Why hard-core Bond fans do not like Casino Royale

Rating: 1/10 (15 April 2007)

First of all, I did not rate this movie as awful judging it as a normal film but as a bond film. As a sucker for bond films, I watched it twice in theaters and I must admit that, viewing it from a non-Bond perspective, it was quite good. However, I am absolutely disappointed by the selection of Daniel Craig as Bond. Though an outstanding actor in dramatic films (Sylvia, Love is the Devil, Road to Perdition etc.), the Bond persona does not fit him at all. Some would say that he introduced an unconventional image of Bond and that he is the best one ever to incarnate the role. In my point of view, this constitutes blasphemy. Yes, his performance is well-balanced and yes, he may seem masculine enough but I cannot, and never will, accept him as Bond.
Actually, it's his face but we cannot blame only Daniel Craig for this. The screenwriters, though loyal enough to the original Fleming novel, decided not to present this film as a Bond film but as a usual action-espionage movie. That is why, I believe, the film appealed not only to Bond fans (not hard-core ones) but also to a wider range of movie-goers. However, I'm convinced that the film would look so much better with Brosnan or Hugh Jackman as Bond. Especially Hugh Jackman would give to the role the same mentality that Craig provided but it would also be combined with much more appropriate looks for our favorite spy.