The new Bond falls short of filling the shoes of Connery or Brosnan

Rating: 6/10 (23 November 2006)

It had been a long wait for a Bond movie after Die Another Day four years ago. After Pierce Brosnan had done his job deftly and established himself possibly as the best Bond after Sean Connery, newcomer Daniel Craig had very big shoes to fill. Four years had raised the expectations and the fact that this movie is the last of the Fleming originals to be screened made the wait even more difficult. Well, who knew that this would be a forgettable flick for the Bond Fans!
Casino Royale, incidentally the first Bond story is being rehashed after there were 20 predecessors. Here, bond is introduced as a new promotee to '00' status. Tracking terrorists leads him to many operators and then to their banker Le Chiffre who bet in the stock market just went bad is planning to raise $150Mn in a poker game. MI6 assigns 007 to play the game with a view that if Le Chiffre lost, his clients would hunt him down. He is joined in his mission by the pretty government agent Vesper Lynd.
To begin with Casino Royale had a bad script. No, I aren't pointing fingers at Fleming who gave to the world the larger than life bond, but the scriptwriters who modified it to suit the present world, i.e., post cold-war and post 9/11 terrorist attacks, the writers have definitely forgotten to keep the story in track. Firstly, a story of a card game makes the story devoid of gadgets & guns. Secondly, too much of romance is injurious to the image of the Bond we all know. Third, a mix-up of these two leaves the story nowhere. Music sucks too! The signature Bond tune of Monty Norman was grossly missing too!
Coming to the New Bond, the rugged & blonde Bond, I felt he was a let down from all the earlier Bonds who were stylish and smooth operators with both gadgets & women. True, Craig has a better chiseled body than his older counterparts, but did the producers miss out that brawn over brain doesn't make a Bond. I guess there are numerous other men in Hollywood with a similar body and better looks. Why only Daniel Craig; Plain luck?
Well this movie has a rating of 8.2 on IMDb, highest rating for a Bond flick, the closest being 7.8 for Connery's Goldfinger. Well, if it's working this well at the BO, I'm sure there must be many who must have liked Bond's ruggedness, his skills without the assistance of gadgets or just his body or the romance element! I don't know what to say. The discerning audience needs to rethink before they dish out their cash to see this flick!