will enjoy it and those that were turned off by Die Another Day will find it a welcome return to darker territory. With all the fanboys tired from bemoaning Craig, it is nice to actually see for ourselves what he can do and mostly he is very good. He convinces as a heartless killer and has the presence that suggests that he could do ruthless damage if he had to. I was a bit put off by how regularly he pouts but generally he brings a gravitas to the character that it benefits from. Green is a pretty good Bond girl and brings much, much more to the role than Berry did in the last film. Mikkelsen is a good foil for Bond and is given more interest by his lack of stature (he is essentially facing his last role of the dice in several ways). Dench is as solid as ever while Wright makes a shrewd move in a small character that offers more of the same for a few years to come.

Overall then this is not the brilliant, flawless film that many have claimed, but I completely understand why it has been greeted with such praise. Sat beside Die Another Day, it is a wonderfully dark and brooding Bond with great action replacing some of the CGI and gadget excesses of recent times. Those upset at his blue eyes are best left fuming on the net, because Craig is a great Bond – capable of being dark with the violence and offering the potential for more if the material comes to meet him. A refreshing film with the bond formula in place but with a dark and comparatively restrained tone that makes it realistic enough to get into while still existing in the spy fantasy world.

Though it doesn't care too much about the series' continuity (it's supposed to be Bond's first mission as a 00 agent, but it takes place after the Cold war and Judi Dench is already M), "Casino Royale" is a great re-creation of the series. Cool action, great thrills and a more humane Bond more than make up for the purported lack of gadgets. Daniel Craig plays Bond as a rough secret who only gradually acquires the class and cold demeanor we all know and love. He makes mistakes in the course of his mission, but that makes him even more of a hero. Although I found it hard at first to cope with Craig's looks, he is more than suitable as the character. Bond is portrayed as a man with flaws and weaknesses, which makes him look even stronger. The story is not your usual Bond plot and relies more on classical thrills than technology, though the action is extremely hard-boiled. Kudos to the creepy Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre and Eva Green as Vesper Lynd for creating remarkably believable characters. A definite must-see for Bond fans : it should reconcile at last Ian Fleming aficionados and fans of the film series !

James Bond is back and he is alive and well. Any questions about Daniel Craig's worthiness are thrown out almost immediately as we are handed a film filled to the brim with exquisite action and explosive emotion. I squirmed in my seat with delight as I have not done since I was a child. What "Batman Begins" did for that franchise, "Casino Royale" does, and more, for Bond. For a while it seemed that he might not be able to well exist outside the confines of the cold war, but here we are given an entirely modern Bond with enough nods to the original that we can't be too upset. Maybe it's because this is the last novel yet to be filmed in the traditional Bond manner and it is Ian Fleming who has stolen our hearts not this incarnation of the super spy. However I like to think that someone actually just got their act together and concentrated on the film itself as opposed to who they could get the most product placement money out of. Congratulations. James Bond will live on for at least one more generation, and maybe forever. Great set pieces and one of the best chase sequences not involving cars ever put on screen, blended with beautiful locations and even more lovely women add up to the perfect cocktail with the twisting story line acting as the lemon peel in the martini, holding it all together. Many will come out saying that this is the best Bond film ever and I can not rightly say they are wrong at this point. Only time will tell that tale. However every fan can be assured that this ranks amongst the very upper crust of Bond movies, and Craig is no Lazenby. He lends a harsh wit and a thuggish charm to the character and by the end he's no longer the new guy, he is Bond, James Bond. A masterpiece of popular film-making and the movie we have been waiting for all year. See it early and often as it is sure not to diminish upon reviewing.

It is a wee bit surprising that Casino Royale is rated so high. Though its a very good smart action flick with all the works, chase and stunts and blowing up a house in Venice and you know what, but its absolutely not a Bond movie. Well, i love movies like MI, Bourne Identity, Munich, etc., but its not the same when you are making a movie based on a cult figure here. Its like Mart being remixed and played in a nightclub. Craig is a good action hero but when you are playing Bond you have to restrain yourself because for heavens sake Bond is not a cowboy. Bond is not about muscles and thats where the director misses the plot. We have been flooded with remakes and a more "realistic" and "original" portrayal of our legendary figures which is accepted as creative license, but sometimes its better to leave a few things as they are/were.

