NOT a Bond film - a synthesis of the real reasons why

Rating: 4/10 (3 December 2013)

Essentially everything worth being said has actually been said here, and I can only reiterate: it is a pretty decent action film, but NOT a Bond film in any sense of the word. Numerous points were rightfully made: no gadgets, no decent Bond girls, a laughable villain etc. OK. But in all those reviews I still think one or two things which I think are CRUCIAL for understanding why Bond hard-heads will NEVER accept this movie were not articulated quite strongly enough. Let me try to have a stab at this.
* Traditionally, Bond is not only charming, knowledgeable and keeps his cool - which has been well pointed in the reviews here - but he always looks as if he is actually enjoying himself. Hence the jokes, the quips, the Moore's unforgettable eyebrow, the Connery's honest amusement when presented with the exploding suitcase in 'From Russia with Love'... etc. Bond feels safe, feels confident and likes his job. As a result the viewers never really take any danger or violence seriously and the general vibe of the films is POSITIVE, not NEGATIVE. Casino, but also QoS and Skyfall, are unforgivably SERIOUS and GRIM, and Craig is about as relaxed, cocky and at ease as Ulrich Matthes playing Goebbels in the Downfall.
* There is a LOT of self-conscious humorous kitsch in ALL Bonds save for Craig's, even if in Brosnan's Bonds it often turned into absurd technology such as the invisible car. Come on, people, am I the only one who thinks that Bond equals a fake horse rear concealing a mini aircraft, a submarine shaped like an iceberg, a rocket launcher hidden in a leg-cast, cello sledding, and even Lazenby's Scottish outfit and his lame pick-up lines...? And it's not even the GADGETS per se that are the key; it's the wacky humor that could work even without any specific items handed out by Q. It's the general feeling that the writers, the art department and the whole crew were having great fun doing the movies. All three Craig's Bonds are - again - very SERIOUS, and all "gadgets" in CR are not only serious, but, inexcusably, simple branded products.
* The point of all the best villain schemes is they are dramatically, un-believably, cartoonishly EVIL - I mean, mad-scientist type of evil which is another sign that the writers didn't take things too seriously - and yet in the "mesoscale" the plot makes sense. There are no silly loopholes, obvious goofs or omissions, no cheap plot devices. In Casino Royale, it's the other way round. The general storyline is believable - there in fact ARE people providing services to war-ridden countries - but the "mesoscale" lack of logic, continuity and believability has been well exposed in other reviews here.
The major sin of CR, but also QoS and Skyfall, has been simply being too serious. And lack of humor usually betrays lack of confidence and/or lack of intelligence. The direction where the series is going is simply appalling. Honestly - do we REALLY need another SERIOUS spy/action film?