Craig is excellent,, but Connery (still) rules!

Rating: 7/10 (3 February 2007)

This Bond movie was certainly a breath of fresh air, after 35 years of junk. "Casino Royale" is definitely superior to any of the Bond movies Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, or Pierce Brosnan appeared in. And Bond is finally back to something approximating Ian Fleming's creation.
I'd have to say Daniel Craig is probably the closest incarnation of the Fleming Bond yet. However, that's not to say that the variations that Connery/Broccoli/Saltzman came up with for Bond weren't absolutely critical to James Bond's acceptance by movie audiences. Even purists would have to agree that had "Dr. No" completely recreated Fleming's very cold-blooded, humorless Bond, then there probably never would have been a series at all; just one fine movie, but a box-office flop.
Daniel Craig is excellent, yet he doesn't have the screen magnetism or star quality of Sean Connery (of course he's light-years ahead of the rest of the Bonds). Still, I might have rated this movie nearer to the best of the Connery movies (Dr. No thru Thunderball) had it been done as a "period piece" set in the 1950's. This was the producers BIGGEST ERROR. The character of Bond simply works best in the Fifties/early Sixties as Fleming intended; NOT in the 70's/80's/90's/2000's!!!
The overall "feel" of this movie is just too "modern" for an adaptation of an Ian Fleming novel, in everything from wardrobe and hairstyles to political-correctness and standard action-picture set-ups. Perhaps the special synthesis that all came together for movie-making in the early 60's simply cannot be duplicated now. But those early Bond pics had a look and feel that is simply irresistible; that transports me back to the Early 60's whenever I see them. I'd have to say that probably even if filmed as a period piece, any Bond movie done now just couldn't duplicate that style. Those alive at the time might understand what I'm talking about; those born in later eras probably never could. The early Bond films were, like Fleming's novels, creatures of their time. Nothing done nowadays can touch that era. That's why this "Casino Royale", while excellent for a current movie, doesn't approach the early Bond films. And for me, Sean Connery IS James Bond 007. Always had been, always will be.