Why "Casino Royale" Royaly Sucks

Rating: 1/10 (20 November 2006)

I'm a huge Bond fan (owning all the movies on DVD and a good percentage on VHS as well as having read several of the books) and I just feel that this Bond did not fit the bill. There are several reasons:
1) Daniel Craig was neither suave nor debonair. Nor was he subtle either in humor or in killing. These are all characteristics that Bonds have always had. 2) Also Daniel Craig did not fit the physical specifications of a Bond. Namely he broke the long standing tradition of James Bond being a hairy dude. This is most notably mentioned in "You Only Live Twice." 3) He changes his signature drink "Martini shaken not stirred" 4) The continuity sucked. a) Sure there is no time-line in Bond but this movie proposes to set one up. It's supposed to be the first and therefore the use of computers, cell phones and modern vehicles really ruined it. I understand the hope to use Craig in more than one movie but this one should have been set in the past while others could be set in present time. b) They say that the Cold War is over however it is quite obviously going on, what I guess now is, later on in the series. c) They use Judi Dench as 'M' when she is said to be the original M's replacement in "Goldeneye" how can she be both the original and the replacement? 5) No "Q" branch 6) No hot girls in the "theme song" sequence/ it looked more like an Apple Mp3 player advertisement.
Craig just isn't that dynamic of an actor and I feel he has trumped even Lazenby as worst Bond. While Craig is still British he doesn't have a very thick accent, something I'd like to have seen, and he acts more like an American Rambo than a British MI6 agent.
I feel like my only recourse in this is that it was released by Sony Pictures rather than MGM. This allows me to pretend it wasn't a real Bond film just like that other mistake "Never Say Never Again."