The Bourne Holdem Highlights (or Bond stirred with pathos)

Rating: 3/10 (13 February 2008)

We're far away from the original 007 concept. Bond is now a very sad character, more exactly a pathos-leaden character. Sure this was the basis of Ian Fleming's novel, but the 15-odd first installments in the series had established something else. Humor perfectly blended with action and engaging stories. So good a recipe it was the most successful franchise ever (did the word franchise ever come up before Goldfinger clearly established that all this was not merely a transient craze?).
Now 007 is closer to that poor boy Jason Bourne, always running, fighting his guts out and on and on... never getting something because that all depends on how long the producers are thinking about duplicating the recipe. Did I mention that Martin Campbell is, at most, a shrewd journeyman compared to Paul Greengrass? That should be a detail for most people but, well, that does matter. Even if Jason Damon-Bourne is a bland character, Paul Greengrass saves it. Daniel Craig brings a lot of charisma to his characterization but he's no funny man. Smiles are work for him, the same way his impressive body suggests lots of iron pumping while the previous Bond all had a natural force which was anecdotally physical. They were kind of super-heroes with gentlemen-thieves super powers.
Yes I do think Daniel Craig is miscast. He may be a very fine actor, but he looks too concerned to fit in the Bond shoes. Yet with all the "refocusing" Casino Royale displays, the producers clearly deserving all the blaming, I can only say, like an old bag, that "Bond movies are no longer as good/funny/entertaining as they used to be". Hey maybe it's just that times have changed and that the producers were very smart to follow the trends of... well the trends described in some marketing study. That must be it. Anyway I do think Casino Royale is a poor movie. Not only a lame installment in the franchise, but really an uninteresting movie, save the fact it stimulates me to try and understand what may be going on in the nine-digit industry at the moment.
Bonuses:
The prologue sequence is the worst (i.e. pointless, cheap, ugly...) in 45 years of Bond regular deliveries.
The subsequent Titles Sequence is also the worst I can remember. Did they pay digital scam artists to throw up that stuff?
Action scenes: Ô the magnificent God of overflowing Action! OK guys, that rocks, but don't you think there's a slight problem in your movie when the hero stops moving like superman? Doesn't he look like a stuffed puppet? Action should have a meaning, it must be combined with suspense, else action for action's sake leads to a movie that looks like a tour de force patchwork. And 2h30 of patchworking is more than one can stand, so please go toy with last year visual ideas at MTV's and leave Bond movies to adults.