What a difference a great actor makes. Daniel Craig is superb as James Bond and parting from that point everything in it is enjoyable, frightening, thrilling just because we're with him. He conquered us from the word go. The initial chase is one of the best in film history and as soon as we get to know this new incarnation of the iconic Ian Fleming character, we're hooked. He's virile but there is room for ambiguity. He's elegant but as, the sensational Eva Green, points out is more acquired than inherited. More working class than even Sean Connery and that works wonders for Mr Bond. The script is more compact and organic. The locations are breathtaking and what else I can say? The series have been reinvigorated, rejuvenated and in one single stroke have secured that this franchise will live forever. A note to Barbara Broccoli, the producer, your father would be so proud. Congratulations!

OK, it's a good film – in fact it is a great film. It's just not a Bond film.

I've got a few bits of ranting to do here, so excuse the lack of clear narrative.

Casino Royale has just had its opening weekend here in the UK and it's the HIGHEST GROSSING FIRST WEEKEND FOR ANY BOND FILM… EVER!!!. That's because cinema tickets are even more expensive than they were three years ago when Die Another Day came out. Also, since when has the weekend started on a Thursday? That's when I watched it, along with a load of other mugs who netted the cinemas £1.7m on the first day / preview.

Daniel Craig is undoubtedly a fine actor. I was particularly impressed with him in the virtually unseen The Trench. He has also put in some time to go to the gym, which is something I certainly don't have the discipline to do. He also looks bloody great in a suit while toting advanced automatic weaponry. I'm not so sure about the whole swimming trunk issue - if you want equality, fine, but that means some girls in bikinis too – that's how equality works. The whole taciturn, monosyllabic persona is great… for Jason Bourne… or possibly The Terminator, but this is Bond, with a cheesy quip for every situation: Sean Connery' - That's quite a nice little nothing you're almost wearing. I approve.' George Lazenby - 'this never happened to the other guy' (perhaps Craig was thinking of that when he was putting on his trunks). Roger Moore - elevated eyebrow, Pierce Brosnan - 'I thought Christmas only came once a year'. It takes Craig the entire film to unfreeze his face for long enough to say 'Bond, James Bond.'

Then the gadgets… oh well. James Bond is not a real person. He was never meant to be, he is a construct and a very important part of that construct is the gadgets. He is defined more by the car he drives and the clothes he wears than he is by his hair-colour or physique. To take this away from him is to empty him out rather than 'strip him back' as everyone is so fond of saying of Craig-Bond. To be honest I've not been happy with the whole Aston Martin thing since Ford bought Aston Martin, the '64 DB6 is a great hand-built bit of kit. The DBS is built in bulk for dull bankers who need something to blow their bonuses on. The whole travesty of the hire car at the airport is just completely beyond the pale. Okay Ford gave them £15m and a load of Jaguars and Astons, but Bond works for Queen and country, not for the highest bidder, and he is met the airport, not hanging about the Hertz desk while some fat tourists complain about their car not having a/c. So what have we got left? He has a defibrillator in the glove box of his car – old men with inappropriately young wives have defibs in their glove boxes.

Eva Green is pretty easy on the eye, but her real name is better than her Bond name (Vesper Lind sounds like a limited edition chocolate moped – sorry Mr Fleming). Her accent was weird and all over the shop, and her motivation was pretty confused for one supposed to be so bright. And can we not have any more Bond falling in love? Please? Weirdly Lazenby and Rigg managed to pull it off, but really Bond is a swinger at heart and modern girls can get their kicks with them too. This debacle just makes the end of the film drag on and on.

Speaking of the ending, basically wtf! Bond films don't end like that. They just don't. I can't believe I'm not allowed to spoil it for you, but I can take solace in the fact that it spoils itself.

