Good Bond, bad story

Rating: 7/10 (20 June 2007)

Considering how bad most big Hollywood movies are, I am not surprised how high this film rates in IMDb 250 ranking. Casino Royale is well directed, well acted and well shot - Daniel Craig is especially good as Bond, capturing nicely the essentials of the idealised British bloke.
However, I can see why it has taken so long for this book to be made into a proper Bond film. Yes, it is interesting to see the character of Bond as 007 develop, but the story lacks the structure needed for an exciting film and the climax is a big let-down. There is a section in the middle where the story really drags along and cutting out 15 minutes would have helped significantly. The bad guy character is poorly utilised and the back story of Bond's love interest is also misused.
So, 7/10 mainly for the directing and the acting; as an example of good film-making it probably is the best Bond film of the lot. Having said that, as a rip-roaring, Boys Own action flick it is not anywhere near as much fun as many of the Bond predecessors - Goldfinger, Thunderball, Live and Let Die, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker are all superior. It is better than all the recent films, though, and I am looking forward to the next Bond film with greater anticipation than since the last Roger Moore Bond movie came out.
As a final point, I'd just like to say what a waste it would be to remake any of the old films. If the Bond makers can't find a decent new story then they shouldn't bother.