Discontinuity Abounds. . .

Rating: 1/10 (22 November 2006)

"Casino Royale" has to be the worst James Bond film I have ever seen! One of my biggest pet peeves of any film in a series of films is when it negates all of the previous films in the serieswhich this one most decidedly does. Because M is just now promoting James Bond to double-0 status, logic would dictate that it would be a prequel movie. This cannot be the case, however, given that the first James Bond film, "Doctor No," was released in 1962. Ian Fleming's novel "Casino Royale" was published in 1953, six years before his "Doctor No" novel was published. Therefore, to be a prequel movie "Casino Royale" should be set in the late 1950s or early 1960ssomething disproved by the film's references to the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, the use of cellular phones, global-positioning technology, etc.
I must object to the absence of John Cleese, Samantha Bond, and Colin Salmon. Ian Fleming's 1953 novel DID FEATURE both Q and Miss Moneypenny. So where were they in this film? The only carry-over characters were M and Felix Leiter.
Having said all of thisI did enjoy Daniel Craig as James Bond and the return of Judi Dench as M.
It is the continuity issues that perturb me. I can't believe that Neal Purvis and Robert Wade helped with this destruction of the James Bond film legacy, and I can't believe that Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli gave their stamps of approval on this film as Executive Producers. Charles K. Feldman's 1967 spoof film "Casino Royale" should have remained the only "Casino Royale" film to be produced.