Yes, yes, yes ... and no.

Rating: 9/10 (18 November 2006)

Let me get the "no" out first. Purists will say this is a good retelling of the original novel. And yet, this is supposed to be an "updated to present day" version. In that respect, I compare "Casino Royale" to the film, "Sum of All Fears." In the Tom Clancy novel, the terrorists were Islamist extremists. Hollywood, too timid to tell it like it was for fear of a backlash protest from the Muslim community (ala "True Lies") changed the Islamists to Nazis. In the 1950s when Fleming wrote "Casino Royale," we could have believed that a terror financier had a name like LeChiffre. But if the film is supposed to be updated to 21st Century realities, terrorist financiers have names like Mohammad, Khalid, and Osama.
So, I take one star away from "Casino Royale" for being too timid to update LeChiffre to a 21st Century name that could be associated to terror. No, I'm not saying everyone with Islamic/Arabic names are terrorists. I'm just saying that in 2006, a name like "LeChiffre" doesn't ring any terror chimes with me.
Other that that, everything else about the film was excellent. I went into the theater with one fear based on something Barbara Broccoli said ... that Bond would be shown as "vulnerable." And I wanted to see Bond in the same way as Martin Sheen saw Robert Duvall's character in "Apocalypse Now" ... as a person who had an aura about him where he knew for a fact he'd make it home OK. The 007 I've come to know and love was the personification of ultimate self-confidence.
But, while Craig's Bond started out as appearing vulnerable, the entire rest of the film was a period of "growth" for Bond ... with that same "aura" realized by the running of the final credits. In short, the film delivered on all counts and serves well to introduce Bond to neophytes who may not yet have seen a Bond film. Bond 22 cannot come soon enough for me. Bravo!