This is among the best bond movies! You have to see it.

After all the controversy and comments on Daniel Craig's potential as an actor and doubts over him playing Bond...i'd say forget it and be enthralled by the new BOND! He's here to stay.

He has that natural feeling about him when you see him on the screen as Bond, that attitude, style, confidence matched only by Sean COnnery. The movie as a whole is extremely entertaining and exciting.The acting is awesome Eva Green actually does a great job and has really improved her acting from the last time i saw her (in kingdom of heaven), but then this is a totally different movie.

There's a lot of action mixed with great story which i am sure will please the true Bond fan.

Please go and watch this because you will regret if you don't, forget the past this is the New Bond.

9/10

There is only one movie franchise that has twisted, turned and reinvented itself on so many occasions...

007 has unfortunately dwindled more than it has bedazzled over the last decades but I am relieved to see that Martin Campbell has put the edge back into the Bond series.

The originally unpopular Craig grinds through this action packed feature with ease and in my opinion proves all of his doubters (including me) very very wrong..

At last we have another true Bond.. Sharp, sophisticated and as tough as nails... And perhaps correctly more shaken than stirred.

Welcome back 007... Welcome back.

In the original Bond series, only a handful of films really attempted to touch base with the novels of Ian Fleming. "Dr. No" showed the Fleming feeling for character and action, but introduced elements to the plot that detracted from the 'hard-boiled' spy story that Fleming thought he was writing; "Thunderball" came close, but that was because Fleming developed the story on commission for the film. "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" had the book's plot pretty down pat, and was made in a kind of 'grand adventure' style, but of course it suffered from the choice of Lazenby - a professional model, not an actor - as Bond. "The Living Daylights" showed the producers' interest in returning to the roots, but Dalton was uncomfortable playing Bond, and uncomfortable with the wisecracks which had become part of the character's schtick - and which were really badly written for the Dalton films. "Goldeneye" was admirable attempt to update the Fleming milieu for the end of the Cold War, but left the character himself as yet without an 'updated' definition.

The decision to make a 21st Century version of Fleming's first Bond novel - and, beyond the update, to remain true to the novel, sans comic patter, sans sci-fi techno-schtick, sans major rewrite of the basic plot - promised to present Bond fans of all ages with a direct challenge. Do we want the hard-boiled spy Fleming first envisioned - patterned after Chandler's Philip Marlowe and W. Somerset Maughm's Ashenden ("or: The British Agent")? Or would we really rather have the suave stand-up comedian and Playboy magazine contributor introduced by Broccoli, Maibaum, Young, and company, in the second Connery film, "From Russia With Love"?

Well, the votes are still being tallied on that.

As someone who came to Bond reading "Goldfinger" at the tender age of twelve (the phrase "round, firm, pointed breasts" has been an inspiration to me since), the closer the films came to the sense of the novels, the happier I was.

So of course, this version of Bond is a joyous surprise for me - my youthful daydreams have been vindicated and at last fully satisfied. There are indeed elements added to the plot, but they are completely congruent with it. There is the use of current technology, but no techno-schtick - i.e., no Q. and no "gadgets". There are the luscious Bond babes (2 - the minimum Bond requirement), but there is no attempt to reduce them to photogenic sex-toys.

Fleming's plot actually requires the film's addition of some heavy action sequences (all done very snappy, with a brutally realistic edge), because the novel is very claustrophobic; the original TV version of the story (1955, with Barry Nelson as 'Jimmy Bond'), only used three indoor sets, because it could - except for the car chase and an attempted bombing at an outdoor café, Fleming's novel took place almost entirely within Bond's hotel suite and the gaming room. The film's opening this novel out to the world is actually quite welcome, and does not affect the central plot or its theme.

The character of Bond presented in this film may disappoint followers of the original films, but the news is, this is FLEMING's Bond - an orphan uncertain of his own identity, a disillusioned romantic trying hard to pretend he's incapable of emotions, a middle class, middle-brow, middle-level management type who just happens to kill people for a living. But he does it extremely well.

