Bond by name only

Rating: 6/10 (4 January 2007)

Having seen the Bond franchise become little more than an action blockbuster machine, first in the Timothy Dalton era and then seeing a steady decline from there with Pierce Brosnan, I was duped into thinking that things would be different this time around. This time the special effects had been stripped back, there was less gadgetry and perhaps most importantly, a new Bond. I had also filled in a few blanks myself; this Bond movie would have more style, more COOL!
Of course, had I given it any serious thought and not been caught up in the hype, I would have realized that without a new director (and probably a completely new crew) what we were going to get from Martin Campbell would be more of the same, just with a different Bond. After all, this is the director who is responsible for The Mask of Zorro films. I made a big mistake.
Casino Royale is an action blockbuster without enough action. A spy thriller without intrigue or espionage or any of the cool stuff that made Bond so great in the 60s and 70s. It's a James Bond film by name only. Change the main character's name and you have a very average action film that could easily star Bruce Willis or, dare I say it, Arnold Schwarzenegger. I have no problem with Daniel Craig as Bond, but a good actor can't save a bad film. I won't even go into the glaring plot holes which are, quite frankly, insulting.
What amazes me is how Martin Campbell and his team could not look back at the old Bond movies and at least try to get some ideas from them. They are in the perfect position to emulate stylistically some of the best films of the genre and put their own modern spin on it. I'm all for updating, but leave the good stuff in!