Can a movie be overrated and underrated at the same time?

Rating: 2/10 (26 August 2007)

Probably the most controversial Bond film to date (along with "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", with which it shares a lot of similarities), "Casino Royale" has been described as anything from "the best Bond movie ever" to "the worst Bond movie ever". After watching it twice, now that the hype has died down a little, I would call it simply an above-average Bond film, give it a 6 out of 10, and rank it somewhere alongside "The Living Daylights" and "The World Is Not Enough".
One of the problems with CR is that it doesn't seem 100% sure of the type of Bond audience it's going for: those who want the class and intelligence of films like "From Russia With Love" and "Goldfinger", or those who prefer the Rambo Bond mentality of films like "License To Kill" and "Tomorrow Never Dies"? It ends up going for both, and at times you feel as if you're watching 2 or 3 different films: for example, the expressionistic Black & White prologue that recalls the style of classic film noirs is soon followed by a laughably excessive foot chase sequence ("Someone is chasing me. I know, I'll climb up a crane so we can fight there, that seems to be a good idea!") that seems to exist only for "wow" purposes. The movie dares, to its credit, to spend a lot of time around a poker table, where all the action occurs in looks, words and gestures, but not before another extraneous and over-the-top chase/fight scene at an airport. The production values are very high and the international locations are often breathtaking, but some of the dialogue is unbelievably corny (Le Chiffre's "I see you take good care of your body" to Bond is the most homoerotic line in the series since Mr. Wint's "She's very attractive....for a woman" in "Diamonds Are Forever").
Leaving aside my pro-Brosnan prejudices, I must say Daniel Craig surpassed my expectations as the new 007. He brings a harshness to the role that is comparable to Timothy Dalton's, except he has more style than him and is better at the playful banter. However, in his second film he will have to play a more suave and experienced Bond, and it remains to be seen how he'll pull it off. Eva Green is fine (and prettier without makeup), but the woman that caught my eye more was Ivana Milicevic, as the villain's girlfriend, who has one of the sexiest backsides I've ever seen. Sadly, her role is small and mostly silent. As Le Chiffre, Mads Mikkelsen is IMO one of the weak spots of the movie. He is more of a poser than a threat, and the fact that we see him getting bullied by other characters in the film doesn't help any. Jesper Christensen, although he doesn't appear in more than 3 scenes, creates a more interesting villainous presence as the mysterious Mr. White. Judi Dench as M is a plus, but there are no other memorable minor characters, unlike, say, "Goldeneye", where you also had Xenia, Zukovsky, Boris, Orumov, Q, etc.
My conclusion, based on the length (140 minutes), the way Craig plays Bond and the plot turns in the last 30 minutes of the film, is that CR could be described as a better-made modern version of OHMSS. It presents things that some people never want to see in a Bond movie (Bond falling in love, quitting the service, a downbeat ending, etc.) while others like them so much that they proclaim the film a masterpiece. In a series as long as this one (21 official films and counting, plus "Never Say Never Again"), preferences are always going to be even more subjective than usual. But if you rank OHMSS among the top Bond films (personally I don't), then you'll probably do the same with this one.