The other problem some general viewers may have is the level of violence in the film; having determined to film the novel realistically, director Martin Campbell has decided to ditch the 'B-movie' violence of most of the earlier films, and present us the violence with a hard 'British neo-noir' edge to it. Given the romantic plot twist toward the end, this would be a perfect date movie - except that the violence left some of the female viewers in the theater I attended clearly unsettled. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it just is part of the gestalt of the film's experience.

Cambell's direction is very good; the writing is crisp; production values are very high; the photography is stunning. Some of the stunt work is truly remarkable, worthy competition for Jackie Chan. The acting is rock-solid and believable for these characters. There is plenty of muscle for the action-film fan, and some real brains for the more general viewer to ponder later.

This film is best viewed with minimal reliance on knowledge of the previous series. In fact, it functions perfectly well as a 'one-off', a film without a series.

But of course, the ending invites a sequel. In Godzilla terms, Connery and Moore having given us the 'showa' Bond, Dalton and Brosnan the "Heisei" Bond, we now have the "Millenium" series James Bond - not a prequel nor even a 'reboot', but, really, an entirely new series about the same character. It is probably too much to hope for, but maybe they can make the sequels just as good as this.

As a genre film it never quite lifts above its genre; so normally I would only give it "nine stars" as a film.

However, as a film within its genre, it is top-of-the-line - so it gets a ten.

At one point Ian Fleming thought the greatest of 007's Sean Connery might not even be fit for the role, as he may not be "refined enough"... After seeing the camera tests a few times, he did become a believer and filming progressed. The rest was, as they say - history.

I had high hopes for this new 007 film (which I anticipated greatly), and I must say after finally seeing this film Daniel Craig just doesn't fit. I watched, and this film unraveled itself as more of a "pc" re-imagining bit than simply a grittier Bond series restart "as advertised".

To anyone who's actually read Ian Flemings novels (yes, they are indeed a tad darker), Bond nonetheless is still a smooth, sexy, and sophisticated ladies gent who prefers his martini's "shaken, not stirred". Craig felt forced... at times he even walked so stiff (like he had just finished up with his catwalk instructor and proceeded immediately to set) it seemed he was pretending so hard to be someone/something he wasn't. For a proper Bond casting it should all come off so natural.

I don't know, Craig just didn't work, and neither did the revisionism writing/direction despite some decent action sequences. Ian Fleming himself had an official artists rendering ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fleming007impression.jpg ) ordered up as to what he thought the Bond he created should look like - why stray from that vision? The films just needed to go die-hard to the source material and move away from the campy Hollywood direction to which they had digressed...

I miss the Bond I grew up with. Thought the film was about 30 minutes too long. If the goal of the producers was to take Bond back to his roots, then why bring back the actress that played M in the role for the past four films. Also, if their goal was to make Bond appeal to a younger audience then based on who I saw at the theater last night, they missed the mark. The action scenes were great and Daniel Craig is a very good actor…but I miss my Bond I have come to know. I must say I was disappointed in the opening title sequence. A bit cheap looking and the song was not very memorable. If you want a Bond closer to the character in the books, then Daniel Craig is it.

Daniel Craig's debut as 007 which he knocked out of the park. A very grounded, smart, realistic James Bond film. Casino Royale is debatably for most fans the best Bond film and I can honestly view this film as a movie of its own to be honest. Daniel Craig is the best bond since Sean Connery.

I'm going to level with you all, straight up:

I prefer gin martinis, stirred- not shaken (though I actually do like Vespers).

My favorites Bond Movie is Live and Let Die.

My Favorite Bond Actor is Roger Moore (except in Octopussy).

I actually like the Dalton years.

