Strong new character- same plot shortcomings

Rating: 6/10 (18 November 2006)

I have seen every new Bond film since the late - 60's and seen every one made.Like many, i was disappointed with the demise of Pierce Brosnan as Bond, and nervous about Daniel Craig's appointment. I needn'thave been.
Craig brings an icy steeliness to the character not really seen since Connery. I loved Brosnan as Bond, but accept that he lacked menace.In Casino Royale, Bond is probably the most convincing menacing character, on screen. The opening post title chase sequence is not only one of the best Bond chases ever- it ranks with the best full stop.In itself it makes the film worth seeing. So, after these plaudits , whats wrong? The film is too long, and the last third lacks pace.The Card game sequence lacks power because we don't know enough about the players, and goes on for too long. the traditional female glamour associated with bond films is largely absent.Apart from Bonds' girl, and the baddies'girl, there is hardly a female in sight.What there is , is copiously clothed. By contrast, the interest in Bonds body is almost homo-erotic.Wehave the "Dr No" Ursula Andress cloned Bond emerging from the water,and close ups of his bare chest and nipples on several occasions apart from his nude torture scene. The girls by contrast are firmly robed.
The new Bond theme and incidental music is awful.I am all for contemporising themes.The "Mission Impossible" and British TV "Dr Who" themes are universally loved, but haveboth een given successful makeovers.This failed dismally.
The Venice finale is risible and anti climactic, and little effort is made to capitalise on the dramatic opening fifteen minutes - the film gradually losing momentum thereafter.
The overall verdict is that the Bond franchise is safe in the capable, and different hands of Craig. But how i long for a convincing, well paced, well written story line.