Not the bond I want to see

Rating: 5/10 (27 November 2006)

There have been a lot of mixed reviews about this film. Some have said that Daniel Craig could be likened with Sean Connery, with his cold edged approach. That's perhaps true, to an extent. Daniel Craig does exhibit a certain coldness, and he does have the charisma, but he did not show the quick wit Connery became known for. I disagree with Daniel Craig as the new Bond, and I disagree with the new style they've made for the Bond franchise.
Casino Royale is an old fashioned movie. It could have been filmed in the 60's or 70's as there was hardly anything modern about it. A woeful sprinkling of gadgets, and computers, which I think was done deliberately, in order to focus the movie on the characters, rather than the environment. This might have worked if Daniel Craig was a better actor, but he's not. He shows almost no emotion throughout the entire movie, almost as if his face was incapable of changing into a genuine smile. Perhaps he was asked to act that way, if so, it was a mistake. Bond was never really supposed to be emotionless, cold perhaps, but he did smile, and act human, which is why he was such a great spy: he acted natural. Daniel Craig could have been a robot, and his manner screamed I'm up to no good. And added by the fact that whatever he said was more of a mumble than actual words, it was dreadful that women sort of gravitated towards him. Correct me if i'm wrong, but even though Bond is supposed to be good looking, didn't personality do something to attract those stunning bond girls? Craig doesn't have much in terms of dialog either, I suppose 90% of what he said could be found in IMDb's movie quotes. In short, the new Bond lacks character, wit, and charm. To his credit, he has the build, and looks silly when running (which was something I found to console myself by as the movie progressed).
I disagree with the style of the movie. Why did the Bond franchise have to go back in time? I mean, this is the 21st century, we could afford to see a few more gadgets in the Bond franchise. Brosnan's lot was chockful of delicious gadgets that were entertaining and interesting, and breached into the modern era. Why couldn't this Bond have some of that? This backward thinking is boring. I also noticed that the chase scenes were far too long. The first one was interesting, the chap running away looked almost inhuman with his escape tactics. All right, that was fun, move on to something else that's interesting, but no, they came up with another chase sequence, and another later on, which dragged painfully. It wasn't just the action, even the romance was overly extended, and with a minimum of conversation too, it was too quiet. Eva Green is gorgeous, but she's on display so much that it becomes tiresome, and by the end of it I wished she would just go away. The ending was somewhat clichÃ© as well. You'll see, the penultimate scene brings so much peace and serenity that had absolutely NO business belonging in a Bond movie. You knew about the impending disaster, you could feel it coming, it was boring.
When I watch a Bond movie, I expect to be entertained in some way. Bond, obviously, has to carry most of the burden by exhibiting something about a special man. Charm?, wit? (NIL), dialogue (very little). Good story? (Possibly, but still underdeveloped). Gadgets? (forget it), Humor (NIL). A future for a new Bond? I hope not.
Casino Royale is empty, of everything. Go watch it if you have to know what Bond should NOT have become.