I find no redeeming value in George Lazenby's portrayal,

That said, I went into this film knowing it was going to be different. After all the producers have been promising us that since the end of Die Another Day. Well as anyone who has seen any long-running franchise can tell you, reinvention isn't always a good thing. I like both the book and the film interpretations of Bond, but I think they work better when they are separated. Everyone who is a fan of the books, wanted to see a serious adaptation of Casino Royale, and to be honest I did too. But as the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for. I sit on the fence on this particular film. It wasn't the worst, but there were many little things that bother me. First and foremost, the product placement really stood out this time around. I know it is nothing new, but it just really was distracting, at first I would chuckle at the appearance of Sony cell phones, because the movie was co-produced by them. Then I sorta giggled at the appearance of the stacked Smirnoff vodka at the Miami airport (both because the bottles were far too large to be allowed in that area of an airport, and because by law, liquor can't be sold that way), but by the time they had a near close-up of the logo of Bond's tux jacket, I'd had enough. Also, even in the books, Bond doesn't kill with a cold heart, he does it because he has to, and essentially because it's the only thing he is good at. In this, although we see the physical difficulties of his work (which I must admit were rather impressive stunt scenes), the psychological aspects are simply paid lip service, an occasional "Gee, this is bad" but really we didn't see any progress or growth. Bond's trademark wit is missing, though it's early in his 00-career (btw, 00-status is an invention of the movies, in the books agents are merely given sequential numbers, the last Flemming novel makes mention of the death of 016 for example), it's not unrealistic for him to make the odd quip or two, which are although kinda outlandish, actually they're pretty realistic because it's a defense mechanism. Bond is bad ass, but he's not a hard ass. Even Dalton knew how to toss out one-liners with a certain amount of irony. And I miss the real gadgets, cell phones and laptops don't count, unless they explode, release tear gas, or also make espresso. One more minor gripe, why the heck doesn't Bond go back to the Walther PPK? Ever since Brosnan switched in Tomorrow Never Dies, it's driven me nuts, and you'd think for "getting back to the basics" they'd use that too. That said, considering the unremarkable script, the acting is above par. The action and stunt sequences are impressive. And the location shooting is absolutely stunning. However I missed the traditional theme, which didn't appear until the end, and even then sounded like it was rather poor cover. One of the great things about the theme is that it can be adjusted to the situation on screen and makes for an outstanding running soundtrack, here was a wannabe theme, that devolved from the unremarkable opening credits song.

Update 2008: I gave this film another star, because my early evaluation of some of the music elements was based on the theater I saw the film in. With a sound system that's actually geared for more than explosions, the theme sounds much better.

Call it a double standard, but I like the traditional movie Bond. Allowing for the 3 Billion US Dollars earned by the 20 preceding films, I think it's fair to say that most other people did too. But the producers decided to mess with an otherwise winning formula. It'd be fine as an action film, but it just isn't a true Bond film.

Well certain people thought Daniel Craig could not pull it off, but he has and with style and a cold steel edge, not seen since Sean Connery.

This is proper action hero stuff, but he actually looks like if he wanted to he could kill you.

With an opening sequence that will stop you from blinking for 20 minutes.

The film is class, from the cinematography, to the three dimensional villains, and Bond's rapid learning curve.

Like Dr No, you see a killer, just he is on our side.

Don't read reviews, just go and see it, and tell your friends what you thought, you won't be disappointed.

I was a big fan of Pierce Brosnan and his shoes will be hard to fill. Craig was adequate, but would not have been my first choice as a replacement. The bigger issue i had with this movie is the script. It is a complete departure from a proved formula for the James Bond movie. Bond was not particularly suave or witty. The first car he drives is a Ford! Are you kidding me?! (He does eventually get he's Aston Martin.) I know they are trying to give the female character more depth by creating some depth to the relationship, but there are two problems here. One, it goes against everything that is the Bond character and two if you're going to have these characters fall in love then let it play out. The biggest flaw was the villain himself. Bond must have a nemisis. The big-shot evil-doer is a dirty accountant, a screw up and a wuss. We don't need Bond to clean up Enron. All that said the movie isn't as horrible as i've made it out to seem. It was worth watching, once. This just isn't your typical Bond movie and in my opinion simply isn't as good.