Great action flick... but good BOND flick?

Rating: 7/10 (22 July 2007)

I knew from the start that Casino Royale wasn't going to be a "traditional" bond film when I noticed the lack of undulating girls in the opening sequence and the very un-Bond-like opening track. What I later discovered, unfortunately, is that it wasn't really a Bond film at all.
I can't really fault Casino Royale on a technical level. The cinematography was eye-catching. The acting was brilliant across the board: not a single major character turned in a poor performance. The plot was believable and engaging (if a little hard to follow at times). And the dialog... well that was the best part of all (I especially liked the repartee between Bond and Vesper). But you can't really call this a Bond film.
There is no hi-technology in the film at all (unless you consider laptops and cellphones with spiffy interfaces hi-tech). My favorite scene in any particular Bond film is seeing what new gadgets Q has come up with and sadly there was no such scene here.
Also missing was the megalomaniacal super-villain. Let's face it... a small-time black-market financier hardly stacks up to the grandiose designs of SPECTRE, Auric Goldfinger, Hugo Drax and the like.
There wasn't even a colorful evil sidekick like Oddjob or Jaws.
While this film is a good way to kill two and a half hours, if you are a true Bond aficionado, beware: Casino Royale is NOT in the mold we have come to know and love.